Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 3:49:08 to 4:00:36
Officials discuss the APVMA's failure to meet statutory timeframes for major pesticide applications and the transition to a full cost-recovery model. The impact of the multiple formulations rectification program on agency resources is also examined.
Topics: Cost recovery, Agricultural research and levies, Public service staffing
Speakers: Scott Hansen, Hon Matthew Canavan, Senator Ross Cadell, Speaker 22, Unknown Speaker, Interjection, Speaker 18
>> thank you very much. You >> have to start there a bit. Thank you for your explanation about the countries that are always rolled out that have banned it and the reasons behind that. When they say the USA state that banned it, I think it was Oregon was the one that they didn't do that for scientific reasons either. It was a legislative ban in America, wasn't it? That single
>> Yeah. So, Vermont and Vermont, sorry. Um yeah, I mean the US EPA is due to finalize their most recent update on [snorts] Parakquot in coming year. >> Um that'll be the most recent US regulatory assessment.
>> Okay. Thanks very much. On that um when did you receive a cane growers emergency permit for parakquot for cane growers?
>> Uh within the last two months I'd say.
>> What's the status of it today? still
being considered.
>> Do you know is there an ETA on what that might be done?
>> Not not at the moment. No, sorry. But but obviously as an emergency use permit, it it it's one of the top priorities for us. So yeah.
>> When's the next spraying season for >> Don't know.
>> I believe it starts in February.
>> Do we have any hope expectation that it might be done by Feb?
Uh we're having engagement with the members of the Kane industry and um we will we're expecting to receive some additional information um that will need to be assessed.
>> I mean you nailed ZP50 you did that in about 3 weeks I think on emergency application. Is that because the information packets were better and what how did you do that so quickly?
>> Uh so it's probably the fastest one we've done so far. >> Yeah. recently has actually been the um bird flu with penguins which was done in 12 hours. Um but the um zinc phosph was able to be done because we had um GC both funding work through CSRO and ongoing monitoring that gave us comfort about if something did start to go astray, it would be monitored quickly and we'd be able to take action. So um for us it's all going to come down to having the right amount of information to provide us with comfort around how do we mitigate some of the risks that we have already identified >> and that's what we've been talking to the cane industry about um and to the various bodies within the cane industry about how they can work collectively to assist us
>> application handling and is that the main areas that the >> y okay understood um can I just say before we pass on we'll try to speed that a bit and get through but thank you for the thoroughess and level of your answers gives a great deal of confidence the way the organization goes about and I've really enjoyed it tonight. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. I'll be quick just on the u uh uh approval time frames. Um uh could I get the um approval or the percentage of approvals made within the statuto time frames for major applications separately to other applications? Y what have you got for that? >> what are the figures at the moment? >> I've got you meeting your stat frames for 75 odd% of applications in quarter 2 and 80% in quarter 3, but I just want them separately for the major pesticide
>> Uh yeah, so quarter So where'd you get up to? Quarter two
>> or quarter two and quarter three I've got figures for overall.
>> Okay. Well, then quarter 4 is 23 uh 27.3%.
>> For major.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, it's a well below the 90% target. Uh
>> very much so.
>> Are you seeking additional resources to lift up to that percentage?
>> Yeah, definitely. Look, we're not satisfied with those current time frames and we know how important predictability of them are.
>> Okay. Well, I understand you have received additional funding for 2627, but something for that year. uh the discussions about having that renewed
>> Yes. So what we've done is we've brought in we've had an approval in the budget for 2627 to increase our average staffing levels from 195 to 222. We've brought in additional contractors to assist us with um our expenditure on ESRs. So, uh, is up at 1.3 million. The budget for this year is 1.4. As a reference point, 2425, it was 650,000. So, more than double in terms of using ESRs. Um, we're prioritizing what's in most important and we're having to do all this. Well, so we're dealing with emergency use permits, all the minor use permits. Most of the conversation we've had tonight, the ones, twos, 27s. Importantly, we're doing things other than just approving um applications from chemical companies. We've taken 1,500 illegal products off the shelves. We've done five chemical reviews, which is more than was done in the seven years prior. We've suspended a permit. We've taken undertaken 324 compliance investigations. So, we're doing the full suite of the regulatory remitt that we we should be doing. We're not happy with the time frames that we've got at the moment. the the problem we've had in those last two quarters as um I think I mentioned here last time we uncovered a historical issue with the chemical register in which registered products had multiple formulations against the single registered product almost 1500 um sorry 1,00 products were impacted by that and the problem we had with it is 30 June um each year we have to look at the register and say does everything still meet the statutory criteria and we were going to lose those products were not going to be able to be renewed if we didn't get them um fixed.
>> So I was going to ask maybe was I was going to ask for that because your March quarter report said that this process the multiple formulations rectification program will put your on-time performance under renewed stress. >> So how many staff have you taken staff off assessments to uh to uh conduct this uh rectification program and if so how many staff have been reassigned? 75% of
the business was involved in this for four months. >> We're all back like well I say all those who are still having to clean up after us are um are still doing the finalization on a number of them. But out of 1100 products that we end up having to create um over 500 brand new products within a 100 day period as well as go in with the assistance of the industry um the companies themselves and and um adjust formulations whilst maintaining the legislative compliance um of over 700 of them. I think we're down to 12 products that we
>> So will the costs of that be passed on to industry of this rectification program? >> Right. What what do you have a cost of that?
>> That that'll be those costs will we we have been collecting them. >> Um it's both the direct cost of the staff involved.
>> Do you have a cost of the rectification program?
>> Yeah. um for this financial year and I have to take on not it's just over $800,000 that it's cost us.
>> Okay. Uh we'll maybe take on notice what budgeted cost is for the last whatever how long it's been going and future if you've got it. Um uh I might put the other questions on notice. I think just turning to the quiz on um the upfront fees changes. I asked the department about this earlier. I believe there's consultation that occurring but is this consultation on whether or not to move to the upfront fee model or whether or more about how it's implemented.
>> So for us the consultation was about the implementation of >> so decisions been made to move to an
upfront model >> that was a decision of government. the
the announcement to move to 100% cost recovery to ensure that every applicant was paying the cost of their application being assessed because again I think we talked about this the fact that >> almost half of all the products that we've considered and registered don't end up being sold here in Australia. >> Um and so they only ever pay 40% of the cost of registration then let those products that are being sold here carry the weight. Well, it's actually not the products. It's the farmers who are buying those products and the households are buying those products, pay the levy um to sort of subsidize their cheaper access here so they can take it elsewhere around the globe having had an OECD regulator approve it.
>> I can understand that but um my understanding is the NF does not support these new changes as do a range of producer groups. So how do they have their maybe it's a question for the government then how do they have their views considered here when apparent decisions already been made?
So our consultation has been how to best implement this.
>> I know but how do the how does the how does the position of farm groups get considered by the government then
>> in terms of the
>> well whether or not to move to this upfront model compared to the I mean these group these are the people paying the levies as as uh Mr. Hansen has said but they don't seem to support changing
the model. Uh I mean fundamentally um the decision of government um around the cost recovery settings for the APVMA was um in part informed by the rationale that Mr. Hansen provided you with and in part bringing um the cost recovery settings for the APVM AP APVMA in line more broadly with cost recovery policy of the government. So um that they they are the fundamental underpinnings of of what supports the quiz which was the basis of the consultation which APVMA went out with.
>> Okay, I might leave it there. Thanks chair. We'll have some others on notice I think there.
the upfront fees, farmers are saying of me that when there are two versions of the similar product, I'm not saying, but there was a pellets and a liquid and one they got the more expensive margin one approved and they withdrew the didn't go back and get the the lower margin approved for the cost recovery model. Are we going to see more of that potentially where it costs the farmers are paying for it because they're paying for the more expensive model under the
upfront model? Uh so that's and I guess >> the we can only assess the applications that come to us. Um so the decisions and the behaviors of companies as to what they bring when they bring it and how they bring it to market like I I have >> little um oversight or in few of so >> thank you. Well, I mean the the farmer's consultation in our CR process has been asking us what what could we do about implementation to try to ensure that access to innovative chemicals isn't lost. But I think we've all heard um numerous times that access to innovation chem or chemicals that are innovative largely hinges on us being able to be predictable and fast in our time frames. And that's what we're we're working really hard to do.
>> Thanks, Mr. Hans. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.