Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity to table a supplementary explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (4) on sheet TK188 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 14 (after line 11), at the end of section 34KA, add:

Powers may be conferred on the APV MA

(5) In relation to an extension of a protection period, or ending such an extension, the regulations may confer a power to make a decision of an administrative character on the APVMA.

(2) Schedule 1, item 25, page 14 (line 28), omit "Instead, an extension of a limitation period must not occur unless,", substitute "One of the circumstances in which there may be an extension of a limitation period under the regulations is if,".

(3) Schedule 1, item 25, page 15 (after line 10), at the end of section 34MA, add:

Powers may be conferred on the APVMA

(5) In relation to an extension of a limitation period, or ending such an extension, the regulations may confer a power to make a decision of an administrative character on the APVMA.

(4) Schedule 1, item 36, page 21 (lines 7 to 15), omit subsection 5F(1), substitute:

(1) The APVMA may arrange for the use, under the APVMA's control, of computer programs for any purposes for which the APVMA may, or must, under this Code:

(a) make a decision of a kind determined in an instrument under subsection (1A); or

(b) exercise any power, or comply with any obligation, related to making a decision to which paragraph (a) applies; or

(c) do anything else related to making a decision to which paragraph (a) applies or related to exercising a power, or complying with an obligation, to which paragraph (b) applies.

(1A) The APVMA may, by legislative instrument, determine kinds of decisions for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a). The APVMA may, in that instrument, also determine conditions of use of a computer program as mentioned in subsection (1).

(1B) The APVMA must take all reasonable steps to ensure that decisions made by the operation of a computer program under an arrangement made under subsection (1) are correct.

Note: In addition, subsection 1A(2) of this Code sets out how this Code is to be implemented (which covers the making of an arrangement under subsection (1) of this section).

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Minister, I raised in my second reading contribution that the advisory board for APVMA already exists under the previous administration act but that the government has failed to appoint positions to this board for a number of years. The last appointments expired in 2015. Do you agree with this, and can you explain to the chamber why there have been no appointments to this board now for the last six years?

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just before I call the minister: Senator Whish-Wilson, your sound is coming across quite muffled. I think that the minister understood what you were asking but, if not, she can seek clarification.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, were you asking me if I agreed to setting up the board as proposed in the bill, and asking why the government hadn't appointed anyone to the advisory board over recent years?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I absolutely agreed with setting up this board as the appropriate model of governance. Every other Commonwealth entity of this type has a similar governance arrangement to that we are proposing in this bill. I think it will give the right level of oversight, accountability and transparency and also ensure that the role of the CEO of the APVMA can focus on the day-to-day duties and leave that largely governance oversight to the appropriate mechanism in the board.

As to why vacant positions on the advisory board that have existed in the past have not been filled, obviously that's been a decision of government. As you know, currently there's a nine-person advisory board. It had no legislative powers to direct any course of action. So it being in existence or not didn't actually result in any direct kinds of specific actions out of the CEO. The course we've taken is appropriate. It's taken some time to get agreement to the changes that we have proposed. They're before the Senate now and, rightfully, we're looking for the Senate to support them.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Minister, you haven't explained why the government hasn't appointed anyone to these positions previously. I ask you again: why have there been no appointments in the last six years? I understand why you are setting the board up now. But why didn't you use the previous act to set up appointments to help the CEO of the APVMA?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said in my previous answer, there are two reasons. There was a decision of government, specifically, by current and previous agriculture ministers. As I said, the advisory board had no legislative powers to direct any course of action. The APVMA already has the ability to consult with stakeholders without that advisory board. As such, while the advisory board created considerable costs, it actually didn't necessarily serve that regulatory function and the government made the decision to cease the board on this basis. That is why we're now putting in the actual governance board that we are—because, as I said earlier, it was a decision of government and the advisory board, as it stood, couldn't direct in the way that you may think it might have been able to, Senator Whish-Wilson.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Well, it may have been able to if it had actually been set up. Minister, you mentioned it was a decision of government. I want to raise again the concerns that were raised by the Labor Party and the Greens during the 2019 inquiry into the bill by the rural and regional affairs committee:

The APVMA Governance Board will not have the power to independently set the APVMA's strategic direction, drive its operational performance, set an appropriate risk management framework and ensure greater accountability. Under the proposed legislation the Minister will continue to have the power to direct the APVMA and will be provided with the power to direct the board in the performance of its functions.

Is this still is case with the bill before us today? Will the minister be able to direct the APVMA governance board once it's set up?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will still be able to direct the APVMA governance board.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I understand this is designed to assist the APVMA's CEO. But what's the point of appointing a board with various levels of expertise if the minister can still direct it—for example, in relation to its strategic direction, its operational performance, its risk management framework and its accountability? Will decisions of this board be made public? And will there be transparency around what it advises the minister?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister can already direct the Chief Executive Officer, and there are a range of other functions that the board will be conducting. All the directions of the minister will be published in the annual report, so it won't be a heavy level of direction, I imagine, from current or future ministers.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] So the directions of a minister might be published in annual reports, but will the advice of the new APVMA board also be made public? Will the minutes of board meetings be subject to orders for the production of documents, or other processes?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My advice it that it is just the directions from the minister that will be published in the annual report.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] There was concern raised—and we went through it in the second reading debate—over the many reviews we've had over the years, including the previous Senate committee inquiry into the 2019 bill and the inquiry into the bill before us today, that this APVMA board might be stacked by the minister, or by the government, especially in favour of industry. You may be aware, minister, there were very strong criticisms in relation to Minister Littleproud's first principles review into this issue, and that review has led to this legislation today. What assurances can you give that the construction of this board, that constitutes the advice, will be independent of industry? By that I mean the chemical industry, that makes these veterinary and other chemicals that are applying for registration.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As was said in the second reading speech, this will be a skill based board. This is a regulatory body that regulates chemicals—so not to hear, take on and listen to advice of those involved in that industry wouldn't result in functional regulation into the future.

We need to make sure that the regulation of agvet chemicals in this country is safe, sustainable, good for human health, good for animal health and good for the environment. That's exactly what this advisory board skill set will do. They also need to have a range of skills, including risk management and public governance.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Minister, going back to that first principles review by a panel of experts, much of which has been incorporated in the legislation today, are you aware of concerns that the panel's mandate prioritised costs to industry over the environment?

There were questions raised over its chair, Ken Matthews. I and others asked questions about this in Senate estimates, and Mr Matthews has publicly acknowledged concerns about potential conflicts of interest. He was recently the chair of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council of Australia, whose members include some of the biggest producers, importers and users of pesticides. They include CropLife Australia, AusBiotech and the National Farmers Federation. He acknowledged that environment groups were cranky about his appointment, but, in fairness, he said he didn't believe the industry was pleased with this report.

What assurances can you give us that this panel, given Mr Littleproud's record in relation to the panel of review, will be independent of industry?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've already answered, the fact that this will be a skill based board and that industry is an important voice within the regulation of these types of products. I hope you're not suggesting that the APVMA doesn't use the very best regulatory science on which to base its decision about the safe and sustainable regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals in this country. Internationally, Australia is known for basing its decision around these matters on science, and that underpins so much of our successful trading relationships, particularly in agricultural products. I've already answered the question, with respect to the skill set of the board.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I raised it in my second reading speech as well, Minister. Expert groups such as the National Toxics Network, which is basically made up of scientists, believe Australia has a very lax system of control of agricultural chemicals and we're out of lock step with other countries such as the EU, the US and Canada.

For example, there's new information coming to light—I always leave these things to the scientific process, Minister. I don't criticise scientists. I think it's their job, through a scientific process, to be constantly critiquing each other's—hopefully—independent research. You may be aware that last Friday, only a couple of days ago, there was a new report out of the EU. It highlights that only two out of 11 herbicide studies given to EU regulators are now deemed reliable. So nine out of 11 studies that were used for the regulation of these chemicals, on further review under the scientific process, have been shown to be unreliable in terms of looking at the impacts on human health. I can send the chamber a copy of that report. If I were there, I would seek to table it. My point is that the scientific process is ongoing, and it is a factual point—a point of significant controversy both in Australia and elsewhere—that industry contributes to and pays for research studies into its own products.

My question is on the theme I just raised. I meant very seriously what I said in my second reading speech about farmers being the most at-risk cohort in human health from the use of pesticides and herbicides. Of course, pesticides and herbicides can have broader environmental impacts when they get into rivers and streams, and they potentially impact soil health—something I was very familiar with as a grapegrower myself. Have there been any studies done looking at farmers as a cohort and cancer rates in farming communities versus other controls in other parts of our community? Have there been any health impact studies on farmers, who use these chemicals more than anyone else?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, you've traversed this particular broad topic in many Senate inquiries, not just related to this bill. Your question in no way relates to the bill before the Senate today. The whole point of having a body like the APVMA and an efficient and effective regulatory framework is that primary producers across the country will be safely able to use chemicals on farm.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Minister, I'd ask you to reconsider your response. The question I'm asking is absolutely critical, pivotal and fundamental to this bill that we have before us today. No-one is impacted more by potential health impacts from the use of herbicides and pesticides than farmers. They're used in weed control by local governments and there are other cohorts who use them, but farmers are essentially the key people using these products. So if there's a lax system, or a suboptimal or substandard system for registering products that could potentially be dangerous to human health, then that is exactly what we're debating today. So I would ask that you reconsider and I will ask the question again. Have there been any studies done on cancer rates in farmers versus controls or in other community cohorts?

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, do you have any further questions?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Unless I have a second voice, I probably won't get to ask more than one more question, but I will just put this on record. Yes, you're right, Senator McKenzie, the Greens have raised these questions and these issues over many years; however, I haven't because I'm new to the portfolio within the Greens.

From my own personal experience as a grape farmer having used these chemicals, and that of all my mates I went to boarding school with who were farmers, I know that this is a significant matter of interest amongst the farming community. They're the users of these products. On the other side, of course, we have the producers who manufacture them and who want to get them to market and make as much money as possible. Then in between we have scientists and other experts. My point that I will finish on is: it's not the APVMA I'm criticising, Minister, it's your government.

You've taken seven years to bring this legislation before the parliament today. I'm not sure why there's been a lack of urgency to get this legislation passed. I'm not sure why it has sat on the NoticePaper for months and months and has always been pushed to the bottom of the pile. I think farmers' health, as well as the health of the environment and the health of our ecosystem, is an absolutely critical, acute thing that we need to be debating and addressing. I, my party and many stakeholders out there feel that today is a missed opportunity to have that serious debate.

I'll put on the record that I know Labor were moving amendments today. I understand those amendments have been withdrawn. They've come to some arrangement with the government and they're leaving it to the government to use its discretion as to how it appoints that board. I have no faith that your government will prioritise the interests of farmers and the health of the environment over the interests of big industry. That has always been your modus operandi since I can remember.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.