THERAPEUTIC GOODS BILL

Mr PERRETT (Gympie—LNP) (5.19 pm): I rise to speak briefly on the Medicines and Poisons Bill and the Therapeutic Goods Bill. These cognate bills will change regulatory frameworks in a number of matters and bring them into greater alignment with a national approach. The Medicines and Poisons Bill is a significant piece of legislation as it will rescind and substitute existing legislation and introduce new frameworks. It is always important that, when we do this, we do not impose further unforeseen restrictions, including costs, on the daily operation of businesses and people’s lives. This should not be another excuse for government to increase burdensome red tape on business and small operators.

The explanatory notes state that among the objectives are to provide greater assurance that the products are regulated to meet public safety expectations, to ensure that Queensland Health is better able to monitor and respond to risks associated with the overuse and access to medicines and poisons, to simplify licensing requirements, to streamline requirements for prescribing medicinal cannabis and to make regulations meet uniform national standards. In particular, I note the objective that the existing fee structure is converted into the new regulatory framework so that there are no new additional or increased fees. For example, fees for primary producers who hold a licence or approval will not change.

A number of these changes will impact a wide range of industries such as the agricultural sector, pest management and veterinary services. We are talking about occupations such as pest management technicians, primary producers who carry out pest management activities and landholders who have an approval to use regulated poisons. While the LNP does not oppose the bill, there are concerns that some of the elements in it are incomplete and references to subordinate legislation and standards need to fill in more detail.

There are a number of department standards for using substances and meeting competency and training requirements. Industry stakeholders are concerned about the impact this could have on landowners, land managers and rural businesses. They have raised issues such as training costs, accessing training in rural and remote areas and the high percentage of those who are older who have to meet competency obligations, burdensome paperwork and the IT and literacy levels needed to meet these requirements. The rural sector needs time to adjust to this framework, to complete training and to conduct an awareness campaign. Marie Vitelli of AgForce told the committee—

Under the proposed regulations and standards, users will require those two levels of competency. Like everything, everyone is busy. Everyone needs to access the training. The registered training organisations—the ones that do good delivery—are out there, but they are going to be inundated.

…

We need time because it is a new requirement. It is a bit like when they brought in the chainsaw licensing requirements … It took a long time for people to do that competency. Please give us time. There has to be awareness. A lot of rural people do not even know about the proposed changes.

Consequently, recommendations 5, 6 and 7 ask Queensland Health to liaise with our peak rural and agricultural industries to run awareness campaigns, to develop tailored guidance and education material, and that the minister outline measures to make sure that the rural sector has enough time to comply with the new standards. Pest management is a routine part of primary production. Primary producers regularly have to use poisons, baits and other measures. The committee sought clarity on the impact that these changes will have on primary producers and the use of poisons such as Roundup and 1080 baits. The explanatory notes state—

… primary producers will continue to be able to use pesticides or fumigants in compliance with label instructions approved by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority.

This was confirmed by the Chief Health Officer, Dr Young, who said that primary producers or their agents—

… can carry out a pest control activity or fumigation activity on land owned or occupied by the primary producer without requiring a licence, for example, when the primary producer sprays fruit using a pesticide to protect the fruit from insects.

A pest management licence will not be required if you, your agent or employees undertake pest management activities on your own properties. Neighbours who provide in-kind services in relation to pesticides will be considered an agent of the property owner and therefore also do not require a pest management licence. Agricultural groups are concerned about the public register of schedule 7 poisons.

Marie Vitelli from AgForce said—

There is a risk that a public register could be misconstrued and used against producers, especially when we see the increased level of activists invading farms and sometimes when pet owners are quick to blame someone for the death of their pet dog if they suspect toxicity. A public register of producers with some of those restricted schedule 7 substances, such as 1080, PAPP and strychnine, could be misconstrued and that puts people at risk.

She continued—

We do not want that information to be made public. It is a bit like knowing what you might have in your medicine cabinet at home with some of the high-level schedule 7 substances. Would you like that to be on a public register so anyone can know what is in your home?

…

I am not saying that you should not have it on the register; just do not put it out on a public website.

This is a highly sensitive issue, especially considering the rise in illegal protests and militant activism and protests by animal extremists. While Queensland Health has advised about discretion available from the chief executive, I urge extreme caution about the publication of poisons on private rural properties. I do not oppose the bill.