Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014. The question is that the bill stand as printed.

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

I will just recap where we are up to. Yesterday, Senator Xenophon asked a series of questions around the impact of this legislation and the impact of the amendments which repeal the re-registration process. He was particularly focused on the impact of pesticides and chemicals on bees, given the concerns around hive loss and bee decline, which we do not have a lot of numbers around. I have a series of questions around some of the chemicals that are banned in the EU and other places around the world and claims that Senator Colbeck made yesterday in the debate that, in fact, they had not been banned. So I will just flag that I have got some questions there.

I now move amendment 1 on sheet 4785:

(1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 14), after item 31, insert:

31A At the end of section 31 of the Code set out in the Schedule

  Add:

(4) The APVMA must, as soon as is reasonable after the commencement of this subsection and in accordance with this Division, reconsider:

  (a) the approval of an active constituent for a proposed or existing chemical product, if subsection (5) applies to the active constituent; or

  (b) the registration of a chemical product, if subsection (5) applies to the chemical product.

(5) This subsection applies to an active constituent or chemical product if, at the commencement of this subsection, the active constituent or chemical product:

  (a) is included in Schedule 7 to the current Poisons Standard (within the meaning of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989); or

  (b) is categorised as any of the following under the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals of the United Nations:

     (i) Category 1A or 1B carcinogen;

     (ii) Category 1A or 1B germ cell mutagen;

     (iii) Category 1A or 1B reproductive toxicant;

     (iv) Category 1 chronic hazard to the aquatic environment; or

  (c) is included in Class 1a or 1b of the WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard of the World Health Organization; or

  (d) is listed in Annex A to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, done at Stockholm on 22 May 2001, (the Stockholm Convention); or

Note: The Convention is in Australian Treaty Series 2004 No. 23 ([2004] ATS 23) and could in 2014 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).

  (e) taking into consideration the criteria in paragraph 1 of Annex D to the Stockholm Convention, exhibits the characteristics of persistent organic pollutants; or

  (f) is listed in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, done at Rotterdam on 10 September 1998; or

Note: The Convention is in Australian Treaty Series 2004 No. 22 ([2004] ATS 22) and could in 2014 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).

  (g) is a controlled substance (within the meaning of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, done at Montreal on 15 September 1987); or

Note: The Protocol is in Australian Treaty Series 1989 No. 18 ([1989] ATS 18) and could in 2014 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).

  (h) is an active constituent or chemical product possession of which is generally prohibited under the law of Canada, the European Union, New Zealand or the United States that corresponds to this Code; or

  (i) has shown a high incidence of severe or irreversible adverse effects on human health or the environment.

This amendment seeks to address some of the concerns that we have with the repeal of the re-registration. I will just describe what the amendment does and go through it in a bit more detail. We believe that there is no doubt that some agricultural and veterinary chemicals have damaged human and environmental health—and I do not think anybody in this place has argued that that is not the case—and that they continue to pose risks both to human health and to environmental health. Risk management, we believe, 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, commonly known as the APVMA, to reflect contemporary science in toxicology and regulatory approaches and reflect approaches that happen in other countries. We are concerned that this is currently not the case.

Yesterday I went through in a bit more detail how some of the chemicals and pesticides that are currently on the register have been grandfathered. Despite claims to the contrary, they have not been adequately assessed and, if they were assessed a significant period of time ago, some of that information has now been lost. There is absolutely no doubt that we have chemicals and pesticides currently in use in Australia that do pose unmanageable risk. There is also no doubt that the current more ad hoc approach that is taken means that assessment of agricultural and veterinary chemicals and pesticides has been taking a significantly long period of time.

Our argument is that not only does that long period of time mean that those chemicals are being used in the environment, continuing to affect human health and the environment, but the length of time and doubt that has passed over the continued use of these pesticides and chemicals ties up resources of farmers. It means that farmers and industry are not encouraged to look for other alternatives to management. That may be area wide management, which we are talking about with fenthion, and in that process you may not just be looking for one solution. Without the re-registration scheme and its associated regulations, 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 in which to operate, this poses further risk.

The amendment that I have moved here is in fact no substitute for a proper re-registration scheme, but it will add to the criteria for reassessment; it will operate to ensure that there are some clear and transparent criteria for the APVMA in its decision making about whether it should go ahead and reassess.

Progress reported.