Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers) Share this | Hansard source

Labor is unable to support Senator Hinch's motion. It is the job of the regulator in Australia, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, to assess the safety of compounds used in agvet products and approve their use. The regulator is responsible for the protection of the health and safety of all Australians and of our environment, animal and crops.

Once again, Labor puts on the record in the Senate that, unfortunately, public confidence in the APVMA is already in decline because of the Turnbull government's decision to forcibly relocate it from Canberra to Armidale. The best way to keep our community safe is to maintain the regulator's independence and to rebuild its capacity to do its work in the most effective and timely manner. The Turnbull government must make it a priority to restore Australia's confidence in the APVMA by reversing the damaging relocation of the APVMA. The APVMA CEO, Dr Parker, has already been forced to acknowledge that the APVMA cannot recruit the necessary regulatory scientists to work in Armidale. On 2 July this year, a statement from the APVMA announced:

"Our existing plans for teleworking, an enhanced reliance on external scientific assessors and recruitment into Armidale have not reduced our relocation risks to an acceptable level and more must be done," Dr Parker said.

"Retaining the knowledge and expertise of our scientists is essential to the effective operations of the APVMA and accommodating these specialist staff in a Canberra office further supports the APVMA to deliver its statutory obligations.

"I have advised the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the Hon. David Littleproud MP, that in addition to core regulatory operations to Armidale, we will retain a unit of 30 to 40 specialist scientists and decision makers in Canberra."

Labor has always said the forced relocation of the APVMA would risk the capability of the independent authority. It is important for the Senate to reflect on the word 'independent'. It is crucial that the Australian community can have complete and full trust in the regulation of agricultural chemicals. At the heart of that is a truly independent and scientifically competent regulator that is free from undue commercial and political influence.

The government has been reckless in the way it has forced the regulator to relocate to the former Deputy Prime Minister's electorate of New England, a decision that required a government policy order, a GPO—signed off by the finance minister, Senator Cormann, on 23 November 2016—to force it to relocate. The current CEO of the APVMA is now in direct conflict with the GPO, as it states that the APVMA must be located in a regional community and within 10 kilometres by road of the main campus of a regional university that is recognised for research and teaching in the field of agricultural science. The GPO defined 'regional community' to mean a community that is not within 150 kilometres by road of Canberra or the capital of a state. We also know it is in direct conflict because Dr Parker informed senators that no staff would be allowed to stay in Canberra. On 24 October 2017 former Senator Gallagher asked the following question at Senate estimates in relation to the APVMA relocation and concerns about retaining its highly qualified staff: 'As part of that you wouldn't be looking to maintain an office presence in Canberra of any sort?' Dr Parker said: 'No. That would be against the government order.' So what has changed? Is the GPO no longer valid or did Dr Parker mislead the Senate committee?

The Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources need to start taking the failing relocation seriously, otherwise Australian agriculture, our environment and the safety of all Australians and their pets will be compromised, but not because we think the staff will make poor decisions. The APVMA will continue to maintain rigorous and robust scientific assessments for managing the risks associated with chemicals used in ag vet products. However, the timeliness of decisions could be severely impacted, and this will have negative consequences.

With regard to the specific chemical brought to the attention of the Senate today, sodium fluoroacetate, or 1080, is a poison used to control vertebrate pests in Australia such as foxes, wild dogs, feral pigs and feral cats. It is a critical component of the integrated pest control program for foxes, wild dogs, feral pigs and feral cats. This is not only essential for farmers to protect their livestock but also to support effective pest control programs in Australia's national parks and reserves.

The chemical is already heavily restricted and controlled. This includes by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. The APVMA approval and registration provides that, when used in accordance with labelled directions, the product should not present any unacceptable risk to users, non-target animals or the environment more broadly. The APVMA's control scheme for this is already rigorous and comprehensive. The APVMA has classified it as a restricted chemical product to ensure that only authorised persons under the relevant state or territory law can use or supply 1080 products. State and territories also employ various regulatory and non-regulatory measures to ensure the product is used responsibly and in full consideration of risks to non-target animals. For example, in Victoria, a 1080 user must:

1. have completed recognised training (or be directly supervised by a trained and licensed person)

2. have a licence to use the product

3. obtain the product from an accredited supplier

4. use the product according to the Directions for the use of 1080 and PAPP pest animal bait products in Victoria

5. comply with the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 (Cth), the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992 (Vic), the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) and associated regulations.

Other states and territories have similar controls.

Like any pesticide, 1080 should be used as part of an integrated pest management program combining other control measures. Integrated pest control might include trapping, better fencing and other options. Chemical alternatives are limited, although PAPP became available in 2016. 1080 remains in use in several other countries. New Zealand uses 1080 to control possums, rats, rabbits and deer. The US uses 1080 to control coyotes. Mexico, Japan, Korea and Israel use it for rodent control. The product's possession, sale and use is heavily restricted in Australia. This is appropriate. It remains an important tool for agriculture and natural resource management. It is inappropriate for the Senate to call on the government to regulate chemicals in Australia. As already stated, this is a job for independent regulator.