Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—The committee's report is on the inquiry based on the ANAO's review into the progress of the implementation of the pesticides and veterinary medicines regulatory reform. The inquiry was primarily about the APVMA's progress in implementing the reforms, which began under a former Labor government. The ANAO, importantly, described the implementation performance as 'mixed', but it was always going to be impossible to look at that progress through anything but the lens of the forced relocation of the regulator from Canberra to Armidale, which has severely damaged the authority's capacity to do its important work. I won't dwell on the many adverse effects of that relocation here. Suffice it to say that the mass exodus of staff has caused the authority to struggle at every level of its performance measure. The key point, with respect to this inquiry, is that the ANAO found, for example, 'the absence of a robust set of performance measures'. You can fairly, I think, sheet home the failure to implement those robust performance measures to the distraction which has been caused by the relocation of the authority. When staff are distracted by such massive upheaval—and it is massive—one can't expect progress in implementing reform to be what we might expect as a parliament.

The work of the authority is critical for our farmers, consumers and exporters alike. It plays a critical role in farm productivity, the delivery of the latest drugs to farm stock and companion animals alike, keeping us as consumers safe from chemical and other residues, and, of course, helping us access and maintain export markets. It is not an entity for pork-barrelling and political gamesmanship or opportunity. It has a very important role to play.

Since the government's announcement that it would relocate the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the entity has performed badly against legislated time frames for the approval and registration of agvet chemicals, particularly with respect to new products, when timeliness in the delivery of those products to the farm sector is absolutely critical. I fear that some of the manufacturers are simply going to walk away from the Australian market because this government is making it all too hard. Forget the claims that performance has begun to recover again. It's all lies, damned lies and statistics. It's all based on a lower number of applications and priority being given by direction to the less complex cases, which of course can be moved through the authority at a much quicker pace.

I was astounded by the testimony of the CEO of the APVMA, the member for New England's hand-picked boss. Asked about the falling performance at every level of the APVMA since the announcement of the forced relocation, he managed to speak for no less than five minutes in explanation of that decline in performance without once mentioning the elephant in the room, the relocation of the APVMA. He did himself no service in doing that before a serious committee, and he should reflect on his performance at that committee.

Labor member's agree with most of the committee's recommendations. However, they can only help make a very bad situation just a little better. But we do not agree with the associated comments from the majority of the committee contained in the report and, of course, we lament the fact that greater concentration hasn't been given to the impact of the relocation on the progress of those ag-vet reforms. We certainly don't agree that we need a board of directors, further adding to the regulatory burden for manufacturers who pay to have their products registered. As the chair said, the APVMA is a full cost recovery agency. The manufacturers of the products pay—the taxpayer does not pay—and they do not want a board of directors. If there is to be a board of directors, they certainly don't want to pay for it, which is the intention of this government—an additional $600,000 to $700,000 every year for the privilege of having another level of regulatory burden around the APVMA. I note that despite the fact that the implementation of that advisory board requires legislation in this place, amendments already proposed by the government, the government has already booked the revenue in its budget papers before this parliament has made a decision about the proposed amendments.

The industry will pay. At the same time, the member for New England, with the total approval and applause of the Prime Minister, is spending $28 million or thereabouts moving the agency to Armidale in his own electorate. He is unnecessarily spending $28 million of taxpayers' money just to give effect to disruption. And now he will spend millions more on a so-called digital strategy so that he can pretend people aren't moving to Armidale but will still be working here in Canberra. It is a farce. This government is taking the taxpayer for a ride. It's doing great damage among the professional and dedicated staff at the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. It's a great shame that all of those people, who have dedicated their working lives to this cause, are now being asked to uproot their families from schools and workplaces to move to far-flung Armidale. That, more than anything else, explains why the APVMA has not been able to implement these ag-vet chemicals reforms as quickly as we would like.

See this speech in context