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

I'm sure it was, Senator Sterle! The chair then asked:

… then each subsequent year it goes to cost recovery. Are you opposed to that model?

Mr Cossey said:

We're happy to look at all measures that will seek to improve the operational efficiency of the regulator. There are two issues here, and in the context of this inquiry it's why I make the point of separating them. One is about their scientific technical competency and the other is about their efficiency.

Mr Cossey went on to say:

We have never been on the record criticising or questioning their scientific or technical competency, because they've never given us a basis to do so. We are on the record, in any criticisms of the APVMA that we have made, specifically as to efficiency and timeliness. My view is that the original bill, that is now being amended in the Senate, was an important bill. I understand it was supported by all sides of politics.

And that's correct. I mentioned that in the earlier part of my contribution here. Of course, it is important to again note that this bill has been hanging around since October 2017. Mr Cossey was quite right when he said that it was supported by all sides of politics. Then we have this extraordinary intervention by the government with this very ill-thought-out amendment that we're looking at today. Mr Cossey goes on to say:

That should have proceeded as is and the issue of a governance board been dealt with as part of the second part of streamlining, with a broader look at all the measures that could be undertaken to improve the operational efficiency of the APVMA.

We are obviously concerned about any extra costs being put into the system, because they either act as inhibitors to bringing products to market—and on that point I already note that a third of the full costs of research and development for a new product are directly related to costs of regulation. If we are proposing measures that are bringing more costs into the system, that are being borne by registrants and, hence, then on farm, we need to be assured that they will deliver real efficiencies.

The chair then asks:

Just to clarify, I don't think I've heard anyone speak ill of the APVMA's technical work, not at all. It's just been the time of—wanting to get clearance, so we've got that clear. Did you say you were consulted by the government or you weren't?

Mr Cossey says:

We were. We don't support, necessarily, that initiative at this point.

The chair again clarifies:

Is it the governance board?

And Mr Cossey responds:

The governance board. We believe it should be part of a broader efficiency package, that we look at how the whole agency works. I think it's important to note that the APVMA is not without a range of corporate governance oversight at the moment. There is the audit committee which is externally appointed and works with the CEO. There is a range of government committees in there. It is more that we would like to work through the issue as part of a range of other reforms.

It couldn't be clearer, really. It couldn't be more clear. Senator O'Sullivan then asks Mr Cossey:

… you said earlier that you are not opposed to the governance board—in fact, you supported the concept. Yours is an issue around timing only and cost recovery?

And Mr Cossey is quite clear; he says:

No. We don't yet support the actual concept. We think that it needs to actually prove that it's going to deliver value as part of the broader structural changes in the regulatory system.

Advice from the minister's office claims: 'The APVMA has not been performing at its optimum for a number of years and there are long-standing issues with its operation and management. Its current financial position is unsustainable. Its ICT operating environment is at the point of critical failure. Its performance is poor, having never met its legislative timeframes, and it has struggled to implement major reforms.'

The fact is the APVMA has been devastated by the former agricultural minister's ill-thought-out pork barrel. It has devastated this organisation, the APVMA. Labor urges the government to remove the amendment to establish the governance board and to properly consider the benefit of establishing the governance board, because it's quite clear it hasn't been properly considered. We've already heard Mr Cossey's evidence that they do not support the concept, so I'm not sure why the government is continuing to push this amendment and is not going back and doing proper consultations.

Labor urges the government to remove the amendment to establish the governance board and to properly consider the benefits of establishing such a board. The questions have to be asked as to what evidence does the government have that a governance board will help reset the organisation, improve its operation and management, and position it to become a modern and sustainable regulator in regional Australia?

Mr Barnaby Joyce has devastated the capability, the capacity and the functionality of the APVMA because of the pork barrel relocating the APVMA to his own electorate. The industry, farmers and the Australian community should not continue to pay for the member for New England's poor and ill-thought-out pork barrel.

What evidence does the government have to support the claim that the skills and experiences provided by highly experienced board members will support the APVMA as it implements its new business operating model in Armidale to deliver a more efficient and effective regulator based in regional Australia? What other regulator has a governance board? If there is another cost recovered regulator which has a governance board, who pays for the governance board? How will the governance board ensure that the APVMA's ICT operating environment recovers from the point of critical failure? Why has the government chosen not to pass the Agriculture and Water Resources Legislation Amendment Bill 2016, as it was this bill which sought originally to abolish the APVMA's advisory board?

The government should reconsider its amendment, and I've set out clearly why the government should reconsider this amendment to this bill that we have before us and put forward the establishment of the APVMA's governance board in a standalone bill—one that is properly consulted on with stakeholders. I believe it's very important to give confidence to the organisations that are stakeholders within the APVMA—to give confidence to them that the government will go back and introduce a standalone piece of legislation around the establishment of an APVMA governance board. This will allow the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017 to pass the Senate ASAP.

We already know that, originally, that piece of legislation had bipartisan support. What we have now is an amendment—I think it's actually an amendment to an amendment—that the government has put in, in my view, without proper consultation and without a clear understanding of what stakeholders are saying out there. We've just heard, and I've just read into the Hansard, their views on it. Mr Cossey was very clear—he said it on a number of occasions—that they did not support the concept of a governance board at this point in time.

It's an easy fix for the government: all they have to do is to come in here with a separate bill, one where they have actually taken the time to have considered and consulted with organisations. It's clear that this hasn't been the case. They've had this bill, the original bill, hanging around since October 2017. It was passed in the House on 12 February 2018, so we're a year on. Now they've managed to really—I was going to say 'cock it up', but I'm not going to say that! So I urge the government to reconsider their position.