Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development (Senate)) Share this | Hansard source

I just want to say one thing before I make my contribution to the debate on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017. That was a magnificent speech from Senator Ketter. I tilt my hat to you, Senator Ketter, because you have said everything that needs to be said. This bill does have Labor's support. We've supported it all the way. It came to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, which I chair ably backed up by Senator O'Sullivan, Senator McCarthy, Senator Chisholm and Senator Brockman.

Some things in this building are unbelievable. It's like Groundhog Day. You get that horrible feeling, 'Here we go again!' Hollywood couldn't even make this rubbish up. The light has to be shone on this shemozzle that has been the forced relocation of the APVMA. Before senators opposite get all excited—you might have the odd senator who makes things up; not you, Senator Colbeck—I'll make this very, very clear. Labor has absolutely no opposition to relocating government agencies to the regions. Why not, if there's a perfect fit? It creates employment, it creates opportunity. Absolutely. I know that's been done with fisheries, and we don't hear a boo out of the RDFC and not a drama from us. But this one here is one of the worst examples of stupidity from a minister who is so far out of his depth that he can't even hide his pork barrelling efforts.

I'm referring to former Senator Joyce, Mr Joyce, when he was the Minister for Agriculture. I have said to Mr Joyce on a number of occasions that there are a lot of good things he could be doing—not that he is—but this is one of the dumbest ones. The APVMA's work ethic is unquestionable. It's not doubted. It does a magnificent job. We've always said that. We've always supported the APVMA for the role that it plays. The APVMA consists of nearly 200 employees all up, I think. I'm just trying to remember. There's been that much going on lately. Of that, there are some 60-odd—I think it was 65; that's the number that comes to my head—scientists that work for the APVMA. Senator Ketter mentioned that under Ms Arthy's time in leadership a survey was put out through the APVMA asking who would be prepared to leave Canberra and relocate to Armidale. I've never been to Armidale. From what I've heard, it's a magnificent, wonderful, friendly place—and that's great. But you can understand that, for whatever reason, a lot of people do not like to be uprooted, let alone go from state to state or out to the regions. That is their business, whether it's that they have kids in school, elderly parents they want to look after, family, friends or everything in a certain area. They were employed in that area and that's why they went there. So for the minister to pork-barrel the movement of the APVMA was, as Senator Ketter said quite rightfully, a 'forced relocation'. I think there were about seven scientists who said, 'I will move,' or, 'I will think about moving.' As to the good folk of Armidale, I don't know if there are another 60-odd scientists waiting in Armidale to be employed. I have no idea.

I want to keep shining the light on the stupidity of this, because it's been a series of cluster muck-ups which we have argued about in Senate estimates. I'm sure there are other senators here who sit in rural, regional affairs and transport estimates with me. We have been asking questions about and debating this topic of the forced relocation of the APVMA to Armidale for three years, I suppose. It's not a secret that we have estimates three times a year. So there have been at least nine occasions in Senate estimates where we have been trying to work out how the heck the APVMA can function as it's meant to function when it's 50-odd scientists short.

Rain, hail or snow, the APVMA was going to Armidale because it was Mr Joyce's pet project. It got to the stage, which Senator Ketter also mentioned, where everyone realised it was just not sustainable. So they put the building up for sale and moved everyone out. What's the next thing they did? They found, I believe, that some of the staff from APVMA in Armidale at the time were working out of McDonald's. You might say, 'Well, that's pretty normal for government departments,' but I haven't heard of it. But, anyway, they were relocated to McDonald's in Armidale for a little while. I'm not blaming the department. They've got this bucket of mess they're trying to sort out. Then they find out: 'Now we are going to have a satellite office left in Canberra, so why the hell did we move? What was that all about?' I will tell you what it's all about. The APVMA, in the best interests of serving their master—I think their master should be the farmers who rely on them, but anyway—desperately tried to defend it and tried to paint it up, putting hundreds and thousands on this certain sandwich. But the truth of the matter is that the jobs have not been filled. So, if anyone knows where we can find 58 or 60 scientists around Australia, can you put out a sign saying, 'Dear so and so, ring this number.' I say this clearly: I cannot see how the heck this is going to operate. I have no idea. The answers have not been coming back. I understand the department are desperately trying, like I said, to protect their minister's stupid decision. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Let's dig a bit deeper. I could go on all day. I will again try to get answers in Senate estimates. There's been cloudiness around this decision. One thing I want to bring to the Senate's attention—and it has everything to do with the bill—is that, when the government put out its Senate amendments, it clearly said in the sheet that the government amendments 'will have no financial impact on the Australian government budget'. To me 'no impact' means not one single cent shall be spent on it. They go on to say that the costs to establish and maintain the board will be met through the APVMA's cost recovery arrangements. At the last Senate estimates—was it the last Senate estimates or the time before?—we tried to drill down to get some answers out of the mob and found out that that's not the case. They clearly said that the government will have to fund the first year to run this board—sorry, I should have said this governance board that they've invented.

Sorry, I'll take a step back. Here we are: non-contro, all in agreement to do the best we can and assist our farming communities, who rely on the APVMA. And then, all of a sudden, after we've finished the inquiry, up came the government with the brainwave that they're going to introduce a board of governance—sorry; I should have said that earlier in the piece—to which the Labor senators are quite clearly asking, 'Why do we need a board of governance?' There are a lot of questions around that that we'll be asking later through Senate estimates.

If something's operating extraordinarily well under the circumstances—and I listened to Senator Ruston's contribution, when she went out of her way to make sure that we on this side and everyone else listening knew that the number of approvals by the APVMA has significantly improved. They're doing a great job. She actually mentioned five of the last quarters and how it's improving all the time. Don't forget that there's a satellite office down here in Canberra where most of them are working out of. So, if it's improving significantly, why the heck do we have to have a board of governance when we've never had a board of governance at the APVMA? To me—and I'm not standing on the outside looking in but sitting on the committee that handles all this stuff—no-one's ever criticised the APVMA's ability to do its work and do its job properly. That says to me that obviously the brainiacs in the government—and I'm using that term really loosely. In fact, I shouldn't even mislead the Senate by using the word brainiac about Mr Joyce and that mob over there. Tell us, Mr Joyce or Mr Littleproud or someone else, for crying out loud: if they're doing so well and are markedly improving, why do they need a board of governance?

Now I'll come back to this: I want to know who's on it, when it's going to meet and what it's going to do. When someone doesn't need a board of governance but someone else wants to give them a board of governance, it just sounds to me like another red wine club. Is this just another job for the boys? Are there are couple of mates—I don't know. I've got no proof. No-one answers the questions. But it sounds to me like someone's being lined up for a cushy little job and might get paid a few bob to go to Armidale twice a year and have a meeting to talk about I don't know what. This is where the $600,000 charge comes in. At the last round of Senate estimates the officials clearly said that the APVMA will not be funding it. The federal government will be funding the first year of operation to the tune of $600,000. I've never been on a board, so I don't know how much it costs to fly board members to Armidale—board members who we don't even know. I don't know the price of accommodation in Armidale, but I wouldn't think it's as outrageous as Sydney. What the hell is the $600,000 for? Can someone tell me? I bet they can't. I'll tell you what I'll do, Mr Deputy Acting President Brockman. I'll bet you a $5 scratchie that we don't get the answers. I know you sit there and think, 'Now, Senator Sterle, that's a bit unfair—