Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Amendment Bill 2007. This bill is supported by Labor, as it will improve the management structure of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. It will bring the authority’s arrangements into line with management arrangements for other government statutory entities. It draws on the recommendations of the Uhrig report, which reviewed the corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders. The review’s key task was to develop templates to ensure best practice governance principles would assist the establishment of effective governance arrangements for statutory authorities.

Under the bill before us, the assets and liabilities of the authority will become assets and liabilities of the Commonwealth. However, the authority will continue to be a statutory authority of the Commonwealth constituted under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act.

I understand the authority will be able to continue business as usual in the way it contracts and acquires property, appoints agents and seeks legal advice. The bill will also prevent conflict of interest, with staff of the authority now employed under the provisions of the Public Service Act rather than the administration act. In addition, the authority will now be managed by a chief executive officer. Under previous arrangements the authority was managed by a governing board.

I understand that an advisory board will be appointed by the minister, and that board will advise the chief executive officer. I take this opportunity to remind the minister that the Uhrig report recommended the minister must be well supported in making the appointments to statutory bodies, and I urge the minister to ensure that he seeks all relevant advice in making decisions on these important appointments.

The authority is an important body which administers the assessment and registration of pesticides and veterinary medicines and provides for their regulation up to and including the point of sale. The authority administers the National Registration Scheme for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals in partnership with the states and territories. Its role is to independently evaluate the safety and performance of chemical products to ensure that the health and safety of people and the environment are protected.

It is interesting to look at the history of the authority. It dates back to the former Labor government. In the late 1980s, the Labor government understood and embraced the need for an ongoing program of reform of the regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. Initially the Commonwealth’s involvement in the agricultural and veterinary chemical and pesticides clearance process was informal. But the Labor government of the day recognised the need to formalise arrangements and from 1 July 1989 the arrangements were put on a legislative basis, with the enactment of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act 1988.

From 1967, the intergovernmental arrangements for the clearance and registration of agricultural and veterinary chemicals were devolved to the states and territories. This led in July 1991 to the Labor Commonwealth government taking the lead and seeking agreement from the states and territories, which at the time were governed by both the coalition and Labor, to a nationalised approach. They agreed to replace the existing eight state and territory registration bodies with a single national scheme to register agricultural and veterinary chemicals.

This established the Australian Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Council to undertake clearance activities. In July 1991, the Commonwealth, states and territories agreed to establish the National Registration Scheme—the NRS—for agricultural and veterinary chemicals. This important initiative enabled the development of the NRS and sought to place under one national umbrella the assessment and registration of all agricultural and veterinary chemical products. This had previously been undertaken independently by the Commonwealth and each of the states and territories.

Furthermore, in 1992 the Commonwealth announced it would establish the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals to undertake the registration activities, with associated policy issues being the responsibility of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. The establishment of the national registration authority in 1992 was a very significant step in the development of the national registration scheme for agricultural and veterinary chemicals. It was a clear indication of the commitment of the Labor government of the day to an ongoing program of microeconomic reform of these regulatory arrangements.

The reform led to a much better system which could work more effectively to ensure national standards in this most important area of regulation. In 2003 the national registration authority changed its name to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, and, of course, it is the structure of that body that is going to be amended under this legislation.

In conclusion, Labor welcomes these amendments, which will improve the governance arrangements of this essential and vital organisation which works to protect the health and safety of the community.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that the longest I will be able to speak on this occasion will be up to 10 minutes before question time, which certain people may want to take notice of.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would remind the honourable member that question time is at 2.30 today.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was given advice on this matter, and the only way I could communicate it was by making those comments. Unlike the previous speaker, the member for Capricornia, I have matters of concern that I will be raising during the 20 minutes that the parliament makes available to me. This legislation might be considered routine. It has been announced as party policy that committees and bodies of that nature will be restructured under the Uhrig principles. Those principles are best described as a process which further empowers the executive over the board. In broad terms, this is mainly how the corporate sector operates: the board is considered the policymaker and the executive undertakes the administration of that policy.

To a degree, I think there is a bit of a bottoms-up circumstance confronting the APVMA with the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Amendment Bill 2007. The bill deals with the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act. The APVMA is the acronym for the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. As I said, the legislation is about a process which involves increasing the power of the executive and the more advisory capacity of the board. Having given the example of the corporate sector, I think the issue here is the extent to which this new board sets policy. My major concern relates not so much to that process—I do not oppose it; I support it—but to a fundamental vacancy or a flaw by default in the legislation, which is presented as a positive. The parliamentary secretary said in her second reading speech that the role of the APVMA is to license the use of veterinary and agricultural chemicals, particularly by people. I am very concerned that we are moving further towards empowering a bureaucracy while removing the influence of the politicians and minister involved. That is what the bill before us does.

The remark is often made, ‘We have to keep the politicians out of this.’ In my terminology, that means, ‘Keep the people out of this.’ When there is talk about keeping farmers, veterinarians and others out of a process involving agricultural veterinary chemicals, it concerns me that some faceless people will instead be deciding on these issues. The evidence I want to bring to the attention of the House today is about how dangerous this can be. I will relate two recent decisions by the APVMA concerning two chemicals that are very important within the agricultural sector. They have been around for decades, but suddenly it has been discovered that they have some harmful effects. One of chemicals is called diazinon. To quote one of the newspapers from the other day: ‘Diazinon is dead.’ Diazinon is used to treat tick infestations, particularly in sheep, and to protect sheep from blowflies—blowfly strike.

The other solution to blowfly strike is mulesing. At the moment, an international debate is being held on mulesing. Representatives of the Australian wool industry, I think unadvisedly, have made promises to the activists. The industry is in a legal conflict with the activists as to their right to bully retailers into refusing to sell wool products. The activists claim that mulesing is a cruel measure, even though it protects wool-bearing sheep from blowfly strike in Australia. My view, after having had long experience both as a member of parliament for an agricultural industry electorate and as an owner of farming and sheep station properties over the years, is that the removal of some skin on a lamb to protect it from the horrors of maggot infestation is akin to a child skinning their shin—as most do at some time during their younger years. They fall over on a gravelly or rough cement area. The wound looks quite frightening at the time. There is blood and all sorts of mess, but within hours the child feels no serious pain. Typically, the wound is treated with some iodine or something of that nature.

I have always protested that, while mulesing is painful in the short term, it gives protection to the animal over their life. The alternative is a regular spray or drenching with a product like diazinon, which has been used for many years. An alternative to that product is to put a chemical on the animal’s back after it has been sheared or when you can get close enough to its skin. The chemical it is absorbed by the skin and it goes into the bloodstream. Its repellent effect is by literally poisoning flies and others insects that try and attack the animal. Poison has to be used carefully, because it could have a consequent effect on people when the animal is slaughtered. But this chemical is well managed.

Diazinon was put into the old-fashioned sheep dip. Sheep were driven, one by one, into a concrete trench in the ground and they swam from one end to the other. Halfway up the trench, someone stood with some implement to push their head under the water which contained diazinon. The sheep exited at the other end, ran off into the paddock and dried out, and their wool was impregnated with this chemical. Thus, when the flies landed on them, the chemical killed them. They did not get the chance to lay their eggs and to impregnate the live animal with maggots. That process is one of the only alternatives.

From time to time I pick up agricultural magazines and see a sale of aged ewes or wethers advertised in some part of my electorate. Although they are getting to the end of their productive life, they have been on the property for some years. Probably once a year they have been dunked in a diazinon mix, and they are still around. I am not sure about the differences between the metabolisms of a sheep and a human being in respect of diazinon, but humans are not in the habit of showering themselves with this product. The other approach, which is more commonly used today, is to put the sheep into a facility that has sprays, both up and down. Instead of dunking them and putting them through the rather frightening process of swimming down this channel, you spray them.

There are warnings on the bottle that this may have some deleterious effect on people’s health and that they should properly attire themselves for the work. That some of them do not bother is a matter of admission, but the responsibility of the manufacturer is to warn them of this fact. Diazinon has been used for decades. In my electorate, I am not aware of any significant human sickness, death or disability arising from its use, and my observation is that the sheep seem to handle it with no effect. However, all of a sudden—after years—somebody who was obviously a bit short of something to do has conducted some sort of survey on the effects of this chemical on humanity. I would not be surprised if there was one chance in 100 or one chance in 1,000 of some health effect from this chemical.

I hold a similar view on crosswalks. Crosswalks are there to give confidence to pedestrians that they can cross without getting run over by motor cars. Occasionally—unfortunately—they do, but we do not have public servants getting up the next day and saying, ‘It’s time we removed all crosswalks because occasionally people get killed on them.’ There has to be a balance with these things. The motor car is the classic example. We try to make motor cars safer. We try to encourage people to have a better attitude to their driving practices and to make themselves and other people safe, but we do not ban motor cars.

This group of faceless men, on the advice of somebody, has all of a sudden decided that diazinon, a product of great usefulness and assistance and with an increasing demand because of other circumstances, should be banned. The parliamentary secretary has listened to us wisely and cooperatively in our AFFA backbench committee, and we thank her for her interest. She, personally, has an excellent farming background and I think she would like to assist us but, as the act provides and as it is to be amended, nobody asks her. Nobody has asked her senior minister. We chortle about the fact that in the second reading speech the minister said, ‘This body is totally independent from us. We get elected; they don’t.’

I am pleased to say that the AFFA backbench committee asked the minister again today—we have previously asked the parliamentary secretary and, as I said, we thank her for her interest—that something be added to this bill, probably in the Senate, to leave residual control with the minister of the day. I would ask the opposition member present to think seriously about that matter. I do not think we should abdicate our responsibility as members of parliament in these circumstances. Surely there should at least be a provision whereby the minister can call for a cost-benefit analysis. I do not know what is safe in this world. People pay large amounts of money for water in a bottle to make sure that they do not get any—thalidomide, is it?—of the stuff we put in it to save children’s teeth.

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

Fluoride!

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s right, fluoride. Thalidomide is one we do not use anymore; I think that stopped babies from having limbs. Excuse me for that. People make a judgement to buy that water because they do not like scheme water, but we do not ban scheme water because it might affect somebody’s health—we think it is a product that, on a cost-benefit analysis, has adequate health preventative measures. I repeat my point: there is not much in the world today that does not put at risk somebody’s health, but that has to be tested against the benefits a product brings to an industry—for example, to the very farmers who use this chemical, which represents a low-cost alternative in addressing the problems of lice and blowfly strike in sheep.

In the time left available, I also want to make a point about another chemical, a herbicide called 2,4-D ester. It has been around for as long as I can remember as a knockdown herbicide, and, because of the longevity of the product, it is very low cost. It is typically used by farmers out of season. By this I mean that if there are unseasonable rains—and we can certainly do with a few more of them—and various weeds, melons and other things come into the paddock, which will disadvantage the seeding of the crop at a later date, they go in with 2,4-D ester and use it as a knockdown. It kills them. That is a very cheap means of addressing this problem. I also point out that the bulk of its use in my electorate of O’Connor is in broadacre farming and out of season. So, typically, when it is used—in contrast to a wide variety of other herbicides—there ain’t a crop growing in the next paddock. But where that circumstance arises farmers are very conscious of their own and their neighbours’ crops and they have adequate facilities in place—drift control and things over their sprays—which have ensured that only on very isolated occasions has this particular herbicide interfered with someone else’s productive cash-flow crop.

It has been pointed out that it can have a bad effect on grapes and other horticultural products. In the context of Western Australia the horticulture representatives of the various horticulturist bodies—vegetable growers et cetera—have said, ‘We’ve had no trouble with other persons’ use of 2,4-D ester; we think they should be entitled to continue to use it.’ But this faceless group, whom we are going to further empower, has come to the decision that there is a risk of this particular chemical interfering with other people’s crops. I might add that, if you allow that to happen, the affected party has a habit of rushing off and seeking compensation, either from your insurer, your contractor’s insurer or from yourself—and, if necessary, through the courts. But I can see that as no reason to ban—or control, as I think they have done in the case of 2,4-D ester—people from using it. I have seen no case that this chemical has been a serious problem. There may have been cases where it was a minor problem. There may be cases, in areas of high density horticulture—wine production and so on—where the local authority could ban it, but for this centralised body to be banning this particular chemical beggars belief.

I have objected to both bans. This will be an ongoing issue that is aggravated, I believe, by this change of administrative arrangements for the APVMA. I plead with the government to take steps to bring a component of reality back into this process. The minister, when he gets representations from his colleagues who have had representations from their own electorates—and in this case, as I have just mentioned, the representations have been significant—should determine that we should have a right, over and above the determination of this committee, to have a second look. Maybe we should look at the cost-benefits study relative to this thing. If you can find one person who has died of diazinon poison, other than from drinking it, what is that as compared to the huge benefits for the industry and the fact that most users do so without personal harm?

I think those are two great examples of the weakness of these so-called independent committees. They need an oversight. If I had spare time I might have put similar arguments about wheat marketing. I have missed out on the opportunity. No doubt the House is pleased to know that, but the fact of life is that my comments in this regard are well meant. (Time expired)

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