SENATE PARAQUAT INQUIRY RISKS UNDERMINING INDEPENDENT REGULATOR

Grain Producers Australia (GPA) questions the Senate’s decision to launch an inquiry into the continued use and regulation of paraquat less than three months after the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) completed its extensive scientific review of the chemical.

GPA Research, Development and Extension spokesperson Andrew Weidemann said the grains industry did not agree with every restriction imposed through the final decision, but respected the APVMA’s authority as Australia’s independent, science-based agricultural and veterinary chemical regulator. 

The APVMA’s final decision retained paraquat for use in Australia while introducing significant new restrictions on application rates, permitted uses, handling systems and personal protective equipment.

“The APVMA imposed substantial new restrictions that will create practical challenges for grain producers, but it reached that decision through the regulatory process established to assess agricultural chemicals against the available scientific evidence,” Mr Weidemann said.

“We cannot support the integrity and independence of that system only when it delivers the outcome we want, because governments, parliamentarians, industry groups and other stakeholders must respect the regulator’s role even when they disagree with a particular decision.”

The APVMA began its reconsideration of paraquat in 1997 and published a proposed regulatory decision in July 2024, followed by a three-month public consultation that attracted 171 submissions. The regulator then considered the issues and scientific information raised through that process before making its final decision in June 2026.

The APVMA has published the material supporting its decision, including its final technical report, statement of reasons, response to submissions and a separate consideration of submissions dealing with paraquat and neurotoxicity.

Mr Weidemann said parliamentary scrutiny formed an important part of Australia’s democracy, but the inquiry must explain what evidence or regulatory failing justified revisiting a recently completed scientific assessment.

“The key information considered by the APVMA, together with its reasons for reaching the final decision, is publicly available and open to scrutiny, so it is reasonable to ask what this inquiry expects to uncover that the established regulatory process has not already examined,” he said.

“If new and credible scientific evidence emerges, that information should go to the APVMA so the regulator can assess it through the statutory process designed for that purpose.

“Re-examining a completed regulatory decision simply because some parties do not accept the outcome risks undermining confidence in the APVMA’s independence and creating a precedent in which science-based decisions become subject to political pressure.

“That would have consequences well beyond paraquat, because Australian agriculture depends on a regulatory system that assesses agricultural chemicals consistently, transparently and according to the best available evidence.”

The APVMA considered potential risks to human health, worker safety and the environment during its review and found that the weight of evidence did not show that exposure to paraquat through approved uses increased the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.

Mr Weidemann said grain producers understood that paraquat was a hazardous chemical requiring careful handling and strict compliance with label directions, but it also remained an important tool for controlling weeds, managing herbicide resistance and supporting farming systems that retained ground cover and reduced soil erosion.

“Growers do not want to use more chemicals than they need, and advances in application technology increasingly allow them to target weeds more precisely while supporting responsible chemical use and stewardship,” he said.

“The inquiry must clearly identify the problem it intends to resolve, the evidence the APVMA has not already considered and the outcome it expects to achieve without cutting across the regulator’s role.

“Australia established the APVMA to make these complex decisions using scientific evidence, and the integrity of our agricultural chemical regulatory system depends on allowing it to perform that role independently.”

ENDS

Further information:

GPA Southern Region Director Andrew Weidemann: 0428 504 544

GPA Executive Officer Rachael Oxborrow: 0416 705 193