❓ A parliamentary question regarding a tender awarded for locust control and the Department of Agriculture and Food's spraying program. The Minister clarifies the allocation of funds and chemical usage.
AnsweredQoN 766Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
locustS - spraying program
I understand a tender of $11 951 170 was awarded to Sumitomo Chemical Australia Pty Ltd on 28 July 2006 for provision of Fenitrothion ULV for the control of Australian plague locusts in Western Australia. (1) Is this chemical for the Department of Agriculture and Food’s own potential spraying program? (2) If not, will it be supplied or on-sold to farmers to carry out their own locust spraying requirements, given information that they could be facing a locust plague threat? Hon KIM CHANCE
I understand a tender of $11 951 170 was awarded to Sumitomo Chemical Australia Pty Ltd on 28 July 2006 for provision of Fenitrothion ULV for the control of Australian plague locusts in Western Australia. (1) Is this chemical for the Department of Agriculture and Food’s own potential spraying program? (2) If not, will it be supplied or on-sold to farmers to carry out their own locust spraying requirements, given information that they could be facing a locust plague threat? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1) I am aware that the Department of Agriculture and Food has a supply contract with Sumitomo. I am sure it is not in the quantum of $11 951 170. My recollection of the process that the Department of Agriculture and Food went through - this was announced to the house - was that a pre-purchase order to the value of $3.1 million was made about two months ago. The government announced recently that an additional $4.4 million would be added to the locust campaign. That was a cabinet decision. However, the bulk of that $4.4 million is not for additional chemicals; it is, in fact, for application of the chemical. Although that amount contains an element of a top-up order, presumably to Sumitomo, I cannot disaggregate that $4.4 million. Further, I advised publicly that an additional $3.6 million has been diverted internally within the Department of Agriculture and Food to the locust campaign. That brings the total cost of the locust campaign to around $11.1 million. That seems to line up with the figure that the member has used. However, the extrapolation that that was all spent on Fenitrothion - the chemical purchased from Sumitomo - is incorrect. I think that answers the first part of the question. (2) No. In fact, I believe that farmers do not use the chemical Fenitrothion. I cannot recall the trade name of the chemical that is used by farmers. I think Fenitrothion is a chemical that is probably licensed to be used only by the commercial operators that are contracted by the Department of Agriculture and Food and that most farmers would not have that particular licence. Hon Murray Criddle might know the name of the chemical. Hon Murray Criddle : They probably use Phostoxin, which is for weevils and the like. Hon KIM CHANCE : This is for locusts. Fenitrothion is the chemical that the Department of Agriculture and Food has purchased. Another chemical is used by farmers. However, I think the basic answer to the question is no. Farmers will source their own chemical for their own spraying arrangements. The reason is that the state assumes the responsibility for knocking down the large, damaging swarms of locusts. However, it would be logistically impossible for the department to control all the outbreaks of locusts across the wheatbelt.
(1) Is this chemical for the Department of Agriculture and Food’s own potential spraying program? (2) If not, will it be supplied or on-sold to farmers to carry out their own locust spraying requirements, given information that they could be facing a locust plague threat? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) I am aware that the Department of Agriculture and Food has a supply contract with Sumitomo. I am sure it is not in the quantum of $11 951 170. My recollection of the process that the Department of Agriculture and Food went through - this was announced to the house - was that a pre-purchase order to the value of $3.1 million was made about two months ago. The government announced recently that an additional $4.4 million would be added to the locust campaign. That was a cabinet decision. However, the bulk of that $4.4 million is not for additional chemicals; it is, in fact, for application of the chemical. Although that amount contains an element of a top-up order, presumably to Sumitomo, I cannot disaggregate that $4.4 million. Further, I advised publicly that an additional $3.6 million has been diverted internally within the Department of Agriculture and Food to the locust campaign. That brings the total cost of the locust campaign to around $11.1 million. That seems to line up with the figure that the member has used. However, the extrapolation that that was all spent on Fenitrothion - the chemical purchased from Sumitomo - is incorrect. I think that answers the first part of the question. (2) No. In fact, I believe that farmers do not use the chemical Fenitrothion. I cannot recall the trade name of the chemical that is used by farmers. I think Fenitrothion is a chemical that is probably licensed to be used only by the commercial operators that are contracted by the Department of Agriculture and Food and that most farmers would not have that particular licence. Hon Murray Criddle might know the name of the chemical. Hon Murray Criddle : They probably use Phostoxin, which is for weevils and the like. Hon KIM CHANCE : This is for locusts. Fenitrothion is the chemical that the Department of Agriculture and Food has purchased. Another chemical is used by farmers. However, I think the basic answer to the question is no. Farmers will source their own chemical for their own spraying arrangements. The reason is that the state assumes the responsibility for knocking down the large, damaging swarms of locusts. However, it would be logistically impossible for the department to control all the outbreaks of locusts across the wheatbelt.
(2) If not, will it be supplied or on-sold to farmers to carry out their own locust spraying requirements, given information that they could be facing a locust plague threat? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) I am aware that the Department of Agriculture and Food has a supply contract with Sumitomo. I am sure it is not in the quantum of $11 951 170. My recollection of the process that the Department of Agriculture and Food went through - this was announced to the house - was that a pre-purchase order to the value of $3.1 million was made about two months ago. The government announced recently that an additional $4.4 million would be added to the locust campaign. That was a cabinet decision. However, the bulk of that $4.4 million is not for additional chemicals; it is, in fact, for application of the chemical. Although that amount contains an element of a top-up order, presumably to Sumitomo, I cannot disaggregate that $4.4 million. Further, I advised publicly that an additional $3.6 million has been diverted internally within the Department of Agriculture and Food to the locust campaign. That brings the total cost of the locust campaign to around $11.1 million. That seems to line up with the figure that the member has used. However, the extrapolation that that was all spent on Fenitrothion - the chemical purchased from Sumitomo - is incorrect. I think that answers the first part of the question. (2) No. In fact, I believe that farmers do not use the chemical Fenitrothion. I cannot recall the trade name of the chemical that is used by farmers. I think Fenitrothion is a chemical that is probably licensed to be used only by the commercial operators that are contracted by the Department of Agriculture and Food and that most farmers would not have that particular licence. Hon Murray Criddle might know the name of the chemical. Hon Murray Criddle : They probably use Phostoxin, which is for weevils and the like. Hon KIM CHANCE : This is for locusts. Fenitrothion is the chemical that the Department of Agriculture and Food has purchased. Another chemical is used by farmers. However, I think the basic answer to the question is no. Farmers will source their own chemical for their own spraying arrangements. The reason is that the state assumes the responsibility for knocking down the large, damaging swarms of locusts. However, it would be logistically impossible for the department to control all the outbreaks of locusts across the wheatbelt.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) I am aware that the Department of Agriculture and Food has a supply contract with Sumitomo. I am sure it is not in the quantum of $11 951 170. My recollection of the process that the Department of Agriculture and Food went through - this was announced to the house - was that a pre-purchase order to the value of $3.1 million was made about two months ago. The government announced recently that an additional $4.4 million would be added to the locust campaign. That was a cabinet decision. However, the bulk of that $4.4 million is not for additional chemicals; it is, in fact, for application of the chemical. Although that amount contains an element of a top-up order, presumably to Sumitomo, I cannot disaggregate that $4.4 million. Further, I advised publicly that an additional $3.6 million has been diverted internally within the Department of Agriculture and Food to the locust campaign. That brings the total cost of the locust campaign to around $11.1 million. That seems to line up with the figure that the member has used. However, the extrapolation that that was all spent on Fenitrothion - the chemical purchased from Sumitomo - is incorrect. I think that answers the first part of the question. (2) No. In fact, I believe that farmers do not use the chemical Fenitrothion. I cannot recall the trade name of the chemical that is used by farmers. I think Fenitrothion is a chemical that is probably licensed to be used only by the commercial operators that are contracted by the Department of Agriculture and Food and that most farmers would not have that particular licence. Hon Murray Criddle might know the name of the chemical. Hon Murray Criddle : They probably use Phostoxin, which is for weevils and the like. Hon KIM CHANCE : This is for locusts. Fenitrothion is the chemical that the Department of Agriculture and Food has purchased. Another chemical is used by farmers. However, I think the basic answer to the question is no. Farmers will source their own chemical for their own spraying arrangements. The reason is that the state assumes the responsibility for knocking down the large, damaging swarms of locusts. However, it would be logistically impossible for the department to control all the outbreaks of locusts across the wheatbelt.
(1) I am aware that the Department of Agriculture and Food has a supply contract with Sumitomo. I am sure it is not in the quantum of $11 951 170. My recollection of the process that the Department of Agriculture and Food went through - this was announced to the house - was that a pre-purchase order to the value of $3.1 million was made about two months ago. The government announced recently that an additional $4.4 million would be added to the locust campaign. That was a cabinet decision. However, the bulk of that $4.4 million is not for additional chemicals; it is, in fact, for application of the chemical. Although that amount contains an element of a top-up order, presumably to Sumitomo, I cannot disaggregate that $4.4 million. Further, I advised publicly that an additional $3.6 million has been diverted internally within the Department of Agriculture and Food to the locust campaign. That brings the total cost of the locust campaign to around $11.1 million. That seems to line up with the figure that the member has used. However, the extrapolation that that was all spent on Fenitrothion - the chemical purchased from Sumitomo - is incorrect. I think that answers the first part of the question. (2) No. In fact, I believe that farmers do not use the chemical Fenitrothion. I cannot recall the trade name of the chemical that is used by farmers. I think Fenitrothion is a chemical that is probably licensed to be used only by the commercial operators that are contracted by the Department of Agriculture and Food and that most farmers would not have that particular licence. Hon Murray Criddle might know the name of the chemical. Hon Murray Criddle : They probably use Phostoxin, which is for weevils and the like. Hon KIM CHANCE : This is for locusts. Fenitrothion is the chemical that the Department of Agriculture and Food has purchased. Another chemical is used by farmers. However, I think the basic answer to the question is no. Farmers will source their own chemical for their own spraying arrangements. The reason is that the state assumes the responsibility for knocking down the large, damaging swarms of locusts. However, it would be logistically impossible for the department to control all the outbreaks of locusts across the wheatbelt.
(2) No. In fact, I believe that farmers do not use the chemical Fenitrothion. I cannot recall the trade name of the chemical that is used by farmers. I think Fenitrothion is a chemical that is probably licensed to be used only by the commercial operators that are contracted by the Department of Agriculture and Food and that most farmers would not have that particular licence. Hon Murray Criddle might know the name of the chemical. Hon Murray Criddle : They probably use Phostoxin, which is for weevils and the like. Hon KIM CHANCE : This is for locusts. Fenitrothion is the chemical that the Department of Agriculture and Food has purchased. Another chemical is used by farmers. However, I think the basic answer to the question is no. Farmers will source their own chemical for their own spraying arrangements. The reason is that the state assumes the responsibility for knocking down the large, damaging swarms of locusts. However, it would be logistically impossible for the department to control all the outbreaks of locusts across the wheatbelt.
Hon Murray Criddle : They probably use Phostoxin, which is for weevils and the like. Hon KIM CHANCE : This is for locusts. Fenitrothion is the chemical that the Department of Agriculture and Food has purchased. Another chemical is used by farmers. However, I think the basic answer to the question is no. Farmers will source their own chemical for their own spraying arrangements. The reason is that the state assumes the responsibility for knocking down the large, damaging swarms of locusts. However, it would be logistically impossible for the department to control all the outbreaks of locusts across the wheatbelt.
Hon KIM CHANCE : This is for locusts. Fenitrothion is the chemical that the Department of Agriculture and Food has purchased. Another chemical is used by farmers. However, I think the basic answer to the question is no. Farmers will source their own chemical for their own spraying arrangements. The reason is that the state assumes the responsibility for knocking down the large, damaging swarms of locusts. However, it would be logistically impossible for the department to control all the outbreaks of locusts across the wheatbelt.
(1) Is this chemical for the Department of Agriculture and Food’s own potential spraying program? (2) If not, will it be supplied or on-sold to farmers to carry out their own locust spraying requirements, given information that they could be facing a locust plague threat? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) I am aware that the Department of Agriculture and Food has a supply contract with Sumitomo. I am sure it is not in the quantum of $11 951 170. My recollection of the process that the Department of Agriculture and Food went through - this was announced to the house - was that a pre-purchase order to the value of $3.1 million was made about two months ago. The government announced recently that an additional $4.4 million would be added to the locust campaign. That was a cabinet decision. However, the bulk of that $4.4 million is not for additional chemicals; it is, in fact, for application of the chemical. Although that amount contains an element of a top-up order, presumably to Sumitomo, I cannot disaggregate that $4.4 million. Further, I advised publicly that an additional $3.6 million has been diverted internally within the Department of Agriculture and Food to the locust campaign. That brings the total cost of the locust campaign to around $11.1 million. That seems to line up with the figure that the member has used. However, the extrapolation that that was all spent on Fenitrothion - the chemical purchased from Sumitomo - is incorrect. I think that answers the first part of the question. (2) No. In fact, I believe that farmers do not use the chemical Fenitrothion. I cannot recall the trade name of the chemical that is used by farmers. I think Fenitrothion is a chemical that is probably licensed to be used only by the commercial operators that are contracted by the Department of Agriculture and Food and that most farmers would not have that particular licence. Hon Murray Criddle might know the name of the chemical. Hon Murray Criddle : They probably use Phostoxin, which is for weevils and the like. Hon KIM CHANCE : This is for locusts. Fenitrothion is the chemical that the Department of Agriculture and Food has purchased. Another chemical is used by farmers. However, I think the basic answer to the question is no. Farmers will source their own chemical for their own spraying arrangements. The reason is that the state assumes the responsibility for knocking down the large, damaging swarms of locusts. However, it would be logistically impossible for the department to control all the outbreaks of locusts across the wheatbelt.
(2) If not, will it be supplied or on-sold to farmers to carry out their own locust spraying requirements, given information that they could be facing a locust plague threat? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) I am aware that the Department of Agriculture and Food has a supply contract with Sumitomo. I am sure it is not in the quantum of $11 951 170. My recollection of the process that the Department of Agriculture and Food went through - this was announced to the house - was that a pre-purchase order to the value of $3.1 million was made about two months ago. The government announced recently that an additional $4.4 million would be added to the locust campaign. That was a cabinet decision. However, the bulk of that $4.4 million is not for additional chemicals; it is, in fact, for application of the chemical. Although that amount contains an element of a top-up order, presumably to Sumitomo, I cannot disaggregate that $4.4 million. Further, I advised publicly that an additional $3.6 million has been diverted internally within the Department of Agriculture and Food to the locust campaign. That brings the total cost of the locust campaign to around $11.1 million. That seems to line up with the figure that the member has used. However, the extrapolation that that was all spent on Fenitrothion - the chemical purchased from Sumitomo - is incorrect. I think that answers the first part of the question. (2) No. In fact, I believe that farmers do not use the chemical Fenitrothion. I cannot recall the trade name of the chemical that is used by farmers. I think Fenitrothion is a chemical that is probably licensed to be used only by the commercial operators that are contracted by the Department of Agriculture and Food and that most farmers would not have that particular licence. Hon Murray Criddle might know the name of the chemical. Hon Murray Criddle : They probably use Phostoxin, which is for weevils and the like. Hon KIM CHANCE : This is for locusts. Fenitrothion is the chemical that the Department of Agriculture and Food has purchased. Another chemical is used by farmers. However, I think the basic answer to the question is no. Farmers will source their own chemical for their own spraying arrangements. The reason is that the state assumes the responsibility for knocking down the large, damaging swarms of locusts. However, it would be logistically impossible for the department to control all the outbreaks of locusts across the wheatbelt.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) I am aware that the Department of Agriculture and Food has a supply contract with Sumitomo. I am sure it is not in the quantum of $11 951 170. My recollection of the process that the Department of Agriculture and Food went through - this was announced to the house - was that a pre-purchase order to the value of $3.1 million was made about two months ago. The government announced recently that an additional $4.4 million would be added to the locust campaign. That was a cabinet decision. However, the bulk of that $4.4 million is not for additional chemicals; it is, in fact, for application of the chemical. Although that amount contains an element of a top-up order, presumably to Sumitomo, I cannot disaggregate that $4.4 million. Further, I advised publicly that an additional $3.6 million has been diverted internally within the Department of Agriculture and Food to the locust campaign. That brings the total cost of the locust campaign to around $11.1 million. That seems to line up with the figure that the member has used. However, the extrapolation that that was all spent on Fenitrothion - the chemical purchased from Sumitomo - is incorrect. I think that answers the first part of the question. (2) No. In fact, I believe that farmers do not use the chemical Fenitrothion. I cannot recall the trade name of the chemical that is used by farmers. I think Fenitrothion is a chemical that is probably licensed to be used only by the commercial operators that are contracted by the Department of Agriculture and Food and that most farmers would not have that particular licence. Hon Murray Criddle might know the name of the chemical. Hon Murray Criddle : They probably use Phostoxin, which is for weevils and the like. Hon KIM CHANCE : This is for locusts. Fenitrothion is the chemical that the Department of Agriculture and Food has purchased. Another chemical is used by farmers. However, I think the basic answer to the question is no. Farmers will source their own chemical for their own spraying arrangements. The reason is that the state assumes the responsibility for knocking down the large, damaging swarms of locusts. However, it would be logistically impossible for the department to control all the outbreaks of locusts across the wheatbelt.
(1) I am aware that the Department of Agriculture and Food has a supply contract with Sumitomo. I am sure it is not in the quantum of $11 951 170. My recollection of the process that the Department of Agriculture and Food went through - this was announced to the house - was that a pre-purchase order to the value of $3.1 million was made about two months ago. The government announced recently that an additional $4.4 million would be added to the locust campaign. That was a cabinet decision. However, the bulk of that $4.4 million is not for additional chemicals; it is, in fact, for application of the chemical. Although that amount contains an element of a top-up order, presumably to Sumitomo, I cannot disaggregate that $4.4 million. Further, I advised publicly that an additional $3.6 million has been diverted internally within the Department of Agriculture and Food to the locust campaign. That brings the total cost of the locust campaign to around $11.1 million. That seems to line up with the figure that the member has used. However, the extrapolation that that was all spent on Fenitrothion - the chemical purchased from Sumitomo - is incorrect. I think that answers the first part of the question. (2) No. In fact, I believe that farmers do not use the chemical Fenitrothion. I cannot recall the trade name of the chemical that is used by farmers. I think Fenitrothion is a chemical that is probably licensed to be used only by the commercial operators that are contracted by the Department of Agriculture and Food and that most farmers would not have that particular licence. Hon Murray Criddle might know the name of the chemical. Hon Murray Criddle : They probably use Phostoxin, which is for weevils and the like. Hon KIM CHANCE : This is for locusts. Fenitrothion is the chemical that the Department of Agriculture and Food has purchased. Another chemical is used by farmers. However, I think the basic answer to the question is no. Farmers will source their own chemical for their own spraying arrangements. The reason is that the state assumes the responsibility for knocking down the large, damaging swarms of locusts. However, it would be logistically impossible for the department to control all the outbreaks of locusts across the wheatbelt.
(2) No. In fact, I believe that farmers do not use the chemical Fenitrothion. I cannot recall the trade name of the chemical that is used by farmers. I think Fenitrothion is a chemical that is probably licensed to be used only by the commercial operators that are contracted by the Department of Agriculture and Food and that most farmers would not have that particular licence. Hon Murray Criddle might know the name of the chemical. Hon Murray Criddle : They probably use Phostoxin, which is for weevils and the like. Hon KIM CHANCE : This is for locusts. Fenitrothion is the chemical that the Department of Agriculture and Food has purchased. Another chemical is used by farmers. However, I think the basic answer to the question is no. Farmers will source their own chemical for their own spraying arrangements. The reason is that the state assumes the responsibility for knocking down the large, damaging swarms of locusts. However, it would be logistically impossible for the department to control all the outbreaks of locusts across the wheatbelt.
Hon Murray Criddle : They probably use Phostoxin, which is for weevils and the like. Hon KIM CHANCE : This is for locusts. Fenitrothion is the chemical that the Department of Agriculture and Food has purchased. Another chemical is used by farmers. However, I think the basic answer to the question is no. Farmers will source their own chemical for their own spraying arrangements. The reason is that the state assumes the responsibility for knocking down the large, damaging swarms of locusts. However, it would be logistically impossible for the department to control all the outbreaks of locusts across the wheatbelt.
Hon KIM CHANCE : This is for locusts. Fenitrothion is the chemical that the Department of Agriculture and Food has purchased. Another chemical is used by farmers. However, I think the basic answer to the question is no. Farmers will source their own chemical for their own spraying arrangements. The reason is that the state assumes the responsibility for knocking down the large, damaging swarms of locusts. However, it would be logistically impossible for the department to control all the outbreaks of locusts across the wheatbelt.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.