George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014. Controlling pests is an essential ingredient of agriculture. Deloitte Access Economics recently attributed 68 per cent of crop production to the use of agvet chemicals. That is an important point, because if we were to remove these chemicals from use on farms, we would be increasing the price of food on the grocery store shelf. It is a simple equation: any increase in time or money taken to produce crops translates to dollars at the checkout for households. Any reduction in the amount a farmer can produce also translates into extra dollars at the checkout. When we do not see those costs flow through to consumers, we see farmers go out of business and, one way or the other, families end up paying more.

This amendment is about ensuring farmers spend more time producing our food and less time bound up in red tape. With this amendment we are implementing our election commitment to remove the requirement for agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines re-registration by removing end dates for approvals and last renewal dates for registrations so that approvals will no longer end after a particular period. By allowing registrations to be renewed perpetually, this amendment is the reform that is needed to: reduce red tape by providing for less frequent registration renewals; improve the APVMA's ability to secure information about the safety of chemicals supplied in the market; introduce further simple reforms to agvet chemicals regulation to reduce red tape and improve efficiency, once again; oblige the APVMA to provide access to information about approvals and registrations in its files to persons eligible to receive it; and address some minor implementation issues identified in the existing reform legislation. This a good amendment that will keep farmers farming and free up the APVMA to get on with its job.

Before the Greens start wringing their hands and making their wild claims about the world exploding in a puff of fairy dust, let me make this point. Removing the regular registration requirement does not mean there will be any less oversight of chemical use in the industry. In fact, no longer faced with the onerous task of constant re-registration, the APVMA will have more time to work on creating and analysing real scientific information to better inform their processes. The APVMA will retain its existing powers to ensure any newly identified risks about the safety, efficacy or trade impact of a chemical are examined. The APVMA also retains the power to recall unsafe chemical products or suspend or cancel the registration of a product if they may no longer meet criteria for registration.

These powers were actually strengthened and streamlined by a recent amendment to the act, which makes me wonder why the provision for regular re-registration was created in the first place. It achieves absolutely nothing. If the APVMA discovers through credible scientific evidence that there is a particular problem with a chemical, it has the power to act. It already had that power to act—it always did and it still does.

Let us just imagine for a moment, though, the process that the green influence is suggesting would happen if a problem was discovered with the use of a particular chemical. Let us assume there was a pesticide that farmers used to remove green stains from their property. What is the APVMA going to do if they discover that this 'Greenaway' pesticide comes with a dangerous side effect? Are they going to wait until it is time to re-register it to say, 'No. We discovered a couple of years ago that using this pesticide makes your arms fall off'—or results in a social media meltdown or whatever comes of it—'so we aren't going to re-register it.' That would not be a protection. It is just another gate that the green movement can use to attack farmers and any productive enterprise that uses such chemicals.

We have already seen the faux environmental movement employ similar gatekeeper tactics to sabotage the sugar industry with an effective ban on diuron, which I will come to in a minute. The interesting thing about the re-registration provision when it was introduced by Labor and the Greens, was the rhetoric around the issue before that legislation was introduced into this place. In 2010, Labor's then agriculture minister, Senator Joe Ludwig—the genius behind hamstringing the cattle industry—and Labor's minister assisting on deregulation, Nick Sherry, issued a press release spruiking the Gillard government:

… continuing to reform the regulation and use of farm chemicals and veterinary drugs to help improve productivity and international competitiveness in the agricultural sector.

That is a quote right out of their press release.

The following year, on 4 March 2011, then Minister Ludwig outlined the reasons why reform is necessary. Ineffective and inefficient chemical regulation, he said:

… can lead to problems such as higher cost to businesses, higher costs and reduced choice for chemical users, and the potential for reduced community confidence in the system as a whole.

I will tell you what happened, Mr Deputy Speaker—the Greens happened. The Greens happened, they influenced the Labor Party in this place to come up with this ridiculous legislation.

It seems that the APVMA, sadly to say, is also overly susceptible to Green campaigns, whether or not they are backed by credible science or just emotional claptrap. Such was the case with diuron. The chemical diuron is actually an essential part of the sugar industry. It is an extremely effective form of weed control and it has been responsible for increased efficiencies and production within that industry.

It has also been the subject of a very sloppy scientific review and a consequent lack of consultation on that review. At no point did the APVMA consider the impact on agriculture and what decisions meant in the real world when it came to the banning of diuron.

If the Greens thought that a chemical might be suspect, then Labor, when they were in government, were simply happy to let the APVMA ban it—or at least regulate it to the point of it effectively being banned. No proper scientific studies were carried out on the use of diuron in the North Queensland sugar industry. No-one consulted with the North Queensland sugar industry and no-one thought about what would happen to the industry if that chemical were banned. No-one bothered to consider if there were viable alternatives and no-one thought about what the North Queensland sugar industry farmers would have to do if the product were off the shelves. And no-one can definitively show that there will be any overall benefit from the ban on the product.

The sugar farmers in North Queensland are acutely aware of their impact on the environment—the land and the waterways—and the quality that they need to maintain in the environment of the land and the waterways. Their entire business—their livelihoods—are based on the quality of the environment, the quality of the land and the quality of the waterways.

In recent generations, we have seen an increasing focus in the sugar industry on sustainable practice. Cane farmers right throughout North Queensland have adopted a range of environmental practices that provide very good outcomes for both the environment and the industry. These new environmental practices, such as green trash blanketing, and in conjunction with the use of chemicals like diuron have proved to be very effective. If diuron is removed from the process, the environmental practices are no longer effective for the industry. Is that the result the Greens, who are pushing for this product to be banned, were hoping to see?

Did they want to see a return to those old practices, such as the burning of cane trash? Did the APVMA, the Greens, or those opposite for one minute consider what the alternative practice would actually be and what impact that would have on the environment? Did they bother to ask anyone in the sugar industry what would happen if diuron were no longer available for use? There is no economically viable alternative to diuron. The regulator has placed restrictions on diuron use to concentrations that actually render it ineffective, or they have banned its use during the precise time when the farmers actually need to use it for weed management. No consideration was given to the development of an economically viable alternative before banning what was, essentially, an industry standard weed management tool.

Representing the largest sugar-growing electorate in this country, I am acutely aware of the impact that such rash decisions can have on this key industry. But I also represent the Bowen-Gumlu Region, which is the largest winter-growing region for capsicums and tomatoes in Australia. The region produces 47,000 tonnes of capsicums and chillies, worth an estimated $100 million. This small region in North Queensland produces 95 per cent of our capsicums during September and October. It also produces $124 million worth of tomatoes every year. It accounts for 90 per cent of the nation's production of tomatoes between September and October.

The Bowen-Gumlu region also produces many other sorts of horticultural products. What was important for all of them was an organophosphate insecticide called dimethoate for controlling fruit fly. The APVMA conducted a review on the use of dimethoate and found that it could pose a potential dietary risk to consumers.

In 2011, they lowered the maximum residue limit for dimethoate pesticide from 0.02 milligrams per kilogram per day to 0.001 milligrams per kilogram per day. Not content with strangling agricultural production in the domestic market, the APVMA, by default with that decision, forced their new restrictive standards onto the New Zealand market as well. A lot of these tomatoes go over to New Zealand. And despite the fact that New Zealand has its own regulatory regime for agricultural chemicals—and in fact actually allows the use of dimethoate to the levels that we have now banned in Australia—the APVMA chose effectively to make this decision which blocks the export of Australian tomatoes to New Zealand. There is no alternative for the control of the fruit fly, even though the tomatoes and the dimethoate used met the standards for New Zealand. They no longer meet Australian standards because Australian standards, I have to say, have been abducted by extremists.

They met the standards for New Zealand—this bastion of environmentalism right on our doorstep. By effectively blocking the export of these tomatoes to New Zealand, the APVMA cost Australian growers important market share. The industry had developed alternative means of fruit fly control—they have gone through this rigorous process and they have finally got there—but because it has taken an extraordinary amount of effort and an extraordinary amount of time to process all the applications through all the different states to get this new method accepted—and they still have not got there in terms of getting New Zealand to accept it. And two years of export and market access has been lost.

When farmers from my electorate could not export into New Zealand, alternatives were sought in New Zealand. When the door was slammed to Australian farmers, a door was opened for the Netherlands, on the other side of the world, to take our place. And now New Zealand farmers, encouraged by the increased price opportunity—obviously, there high transport costs coming from the Netherlands—left by our undersupply, or our non-supply, have started building greenhouses to enable them to take over permanently the market share that we once had. That is what happens.

The agriculture industry in Australia today faces a framework of reasons not to succeed. We have organisations, regulators, and ecoterrorists looking for opportunities to interfere, to frustrate, to block and to exert their influence. What agriculture needs is a proactive framework that celebrates its strength, encourages success, and seeks resolutions and positive outcomes.

We have seen enough of Labor and the Greens asking, 'How can we slow this down?' It is time for the government to ask, 'How can we grow?' The Liberal-National government meets an important election commitment with this amendment. We made a specific commitment to the agricultural sector to repeal these counterproductive measures from chemical regulation—and I have to say that I think we need to go further than that. I think the radical Greens got this foot in the door with the APVMA; there now needs to be a barrier put up against that. What I propose, and I hope it will eventually be put in place, is that we give a right of veto to the minister on some of the decisions that the APVMA makes—but that may be legislation for another day. The bill we have before us today will remove the senseless red tape that was introduced last year and allow a viable agricultural industry to get on with the job. For all of these reasons I commend the bill to the House.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014. This bill amends three acts in the Agriculture portfolio: the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment 2013—the amendment act—and the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Products (Collection of Levy) Act 1994. The bill also amends the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 to correct an incorrect reference to part of the Agvet Code. Additionally, it makes other minor corrections at the request of the Department of Health. This bill fulfils the 2013 election commitment to remove re-registration and improve the efficiency of agvet chemicals regulation.

By way of a quick background, the amendment act was passed by the parliament, as the member for Dawson has said, under the former Labor government in 2013. Unfortunately, their legislation added red tape in the form of reapprovals and re-registration of chemical products and it was to commence on 1 July this year. The bill was initiated by Labor due to their 2010 election commitment to placate the Greens at that time, as the member for Dawson has also said. It is amazing the amount of influence the Greens had on the Gillard-Rudd government. Labor's bill essentially caused the industry to become more efficient. This was despite the former Finance and Deregulation Minister, Penny Wong, using agricultural and veterinary chemical reform as one the key areas where the former government said it would reduce regulatory compliance costs for businesses. It did not happen. So even when the Labor Party set out to make life easier for businesses, they managed to wrap industry in more red tape and bureaucracy. This is a prime example of what we are having to fix up.

Let's not forget that under Labor more than 18,000 additional regulations were created by the Rudd-Gillard governments. In contrast, the Abbott coalition government believes that industry needs efficient regulations so Australia can have sustainable production systems that are fair on farmers and businesses. We believe that, prior to the introduction of the amendment act, existing chemical review mechanisms sufficiently allowed for the examination of newly discovered risks about the safety, efficacy or trade impact of a chemical. New schemes that duplicated the existing system and imposed additional costs on industry were not, and are not, required. Labor's approach would have added red tape without improving health and safety. The coalition when in opposition did support other changes in the 2013 amendments, but we do not support the bureaucratic processes of re-registration, for all the reasons I have just outlined.

Reforms in this bill include new processes for notification of very simple changes to a chemical registration and very simple applications for less complex variations. For example, if a company wants to change a packet size or its contact details on the label—phone numbers et cetera—it will not need a technical assessment or to lodge a costly application, as it would have to do under current legislation. This bill also reduces the frequency of renewals. Some periods of renewal will be extended up to seven years. A renewal is only an administrative process to extend the registration and contains no checks for safety and performance. We must remember the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, APVMA, has established systems to trigger a review of agvet chemicals if potential safety and performance risks are identified, and I will speak more on this aspect later.

The bill rewrites provisions that allow the APVMA to collect information from chemical suppliers to ensure the products being supplied are the same as those the APVMA has already registered and will allow the APVMA to amend the maximum residue limits standard in the Australia and New Zealand standards code. Without this change companies can register a product but, in turn, producers may not be able to supply produce treated with that product because the maximum residue limits standard has not been updated. You can see that there are a whole lot of corrections that need to be made.

Reforms in this legislation highlight the Australian government's commitment to removing $1 billion a year in unnecessary red and green tape. Primary producers are already doing it pretty tough in an industry that is under siege from the Greens, as well as having to face issues such as a strong Australian dollar and cheaper overseas imports. This is an important industry sector of our economy that requires support from the Australian government.

The government's amendments will save the agvet chemical industry something like $1.3 million in time and fees annually by removing unnecessary red tape. The APVMA estimated that re-registration would cost them $2 million a year to process and assess applications—a cost that would have to be recovered from industry. And industry calculated that removing the reapproval and re-registration scheme would save them up to $9 million annually.

Like the member for Dawson, I have some electorate-specific concerns about the APVMA and the registration and availability of chemicals. This has never been more important than it is to the stone fruit growers in the Hills in my electorate. The local farmers, including those stone fruit growers, rely on access to effective chemicals to protect their crops from dangerous pests and diseases. For growers in my electorate the Mediterranean fruit fly or medfly is the pest in question.    Fruit fly is a severely damaging pest that has serious economic implications for Australia's horticulture industry.

Last week the APVMA, as the independent statutory authority with responsibility for regulating agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines in Australia, announced it was cancelling all horticultural uses of the chemical fenthion, except for post-harvest treatment of tropical fruits with inedible peel, such as mangoes and avocadoes. The APVMA has published its preliminary review findings on the continued use of fenthion and has commenced a three-month consultation period prior to a final decision being made. This is a process designed to thwart a Senate inquiry. In fact the APVMA is almost out of control and needs direct intervention by the minister because of its activist behaviour over a period of time.

The three-month consultation period closes on 22 August, and the APVMA states it will consider all submissions before making a final regulatory decision. Having attended the meeting with the APVMA, I am convinced they have already made their decision. There is no denying there needs to be safeguards in relation to the registration and use of agvet chemicals in Australia, to protect Australians from dangerous and suspect chemicals. But, as I mentioned earlier, in relation to the deregulation aspects of this bill the process cannot become overly bureaucratic, so much so that the regulatory agency is disengaging itself from working with producers. And really that is what they should be doing; backing up the producers, because they are the people who actually add something to this economy.

I raised the APVMA's attempt to ban the use of fenthion when I spoke on Labor's Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill last year. Today, I speak about the topic again, this time regarding an actual ban of the fruit-fly combatting chemical. It is my fourth time speaking on this issue in the parliament; it is an issue I am deeply concerned about because of the effect it has on my fruit growers. It appears that no matter what evidence growers in the industry have provided to the APVMA in relation to both the science they use and the need for industry to have a period of adjustment to new methods or a phase-in period, the APVMA are acting as a stand-alone body, independent of the government—which they are—but also independent of the industry. And they are just thumbing their noses at the industry they are meant to be acting for and on behalf of.

This was evident in December last year when members of the Hills Orchard Improvement Group, HOIG, from my electorate, led by spokesperson Brett Del Simone, travelled to Canberra to meet with the APVMA and the Agriculture Department. There are avenues for appeal against the decisions made at the APVMA, but it can be very time-consuming and very costly; the Australian Administrative Tribunal or the Federal Court are the alternatives. They are massively costly in terms of legal representation.

I fully support measures that are in place to protect public safety, but these decisions cannot be so bureaucratic that people who have never worked on a stone fruit orchard in Perth, people who are sitting in a Canberra office some 3,000 kilometres away from the Hills orchards, can make final decisions without adequate concern for firsthand submissions made direct from growers of the produce.

To date, there have been no reported incidents of Australians being harmed by ingesting fruit treated with fenthion. In fact today in the shops when you go in and buy stone fruit, if it is from almost any area in the south of Australia, it will have been sprayed with fenthion. They have extended these by permits. If it is safe today and it has been safe for the last 30 years, why is it not safe tomorrow? It is not safe tomorrow because there is a determined agenda by those activists within the APVMA to win this battle, which I suspect they probably will, to ban fenthion.

The APVMA's decision is based on a worst-case scenario. If a six-year-old ate a barrel of fruit treated by fenthion, yes, there is a chance he will probably get sick, but maybe not from fenthion but from getting a stomach ache from eating a whole barrel of apples. In fact, even though the APVMA proposed a ban in 2012, the agency continued to allow the use of the product by permit, with several new conditions attached—in terms of withholding a number of sprays for another 12 months. When that 12-month period was over in 2013, the APVMA reintroduced another spray of fenthion for the current growing season as a cover spray. So the fruit at the shops was fine to eat then, and the fruit that would soon hit shops and market stalls would be fine, but somewhere in the future, it would not be okay, according to the APVMA! It is ludicrous what the APVMA is doing to our stone fruit industry in Australia. This sort of bureaucracy, red tape and hoop jumping is out of control. It is why I completely support the deregulation amendments in this bill. The member for Dawson rightly suggested that the minister might want to write a veto because the APVMA has become such an out of control body and unrepresentative of the people it is meant to be working for.

Fenthion was considered by local Hills growers as the last remaining effective chemical that could control fruit fly. It is the only chemical that controlled the maggot as well as the fly. This has been the crux of growers' concerns all along. Growers are now faced with no choice but to use alternative chemicals to fenthion. Growers, though devastated, have accepted this fate. WA fruit growers are now considering they may have to use four different chemicals to combat fruit fly, as opposed to just the one in fenthion. Those four chemicals are: Clothianidin, Thiacloprid, Trichlorfon and Maldison. Any one of those four have not had the same track record as fenthion with no sicknesses or ill-health caused by that spray.

My fruit growers are saying: 'Yes, we will be involved in area-wide management. Yes, we will be involved in orchard hygiene. And, yes, if you allow us to eventually settle on another alternative spray that we can try over a period of time through a phase-in period of three years, that could be the case.'

There is currently a Senate inquiry into the implications of the use of fenthion on Australia's horticultural industry. This inquiry had a public hearing in Perth in February this year, with Brett Del Simone and Wilma Byl from HOIG presenting information to the inquiry. I attended this to show my support, particularly in light of a recent outbreak of fruit fly in the South Australian Riverland area, and in Queensland just the year before.

What we need in this parliament is our Minister for Agriculture to stand up for this industry. He has been blindsided, willingly unfortunately, by the APVMA saying that he cannot direct them. That is correct but he could also send a strong signal as to their out of control behaviour and he could possibly do a review of the activist behaviour of the scientists involved in this particular independent organisation that the government relies on for information.

The minister needs to do what he can to make sure we do not lose a unique stone fruit industry because that would have a detrimental effect not only on my growers but on our export trade—we export these fruits—and generally on the whole economic situation surrounding our orchards. The problem is that they are only a small group so they are seen as being almost irrelevant. I am so disappointed that this action has been forced on my fruit growers. The minister, unfortunately, in this case does not have the same passion for the fruit growers that I do. I know other members in this House have the same sort of passion for wanting to see this industry survive.

If there is going to be an inquiry and a group is going to examine the way forward, there could be a three-year gap. If they cannot use fenthion in those three years then that industry will be decimated. I feel very sorry for the people I represent.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Canning. He has made his point in his address.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased that with the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014 the government is delivering on the commitments it made before the election to make some amendments to the APVMA and to wind back some of the excesses of the reforms that were undertaken by the last government in the middle of the year but are not ready to be implemented until July this year. In doing so the government is sticking to its word—lifting red tape, supporting efficiency and getting rid of regulatory overreach.

Last year I was seconded to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry for its review into the APVMA amendments that were before the House at that time. I have some insight into these issues that are being discussed today and in fact I had a significant hand in writing the then opposition's dissenting report. Broadly, the main issue of contention the coalition had then with the government's reforms was the compulsory and regular re-registration process of chemicals that had been in use in agriculture for a long time in many cases. I would like to read three short paragraphs from the dissenting report. Paragraph 5.3 states:

However we believe one of the bills key modifications; the intention to install a system of mandatory re-registration lacks sufficient justification and is likely to create a new layer of compliance and bureaucracy on the pesticide and veterinary medicines industry without demonstrable improvements in efficiency or outcomes and that extra costs will be passed along to Australian farmers.

Paragraph 5.4 states:

The bill states one of its objectives … is to reduce time-frames for processing applications and admits to backlog in processing …

Paragraph 5.5 states:

It is of great concern to the dissenting members that the proposed mandatory re-registration process will lead to a far heavier work-load for the APVMA and this in turn will lead to longer delays in processing, an escalation in staffing requirements and a more expensive system for little perceived gain.

Australians often make the mistake of thinking that Australia is a major food producer. That is not the case at all. Australia is a major food exporter. We are not a major food producer.

Let us look at the biggest agricultural commodity that we market: wheat, which is something I know a little about, having grown it for most of my life. The biggest producer of wheat in the world is the European Union, which produces 133 million ton per annum. China produces 120 million ton, India 95 million ton a year, and the US 60 million ton a year. Australia comes in at No. 8 on that table. We produce around 21 million ton, or less than four per cent of the combined crop of the top 20. So we produce less than three per cent of the world crop. We are one of the world's biggest exporters; we are not one of the world's biggest producers. Consequently, for things like agricultural chemicals that means we are not one of the world's big markets.

All chemical breakthroughs in the world, because of their nature, actually come from what some people decry as the big chemical companies. They are the only people who can undertake this kind of research. They are the only people with the money and the expertise. Their investment has led to a huge explosion in agricultural profits and environmental advances right around the world. As I said, we are a small market even for things like wheat chemicals. You can only imagine how big a market we are in world terms if you farm persimmons or asparagus.

When this automatic re-registration process kicks in whoever is manufacturing the chemicals at the time will look at the market and say, 'Is it worth me investing this money to re-register this chemical in this market?' These large companies invest great sums of money in developing new chemicals which they in turn have the right to market exclusively for I think about 20 years under the patent process. Once the patents expire any manufacturer can access that scientific knowledge and manufacture the chemicals. This always leads to cheaper chemicals for farmers and a good outcome for all, but of course that means the market then becomes fragmented and every manufacturer of chemicals then has to re-register each formulation that the company sells and each packet size that the company sells. So the process can get quite complicated and quite expensive.

It is of grave concern to Australian agriculture that the more of these review processes we trigger when there is no real reason to do so will actually lead to our producers not being able to avail themselves of the world's best technology. And if we are to be significant players in this great opportunity in the world as its desire increases for more refined foods and higher protein foods, if we are to be a key player in this role, then our farmers will need the best technology because we know that Australia is not a cheap production platform.

In essence, the main complaint about the previous government's reforms last year was this automatic reregistration process. The APVMA have plenty of processes where if new evidence should come to hand regarding chemicals that have been registered for many years, then that triggers in itself an automatic review process. What we are proposing here is that chemicals can be re-registered using the current science and the manufacturers will not have to re-prove their case, as it were. They can just say, 'Here we are; we've had no complaints'. Basically it is a book entry to achieve the ongoing registration of those compounds.

This leads me to a few other things. I worry about that green fringe that protests against 'filthy chemicals in agriculture'. I had a mate say to me once, 'You know how these chemicals are such terrible things. Name me something that's not made out of chemicals'. I was of course speechless; it is a little difficult. But I worry that the debate gets abused and distorted. For instance, one of the things people who would like to stop chemicals being used will tell us is that if a chemical has been deregistered, then it is barred from being used in, say, Europe or in the US. Being unregistered does not mean that a chemical is barred; it just means that no manufacturer has thought that that particular market is big enough or worthwhile enough for them to register the chemical in that particular market. As I said, it is the same kind of danger we face in Australia. So when I hear people say that a chemical is barred from use in some particular market, I think that you really need to dig a little bit deeper and have a look to see why that chemical is not registered. There are all kinds of reasons why it may not be registered in another market. It might be the proximity of populations to where you are using compounds that may be difficult to handle, but perfectly safe to use on a crop. It may be because they have a load of other alternatives. It may be because their agriculture systems are totally different to ours and they do not need that particular chemical. So as I said: if it becomes uneconomical for the manufacturer, it just does not happen.

What is at risk here, as I alluded to a little earlier, is the enormous opportunity for Australian agriculture in the near and medium terms. I was at a Landcare type function only a week or so ago. We had a facilitator who asked us all in our particular section how optimistic we were about the future of Australian agriculture. There was a smattering of arms raised across the room. I think I was the only person who put my hand up and said, 'I'm extremely optimistic'. I was questioned: why would that be? I said: 'You should look at our last 30 years; it's been phenomenal. The advent of what I would call the chemical revolution and, in concert with that, the no-till revolution has absolutely transformed Australian agriculture. We have seen our soil fertility grow year on year. We have seen our production grow year on year. We have seen micro-organisms within the soil build up under the processes we are now using because we keep all the vegetable residues either on top of the soil or within the soil.' I think on that basis we have every reason to be optimistic about agriculture, but we must give our farmers the best tools.

I am going to digress a little and talk about a chemical called glyphosate. It is glyphosate that has become the most commonly used chemical throughout the world and has been such a boon for civilisation. I once had a leading Argentinian agriculturalist called Carlos Crovetto tell me: 'The man who invented the glyphosate molecule should be given the Nobel Prize for peace. He has done more for the conserving of the world's soils, he has done more for the feeding of the world than any other person in the history of the world.' In fact that man did win a US science award, but I think maybe Carlos was right—he should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

This morning I hosted a group in the house who are looking at the reliance in Australia on the chemical glyphosate, but also our need to then use a range of chemicals around it. One in particular that we use is paraquat. Paraquat is an S7 poison and there is some concern in agricultural ranks that the green fringe will try to limit farmers using this S7 poison. Now farmers have a very, very good record with handling this chemical, I might point out. It smells pretty bad, but the smell is artificial; it is put in so that we treat it with respect—and farmers do. Paraquat is very important because what we are seeing in Australian agriculture—in worldwide agriculture—is resistance. Not everyone understands resistance, but in fact it is evolution in action. When we put pressure on nature, nature will take some time and then it will adapt. Someone explained to me once that resistance was like a lawnmower—that is, if you go out with a lawnmower as the grass comes up and runs to head and you keep chopping the heads off, you keep chopping the heads off and you keep chopping heads off, then you will never let the plant go to seed that has the tall heads. In the end the only plant that ever goes to seed is the strain within that grass that had a short head. And then you will have converted that grass to a short-head variety—shorter growing. That is what happens with chemical systems. When you get onto a good thing and you keep using it, the plant adapts. That is what is happening with glyphosate worldwide.

This morning Professor Stephen Powles from the University of Western Australia likened glyphosate to a one-in-100-year outcome, like penicillin. What has penicillin done to the world and what have we done to penicillin? We have overused it. We are using up our shots on the most important medical breakthrough in the 20th century. We are doing the same with our glyphosate. That is why it is so important that these other chemicals are licensed in our market and take the pressure off this one chemical that has totally transformed agriculture throughout the world.

So when I think of the APVMA and the rules that we give it to operate under, what I want to see is that it is totally driven by science and not by public opinion, that farmers get access to the best tools in the world, that pressure groups to not take them away from us, and that we are able as a nation to harvest that great potential that our agricultural industry offers for us in the future.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Grey. He is always enlightening.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be summing up on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, who cannot be in the chamber today. He actually has a knee injury, which at prevents his attendance. I know he will be disappointed at not being here, because he is very proud of this bill and in particular proud of the work that has been started by the new coalition government to assist the agricultural industry.

I would begin by thanking all members who have spoken in relation to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-Registration) Bill 2014, beginning, of course, with the member for Grey, who we have just heard from, who brings his great passionate advocacy on behalf of not only his own electorate of Grey but also of all rural industries and all rural communities across Australia. We have also heard from the members for Canning, Dawson, Lyons, Murray, Riverina, O'Connor, Durack, Lyne, Barker, Lindsay, Calare, Forrest, Macquarie and Wannon along with, from the opposition benches, the members for Hunter, Parramatta and Throsby. The list of speakers in relation to this bill I believe reflects the importance of this issue. It is almost a complete rollcall of regional members and reflects their interest in and their passion for the agricultural sector. It also gave the House an opportunity to hear from members with years of practical experience. Many of those members have served and worked on the land have a great deal to offer the chamber. I appreciate their contributions in the chamber both yesterday and today.

This bill aims to reduce the unnecessary regulatory burden on this industry, resulting in reduced costs to the industry that will eventually flow on to benefit primary producers themselves, and which may also lead to greater investment in new, safer innovative products for the future.

The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-Registration) Bill 2014 contributes to the Australian government's commitment to easing the burden imposed on the Australian economy and agricultural sector by reducing red and green tape on businesses by at least $1 billion per year by removing the requirement for agvet chemicals to be re-registered. The bill builds on earlier progress that has already been made through the national registration scheme, a partnership between the Commonwealth and all the states and territories, and on elements of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Act 2013. These changes will improve the effectiveness of the regulatory system and reduce inefficiency at the APVMA. They will better protect human and animal health and safety and protect the environment.

This bill has wide-ranging stakeholder support, primarily because it has estimated a capacity to save industry up to $9 million in red tape and associated costs. It is a common sense approach that has been endorsed by peak farming bodies and the key industry groups. The bill is in keeping with the coalition's determination to ease the regulatory burden on Australia's economy. We understand that reducing red tape, reducing green tape, provides greater efficiency and reduces costs which leads to more private sector investment and employment, not just in the cities but throughout regional Australia. This bill was developed in consultation with other Commonwealth and state agencies along with industry, community and environment groups and the general public.

This is not just about reducing red and green tape; it sends a strong signal to the agricultural sector that this government is serious about providing practical support right across the nation. These are practical measures to help industry to prosper in the future. This side of the House understands the importance of agriculture to our nation. I contend that, by the support of the members of the opposition, there is a recognition also on the other benches of the need to support the agricultural sector with practical measures such as these.

Speaker after speaker on this bill has spoken of the importance of agricultural industries in their respective electorates. My electorate of Gippsland is no different, as you are well aware, Deputy Speaker Broadbent. We share a border and we share agricultural interests in timber, fishing, dairy, beef and horticulture. It is important to recognise that our agricultural sectors, our primary industries, all use a range of agvet chemicals which help to boost productivity.

I would like to acknowledge in summing up the that the shadow minister has indicated that the opposition will not be opposing the bill in this place. In his speech the shadow minister indicated, and I quote from his speech that the opposition:

… ill not oppose or seek to amend the 2014 bill in this chamber. In other words, we do not claim that the 2013 regime is necessarily the only way of protecting human health and the natural environment while also providing farmers and other consumers with affordable and appropriately easy to access crop protection. Rather, we will allow the bill passage through the House but we have referred the bill to a Senate inquiry for further review. I note that … the committee has received some 22 submissions, 20 of which support the removal of re-registration.

Further:

…      …      …

… I'm determined and my party is determined to do what is best for public health and for the environment and what is best for the agriculture sector.

As I said, I understand that the opposition will not be opposing the passage of the bill through this chamber and will consider the details as part of the Senate committee processes.

As we have heard from several speakers here over the past 24 hours, this bill will implement the government's 2013 election commitment to remove the requirement that agvet chemicals re-registration by: removing end dates for approvals and last renewal dates for registrations so that approvals will no longer end after a particular period and registrations may be renewed perpetually; and by removing redundant provisions that allow applications to reapprove and re-register active constituents and chemical products.

The bill will also: reduce red tape by providing for less frequent registration renewals; improve the APVMA's ability to secure information about the safety of chemicals supplied in the market; introduce further simple reforms to agvet chemicals regulation to reduce red tape and improve efficiency; oblige the APVMA to provide access to information about approvals and registrations in its files to persons eligible is to receive it; and address some minor implementation issues identified in recent reform legislation.

Overall, the bill will increase efficiency in implementing these measures and will provide great clarity to stakeholders on the intent of the legislation. The government will continue to work with industry to implement further improvements through legislation and administrative change.

I also take the opportunity to thank the minister's staff and the departmental officials for their efforts in securing the passage of these reforms. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.