Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Committee is considering the amendment moved by Senator Siewert on sheet 7485.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, if you recall, when we finished on this last session I was halfway through speaking on my amendment. I see the minister looking at me a bit strangely. I think I will go back to the top of my comments on the amendment so that we can reacquaint ourselves with where we were up to.

So this is an amendment. As you would be aware, the Greens are opposing this bill because we are concerned that the process is in fact taking us backwards in how we deal with ag-vet chemicals in this country. If this bill is going to succeed, which I understand from the numbers it probably will because the ALP are not supporting their own changes to the process, my amendment seeks to put in place a process to deal with chemicals that are judged to have unmanageable risk and those in the highest risk category.

We believe there is no doubt that some agricultural and veterinary chemicals have damaged human and environmental health—I do not think that is in dispute—and continue to pose risks to both. Risk management should be at the core of any registration program, and those chemicals that pose unacceptable and unmanageable risks should not be permitted in Australia. We want the approach to risk taken by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA, to reflect contemporary science in toxicology and regulatory approaches in other countries. We are concerned that this in fact is not going to be the case.

Without the re-registration scheme and the associated regulations which this bill pertains to, there is still too much discretion being given to the APVMA to determine undue hazard to the safety of people and the environment, without a suitable framework under which to determine that risk. This amendment is no substitute for a proper re-registration scheme, but it will add to the criteria for reassessment and will operate to ensure that there are some clear and transparent decision-making criteria to guide the APVMA in its decision making about what to reassess.

This amendment asks for the reassessment to occur as soon as possible but is not time bound. This is less constraining than the re-registration process, which would have required the APVMA to undertake reassessment of those high-risk chemicals within 12 months. This amendment also calls on the APVMA to monitor what is happening internationally and to engage in reassessment when the UK, New Zealand, the USA or Canada bans a chemical product.

This amendment builds on the criteria we negotiated with the previous government, which were circulated to members, and is an attempt to build on all the work that has been done to get a more thorough process in this country. We supported the work that was previously done. We are disappointed the ALP is no longer supporting its own amendments. In fact, there are many chemicals that still need to be assessed and we are now going to tie up both the community and producers in ongoing debates and campaigns to get chemicals assessed, whereas through the previous amendments that were made in this place we had a proper process.

What we are trying to do is build an assessment process so that all people who are concerned about these issues actually understand the process and so there is a more defined process. At the moment, with the government taking away the amendments that were made, we are being taken back essentially to the bad old days when we all had to campaign to get chemicals assessed. There are still a number of grandfathered chemicals and, despite what both the ALP and the government have said, there are many chemicals that were grandfathered and that have not had contemporary assessments. As I articulated earlier, some of the previous work has been lost, so we do not know which chemicals were looked at by states. I commend the amendment to the chamber.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously the government is not supporting the Greens' amendment, and Senator Siewert acknowledged that in her remarks. I would like to reiterate a few points from what we said earlier and to counter some of the statements Senator Siewert has just made.

The government are not taking the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-Approval and Re-Registration) Bill 2014 right back to where it was prior to the Labor Party's amendments when they were previously in government; what we are doing is removing the compulsory reregistration process because we do believe there are sound procedures in place with which to manage agricultural chemicals. I do not think we differ from the Greens in requiring them to be safe for use, but we do think it is important to remove the compulsory reregistration process, as we have said before, because it is an excessive layer of regulation.

We can take into account and we do take into account what happens in other countries. I think that is a very important point to reiterate. Senator Siewert would probably know, having sat in estimates, that there are some actives that are not available for use in Australia that are available for use in other countries, so in some circumstances we do actually lead other countries. I recall the quite intensive discussion around omethoate that we had at Senate estimates a couple of years ago. At that time it was still available for use in New Zealand but was being removed for certain uses in Australia because of our concerns about the potential health impact on children. There was large discussion about its use on tomatoes and about our tomato exports to New Zealand.

We do have systems in place in Australia to deal with adverse events. I know Senator Siewert understands that. Given that we do take into account what happens overseas—we can take into account data that is produced overseas and events that occur overseas, such as a genuine prohibition in another country—that provides parameters for safe and sound use of agricultural chemicals in this country. It is important to note that studies have indicated that up to 20 per cent of our agricultural production could be lost without the use of agricultural chemicals. They are a very important element in our food security. Yes, we need to make sure that they are managed properly. Yes, we need to make sure that they are safe and have proper efficacy. The government believes the action it is taking with this legislation actually provides a sound regulatory framework to deal with the proper safety measures for agricultural chemicals but without overregulation.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not detain the chamber very long. We have been debating the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-Approval and Re-Registration) Bill 2014 on and off for a while. I want to make a couple of short points. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture was not meaning to suggest that the Greens are opposed to all chemical use with his comment that if we did not have chemicals we would lose 20 per cent of our production. We certainly do not come from the position that we need to stop all chemical use. We appreciate, and are fully aware of, the role that chemicals do play. We are concerned around the use of toxic chemicals in production. I will not go into the nature of the debate, but Fenthion is a classic example. The debate on that has been going on for 15 years. I think that is too long. It has delayed the industry being able to move to find alternatives. I do not want to see that happen with other chemicals.

I acknowledge that the minister is correct in saying that Australia has led other countries in some areas—I absolutely agree with that—but in other areas it has not. There are still a number of chemicals that are used in this country that are no longer in use in other markets. We believe we need a better process. We think this is a step backwards. We think we need a stronger process in place and that is why I moved this amendment. I understand the government is not going to support this amendment. We will be watching this process very carefully to see how the APVMA go about their assessment processes from now on. We think it is not going to be in the best interests of the industry in the long term because we think we will be back to the trenches fighting over particular chemicals rather than having a clear process for the assessment of chemicals, particularly those with unmanageable risks.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.