|
representatives vote 2019-11-28#15
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-01-10 10:44:11
|
Title
Bills — Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Board and Other Improvements) Bill 2019; Second Reading- Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Board and Other Improvements) Bill 2019 - Second Reading - Stop Joyce MP from speaking
Description
<p class="speaker">Joel Fitzgibbon</p><p>I rise to speak on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Board and Other Improvements) Bill 2019. I move:</p><p class="italic">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</p>- The majority voted against the following [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2019-11-28.66.1) in respect to New England MP [Barnaby Joyce](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/new_england/barnaby_joyce) (Nats):
- > *That the member be no longer heard.*
- Since this motion was unsuccessful, Joyce MP could continue speaking.
<p class="italic">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House criticises the Government for repeatedly failing to legislate on agricultural matters in a timely manner".</p><p>At first glance, there is nothing particularly controversial about this bill, but it does indeed contain some quite controversial matters—the least not being the establishment of an advisory board for the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority and the relocation of that very authority from here in Canberra to Armidale, in the electorate of the member for New England, with all the consequences of that politically charged decision and led of course by the member for New England.</p><p>What a coincidence it is that the authority was not moved to the Hunter electorate, or to the Parkes electorate or to the Hinkler electorate or to the electorate of Lyne. No, it was moved to the electorate of the member for New England. I'm sure all those other members I've just mentioned—and the members for Nicholls and Maranoa—could have had the APVMA as well, but, no, it went to the electorate of the then Minister for Agriculture. I won't use his name, because that's unparliamentary.</p><p>But the core of this bill is to reform and make more efficient the process for regulating and approving veterinary medicines and the chemical sprays we rely on so heavily in the agriculture sector to protect our crops and our livestock, and of course to deal with invasive weeds and pests. That extends right through to domestic companion animals; when you take your pet to the vet, they use medicines which are regulated by the APVMA. So it is a very important institution. Of course, the opposition agrees with the components of the bill which are designed to streamline those processes and to maximise the benefit of the work of the authority for rural and regional Australia—for the agriculture sector and indeed for Australians more generally. As I said, we all benefit from a system that delivers these agvet chemicals, as we call them, in a timely and effective way.</p><p>The APVMA is a body which has always struggled. It is typical of a government entity—too often underresourced and with all the difficulties that come with that for those dedicated people who work in our Public Service. One of the interesting things about the APVMA, of course, is that it relies on the recruitment and retention of highly professional and trained regulatory scientists and lawyers who work in an area quite unique and rare. They themselves are rare professionals, and even prior to the relocation of the APVMA the authority was struggling to secure and retain the staff it needs.</p><p>So you can imagine the impact when the former minister announced that he was packing the authority up and moving it to Armidale, so far away. Immediately, a very large number of people—I don't have the numbers with me today, but I've cited them in this place before—left the authority. Some of them were easily replaceable because they were working in areas where that skill level is more common. But with respect to the regulatory people—the scientists, the lawyers—it was obviously a far more difficult task. If I remember correctly, it forced the authority to go on a global search for those professionals, because too many of them here in Canberra—who of course have partners also working in the Public Service or elsewhere in Canberra, and who typically had kids in schools here in Canberra—decided not to take up the offer to move to Armidale, but to stay here and easily secure a job anywhere they liked. Obviously there are some very big corporate players in this space that would give just about anything to secure some of the very, very competent, professional and highly qualified people we had, and still have, in the APVMA.</p><p>The extraordinary thing is that things got so bad at one point that the government decided to breach its own government policy order—the order which determined that the APVMA could no longer be based in Canberra. This is the instrument that was used to relocate the authority. The Minister for Finance said that the authority could not operate within 100 or 150 kilometres of Canberra—I forget—and had to be within so many kilometres of a regional university. Those distances were interesting, because it didn't leave too many options other than Armidale, as you could imagine, although there were a couple of other areas that should have qualified and did qualify. I think Toowoomba may have been one of them—I might stand corrected. There were a few options, but it was obvious from day one that it was always going to be going to Armidale in the electorate of the member for New England. Again, that policy order says it can't be in Canberra. The APVMA can't work in Canberra. They can't congregate in Canberra. I remind people that at one stage they were meeting in a McDonald's in Armidale, but they weren't allowed to congregate in Canberra. Then, of course, the government decided that it was not working, so, in breach of their own policy order, they started allowing some of these highly professional people to work in Canberra—surprise, surprise. I don't have an updated figure, but I think there could be up to 50 people now with the APVMA working here in Canberra in clear breach of the government's own policy order.</p><p>When we asked about this in committee, Dr Parker, the CEO—the member for New England's hand-picked CEO—informed us that he had legal advice to suggest he could do this. Now, have a think about that. I ask members—it's very nice to have so many of them here today—to think about that. The former member puts in place a policy order that says you can't work for the APVMA in Canberra, and when it doesn't work, as we predicted, the CEO starts employing people in Canberra. And when we ask in committee, 'How is this so?' the CEO says, 'Oh, I've got legal advice to say I can do that.' Well, the first question is: why did he need to do that?</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>It works very well, actually.</p> <p class="speaker">Joel Fitzgibbon</p><p>I hear the member for New England interject. He says it's working very well. The first question is: why did he have to work outside the government's own policy order? If he has legal advice, you'd think he might like to share it with us, Mr Deputy Speaker. You'd think he might like to share it with us, but no, he couldn't do that. This is so typical of this government. We're not allowed to see the coalition agreement. The Australian people don't deserve to see the very agreement that allows this mob to form a government. No, we can't do that! Secrecy under this government has reached a new, low ebb. We couldn't see the legal advice. As we speak, we have 50 people working for the APVMA in Canberra because, as we predicted, they weren't able to establish the workforce in Armidale.</p><p>Police investigations are pretty topical at the moment. I haven't made any phone calls—I just want to make that declaration now. I haven't made any phone calls. There is an ongoing police investigation into the APVMA relocation in Armidale, because it seems, and I make no assertions, to find a block of dirt big enough to accommodate the building required—the building which no doubt is not quite full, because 50 people are still working in Canberra—they needed two blocks of dirt, not one. They had one block of dirt, but not two. The problem was there was a nightclub on one of them. They weren't able to build the complex on one block. They needed the two. I don't know about assertions about the coincidence—it may be just that—but somehow the nightclub burnt down just at the right time for the Commonwealth to pick up the second block and build this new building in the electorate of the member for New England. Because I've made no phone calls, and wouldn't dream of making a phone call, I don't know where that investigation is up to, what the substance of the investigation is and whether it's likely to come to any certain conclusions. I don't know because I haven't made the phone call. We do know, and this is not a secret, that the main suspect in the fire died very shortly after. So the police lost its key witness in the investigation, but it is ongoing. In fact, I think it may have transferred from the New South Wales police to the Federal Police. I might stand corrected on that. But the investigation is ongoing.</p><p>This relocation to Armidale has been somewhat of an eventful one—in fact, a very, very eventful one. The question is whether those who rely on the APVMA to ensure that they receive their ag chemicals in a timely way, have benefited in any way. Of course, the answer is no. The answer is clearly no.</p><p>By the way, I've seen Dr Parker regularly at the airport flying to Canberra. He was going to be located in Armidale, we were assured of that. He probably does have a house or a flat or duplex in Armidale I suspect. But I see him flying to Canberra a lot.</p> <p class="speaker">Matt Thistlethwaite</p><p>He could have that million dollar bill.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|