Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—I appreciate the contribution made to the debate on this bill by the member for Capricornia and, most recently, by my colleague the member for O’Connor. Picking up on the member for O’Connor’s last remarks, I certainly do accept that his comments are extremely well meant. However, as I sum up this bill I will address some of the problems associated with the requests that he has made.

The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Amendment Bill 2007 amends the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992 to implement the results of the Review of the Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders—commonly known in this place as the Uhrig review—by altering the governance arrangements for the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA, from a board structure to an executive management structure. The member for O’Connor is concerned that those governance changes will aggravate a problem he perceives in the decision making in terms of the regulation of agricultural chemicals, which will particularly affect the farming community. I would like to assure him that the changes that are being made as a result of the Uhrig review will certainly not transfer power to ‘faceless bureaucrats’—I think those were his words—or those who do not realise the impact of their decisions, and the changes will not in any way take involvement away from those who have an understanding and appreciation of the issues involved in making those decisions.

These are purely governance arrangements. A board will be replaced with an advisory committee. The advisory committee will report to the chief executive officer of the APVMA and that chief executive officer will be charged with the decision making. I note again that this is in response to the Uhrig review, and it is important that we are as good as we can be in the governance arrangements of our statutory authorities.

As I said, the APVMA is an Australian government statutory authority. It plays an important role in administering a joint Commonwealth, state and territory regulatory regime, assuring the safety and effectiveness of agricultural and veterinary chemical products throughout Australia. The APVMA is an independent body corporate. It implements the legislative powers and functions provided to it under the legislation on behalf of all jurisdictions, including powers and functions conferred on it by state and territory legislation.

It is interesting to note that the independence of the APVMA, which I heard the member for O’Connor criticising in some respects, is implicit in the way that the national registration scheme was set up in 1991, by all of the states and territories who have the constitutional power over these matters vesting that power in the scheme. From 1992 the APVMA has managed the national registration scheme. The reason it needs to be independent relates particularly to the environment in which agriculture operates in this country and the need for us to take a science based approach to decision making when it comes to the efficacy, effectiveness and impact on human health of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. So there is an international framework which must consider science, the environment, human health, most importantly, and trade. It is critical that we are seen by our trading partners as having that science based approach. Were the entire decision-making process to be in the hands of the federal minister—and, as I have alluded to, I do not think it is constitutionally possible—I think we would fall down on some of those international obligations and, quite frankly, it would be a very hard ask given the level of knowledge and expertise and the need for independence in such decision making.

Nevertheless, I am aware of the member for O’Connor’s requests and passionate support of the farming constituents in his electorate. I have a similar passionate support for the farming constituents in my own electorate. We understand each other on that as well. I certainly note his mention of diazinon and the decision made by the APVMA to restrict its availability and that, until replacement chemicals become available, yes, it will be harder for some sectors of the wool industry to manage. We appreciate that, but that unfortunately cannot be a reason for not restricting a use where there are good, science based reasons to do so. I do note that there are safe uses of diazinon still allowed and available. Cage dipping is one, and I understand that backline treatment is still possible. Plunge and shower dipping have of course been removed at this point in time.

My department, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, assessed the APVMA against the Uhrig review template. The assessment recommended a number of changes to bring the authority into line with the Uhrig review recommendations. The assessment concluded that the APVMA should retain its independence but be reconstituted, with the current board of directors being replaced by an executive manager, a CEO, supported by an advisory board, as I have said, with a similar range of skills and experiences to those currently specified for the APVMA board of directors. This is really a straightforward governance matter. That is the subject that we are dealing with in this bill.

The bill also includes a provision that the assets and liabilities of the APVMA are to become assets and liabilities of the Commonwealth. The amendments only affect the governance arrangements for the APVMA and do not impact on the authority’s functions or the administration of the National Registration Scheme for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals. I thank the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

See this speech in context