How Tony Abbott voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should, in relation to agricultural and veterinary ('agvet') chemicals, implement a mandatory scheme for the re-approval of active constituents and re-registration of chemical products to ensure their ongoing safety

Division Tony Abbott Supporters vote Division outcome

15th May 2013, 1:43 PM – Representatives Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 - Consideration in Detail - Agree to the bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree to the bill as amended.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the members can now vote on whether to read the bill for a third time and therefore pass it in the House of Representatives.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced to implement one of the Government's 2010 election promises. This promise was made in response to recommendations of the Australian National Audit Office and the Productivity Commission.(Read more about the background to the bill in its bills digest. )

It amends the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code (the Agvet Code) which is a Schedule to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 to:

  • through a risk-based approach, improve: the consistency and transparency of the process for making, and assessing, applications for approval of an active constituent for a proposed, or existing, chemical product; and the registration of a chemical product and approval of a label for the containers of a chemical product

  • insert a new requirement that existing approvals and registrations operate for a finite period and, when that period has elapsed, a new application must be lodged for re-approval or re-registration and

  • update existing offences, create new offences and insert civil penalty provisions.(Read more about the background to the bill in its bills digest.

)

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

15th May 2013, 1:36 PM – Representatives Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 - Consideration in Detail - Remove re-registration process

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Nationals MP John Cobb, which means that they were rejected.

In his explanation of the amendments, Mr Cobb said that the Coalition "is strongly of the view that the only way to achieve the stated aim of the bill to increase efficiency and speed up the review of high-risk chemistries is to remove the reregistration process."(Read Mr Cobb's full explanation of his amendments here. )

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced to implement one of the Government's 2010 election promises. This promise was made in response to recommendations of the Australian National Audit Office and the Productivity Commission.(Read more about the background to the bill in its bills digest. )

It amends the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code (the Agvet Code) which is a Schedule to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 to:

  • through a risk-based approach, improve: the consistency and transparency of the process for making, and assessing, applications for approval of an active constituent for a proposed, or existing, chemical product; and the registration of a chemical product and approval of a label for the containers of a chemical product

  • insert a new requirement that existing approvals and registrations operate for a finite period and, when that period has elapsed, a new application must be lodged for re-approval or re-registration and

  • update existing offences, create new offences and insert civil penalty provisions.(Read more about the background to the bill in its bills digest.

)

absent No Not passed by a small majority

How "never voted" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Tony Abbott was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.