How Ron Boswell 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 Ron Boswell Supporters vote Division outcome

25th Jun 2014, 12:32 PM – Senate Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Read a second time

Show detail

The question now is that the motion moved by Country Liberal Senator Nigel Scullion, as amended,(See that amendment to the original motion (which was "That the bill be now read a second time") here. ) be agreed to. The amended motion was:

"That this bill be now read a second time but the Senate calls on the government to:

(a) explore the establishment of a systematic process of assessment within the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) for existing agriculture and veterinary chemicals similar to the Inventory Multi-tiered Assessment and Prioritisation process established under National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme; and

(b) appropriately resource the APVMA to apply the framework and conduct reviews."

Passing this motion means that the bill has now been read for a second time, which means that the majority agree with its main idea.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) The Senate can now discuss the bill in more detail.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced primarily to remove the requirement for applications to be made to re-approve active constituents or re-register chemical products.(Read more about the bill and its background on its bills digest.)

This requirement was inserted into the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 by the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Act 2013.

absent No Passed by a modest majority

28th Jun 2013, 11:08 AM – Senate Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 - Third Reading - Read a third time

Show detail

The majority agreed to a motion that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the majority of senators agree with the bill and want to read it for a third time, meaning that is passed in the Senate. Since the bill has already been agreed to in the House of Representatives, it will now become law.

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

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 Ron Boswell 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.