Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014 amends three acts within the agriculture portfolio as follows: the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Act 2013, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Products (Collection of Levy) Act 1994. Importantly the bill implements the 2013 election commitment to remove re-registration and includes additional reforms to improve the efficiency of agvet chemicals regulation. It was an election commitment to remove the reapproval and re-registration scheme and introduce other efficiency measures.

Industry needs an efficient regulator so that it can have timely access to new technology to reduce the cost of production and provide options to reduce resistance and to continue to provide the highest-quality food both domestically and to international markets. These reforms aim to reduce red tape for farmers and other businesses involved in this sector to encourage development of new chemistry with a range of benefits for farmers and other users. The environment and the broader community.

Agriculture is one of the major economic drivers in my home state of Tasmania. The latest figures reveal the total exports from Tasmania in 2011-12 were valued at $3.4 billion, with agriculture representing 30 per cent, or $1 billion, of that total. Farmers are also significant land managers in my state, particularly in my electorate of Lyons, the biggest Tasmanian electorate comprising more than half of the state's total area. Nearly one-third of Tasmania's land area of 68,300 square kilometres is committed to agriculture. This means that agriculture is one of the most important and largest contributors to the Tasmanian, proportionately more than any other state in Australia. These figures illustrate dramatically that Tasmania must keep its agriculture sector viable, profitable and competitive.

In a former life I spent many years working for an agricultural services business in Tasmania and whilst not involved directly in the sale and advice in regard to agricultural chemicals, Craig Fife who ran that division worked closely with many producers who understand that there are certain tasks and certain things that just cannot be done and improvements in the way they can access with appropriate regulation agricultural chemicals is critical. I am please today to support the amendment to the agricultural and veterinary chemicals legislation which will remove the re-approval and re-registration scheme which was part of changes to the legislation adopted by the 2013 amendment act. I take this stand on good advice from my constituency, particularly from the agriculture community led by Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association chief executive Jan Davis. The TFGA support the proposed amendment to the agricultural and veterinary chemicals legislation because of the importance of chemicals to farmers to control weeds, pests and other diseases.

Farmers restricted in their use of chemicals will become less competitive because they will either have to accept reduced productivity in many instances or because they will have to move to alternative and, very often more expensive, control mechanisms. Rules and regulations are indeed important—particularly when it comes to chemicals of any kind—but so is a prosperous profitable and viable agricultural sector.

Indeed, agriculture will increasingly become a major driver of jobs in my home state of Tasmania. At every opportunity I get, I encourage young people to look at agriculture as a career opportunity. Such a diverse range of careers are available, from science through to economics and trades that are available for a range of different careers that young people might embark upon. More than 8½ thousand Tasmanians are in fact employed directly in agriculture, food and fibre value-adding, which makes up nearly nine per cent of my state's working population. In a state which has some of the worst unemployment figures in Australia, particularly in the case of youth unemployment, we strive to maintain one of our important and most critical economic drivers.

But it is not just Tasmanian farmers who are telling me that they want legislative change to stop extra layers of duplication and unnecessary red tape burdening users of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. Dairy farmers support the government's initiative to modernise and simplify this legislation and to reduce the red tape associated with the use of agvet chemicals on farms. The Australian Dairy Farmers made a submission in writing on this proposed amendment legislation. Dairy farmers, like so many others, need access to safe, affordable and effective agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines so they can manage the pests and diseases that would otherwise threaten production of safe food. It is also important for them to look after the health and welfare of their animals.

Dairying is one of the state's fastest growing agricultural sectors, with major expansions in the north-west, in my colleague the member for Braddon's electorate, and also within the electorate of Lyons in the Meander Valley and the Northern Midlands. In the Southern Midlands, we expect to see the rollout of the Midlands Irrigation Scheme very soon. The potential in the Derwent Valley is enormous as it is in the area around Sorell. New irrigation development in that area will, no doubt, see the expansion of dairy production in that part of the state. I was fortunate on Tuesday last week to go to a meeting in Hamilton, in the Derwent Valley in my electorate, where Fonterra have just announced that they will also be sourcing milk from southern Tasmania. This is a major commitment and a major step forward for the dairy farmers and the potential production in that part of Tasmania. Prior to now they have only had access to one purchaser of that milk. So that expansion will provide a lot more competition.

In fact, even as we stand at the moment, to fulfil the capacity that exists for stainless steel and to value add local production in Tasmania—which we expect to approach a billion litres of milk in the next couple of years—it is estimated that in my state we will need at least 70,000 more dairy cows. That will involve up to 400 people with a range of skills—from on farm through to extension and work involved within the value-adding and processing sector in the state—and, ultimately, an injection of around $650 million worth of capital just to fill the stainless steel that has been built in, so great is the capacity and the potential for dairy in the state of Tasmania.

In the next couple of months we also expect to see the launch of the Midlands Irrigation Scheme in my electorate of Lyons. Many people would not be aware of this, but the area to be irrigated under this very well designed and very well managed scheme—which will be delivered on time and on budget—will irrigate an area quite similar to that that is irrigated in the Ord scheme in the north of Western Australia.

We want to do everything we can to support and encourage farmers that are prepared to take a risk and often move away from more traditional enterprises, such as beef or sheep grazing and, in some cases, cropping, into a new area that involves a lot of capital infrastructure and a lot of investment on farm and the purchasing of the available water that is coming online now. We want to support those farmers, and the dairy industry tells us that the re-registration process has been an unnecessary burden.

Outside of the agricultural sector, despite the chaotic fallout to the industry in my state, and particularly in the electorate of Lyons, from the previous Labor-Green government's Tasmanian forests agreement, forestry also remains one of the most important industries in the state of Tasmania. The Australian Forest Products Association, with its strong Tasmanian representation, tells us that chemical use is critical to maintaining and improving the plantation estates' productivity and competitiveness to increasingly meet future wood fibre and product needs. It is not lost on me that the irony here is that the native forest sector within Tasmania has a natural ability to regenerate after harvesting and does not require any chemicals at all. This is sometimes lost on those who have an ideological opposition to such an important and, I would argue, perhaps one of the most renewable resources that we are blessed with. The forest products industry also has a strong interest in agvet chemical regulation reform. It too supports our amendments to remove the mandatory reapproval and re-registration provisions introduced by the 2013 act, describing them, in this case, as unnecessary.

These amendments will save the agvet chemical industry nationally $1.3 million in time and fees by removing duplication and unnecessary red tape—and I struggle to find an argument against that. At the same time, the amendments ensure that farmers and the broader community can continue to have access to effective and safe agvet chemicals. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority estimated that re-registration would cost them alone an extra $2 million per year to process and assess applications, with all costs ultimately to be recovered from industry, which makes industry and industry participants, not least of all farmers, less profitable. We cannot let this happen. Industry has calculated that removing the reapproval and re-registration scheme will save farmers and other stakeholders nearly $9 million annually in red tape and associated costs, while maintaining access to effective and safe agvet chemicals.

I would encourage the House to support the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014 and to support the agricultural sector, particularly in my home state of Tasmania, which we all want to see flourish into the future.

See this speech in context