I seek leave of the Senate to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 in the terms circulated in the chamber.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day of 2027:

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority's (APVMA) June 2026 decision regarding paraquat, with reference to:

(a) the scientific evidence considered by the APVMA in reaching its decision;

(b) the adequacy, transparency and independence of the APVMA's decision-making process;

(c) the current evidence regarding any association between paraquat exposure and Parkinson's disease and other neurological conditions;

(d) the implications of the decision for farmers, agricultural workers, rural and regional communities, golfers and others who may be exposed to paraquat;

(e) the extent to which Australia's regulatory framework appropriately responds to emerging scientific evidence and uncertainty regarding the long-term health impacts of agricultural chemicals;

(f) international approaches to the regulation of paraquat and other agricultural chemicals with potential long-term health impacts;

(g) whether any changes to Australia's regulatory framework are required to ensure public confidence in the assessment of agricultural chemicals; and

(h) any related matters.

I wanted to make a few brief remarks. Paraquat is a herbicide linked to Parkinson's disease. That's not my opinion; that's the overwhelming opinion of scientists who have for decades been looking at why and how rates of Parkinson's disease have been climbing in farming communities around the world. It's now banned in more than 70 countries, including China, which is one of the largest manufacturers of this chemical. Yet, after a review lasting almost 30 years, the APVMA has decided to allow its continued use in Australia, putting even more generations of farmers at risk.

I totally get the argument from farmers and some in the ag sector about the efficacy of the herbicide and how crucial it is, but the APVMA is tasked with looking at the evidence and the safety for human health, and the APVMA concluded that the available evidence did not convincingly demonstrate a direct causal link between exposure to paraquat and an increased risk of Parkinson's disease. Leading Australian scientists strongly dispute the way the APVMA reached that conclusion. Professor Wes Thevathasan, a neurologist who treats people with Parkinson's, says that major studies of exposed communities were largely ignored by the APVMA studies, which have repeatedly found a link between paraquat exposure and Parkinson's. He said the APVMA reports wouldn't pass the first test in a science degree, and that should disturb all of us greatly, because this is our regulator. Other experts I've spoken to say the APVMA treated studies differently depending on their findings and relied on research linked to Syngenta, the manufacturer, without properly addressing those conflicts.

Those concerns deserve to be tested openly. Farmers need effective tools to manage weeds and protect crops. They also deserve to know that the chemicals they use will not damage their health years later. The inquiry will hear from experts and communities and allow the APVMA to explain its decision and help determine whether Australia's chemical regulation is truly independent, transparent and based on the best available science. I thank the coalition and the Greens for recognising the importance of these questions and supporting this referral, and I commend the motion to the Senate.

Let me just first say that I'm very pleased to speak in support of Senator Pocock's motion to establish an inquiry into the Australian Herbicides and Veterinary Medicine Authority decision of June 2026 to allow the continued use of paraquat as a herbicide. I really want to thank you, Senator, for bringing this important issue to the Senate today and your advocacy in bringing a collective attention to this decision.

As a senator for Western Australia, I've heard from constituents who are deeply concerned about the health impacts of paraquat. In particular, they have raised serious concerns about the growing body of evidence linking exposure of paraquat to Parkinson's disease. I would also acknowledge the important work of Parkinson's Australia. They have been raising the alarm and have highlighted the reviews, submissions and advocacy that is pointing to a mounting body of scientific evidence about the impacts of paraquat on human health. Today's motion comes in the context of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority's conclusion of its long-term review of paraquat, and I recognise that some people have welcomed the stronger controls announced as part of the review, including increased personal protective equipment requirements and the restriction of the use of backpack sprayers, including requirements relating to enclosed cabs. But I have also heard from many people who are disappointed and deeply concerned that these measures do not go far enough. Their view is that, given the risks associated with this chemical, paraquat should be banned altogether.

The campaign to ban paraquat in Australia is gaining momentum, and we must recognise this. More than 20,000 people have signed a petition calling for a ban. More than 70 countries around the world have banned paraquat, including the United Kingdom, Canada, China and the Netherlands. Despite this evidence, here in Australia paraquat continues to be used every day. Australia's regulatory body has said that exposure to this chemical through approved uses does not increase the risk of neurotoxicity, including Parkinson's disease. I have seen social media reporting that Australia's neurologists feel that their expertise and evidence in this review were not fully considered. I am concerned that Australia is out of step with the rest of the world on this one. I think our regulatory model should be precautionary, where a chemical is deemed hazardous unless it is proven to be safe. There is no proof that paraquat, even with precaution, is safe. We in the Greens believe it warrants further scrutiny, proper scrutiny—the kind of scrutiny which is, quite frankly, the job of this body. That is what the Senate is for. We support the referral of this matter to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. For that reason, we will be supporting this motion for an inquiry.

The Greens will continue to be alongside communities, workers, farmers, health advocates and organisations like Parkinson's Australia in calling for genuinely evidence based and risk based approaches to the regulation and use of chemicals in Australia. When there are serious concerns about the health impacts of a chemical used in Australia, Australians deserve transparency, rigorous scrutiny and the opportunity to understand precisely how government came to a decision that was taken. This is something which the community should be able to rely on across the board, but it damn well is something that they can and should be able to expect when it comes to public health and risk of a condition as serious as Parkinson's disease. A Senate inquiry into this decision would ensure that there can be confidence in the decisions made by this authority. For those reasons, we support this reference.

I too rise to speak on this matter. As those in the chamber know, I've got a long history and background in working in and with the agricultural sector. I think it is important to put some balance into these discussions. All chemicals are dangerous. Pesticides and herbicides are, by their very nature, dangerous, and we should not in this place seek to add to community fears about the safe use of such chemicals.

The fact is that paraquat has just been through an extensive regulatory process with the government regulator of agriculture chemicals in this country, widely considered to be one of the top three regulators in the world if not the best regulator in the world. It is very important that people understand that chemicals like paraquat are, in the context of Australian broadacre agriculture, used extraordinarily differently to how they are used other countries. This particular chemical has been banned in other countries. Let me give you one example. It was banned in China because it was being used as a method of suicide amongst peasant farmers in China. That was one of the principal reasons it was banned. Is anyone at the other end of the chamber really saying that that is what is happening in Australia? Of course they're not, and I don't accuse them of doing that.

But the point is chemicals in Australia are significantly regulated. They're used by a very small, very professional set of farmers, and they are used in conditions—a long way from population centres in the vast majority of cases—where to not use those chemicals could actually have massive negative consequences. For example, if broadacre farming in Australia lost the use of paraquat and Roundup, it would almost certainly have to return to a significant level of tillage to produce the same crop. Tillage has massive environmental consequences in terms of loss of soil structure, which leads to a loss of carbon in the soil. That means lower productivity. It means a loss of soil moisture. It means you cannot grow as much from a given acre as would otherwise be possible, which means you have to plant more acres to feed the same number of people, pushing the cost of food up. Australia is a net food exporter. We feed the world. If we push the efficiency of our farmers down and the cost of food up, that will have direct negative impacts on millions of poor people outside of Australia—not one or two but millions.

We have a regulator in this country to decide on the appropriate and safe use of chemicals such as paraquat. Whilst I would never be one to say that a Senate committee shouldn't be considered, in this particular case I would deeply fear that the Senate committee would be used, as we have seen in other countries, to exacerbate fear, to exacerbate people's concerns and to misrepresent the reality of these chemicals and the way they are used in Australia.

No farmer in Australia wants to use one gram more of pesticide or herbicide than they absolutely have to. In fact, farmers have got much, much more efficient at using computer controlled spraying to ensure that only weeds are sprayed, rather than whole fields—to spot spray.

As I said, I would never not want to see the Senate able to scrutinise matters, but I think it is very important that we actually take our roles seriously—that we do not use committees such as this one for fearmongering and that we actually seek to understand the reality of the use of these chemicals in Australia and the reality of the scientific decisions that have already been made.

I also have a long history of farming. I'm a fifth-generation farmer from a farming family near Newlyn, where there is a cluster of people that have developed Parkinson's disease and for whom this is an incredibly important public health issue. The recent decision made should concern every farmer, every agricultural worker and every Australian who cares about the integrity of our chemical safety system.

In June, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority decided that paraquat could remain on the Australian market, subject to tighter restrictions. Let's be absolutely clear about what paraquat is. It is an extremely toxic herbicide. The regulator itself has acknowledged the acute toxicity risks to people who handle it and has responded by slashing maximum application rates by 80 per cent, phasing out backpack sprayers and requiring enclosed mixing and loading systems. This is not a harmless product. It is an immensely dangerous product, and for years scientists have raised concerns about its potential contribution to Parkinson's disease and other neurological harms.

There's now a significant body of evidence linking paraquat exposure to Parkinson's disease. There are strong parallels to asbestos. How many years down the track are we going to be looking back saying we failed on this as well? A review of more than 3,000 people with Parkinson's and almost 5,000 controls found a statistically significant association between paraquat exposure and Parkinson's disease, with exposed people having 64 per cent higher odds of Parkinson's. Another review found that people exposed to paraquat had a higher incidence of Parkinson's, including evidence of greater risk with longer exposure.

In Australia, leading Parkinson's experts have warned that the regulator failed to properly engage with expert submissions raising concerns about paraquat's neurological effects. It is not a safe chemical in any sense of the word. It is a highly toxic chemical with the additional risk that long-term exposure may contribute to incurable and devastating neurological diseases. If there is credible evidence of that risk, we cannot wait to act until more and more people are exposed.

This is particularly important when there are serious questions about how the evidence was assessed, as my colleague and as Senator Pocock highlighted. Australians deserve to know exactly what evidence was considered, how conflicting evidence was weighed up, whose expertise was sought, whose expertise was not sought or was overlooked and whether the process was sufficiently independent and transparent. Our chemical safety system is supposed to put people's health first. It's a no-brainer. It's not commercial convenience and industry profitability. It's people—farmers, agricultural workers, their families, rural and regional communities. These people are the backbone of this country, and they deserve to know that their government is doing everything it can to protect the health of these communities.

Unfortunately, Australia is an outlier. More than 70 countries prohibit paraquat, including jurisdictions across Europe. China has also prohibited domestic agricultural use. While they remain a major manufacturer and exporter of this chemical, they have banned it domestically. Meanwhile, Australia says: 'We will keep using it. There's nothing to see here. Keep going.' We don't think farmers should be forced to gamble with their health because governments have failed to invest in safer alternatives.

As a fifth-generation farmer, I know Australian farmers are some of the most innovative people in the world. They deserve better than being told their choices are paraquat or nothing. They deserve support to move towards safer weed management systems that protect their livelihoods and their families and allow them to keep working on the land. This inquiry needs to be about making sure we are actually following the science and that the regulator is doing its job. It needs to examine the evidence the regulator relied on, the evidence it rejected, the voices it heard and the voices it did not. Ultimately, this is about whether Australians can trust a system that decides which chemicals they're exposed to.

When the chemical is known to be highly toxic, when there is credible evidence linking it to neurological disease and when other countries have decided that the risks are simply too great, we should not simply shrug our shoulders and say, 'She'll be right.' Our farmers are worth more. We should be asking this basic question: how much evidence do we need before we decide that people's health matters more than a chemical company's bottom line? We need this inquiry.

I want to indicate the coalition will support this motion. But I actually want to point out that we do share your concerns, Deputy President, that you raised in your contribution on this—that the risk of this inquiry is that there will be fearmongering and scare tactics being used against what we know is an important tool in the arsenal of farmers who need products like Paraquat to ensure an efficient ecological best practice on their properties for food production. Our position is that we recognise that actually there's an opportunity with this inquiry to deal with some of the issues. We should face the truth. There's no problem with that. There's an opportunity with this inquiry to be able to myth bust any of the concerns and the fearmongering out there.

For those that are using this product safely with all of the precautions advised on the label, this is an opportunity for the truth of best practice when it comes to using chemicals that, as we've heard, are inherently dangerous—herbicide is—so there must be proper handling of these products. This inquiry brings the opportunity to be able to hear all the evidence both for and against and then deal with it in a calm way. I trust that the committee will deal with that—it's chaired by a fantastic chair—efficiently and sensibly.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.