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

I rise to speak on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017. The bill before the Senate was first introduced in the other place on 25 October 2017 and passed on 12 February 2018. This week is the anniversary of the passing of this legislation from the other place. It should have been, but that is not the case. Labor supported the original bill in the other place and sought to progress this piece of legislation as non-controversial, as the bill had bipartisan support. The bill has been listed in the Senate on a number of occasions since February 2018, and, if it had come to a vote prior to May 2018, would have passed without this ill-thought-through amendment that seeks to implement a governance board. No coherent rationale has been provided by the government as to why the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA, needs a governance board.

Given that this bill was first introduced in October 2017 and passed the other place in February 2018 and that we are a year on, it is very important to look at the original intent of this bill as it was before this very ill thought out amendment before the Senate. The bill sought to make minor and technical amendments to a number of acts: the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 and the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Products (Collection of Levy) Act 1994. The explanatory memorandum stated that the amendments would:

… realise operational efficiencies, reduce unnecessary regulation, clarify ambiguities and remove redundant provisions.

There are a number of other things that this bill sought to do. The bill has finally come to the Senate, but we have an amendment that seeks to implement a governance board on the APVMA. Initially, the reason was that the government would be replacing the advisory board with a governance board, which would position the APVMA to become a modern and sustainable regulator. Only someone kidding themselves would believe that statement. The idea that a governance board would achieve it is an absolute joke. If the government is serious about resetting the APVMA, it needs to have a serious look at the challenges that are currently facing the organisation due, as everyone in the Senate would know—it's been well discussed inside and outside parliament—to the forced relocation from Canberra to Armidale.

The government must consult properly with industry and stakeholders who deal directly with the APVMA with regard to the establishment of the governance board. We know that the government has a poor record on properly consulting with industry and stakeholders. They themselves have amended their own amendment. During a public hearing by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee into the independence of regulatory decisions made by the APVMA departmental officers were found out to be either misleading the committee or unaware of the outcomes of consultations. They stated:

Industry have indicated to us that they're satisfied now and that they no longer have any objections to the board.

Yet the industry body for crop protection, when it was asked to confirm the department's position, made clear, at this stage:

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.

By anyone's reckoning, that is not support for this move to introduce a governance board. I'm not sure how the department evidence came to be so wrong. Perhaps they were unaware of the outcomes of the consultations? But it is clear by that statement that they were very wrong in the information that they gave the committee.

Given that, I feel that it is very important that I read the following into the Hansard transcript so that the chamber understands there is not widespread industry support for the governance board. This is from a Hansard transcript from 20 November 2018. The chair asked:

Can you tell us what process the department undertook to determine that the establishment of the governance board of the APVMA should be implemented via an amendment to an existing bill in the Senate?Ms Gaglia said:

As we've stated, that was a decision by the minister.

The chair then asked:

Just the minister. Is the department aware of any concerns from stakeholders relating to the implementation of the governance board, particularly with regard to perceived or actual interference in the independence of the APVMA?

Ms Gaglia said:

Certainly, up until the time we submitted the revised amendments, that was the case. Industry had made it quite clear to us that they had concerns that the way we had drafted the original amendments didn't make it clear enough that the board wouldn't be involved in the day-to-day regulatory decisions of the APVMA, hence why we've altered and revised the amendments. Industry have indicated to us that they're satisfied now and that they no longer have any objections to the board.

Yet, later that day, the industry representative body for crop protection clearly stated that they do not support the creation of the board at 'this point in time'. Further on in the same committee, the chair then asked—