John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Food Security, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak today in support of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Amendment Bill 2010. This bill aims to vastly improve the efficiency of the registration process of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority without jeopardising human health or the environment. The APVMA was introduced in 1993 to replace the smaller state based authorities and provide a national approach to agricultural and veterinary chemicals. These chemicals range from personal insect sprays through to the chemicals used during crop dusting and the huge variety of animal medication, drenches and dips that enable Australian producers to continue to deliver a high-quality product to Australian consumers and to the rest of the world without harming the environment or the producers themselves. The authority regulates one of the agricultural community’s few lines of defence against disease and insects that have the capacity to bring our crops, produce and exports to their knees, and deserves more time and attention than it is currently afforded by the government. The authority currently regulates some 8,000 chemicals and operates under a series of legislation enacted over the last 20 years to maintain higher standards of quality control.

Many companies and producers are currently forced to wait too long for products to be registered and deregistered. This bill aims to simplify and streamline that process, meaning an easier, quicker and better system for those involved. This will be done by allowing the authority to liaise with all applicants who are attempting to gain a permit to use the same product. Under the current system each application would be looked at on an individual basis despite being in some cases identical to another application. By combining several similar applications into one, the authority would be able to more efficiently deal with the applications themselves. Under the current legislation, it is very difficult for the authority to disclose that it has received multiple applications.

Streamlining these applications has a number of impacts on the efficiency of the authority. A streamlined process obviously reduces the number of hours required to approve or deny applications. Streamlining also provides greater consistency across the decision-making process. Identical cases should always produce identical results. The streamlining provides a stronger assurance that this will happen. Four separate producers in the same area currently have to lodge four separate applications to extend their use of exactly the same product. These applications, all of which are almost identical, have to go through the same evaluation process four separate times. The go-ahead is then given to the four separate producers as each of their applications is approved. The process is unnecessarily long and is disadvantaging the producers individually and collectively as time is wasted. The science behind all four applications will be the same and the impact on the environment, the livestock and the crops is almost identical. The authority needs the power to efficiently and effectively liaise with the four producers, verify the similarities and process the application as one joint evaluation.

This bill represents real action by the coalition on attempting to improve how efficiently the authority can act on these claims. Currently, according to the authority themselves, it takes anywhere from three to 15 months to register. However, there are reported cases well over this figure and this large backlog of claims and registration applications is hurting the agricultural community at large. The process can be improved by changing legislation and investing more money into the authority. The Labor government seems uninterested in either option.

Currently a product designed and developed primarily in Australia has been used by producers right around the world, but Australian producers have been missing out on its benefits. Zolvix, an active drench aimed at internal parasites and intestinal worms, was largely developed by Australian science for the Australian market at Kemps Creek in Western Sydney. It was approved in New Zealand 14 months ago, some 12 months after it was submitted to the APVMA. At the beginning of this month, Australian producers were still unable to access the product because it had not been approved. The product was launched in the UK and Europe in April this year and it has been approved. It is also being used in South America. These countries and the producers taking full advantage of this product are in direct competition with producers in the seat of Dawson, in the west in electorates like O’Connor and Forrest, in my electorate of Calare and in almost every livestock-producing electorate in this country.

The drench has been billed as a 25-year breakthrough, with New Zealand based Professor Bill Pomroy quoted as saying ‘The product is a relief for farmers everywhere’ after the product was approved across the Tasman. Yet our producers were forced to wait and wait and wait for the product to work its way through the current waiting list that exists and prevents Australian producers from being at the front of the pack when fighting disease and maximising output.

You will find no-one on our side of the House who denies that the process of verification and regulation needs to happen. Proper scientific evaluation for all new products is crucial to the longevity of our producers and of their product. Verification regulation also helps guarantee the longevity of the environment and the land that is farmed, harvested and grazed on by our agricultural sector. But the process currently takes too long and is coming at too big a cost for our producers, who are forced to play catch-up to the rest of our world. We do need clean and safe chemicals but we need them sooner to guarantee the longevity of Australian food production. We need to be able to make the cake before we can eat it too and that is why we support this bill.

The government has announced that they are embarking on a reform partnership for the authority. However, like so many of their promises, we are yet to see any substantial improvements in the current situation. The government are yet to enlighten us on what exactly the reform partnership for the APVMA is, what form it will take or what role it will play. The lack of action thus far on the government’s behalf is putting Australian producers behind the eight ball both domestically and in the increasingly competitive international market.

The time must be shortened with respect to the backlog of chemicals waiting to be registered. If these chemicals will improve our yield without harming the environment or individuals then they should be on our crops and on or in our livestock, not waiting in line for approval. Any time that these chemicals spend in a line represents opportunities missed by Australian producers to harvest a bigger crop, to raise better livestock and contribute more to the Australian economy.

It is an issue of agriculture and an issue of food security; the two fields do go hand in hand. The coalition knows this and it also knows the importance of a country being able to feed itself. I am very fortunate to be the shadow minister of food security. I see it as an important responsibility and believe the portfolio complements the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolios. The Labor Party does not share our priority. Food security is nowhere to be seen. Mind you, it is not alone. The Treasurer did not even mention the word ‘agriculture’ throughout his entire budget speech.

Those opposite simply do not care about regional Australia and their lack of serious action so far confirms this. At the 2007 election the coalition promised $6 million to address the minor use issue. This issue has seen legitimate access to appropriate crop protectants and animal health treatments for many smaller industries reduced by regulatory reviews of older chemistries. The government have done little to rectify the situation and have simply ignored the growing need for action. All this seems typical of a government that places food security at the low end of their priority scale, whether it be on the South Coast or in the Murray-Darling Basin.

When it comes to the importance of food security, I have said it several times here in committee and several more in the House of Representatives that the ability of a nation to feed itself is the cornerstone of any modern society. This amending bill will help our nation to improve that.

The second aspect of this bill will focus on ensuring trade issues are considered when addressing the adequacy of product labels and the definition of ‘adequate’. Instructions currently ensure that proper use of a product will not adversely affect Australia’s exports. However, from time to time an issue may arise that requires changes to be made to labels to update their instructions. If a country is to change their standards or what they consider acceptable, the Australian product labels will not always match these changes and will therefore be registered as a violation of the importing nation’s policy. Currently the authority must take regulatory action against the product registration. Once this is done it can then—and only then—take action to update the label. This takes time and money. The APVMA lacks the authority to move directly to the product label.

The bill would enable action to be taken by the authority that addresses any concerns as to the labelling of the product without unnecessarily affecting the actual registration of the product. This would enable our producers to continue to meet export demands without the flurry of paperwork and backlogs that currently exists. Our reputation—Australia’s agricultural reputation for clean, green and safe exports—must not be jeopardised. However, this reform and this alteration will enable our producers’ products to stay on foreign shelves and foreign dollars to stay in Australia.

The Australian export market is too big and too important to our economy and to the economy of regional centres and rural towns to be held back by inefficient paperwork. Our agricultural sector has spent the better part of the last decade fighting tooth and nail through the worst drought on record. Our farmers have done it tough. Our producers have done it tough. We, as a parliament, must give these producers the best possible chance of bouncing back. There has been rain but by no means are we or they out of the woods yet. Crop failures, crop losses and a higher Australian dollar have combined to create a situation where producers now need a series of successful years to get back into the black and to get back to being fully operational.

The bill makes that transition a little easier. It should be accompanied by more announcements and more action by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and more funding towards our agricultural agencies, particularly our quarantine and R&D agencies. Now is the time to reward those producers who have helped keep our economy out of recession. Now is the time to reward those producers who have battled through one of the most difficult decades for producers that this country has ever faced. This bill helps those producers and it helps regional Australia. I commend it to the parliament.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Amendment Bill 2010 consists of two measures that seek to improve efficiencies in the way that chemicals are registered with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA , without jeopardising human health or the environment. The government is working with state and territory governments to develop a single national regulatory framework for agricultural and veterinary chemicals. This forms part of COAG’s seamless national economy initiative. Going to one of the areas in which it seeks to cut red tape, it clarifies what constitutes confidential commercial information when applying for certain types of permits for chemical use. It allows the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to use information in a permit application that is not commercially sensitive when assessing an application. Currently, all matters about a permit application are deemed confidential commercial information, including the very fact that an application has been made. It is true that some permit applications to use agricultural and veterinary chemicals include some commercially valuable information. However, clearly not all information needs to be protected in the same inflexible way.

The current legislation forces the APVMA and industry to enter a complex and inefficient process. The APVMA first seeks the applicant’s approval before seeking information from the product registrant, or others, to inform its expert assessment of minor use or emergency use permit applications. This places a substantial burden on industry and it limits the authority’s ability to engage openly with others who may be seeking similar permits at the same time. The paperwork, consultation and other aspects of these similar permits could be streamlined under these changes.

I think that the bill’s theme of protecting human health and the environment is important. I say this because we need to address shortcomings in the current system that have resulted in the risk of pesticide pollution particularly, in my view, in relation to the Great Barrier Reef. I point out to the House that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, in its Great Barrier Reef outlook report 2009, indicated that nearly one-third of the Great Barrier Reef, especially inshore, is now exposed to herbicides. Seven main herbicides are in widespread use throughout the Great Barrier Reef catchment and are being widely detected in fresh and marine waters of the Great Barrier Reef region. The herbicides are diuron, atrazine, ametryn, simazine, hexazinone, 2,4-D and tebuthiuron.

The Queensland government and Premier Anna Bligh have made the following important observations:

Land derived contaminants, including suspended sediments, nutrients and pesticides are present in the Great Barrier Reef—

the Great Barrier Reef—

at concentrations likely to cause environmental harm.

Also:

Chemical residues at biologically harmful concentrations have been found in the marine waters of the Reef up to 60km offshore.

Further:

The science is clear. The Reef’s health is suffering long-term decline from soil, fertilisers and pesticides washing from the mainland.

According to a report by CropLife Australia in June 2009, Great Barrier Reef: the impact of pesticides:

Sometimes pesticides do find their way into rivers and streams. Pesticide concentrations in some rivers draining into the Great Barrier Reef do also periodically exceed the draft guidelines levels.

Pesticides that are inappropriately applied, as well as pesticides that are properly applied may - in some circumstances - find their way into streams and rivers and ultimately end up in the GBR where they may present a risk to the health of the reef.

Recent studies have investigated the load of pesticides that are entering the GBR lagoon from river systems draining GBR catchments. These studies have highlighted that large and potentially damaging volumes of pesticides are transported to the reef lagoon during heavy rainfall events.

After river floods, elevated concentrations of herbicide residues persist in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon for several weeks. These residues have the capacity to produce cumulative chronic effects on sensitive species of marine plants and corals and may cause a change in the community structure of mangroves, seagrass and coral reef ecosystems.

It is appropriate, I think, and timely that Australia’s pesticide regulatory arrangements are currently being reviewed for COAG. WWF, in a submission to the review of the APVMA, say that they believe that Australia’s farm chemical regulator has not been responsive enough to health and environmental risks and should not be given extended powers without far greater safeguards and budgets. They have been concerned about this question of addressing chemical pollution of the Great Barrier Reef. One of the WWF spokespersons in Australia, Juliette King, says, ‘At least eight chemicals have been under review for more than 13 years.’ That is, of course, an extremely long time.

One of the chemicals they are concerned about, endosulfan, has been banned in over 60 countries but remains approved for use in Australia. On 10 June, just recently, the United States banned this toxic insecticide, concluding that endosulfan can cause nerve damage and reproductive complications in farm workers and is also a hazard to wildlife. Endosulfan is widely used in some Australian crops such as cotton, macadamia and horticultural crops. It has recently been implicated in fish deformities in a Noosa River fish hatchery, and it is being considered for a global ban under the Stockholm convention. I think that as a matter of priority Australia needs to be looking at this highly toxic chemical and making sure that we are keeping in step with developments in the rest of the world.

The toxic pesticide diuron has been under review since 2002. There have been interim findings of unacceptable risks to seagrass and dugongs in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, but it remains available for sale. Another toxic pesticide, atrazine, has been banned in Europe since 2007, but it is still widely available in Australia. It is one of the chemicals which has been detected up to 60 kilometres into the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area. WWF has said:

The lack of action to deregister these dangerous chemicals suggests the APVMA—

the authority—

gives the benefit of any doubt to the pesticide industry rather than to Australians and their environment …

… Currently only about one per cent of pesticide revenues is spent ensuring they are safe.

That is something that the WWF are concerned about. They say that this ‘is not the fault of farming communities’, but we need to ‘catch up with the rest of the world’. They say:

Many farmers want to do the right thing but they need better choices.

They also suggest:

We need a cost recovery system that is commensurate with risk - where the registration, assessment, monitoring, evaluation of chemicals, and their cost recovery, encourages innovative lower risk products and deters the continued sale of dangerous chemicals.

The WWF are supportive of the precautionary approach, which gives the benefit of the doubt to human health and to the environment rather than to the pesticide industry. They say:

We need a system that is more transparent, more independent and one that encourages agricultural innovation and the development of low risk chemical products.

The WWF submission includes a number of recommendations which it believes would improve the regulatory framework. First, the WWF recommends that Australia adopt a re-registration system for chemicals as is currently the case in the European Union, with the re-registration time frame dependent on a chemicals risk rating—for example, five years if it is high risk, 10 years if it is medium risk and 15 years if it is low risk. Risk rating should be conducted by an independent science panel using factors such as quantity sold, regulatory action taken internationally, peer reviewed research and incidents demonstrating risks, such as fish kills.

Second, the WWF recommends that the chemical review program be retained and used either to review chemicals in between re-registration time frames, where necessary—that is, for emergencies—or for reviewing classes of chemicals collectively or the cumulative impacts of likely chemical combinations. Third, it recommends that there be introduced statutory time frames for the completion of chemical reviews—for example, two years—that may only be extended in certain circumstances. Fourth, the WWF recommends that the obligation on the authority to find a risk mitigation solution before it can deregister a chemical be removed.

Fifth, the WWF recommends that a requirement for the authority to apply the established precautionary principle when making decisions about the likely harmful impacts to human beings or the environment be introduced. Sixth, it recommends that third-party appeal rights be included in the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code, with extended standing for environmental and human health advocates. Seventh, it recommends that the information relating to the human health and environmental impacts of a chemical be exempt from the commercial secrecy provisions of the code.

Eighth, the WWF recommends that the direct link between chemicals sold and the authority’s revenue be severed—for example, by removing the funding collection role and having its budget administered by a separate body such as the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—and that the authority’s income be significantly increased over the next five to 10 years through increased fees and levies for pesticide registrants. The WWF believes that the new revenue arrangements should be introduced to encourage the innovation of low-risk chemicals—for example, higher fees and shorter registration tenures for high-risk chemicals and low fees and longer tenures for low-risk chemicals. Finally, the WWF proposes that a proportion of the authority’s income be invested into a blind trust for public interest research into the human health and environmental impacts of chemicals.

The Australian people would expect our pesticide regulator to have robust powers to take action where a chemical is likely to have a harmful effect on human beings or on the environment. The authority has the power to suspend or deregister a chemical directly, but it appears that this regulatory tool has rarely been used. The authority is funded almost entirely by the pesticide industry, with its funding directly linked to the number and commercial success of chemicals registered in Australia. It would be a matter of concern if this was creating a perverse disincentive for the authority to deregister chemicals. The recommendations that are suggested and proposed by the WWF are designed to enhance the regulatory framework which is required.

As I indicated at the outset, this bill represents some significant steps forward. The measures which are part of the bill which amend the schedule should have the impact of improving the efficiency of the registration processes and should have positive impacts in relation to the way in which the industry functions and also in relation to human health and the environment. I am pleased that a review is being undertaken of these matters and I look forward to the government’s response to that review in due course. I commend the bill to the House.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Amendment Bill 2010. I probably will not speak for long, as I am awaiting the arrival of my colleagues the members for Moreton and Makin, who have significant things to say on this bill. This is an interesting bill because it effectively is about reducing unnecessary regulation in two particular areas relating to the code. There are two measures which seek to improve efficiencies in the way chemicals are registered with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority without jeopardising human health or the environment.

There are very good reasons, as the member for Wills has outlined, for reviewing regulation and even increasing regulation where it relates to environmental and health outcomes. But there are some aspects of the current regulation which make things difficult for the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to operate that do not actually contribute any positive benefits; they are in fact regulation that slows down what should be quite a simple process. As I said, there are two particular areas. The first one concerns the general prohibition on using confidential information. At the moment, when an application for registering a product is made, everything concerning that application is considered to be confidential commercial information, including the fact that there was an application at all. That means that the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority has to ask the applicant’s permission even to seek information from the product manufacturer. What this amendment does is simplify that process considerably. It allows the APVMA to determine which aspects of the application are commercial information and to use the other information to engage in the process of reviewing the application.

The second aspect involves trade issues and the adequacy of product labels. Currently, the APVMA are required to consider trade as a decision criterion when they determine whether or not to grant or refuse an application but not when approving a label. The instructions specified on the product label ensure that proper use of the product will not adversely affect Australia’s exports. However, over time issues may arise that require changes to a label. Such issues may, for example, arise where an importing country reduces its maximum residue limit or establishes a zero tolerance. Again, this does not affect the nature of the product itself, but simply the information contained on the label. This sort of trade concern can be addressed by an instruction on the label but, currently, in order to update the label instructions to address what is only a trade issue, the APVMA must take regulatory action against the product registration. Only then can it update the label as a related action. It actually lacks the power at the moment to take direct action against the source of the concern, which in many cases is simply the product label. This bill addresses this problem by enabling the APVMA to focus the regulatory action upon the label approval when concerns about trade issues arise, without affecting the registration of the product.

They are both very sensible amendments which simplify an important process. They are a good example of reducing regulatory burden where regulation exists without providing any real gain, and I commend the bill to the House.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Amendment Bill 2010 and the related amendments before the House. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority was set up in 1993 as the central body to register agricultural and veterinary chemicals. It replaced separate state and territory based registration systems. There are more than 8,000 chemicals and pesticides on the register which primary producers rely on to protect their crops and animals from diseases and pests. The APVMA ensures the chemical products are effective and safe for people, animals and the environment before accepting them onto the register. The APVMA also reviews chemicals that have been registered a long time or when safety or quality concerns about a particular chemical are raised by the community. This is an important safeguard and checking point.

The APVMA’s role is to look at these chemicals and how they are being used because a dangerous chemical can be used safely and a not-so-dangerous chemical can be used unsafely, so it is all about how they are being used. I would suggest the APVMA needs to take a closer look at some of the world’s best practice and make sure that Australia is complying with world’s best practice, it needs to look at some of the research taking place around the world, especially if it is peer reviewed and with good safeguards so that we can make sure that any chemical used is brought to the market as quickly as possible, obviously with the APVMA still having the fundamental role of making sure that the Australian public will not be harmed by the misuse of any chemicals.

As part of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources I recently talked to some parliamentarians from the European Union, some of them are farmers as well as parliamentarians. I talked to them about some of their chemicals because I noted that the European Union had recently overhauled their registration system, banning about 100 of the most dangerous and toxic chemicals. The European Union also placed heavy restrictions on aerial pesticides, particularly around drinking water supplies. Perhaps restricting all of those chemicals was a bit of an overreaction and that was what the European Union parliamentarians said. The APVMA takes a slightly different approach. We have seen with chemicals that were once considered safe, like arsenic and asbestos, just how dangerous these chemicals can be if not treated properly and respected. The consequences of not using them properly—not looking after them and disposing of them properly—can be fatal. We do not want that to happen.

With 8,000 chemicals registered in Australia, it is easy to see why we need a robust and efficient system in place to ensure human health and protect the environment. Seeing the young faces of Macgregor State High School students from my electorate, it is obvious why we need to look after the health of the future generations when we look after these chemicals. The bill before us will improve the way chemicals are registered with the APVMA and maintain the high standards for health and environmental safety. The bill will simplify the application process for a limited range of chemicals for defined low-risk minor variations. Instead of going through the full technical assessment process, applicants will simply notify APVMA of any change. The kinds of minor variations will include those where there is no material change to the product’s chemistry, no risk to quality, stability or safety and no risk to the environment or trade. It will include things like the site of manufacture, the pack size or the substitution of certain non-active ingredients such as dyes.

By streamlining the variation approval process, APVMA will be able to direct more resources to expert scientific assessment of new chemicals. We need this to happen as much as possible. The APVMA needs to be focusing its attention where the rubber meets the road, where the more dangerous possibilities are, rather than going through some processes that any reasonable person would consider to be almost administrative. This bill also removes the requirement to notify the authorisation of an approved person. Under the code, registration or approval applications are required to be signed by an approved person who must be an Australian resident. Therefore overseas applicants must authorise an Australian approved person to be liable for their products. The APVMA also requires chemical producers to authorise a person to receive notices concerning their products. This ensures that any administrative dealings can be done locally. However, the requirement for a registrant to notify the APVMA in writing of who has been authorised to act for the applicant is unnecessary red tape and will be removed.

The amendments also make some changes to chemical labelling. APVMA will be required to oversee adequate instructions for the safe handling and effective use of a product. I think this is where we differentiate ourselves from the European Union. In Australia we respect the capabilities of our farmers and people that use the chemicals that APVMA regulates, whereas in the European Union the approach seems to be to look at the lowest common denominator which led to the banning of the 100 chemicals that are often still being used in Australia. We use a much more risk based analysis rather than focusing on prevention that removes the opportunities for beneficial chemicals to be used in our agricultural systems.

Once again these changes are about ensuring that the APVMA can focus its resources on the key issues of safety and quality. Under the current law they are required to assess and approve all aspects of labelling. Obviously, product labels include all kinds of information and it is totally unnecessary for the APVMA to review it all. Their main concerns, as is appropriate, are the safe and effective use of the chemicals.

This bill and related amendments will slash red tape, which is obviously a good thing, and will streamline the regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals registration. As I said, I will still put that call out there for us to perhaps make better use of the American and European approved scientific processes rather than the APVMA having to reinvent the wheel every single time. That is a process that might take a little bit longer, but it would certainly be to the benefit of Australian farmers.

The bill implements a COAG agreement and Productivity Commission recommendation of 2008 and it will lead to immediate benefits for industry and the community. As I mentioned earlier it is important that we get the balance right so that students such as Yulia Batsman, Rhianna Neilsen, Riley Kernaghan, Rebecca Lay, Casey Huang from MacGregor State High School and their teachers Gail Bligh and David Burgess—the people that look after the future generations—are eating foodstuffs brought from Brisbane markets or the like that are not unduly affected by chemicals and so that we have a Barrier Reef that is protected and not unnecessarily impacted on by run-off from sugarcane farms and the like.

It is important that we get the balance right for our future generations, and the measures before the chamber strike the right balance. They ensure that protecting health and safety remains the priority while removing unnecessary steps in the process which will then free up the APVMA to focus its attention on the danger zones. I commend the bill to the House.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to support the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Amendment Bill 2010. This bill makes commonsense amendments to the labelling laws relating to labels on agricultural chemicals which have already been approved for use. In summary, if there are to be minor changes made to labels which do not affect the principal composition of the chemicals and which are essentially superficial changes to the product or the packaging and labelling itself, then the process will be streamlined. The changes are also made in conjunction with changes relating to the labelling laws administered by Food Standards Australia New Zealand and for which complementary legislation is necessary. These are the subject of a separate bill in this House which I will be speaking on later.

What I will focus my remarks on, however, is the use of chemicals in food production because that is what I believe the real debate should be about. Over time we have seen the increased use of chemicals in food production in order to eliminate pests and to increase production. As with the use of all chemicals, there are always unintended consequences, in particular health consequences, for both the farmers using the chemicals and the consumers using the end product, as well as contamination of the environment, as these chemicals are inevitably washed into the soil, into waterways and into the ocean.

The consequences of course are minimised by the research and approval processes in place, but the long-term effects are never fully known until many years later, and the safety is never 100 per cent guaranteed. Often it is only years after the product has been in use that the effects are clear and the chemicals used are then banned. In the interim the negative health effects are significant.

Just as concerning is the fact that food is increasingly being imported from countries overseas where there is little or no guarantee that those same chemicals are not still being used in food production. If they have been banned, one can never be sure that in countries which do not have effective compliance regimes the bans are being enforced. In fact, I am not absolutely certain that we have the systems in place in Australia to ensure that bans on products are enforced in this country as well.

I know this is a matter which greatly concerns many of the people I speak with. Food health risks and the consequences of the increased use of chemicals in the production of food are unquantifiable but nevertheless very real. The nature of medical conditions that have become commonplace throughout society but which were previously rare has changed markedly in recent years. Only this morning it was interesting to read in one of our daily newspapers about the rising level of cancer throughout the community. Again, I do not know what to attribute the rising level of cancer to, but I suspect that our food could be one of the sources.

The cause of these changes is difficult to establish. However, I have little doubt that our food sources are contributing to the health conditions of the nation and, in turn, the cost to the nation in responding to those health conditions. Not surprisingly, the provision of information on specific ingredients in foods is now a critical consideration of our food labelling laws. I note that our food labelling laws are themselves the subject of an extensive national review, with Dr Neal Blewett, a former member of this place and a former health minister of this country, heading the review panel. I can assure the House that in my own electorate the review of the food labelling laws with respect to not only the composition of the food in terms of its natural ingredients but also the chemicals that are being used in those foods and used to produce the food sources that goes into those foods is something that is frequently raised with me.

The use of chemicals in food production is likely to escalate into the future. In Australia most of our fertile agricultural land along Australia’s coastline is being used up for housing, pushing food production to less fertile areas. I have certainly seen that in my own home city of Adelaide. It was not that long ago that most of the fruit and vegetables were grown in and around the Adelaide CBD area, because that is where the most fertile land was. That land has now been almost entirely consumed by housing development. Not surprisingly, food production is slowly being pushed further out to country and regional areas, where it does of course provide an industry sector for those country and regional communities. Nevertheless, what it has done is push the production of fruit and vegetables out to areas where the soil is nowhere near as fertile as it was in the Adelaide Plains. Growing food on less fertile land requires increased use of chemicals. It is as simple as that. As more chemicals are used, they not only get into our foods but are washed into the land, into the waterways and into our coastal waters, causing very serious consequences.

A key goal of the development of extensive wetlands in northern Adelaide was in fact to prevent contaminated water from entering the adjacent coastal waters which were the home to Adelaide’s major fish-breeding grounds. I am also aware that this has been of real concern with respect to management of the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland, and I will talk about that in just a moment. But with respect to the fish breeding grounds off Adelaide in the Gulf of St Vincent, as a result of contamination of those waters we were seeing a reduction in the level of fish that were breeding. The development of the wetlands by the northern councils in Adelaide was done for a number of reasons, but one of the key reasons was to ensure that those contaminated waters were not entering into the Gulf of St Vincent, destroying the fish-breeding grounds, the sea grasses and the mangroves along the coast. As a result of the action taken, what we have seen in recent years is a reversal of those trends. The sea grasses are now regenerating, the mangroves have regenerating and so are the fish stocks. The fishing industry to South Australia is very, very important, and I can very well recall being lobbied by the fishing industry in South Australia to ensure that we tried to do whatever we could to preserve the fish-breeding grounds in the Gulf of St Vincent. I am pleased to be able to say that we are in fact doing just that.

to 60 kilometres inside the World Heritage area. As a member of the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts I also recall visiting the Great Barrier Reef and being briefed about the use of chemicals in that region, and being advised of the concerns being expressed about the washing of chemicals out into the coastline adjacent to the reef. Having said that, I have to say that we were also briefed about some of the terrific work that is being done by local communities there to ensure that that does not continue to happen, and I have to compliment many of the local communities for what they are doing.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And farmers.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And farmers, certainly. I appreciate the interjection, because it was in fact a local farmer who took us through his farm and gave us a firsthand demonstration of what he was doing with respect to trying to minimise the effects of chemicals being washed out into the waterways and into the coastline.

I said just a moment ago that only a week or so ago some members of this House were briefed by the World Wide Fund for Nature. The effect of that briefing was to highlight the concern that they had about the use of chemicals in the growing of fruits, vegetables and other crops in this country. One of the things that concerns me as a result of their presentation—and I assume that their presentation was factual—is that it quite often takes many years for a chemical about which concern has been expressed to be reviewed, sometimes between five and 10 years, and I understand that there are some cases where reviews have been underway for something like 13 years or more. That seems to be an extraordinarily long period of time.

We were also advised that there are chemicals which have been banned by the European Union but which we continue to use in Australia. Again, those kinds of statements are of concern, and I am pleased to see that Minister Tony Burke is in the chamber because I am sure that he will take them on board. Those kinds of concerns are being put to me by the very people I represent, and it would be reassuring to know that we have the systems and review processes in place to provide some level of comfort to the people of Australia that chemicals being used are in fact not a risk to their health.

In closing, I want to also point to some very good and responsible examples of gardening and agricultural practices in Australia. The example I will use is an example of something that I know is occurring right around Australia in many local communities. On 5 June, I visited the Wynn Vale Community Garden in the electorate of Makin. The concept of community gardens is not new to me, and I know that many communities around Australia have similar gardens in place. What most impressed me about the Wynn Vale Community Garden was just how well-organised it was and the diversity of fruit, vegetable and flower plantings that the 25 or so members had grown, and how well each of the garden beds was being cared for. Half of the garden is devoted to individual plots, and the other half to communal plots of herbs, ornamental vegetables and native varieties.

There is a strong emphasis throughout the garden on saving water and, in that respect, there was a water harvesting wetlands area located adjacent to the garden where the water is collected, and there are discussions underway between the community garden and the local council to pipe water directly from those wetlands and then use it on the garden. Produce from the garden is shared or donated to charity, so a great deal of the members’ work benefits others. For children who visit the garden, it becomes a fascinating educational experience about how food is grown.

Planning for the Wynn Vale Community Garden commenced in 1994, with land donated by the city of Tea Tree Gully. Since then, it has received grants from the federal government and local government and has been recognised for its work, with awards from the Heart Foundation and KESAB. In 2004, the garden was featured in a segment on the popular ABC television show Gardening Australia. In fact, the group has had to limit membership numbers, and I understand that there is a waiting list. The group regularly invites in gardening experts to speak about gardening to members, and on the day that I visited there was one such expert doing exactly that—teaching people how to grow flowers, fruit or vegetables with minimal use of any chemicals whatsoever.

Perhaps what impressed me the most was that the membership appeared to be fairly evenly split between men and women, and they all equally contributed to the gardening activities. It was terrific to see that it was evenly split between men and women, and it reminded me very much, I suppose, of what I would refer to as a men’s shed, a place where men could go out and do what they wanted to do. But in this case it was a men’s and women’s shed, and they did have a shed on the property—in fact they had several sheds, which they obviously used to assist them with their activities.

I say to the Wynn Vale Community Garden members: I congratulate you on what you have achieved. I thank them all for their welcome to me on the day and their hospitality, and I particularly thank Graham Douglass, whom I have known for several years, for providing me with a guided tour of the garden. As I have said from the outset, I think this bill makes common sense in respect of the administration of the labelling laws relating to the chemicals used in the production of agricultural products in this country, and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Amendment Bill 2010, including you, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelvin Thomson, at an earlier moment. I was pleased to be here to listen to the comments made by the member for Makin. I know of his strong commitment and family involvement. I have visited one of the properties run by members of his family, and I understand his commitment to making sure that these issues are regulated well and also to getting the balance right and understanding that extra red tape serves the interests of neither farmers nor the environment. Where we can eliminate red tape and free up systems to make them work more effectively, we should.

The bill before us amends the Agvet Code in two areas: first, it allows the authority to disclose certain information where a minor use or emergency use permit is being sought; and, secondly, it will allow trade concerns to trigger a review of a product label. These reforms aim to improve effectiveness and efficiency as well as strengthening the protections around the registration of Agvet chemicals for the community. The amendment will not compromise the overarching importance the government attaches to the protection of human health or the importance of protecting the environment.

Following the second reading—assuming we are lucky enough to have it carried—there will be some government amendments. I want to thank the opposition for their bipartisan support on this issue. I understand that the shadow minister—although I was not able to be here for his comments—referred to the fact that we have promised reforms through the better regulation partnership but have not seen any action yet. I suspect we will be able to see the first down payment on that action in about a minute and a half.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.