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

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled APVMA regulatory reforms: inquiry based on the Auditor-General report no. 56 (2016-17)—Pesticide and veterinary medicine regulatory reform, together with the minutes of proceedings.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, I present the committee's report, as previously stated.

Australia's agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines industry is vitally important to farmers, ag-vet producers and to the wider Australian public.

A well-regulated industry requires a strong regulator.

It is of paramount importance that ag-vet chemicals are adequately regulated to ensure that they are safe and effective.

The committee was concerned by evidence presented both in the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) report and by submitters and by witnesses to this inquiry which suggests that the APVMA has struggled to fully implement the 2014 legislative reforms.

The 2014 reforms were intended to increase the APVMA's efficiency and to reduce the regulatory burden on industry. However, evidence received during this inquiry suggests that those reforms to date have been minimal at best.

The committee heard concerns from industry that the registration process, particularly for new products, is fraught with delays, inconsistencies and a lack of transparency.

The committee heard from ag-vet manufacturers whose products, which were often quickly registered overseas, often met with extensive delays here in Australia.

That said, the committee was pleased to hear that the APVMA has made some progress in using international evidence as part of its assessment process.

However, it is apparent much more work needs to be done in this regard.

Furthermore, stakeholders noted that an increased use of electronic systems would assist in reducing the burden on ag-vet producers.

Several witnesses also pointed out that the registration framework is too inflexible, meaning that low-risk products, like a dog shampoo, and a more serious medication were subject to the same level of assessment.

The committee's report makes four recommendations based on the evidence we have received.

Firstly, the committee recommends that the Auditor-General undertake a further audit of the APVMA in 2019, to assess the APVMA's ongoing implementation of regulatory reforms and its management of the relocation program.

We note that the APVMA has made progress since the time of this audit and in particular has implemented some stronger governance practices.

However, the committee believes that the role of the APVMA is so important that a follow-up audit would be recommended to ensure that the APVMA continues to fully implement its reforms.

Recommendation 2 relates to the establishment of a board of directors for the APVMA.

The committee notes that the government is moving on this front, and supports this.

The committee recommends that if a board is to be established the minister for agriculture should be consulted in relation to the appointment of members to provide additional oversight and further links between the minister and the APVMA.

Recommendation 3: the committee received evidence, from both the APVMA and from industry, suggesting that the authority's current funding model may no longer be appropriate.

The APVMA is almost entirely funded through cost-recovery mechanisms, and for the last three years has run at a $3.5 million annual operational loss.

The committee agrees with Dr Chris Parker, Chief Executive Officer of the APVMA, that this is 'unsustainable'.

We therefore recommend that the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources actively consider different funding models for the APVMA to enable it to fulfil its responsibilities in a timely manner.

The committee's final recommendation is that the APVMA provides to the committee by the first quarter of the 2018-19 financial year the results of the staff survey undertaken in early 2018 and the APVMA's consequential action plan, and updated risk assessment matrix relating to its relocation to Armidale.

The APVMA acknowledges that its relocation will present risks to its ongoing operational efficiency. The committee is therefore interested in ensuring that these risks are accurately identified and managed.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all who have contributed to this inquiry by providing submissions or appearing at hearings.

I would specifically like to thank committee secretary Melanie Brocklehurst, inquiry secretary Joel Bateman and the secretariat staff for their hard work in preparing this important report to the parliament that I table in the House today.

I commend the report to the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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