Hansard Below: contributions from the Members for Mallee, Riverina (southern NSW) and Parkes (western NSW)

Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (11:44): I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is reviewing the approved usage levels of paraquat and diquat in Australia;

(b) the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ran a story titled 'After the Harvest' on 31 August 2024 and 1 September 2024 seeking to link paraquat use to the incidence of Parkinson's Disease, claiming that children were being 'coated head to toe in chemicals' and spraying was occurring without gloves or a mask;

(c) the APVMA responded saying such practices were 'historical' and 'do not meet current requirements for the use of agvet chemical products'; and

(d) three OECD-nation regulators in the past four years have found no causal link between paraquat and Parkinson's Disease; and

(2) calls upon the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to:

(a) listen to the voices of farmers who responsibly rely upon paraquat and diquat to control weeds, avoid heavy-tillage farming and retain soil and moisture in their cropping lands;

(b) listen to the science; and

(c) refrain from rewarding sensationalist journalism from the national broadcaster.

I am proud to move this motion standing up for our farmers and the critically important work that they do to provide food security to our nation and to feed the growing global population, now exceeding eight billion people.

Paragraph 4 of this motion points to current comparable regulatory practice and evidence that there is no link between paraquat, diquat and other herbicides and the risk of illnesses such as Parkinson's disease. Even so, nobody should interpret this motion as rejecting what the science may show or prove in the future. I fully empathise with those that suffer neurological conditions. They are debilitating and horrific, and in this motion I do not wish to diminish their suffering or the cause of their illness. Today's motion is about the practice and science today, not what might once have been.

Paragraph 2 of this motion takes issue with the sensationalism of the ABC portrayed on Landline, a program that farmers have trusted for generations. Their suggestion is that historical practices are still occurring today. Children are not being exposed to herbicides in the way the ABC's recent Landline program suggested, and farmers now apply herbicides in protected environments that are safe, with virtually no exposure to the chemicals. The fact that the APVMA took the rare step of responding to Landline's misrepresentations of the reality of this topic demonstrates the severity of that misinformation spread by the public broadcaster. I commend the APVMA for correcting the record.

I also want to make clear that the coalition supports the independence and evidence based approach to policy at the APVMA. This motion, in paragraph (2)(b), makes that abundantly clear: trust the science. Don't trust sensationalist and frankly disappointing reporting or vested interests pushing for an outcome. We trust the APVMA to come to the right conclusion, but the misinformation being spread about modern paraquat and diquat practices must be countered in this place, lest the decision-makers labour under the misapprehension that nobody here takes issue with claims that grow close to slandering our farmers.

Naturally, the Nationals are quick to their feet when our farmers are potentially slandered. My Nationals colleagues who are speaking on this motion and I represent electorates with farmers who rely on paraquat and diquat to operate in both an environmentally friendly and financially viable way. That's the irony of what has been proposed by would-be environmentalists in this debate. By seeking to reduce herbicide usage, activists risk farmers being forced to one or two unpalatable outcomes. Firstly, they may have to revert to heavy tillage farming. Secondly, in the alternative, they may have to cease farming, and then who will maintain the land and prevent the prevalence of weeds or other pests on those properties? One might also ask: who is going to feed the nation?

The current usage rate of paraquat is around 1,200 to 1,800 millilitres to the hectare. But, as my constituent Ron Hards from Werrimull told me, if the rate is reduced to, say, 400 millilitres to the hectare: 'You may as well pee in the corner of the paddock. It does nothing.' Worse still, as Ron points out, at low dosages, policymakers will effectively be promoting weed resistance to herbicides. Paraquat and diquat have been used safely for 30 years and are presently used to knock down weeds, weakened first with the application of Roundup herbicide.

Without paraquat and diquat, my hometown of Mildura will once again be blanketed in dust storms. Even those Labor and Teal MPs might want to explain to their voters why they would want dust storms over Sydney again. That's what will happen if farmers are forced to stay viable by returning to heavy tillage farming if paraquat and diquat are removed.

I commend Grain Producers Australia and Mallee constituents like Andrew Weidemann and Ron Hards, and a great many more who have spoken with me privately, who've been gathering the evidence, gravely concerned about the ABC's misrepresentation of the reality of grain producing farming and deeply concerned that activists will yet again have another win which will mean severe loss for Australian farmers. Make no mistake: an unworkable APVMA ruling will sit at Labor's feet.

...

‍

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (11:55): My late father, Lance, left school after his primary school years and went straight to the farm. I can remember, when I came along and Dad took me up to the paddock, we used to pour chemicals and liquids into water in the boom sprayer and then make sure we did everything we could to get the highest yield. He probably didn't take all the necessary measures, because they weren't in place at the time and he just didn't know what he didn't know. Of course, these days farming is a lot different. Farmers kit up properly when mixing chemicals. They do everything they can to place safety first. My father placed safety first too, but times were different. Times were way different.

We certainly didn't get the yields then that we are getting now. We are getting the yields now from grain because of the wonderful steps we've taken in technology and science, and we thank the universities and we thank our farmers for what they have done to increase production. And we should thank our farmers three times a day every day. Every time we tuck our knees under the table to eat, we should be applauding and lauding our farmers' work.

Our farmers are the best in the world. They're the best environmentalists in the world. What they don't need is more regulation. What they don't need is somebody coming down on top of them and telling them that they've got to dilute this and got to dilute that, because what will happen, if we go down the path that some are suggesting, is that we will make the weeds resistant to the various chemicals we spray on them—substances we use to gain higher yields—and we can't have that.

This is a very good motion, and it wouldn't be brought forward by no less than the shadow assistant minister for regional health if it weren't a good cause. Paraquat and diquat have been used safely for more than three decades. They're presently used to knock down weeds which have been weakened first with an application of Roundup herbicide.

I appreciate the ABC has gone out on a limb on this. Sometimes we see our national broadcaster do this sort of thing in this sort of way and then use Country Hour and Landline to push it and promote it. But even the member for Lyons just said that, as it stands, based on current evidence, there is no link—no link whatsoever—between paraquat and Parkinson's disease, but there is an obligation to listen to the science if such evidence presents itself. There is. The member for Mallee understands that. She grasps it. She has a history of making sure that the people she represents come first, and this is why she has brought this important motion to the parliament.

It is important that farmers adhere to the safety precautions when using any herbicides. My father did in his own way. I know the member for Parkes, a farmer of many decades experience, also does. When used within these guidelines, any risks associated are reduced.

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry must listen to all farmers on this issue, not just those from perhaps a show or a radio program broadcast by the ABC. We saw what happened last time Labor did this, with live cattle. In a knee-jerk response to a program in June 2011—I remember it well—we just cut the cattle trade. We didn't tell Indonesia at the time; they found out later. But we cut the cattle trade. It was the worst decision in agriculture—the worst decision up until they decided to stop live sheep exports.

This is an attack on farmers. Make no mistake; it always is. It's an attack on those people who produce the finest food and the best fibre in all of the world. These decisions need to be made holistically, taking in the evidence from farmers and, most importantly, the science, and weighing up the risks and benefits to primary producers and how it would affect the production of the top-quality food and fibre I mentioned for which, as I also mentioned, Australia is renowned. The APVMA—the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—is reviewing the approved usage levels of paraquat and diquat in Australia, and that is imminently and perfectly sensible. Let's leave it to the experts. Let's not leave it to the ABC, let's not leave it to Labor trying to score political points. Let's leave it to the experts. Let's make sure we put every provision in place for our farmers to increase their yields, to do what they've always done in the best possible way and to not rush to stupid, knee-jerk, meaningless responses, the only benefit of which and the only winners of which will be our weeds.

...

‍

Mr COULTON (Parkes—Chief Nationals Whip) (12:05): I, too, stand here to support the member for Mallee and her motion in this House. I acknowledge that the members opposite, in the Labor Party, are in fierce agreement, but they can't resist the temptation to throw a political spin onto what's a very common sense motion.

I speak with practical experience in the use of paraquat. In my previous role as a grain farmer, we would use that in what's known as a double knock. The glyphosate would take out a lot of the weeds. The harder to kill ones would need another application, this time of paraquat, to finish them up.

People would go, 'Oh, you're using chemicals.' The reason that at the moment, as we speak, right across western New South Wales we have the biggest wheat crops on record ever harvested is the technique of growing wheat in western New South Wales, and that's using no till, zero till. We're not ploughing or cultivating; we're just preserving the trash from the previous crop on top of the ground. It reflects the light and the heat, and it conserves the moisture. We hear a lot of talk in this place about carbon farming and funky phrases about what's all the go. The farmers in my electorate have been doing this for decades. They pioneered this process.

The ABC didn't just play this once. I must be in the car—I think it was last week—driving around my electorate, and I heard the first report on this, with the same gentleman quoted, between six and 6.30 in the morning. Then, it was on between 12 and 1, and it was on the afternoon show, at about four in the afternoon. So three times in the one day they read this. I've got great sympathy for the gentleman they reviewed, who has Parkinson's and who believes the use of this chemical might have led to it. But he also said he was soaked in this chemical. Look, if you soaked yourself every day in petrol, you probably wouldn't be all that healthy, but we're not banning petrol. If mechanics tipped battery acid over their heads while installing batteries into cars, it probably would do them much good either, but we're not banning battery. This is the same. When I used paraquat, I wore rubber gloves and a long-sleeved shirt. It was towed by a tractor with a carbon filtered cab—everything as per the recommendation. If you follow those recommendations, it is a safe chemical to use. It's an essential one. We need to make sure we don't have these knee-jerk reactions from people on the fringes of things that tend to want to do things to make others change what they're doing.

There has been a lot of defence for the APVMA and a lot of discussion about their history. I can say the APVMA can lift their act. This is not the only issue that has been bubbling along for some time. For the last 12 months or so, I've been talking with some farmers and suppliers in my electorate about a seed treatment called Victrato. The significant trials of Victrato that have been done by Syngenta with the local firm McGregor Gourlay over five years have shown considerable improvement in yield potential by controlling crown rot. Crown rot is a very, very insidious issue with wheat, which remains largely unknown until the crops mature, and then the yield just falls away. They have been waiting for an outcome from the APVMA, hoping that this year they could use Victrato, but that's not happening. They thought next year, in the 2025 season, but it looks like that has been pushed out because the APVMA are concerned about the lack of efficacy, not about potential environmental impacts. My point is: why not let the market decide whether this chemical works or not? If it won't have any ill effects and it's only about the efficacy, that's an issue that should be dealt with. The APVMA does have an issue of dragging its feet in places where it's not necessary. I'm not saying we take shortcuts. I'm not saying that chemicals shouldn't be properly scrutinised. But there is no need to drag things out unnecessarily when it's affecting the viability and potential profitability of farmers in Australia.

‍