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

He might have the million dollar bill, city council style. Maybe they got the numbers confused. By any measure, the APVMA has only served a purpose for one person, and he's sitting over there, the member for New England. I'm probably doing him a favour, because no doubt he runs around Armidale claiming a victory for this wonderful thing that he did for his town.

We fight without limit for our communities, but we don't do it at the expense of the nation. We don't do it at the expense of our farmers. We don't do it at the expense of our vets and those who have companion animals. That's not what we do. We try to grow the country economically and share the bounty. That's what we do. What the member for New England got away with is a disgrace, and I hope this type of thing is never seen again in the rest of the history of this Federation.

This bill seeks to establish an advisory board for the APVMA. The member for New England has been sitting over there shouting out that the APVMA is working 'wonderfully' since its relocation in Armidale. I don't believe that's true, and there are plenty of numbers and metrics to show that that's not true. However, he can't have it both ways. If the APVMA is working so wonderfully, why does it need an advisory or governance board? Is it an advisory board or a governance board? Whatever it's called in the bill, why does it need this new board oversight? We had one of these once before—

An honourable member interjecting—

Thank you, it is a governance board. I think it was called an advisory board. The government of the day got rid of it—to be honest, I don't remember which one it was—because it wasn't necessary. This mob are always going on about red tape and duplication. We didn't need the advisory board and we don't need the governance board. What is it going to do? The EM is very poor at explaining it—something about the CEO not being able to undertake all the tasks and roles expected of the CEO.

I'll tell you what: Kareena Arthy, the former CEO, who is a highly respected public servant in this capital city, was doing it just fine. Before the relocation, she was bringing those numbers down at a rate of knots and making sure that agvet chemicals were being approved or otherwise in a timely and efficient manner. She was doing a fantastic job. She is probably the greatest loss as a result of the APVMA relocation. Kareena Arthy could do it okay; why can't Dr Parker? Why does he need an advisory board?

And here's the rub: the advisory board will cost $600,000 in the first year, and they say about $400,000 annually thereafter. Well, wouldn't you like to be on that board? It doesn't sound like there's going to be a lot of work. The question has to be asked, 'In the absence of any real explanation as to why we need this board, is this more jobs for the boys?'—or, in this 21st century, jobs for men and women? But they're only men and women aligned with the National Party. As sure as night follows day, watch for the appointments, watch for the relationships and watch for the paybacks! That's what this advisory board is about.

But who is going to pay this $600,000, and thereafter $400,000 annually? Is the government paying? No, of course not. Nor should it, because if the government pays then the taxpayer pays. And in the absence of any rational reason for having this board, we don't want the taxpayer paying. Nor should they. No, it will be the industry. The important thing to remember about the APVMA is that it's not government funded. It's a cost-recovery agency. The big chemical companies who seek to have their products approved pay for that privilege. So it's cost recovery; it's not paid for by taxpayers. Now they're being told, without any rational explanation or logical reason for having this board, that they're going to have to stump up another $600,000, and $400,000 annually, so that someone sitting over there can pay back a few mates and create a board for no reason.

The big challenge for the member for New England, when he gets to his feet—and I welcome his participation in the debate—is to tell us exactly what this advisory—sorry, governance—board is going to do, and declare and make a commitment now that he has no idea who the chair is going to be or who is going to sit on that board. We'll see; we'll test him! Is he prepared, in the face of contempt of parliament, to stand up in a few minutes time and tell us absolutely—give us an ironclad guarantee—that the chair of the new governance board hasn't already been selected? That's his big challenge today. That's all he has to do.

We know he agrees with the substantive matters in the bill; we all do. His only challenge, well, there are two, really, is to tell is what's happening up in Beardy Street—and I notice that they've changed the address. The APVMA was on the corner of Beardy and Taylor streets, but when I looked in the annual report today, it's just Taylor Street now. It's just Taylor Street, because they don't want to talk about Beardy Street. That's because the block of land which became vacant because of the fire is of course in Beardy Street. So he's welcome to give us an explanation, or may be some passing observations, about that incident, although it is a police investigation so he should be really careful. Once the police launch an investigation, you should stay out of it as a member of parliament! So I'm urging him to be very cautious in his comments. But he might want to reflect on the incident and talk about any relationships he might have with the owners of that site.

But the key thing he has to tell us is to give us the assurance that he does not know, given that the governance board isn't in place yet and won't be until this legislation is passed—it has to run the gauntlet of the Senate yet—who the chair of the governance board is going to be. That's the only test he needs to meet. I know he can't meet the first test; he's not going to persuade us that the relocation of the APVMA has been a good thing for our farmers. There is no way. Remember, he was going to have a centre of excellence in Armidale. I don't know what happened to that; it's just the APVMA. There is no centre of excellence and nothing else has been done.

He then wanted to run a regulatory scientist course for people who might work at the APVMA. You don't go to the APVMA after an undergrad; it doesn't work like that. But he might want to tell us about how well that course is going, because I think it's struggling as well, and it's certainly lacking government support and funding. Great idea. 'Give it to you and Ian, and best of luck,' he said, with no real support for the offer he made to the UNE. There's your challenge, Member for New England. You get up and tell us about the new governance board. Tell us what it's going to do and—if you know—who's going to be on it. If you don't know who's going to be on it, well, just say so.

See this speech in context