John Cobb (Calare, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Initially, I mostly want to speak on the APVMA, which is a semiautonomous body but which has the ability to affect agriculture profitability, efficiency, ability to export and what we allow to come into Australia enormously.

Twenty-five years ago Australia was the first place that chemical and veterinary medical companies came to get their products registered because if it was accepted here then it was accepted right around the world. It was efficient, it was fast and it was very well-respected. That has changed to an enormous degree. We are now the last place that chemical and veterinary medicines are brought to be registered. It must be remembered that we are not a big market in the scheme of things and a lot of companies feel that they do not need to cater for some of the things that we do need.

I realise that, and I appreciate the shadow minister falling in with us on the amendments to the legislation that got rid of the issue of having to automatically re-register chemicals on a time frame. That was ludicrous, and it is good to be shot of it. However, that does not make or force the APVMA to meet time frames, which they have never done—they have ignored them in the past. It has not meant that they have to take notice, particularly with chemicals, of countries that are as good as the USA and Canada, who do not want to kill their population or their animals or their plants either. They do very good work. The APVMA is not forced to make use of work they have already done. They always reinvent the wheel—the legislation allows them to. But as they have not done it at any time recently why would they want to do it now?

I think that the only way that the bureaucracy will do what they do not want to do is if they are forced to by competition. I am interested to know if we as a government are looking at making some of the testing contestable so that outside sources can come and do it—certainly as well and, I am sure, a damn sight faster than the APVMA does. They have enormous ability to help agriculture, which is not actually its job—its job is to protect people—by being fast and efficient, and a hell of a lot faster and more efficient than they are now. The fact that this is totally cost recoverable means that they feel no pressure to get a move at of the best of times.

I am very interested to know if we are looking at contestability and what we are doing? It is obviously not good enough for a government to say that this is an autonomous body and they are a creature of government. We either force them to do what they should do well by making it contestable or by legislating to make them. I am very interested to hear where we are going on this. I appreciate the amendments to the legislation, but, to me, one of the biggest things facing agriculture is the bureaucracy and the bodies which we pay for and control working with agriculture and not seeing themselves as regulators and agriculture as their creature.

One other question I have is: where we are up to in assisting the Queensland government in dealing with their issues of Johne's disease the north with cattle?

See this speech in context