Are the chemicals used in the fire ant eradication program truly “not toxic”? I raised this question with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) during the last senate estimates.
Pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene are targeted insect growth regulators. Said to be safe for soil microbes and non-accumulative in the food chain, they are toxic to insects (including bees and native ants), fish, and aquatic invertebrates.
Regarding frogs and water bodies, it was acknowledged that specific protection statements apply near water.
Following reports from constituents in southeast Queensland regarding devastated beehives and contaminated watercourses, the APVMA admitted to receiving several adverse experience reports, which are typically referred to the QLD government for investigation.
The APVMA has agreed to provide redacted public reports and redacted adverse experience files along with QLD government responses.
We must ensure that proper oversight and the environmental safety of our local communities and ecosystems are front and centre when using chemicals.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got some questions on pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene. A member of the Queensland based Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program told me recently that the chemicals used in the program, being pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene, are not toxic. What are your findings?
Mr Hansen: They’re certainly toxic if you’re an insect, because they’re targeted insect growth regulators.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I thought.
Mr Hansen: They’re identified as having low toxicity for terrestrial vertebrates and non-target terrestrial plants and have no adverse impacts on soil microorganisms. If you’re a soil microorganism, you’re pretty well safe and that statement would hold true. If you’re an insect, then they’re an insect growth regulator and they’re pretty toxic.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Fire ants are insects.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Are your findings based on independent research in Australian conditions?
Mr Hansen: That’s publicly available research from around the globe about these chemicals in terms of the assessment of their toxicity and the hazards that they provide. They’re globally recognised definitions in terms of their categories.
Senator ROBERTS: All insects including bees and Australian native ants?
Mr Hansen: It’s targeted to insects, but it’s not targeted, so ants and other susceptible insects that are stopped from maturing into breeding adults are all captured under that.
Senator ROBERTS: And bees; bees are insects?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What about frogs? Are they affected? Have any studies been done? Mr Hansen: It’s toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. That’s why we’ve got some protection statements on use of these products where they’re registered for use in terms of aquatic environments and water bodies.
Senator ROBERTS: Frogs are aquatic?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What about other animals within the food chain, including bird life and chickens?
Mr Hansen: It’s not a secondary impact; it’s not as though it accumulates through that food chain.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘secondary impact’?
Mr Hansen: An impacted ant being consumed by a bird is not going to be impacted by the ant having been treated.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the chemical itself, because it’s sometimes put with—
Mr Hansen: That comes down to this balance between the hazard and then the exposure. For bees, whilst it is hazardous, the impacts are generally not considered to be significant because of the lack of significant exposure pathways, particularly where it’s a granular formulation being used. It is this balance between both the inherent hazard and the exposure that creates the risk.
Senator ROBERTS: What about chickens eating the meal that’s got chemicals in it?
Mr Hansen: Again, it is really a targeted insect growth regulator. It has low toxicity to terrestrial vertebrates, but I’m not sure how much meal you’d want to feed a chook.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s a question mark?
Mr Hansen: We don’t have it on the label that it’s able to be used that way. The safest thing on this one is if you’re following the label instructions or the permit instructions it should be safe to everything except for the target species that it’s aimed at.
Senator ROBERTS: Constituents have told me that the use of either of the chemicals has been fatal to these examples in their experience, the ones I’ve just asked you about, including the devastation of many beehives and the contamination of watercourses. They’re probably accurate?
Mr Hansen: We’ve certainly had a number of adverse experience reports lodged with us with regard to the use of the products. In all those cases, we’ve referred them to the control of use authority up in Queensland to investigate. Is it the use of the product or is it how it was used that has created the risk? That’s something that the Queensland government’s been looking at.
Senator ROBERTS: Are we able to get on notice a list of reports that you have from the public that don’t reveal their identity, especially from southeast Queensland?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Does APVMA have a monitoring role in assuring that pesticides that you approve are used appropriately and safely for the environment?
Mr Hansen: We do so far as when we receive adverse experience reports or we see reports we ask the question: is this something to do with an unanticipated behaviour of the chemical? For example, florfenicol might be picked up in non-target species a long way away. We have a role in stepping in and asking, ‘How is this working? Why did this happen? What can we do to mitigate the risk?’, in which case we suspend the permit. For the vast majority, however, it is the control of use. That falls to the states and territories, which have the responsibility for controlling and ensuring people comply with the label or the permit instructions.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you respond to those complaints? Do you either deal with them or investigate yourself?
Mr Hansen: No.
Senator ROBERTS: The first category?
Mr Hansen: Yes. In the first category where it gets brought up to us, typically we put the onus back on the applicant to say, ‘This is the concern that we have. Can you provide us with information that satisfies us that your product, used the way it’s supposed to be used as per the label or the permit, isn’t having an adverse impact?’ They come back to us with information or data that either satisfies us or not. If they can’t satisfy us—again using florfenicol as the example—that they can mitigate that risk, then we no longer are satisfied that permit meets the statutory criteria in the legislation and we suspend or cancel the permit.
Senator ROBERTS: In the other category, you just sent instructions to the state saying, ‘What are you doing?’
Mr Hansen: We’ll send them the report and say, ‘We’ve received an adverse experience report. This is the report. Can you look into the potential use pattern and work out whether this is a control-of-use issue, that is, it’s been used inappropriately or it’s been used incorrectly, or whether it’s been used appropriately and we’re getting an adverse outcome that we wouldn’t anticipate and wouldn’t expect.’
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have a copy, again with names redacted, of the reports you’ve sent to Queensland and the responses that Queensland has given to you?
Mr Hansen: I don’t see any problem with that.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to commend the witness for direct, succinct and reasonable answers.
After raising concerns about the use of Pyriproxyfen in the fire ant prevention program, I was told by CEO Scott Hansen (APVMA) that it should not be used as a preventative measure—even after I pointed out that this is exactly what’s happening in South-East Queensland under the Queensland Fire Ant Eradication Program. I also presented evidence of widespread breaches of the permits governing the use of these chemical poisons.
In addition, I raised concerns about confusion in the permits regarding the use of chemicals near and in waterways, particularly given that S-Methoprene is highly toxic in marine environments.
Mr Hansen made it clear that treatment responsibilities fall under state jurisdiction and that the Commonwealth does not exercise oversight over how these chemicals were used. While there is a Commonwealth–State partnership, he explained that governments rely on international safety data rather than local studies. He confirmed that permit requirements are currently under review.
Mr Hansen also advised that complaints can be submitted through the Adverse Experience Reporting Program, and noted that there are currently 28 reports under consideration relating to fire ant concerns.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. My questions are about red fire ants and about the chemical side of things. I note that the permit number PER87728, related to the permitted use of the chemical pyriproxyfen, says, ‘Do not apply as a preventative for red imported fire ant control.’ This being the case, why is it being spread widely by aerial and ground application to properties where no fire ant activity has ever been identified by people from the national fire ant eradication program, in breach of the permit?
Mr Hansen: That’s an issue I think we talked about last time. The prophylactic use of that chemical is not available under that permit and that needs to be referred to the control-of-use authority, the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the effect of this chemical, pyriproxyfen, to persons who have respiratory or autoimmune diseases when applied in close proximity to them?
Mr Hansen: If applied as per the label it’s quite safe, but if applied in close proximity to them then there would obviously be concerns for them.
Senator ROBERTS: What Australian research has been done in relation to the effects that this chemical has on humans?
Mr Hansen: All of those products are either variations of existing registered products or under permit and have been assessed against the safety criteria for humans, but, again, all of those uses are as per the label requirements, in terms of our assessment for safety to people and safety to the environment.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve said that they’ve been assessed relative to Australian requirements, but that doesn’t mean that Australian research has been done, does it?
Mr Hansen: No. In some cases, we’ll use international benchmarks and international research—that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: I note that the first Australian permit number, PER90213, related to the permitted use of the chemical S-methoprene, says: ‘Do not apply where fire ant populations are not evident or no longer evident.’ This being the case, why are people from the National Fire Ant Eradication Program insistent on applying the chemical on properties where no fire ant activity has ever been or is evident, in breach of the permit?
Mr Hansen: That sounds as though it’s in breach of the permit conditions and should be raised with the Queensland government with regard to control of use.
Senator ROBERTS: Why must baits be laid only where it is not possible for poultry to have direct access to the baits? Is it a poison to birdlife? What about our native birds?
Mr Hansen: I’m not able to answer that one.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know the impact on birds?
Mr Hansen: Again, all of the assessments as to environmental impact will have been taken into account, with regard to controlling those risks, via the conditions on the permits. I don’t have that permit in front of me. There are 13 permits that we have issued, at the moment, with regard to chemicals for use in the red imported fire ants control program.
Senator ROBERTS: I have a lot of questions that might shock you if I raise them, but, in the interest of speed, I will continue. I’m confused by this permit because, on one hand, it says that treatment may be applied into waterways up to 1.5 metres from each bank, yet, in the same permit, it states that the chemical is very toxic—emphasis on ‘very toxic’—to aquatic life. How can both of these statements apply? Waterways in Samford Valley near Brisbane have already been contaminated and the aquatic life wiped out.
Mr Hansen: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: It seems a contradiction: you can apply it close to waterways but you can’t apply it in waterways, and it’s very toxic.
Mr Hansen: It is, but there is a slight difference between ‘close to waterways’ and ‘in waterways’. But let me take that on notice and have a look at that permit for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What action have you taken to prevent a repeat of the contamination of waterways?
Mr Hansen: Again, once we set the directions on the permit, it’s the state and territory governments whose responsibility it is to control and ensure that the permits are used in accordance with those instructions. If we receive information that that’s not the case, we forward it to the control-of-use authority—in this case, the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: What agency in Queensland would have responsibility and do you have direct oversight of them?
Mr Hansen: Not oversight. All states and territories are partners in the national registration authority scheme, and we supply that to Queensland DAFF biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Just for your information, it’s not working in Queensland, because only yesterday the program’s staff used a drone to dump poisons directly into a waterway.
Mr Hansen: I heard that evidence being given earlier.
Senator ROBERTS: Why has there been no Australian environmental impact study done in relation to the application of both of these chemicals?
Mr Hansen: Because if we can run off the back of good international data we will do so, if it makes sense to do so. If we need to tailor it to the Australian environment, then we do do so before we make a decision.
Senator ROBERTS: Why hasn’t it been done?
Mr Hansen: In that case, it would be either that we are confident in the ability to use the international data for our assessments or we’ve been able to tweak the international data to factor in Australia’s native wildlife and environment.
Senator ROBERTS: This is not being critical of you, because you have got limited authority in Queensland, but how do you know that Queenslanders are complying with it?
Mr Hansen: That’s something for the control of use, and, unfortunately, we don’t police the control of use; that’s for the state and territory governments.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s no accountability? I’m not saying you’re—
Mr Hansen: There is, but it’s at the state and territory government level.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right. The federal government gives them money and the states use it without oversight.
Mr Hansen: I think that there is a shared oversight there. The use of chemicals under permits that we issue sits with the state and territory governments—in this case, the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that in 2001, when fire ants were discovered in Brisbane, a decision was made to attempt eradication based on a study and modelling predictions made by USA’s RIFA program which predicted that the ants could spread throughout the majority of Australia? An off-label permit may be applied for to use a chemical in a way that is contrary to the manufacturer’s instructions for minor use, for emergency use or for the purposes of research. Is that true?
Mr Hansen: The last piece, on the permits, I’m confident about. The first piece I’m not sure about.
Senator ROBERTS: What evidence was provided, do you know, to support the proposed limited permits? Was it data from the failed USA RIFA program?
Mr Hansen: I think it would have been environmental data and human toxicology data from around the globe with regard to those chemicals. Given the fact that the majority of those chemicals were registered products that are now being used in an alternative way, we would have looked at the original suite of data that was provided when they were registered as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I like your answers. They are direct. The chair will be very happy, I’m sure. In 2001, according to Mr Craig Jennings, the principal policy officer at the Fire Ant Control Centre, the total area to be baited during the eradication program was to be 71,000 hectares. Within the area, he said, 1,236 properties were found with infestations. By August 2004, over one million property treatments had occurred and the area had ballooned to 850,000 hectares. If the off-label permit allows for limited use, how did the APVMA consider this expansive area as limited?
Mr Hansen: There are two pieces on that. The first piece is that whenever permits expire they come back up for consideration and we look at the scope and scale of the program and how they’re going to be used. On that front, we are currently reviewing a suite of the key permits that we have in play at the moment because there’s obviously been an indication from across the program for a rapid ramp-up of both size and scale of response and we need to make sure those permits remain appropriate to that size and scale.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you do your due diligence to make sure Queensland is compliant, or how do you get the evidence to change the permit-use factors?
Mr Hansen: We look at what the proposed use pattern is. What kind of area are they talking about it being used for? How are they looking to apply it? How frequently are they looking to apply it? We factor all of that into our health assessment and environment assessment and work out if it is still appropriate for use.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you go on site up in Queensland?
Mr Hansen: No, we don’t. We get the plans that they submit to us with regard to how they intend to use it and we run that against our assessment criteria.
Senator ROBERTS: In addition to pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene, permits for Chlorpyrifos and Fipronil were provided by the APVMA—two highly toxic chemicals. On 3 October 2024, the APVMA made a regulatory decision to remove the use of Chloypyrifos for most agriculture and pest use ‘due primarily to worker health and safety and environmental risk that the APVMA does not believe can be mitigated’. There was a 12-month phase out period for remaining products. Has this poison use now ceased?
Mr Hansen: The permit held for Chlorpyrifos expires in line with that phase-out date.
Senator ROBERTS: In 2000 a number of products for use around the home were cancelled. In 2019 all home, garden and domestic uses of Chlorpyrifos, as well as uses which could result in exposure to children, were cancelled. Why, if they knew of concerns, did the APVMA allow the use of these chemicals in treating homes, farms, parks, sporting fields and agricultural land?
Mr Hansen: Because the requirement for that treatment was people who were qualified and trained to carry out the treatments as opposed to allowing people to buy it off the shelves from their local retail stores and do it themselves.
Senator ROBERTS: The material safety data sheet for pyriproxyfen states that the chemical is for R&D use only. It has a rating of ‘H410 Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects’ and ‘P273 Avoid release to the environment’. Section 13 says: ‘Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal and do not discharge to sewer system.’ The APVMA is most certainly aware of this, and so why, for 25 years, has it permitted these chemicals to be used?
Mr Hansen: Again, we would have conducted the assessments against the controlled use under the program and determined that they met the safety criteria.
Senator ROBERTS: Can we get, on notice, access to those records, please?
Mr Hansen: We can see what we can provide, definitely.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many people work within APVMA?
Mr Hansen: 226.
Senator ROBERTS: The APVMA has certain powers to manage and monitor compliance with the AGVET legislation and undertake enforcement activities when required. Is that correct?
Mr Hansen: Enforcement of the control of use in each state and territory is the responsibility of that state or territory.
Senator ROBERTS: So what I just said is not correct?
Mr Hansen: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you monitor compliance at all?
Mr Hansen: No, we don’t monitor the compliance. We work in partnership with states and territories. We make the assessments as to what’s safe and how to manage the risks of chemicals that are required. We put those controls onto a label. We then work with the states and territories, and they ensure it’s being complied with and they monitor—in part with other, broader scale monitoring programs like the National Residue Survey—to ensure that we’re seeing compliance across the board.
Senator ROBERTS: So no powers have been used by the APVMA—you don’t have any powers to ensure compliance, even within the permits granted?
Mr Hansen: We have powers to ensure compliance with regard to people who are selling, distributing and using registered products. But, in terms of the control of use of a registered product or a product under permit, that role and responsibility sits with the state and territory governments.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is there no public register for people to report their experiences with baiting?
Mr Hansen: There is. It’s called the Adverse Experience Reporting Program. It’s on our website. We’ve received 28 reports over the past year. They range from concerns about the impact on pets to their own health to the environment. All of those have been assessed, documented and forwarded up to the Queensland government as the controlled use agency.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you name that program again, please?
Mr Hansen: The Adverse Experience Reporting Program.
Senator ROBERTS: Who specifically is responsible at the APVMA for the authorisation of these chemicals?
Mr Hansen: Ultimately, the power in the legislation sits with me, and then I delegate it down to suitably qualified and technical people to make the assessments and make the judgements.
Senator ROBERTS: Who makes the final decision?
Mr Hansen: It’s whoever the delegate is on individual permits. It could be a range of people across the organisation.
Senator ROBERTS: Name the dangers of these chemicals. What has the APVMA done to monitor their impact on the environment and wildlife and the impact on the health of the communities affected?
Mr Hansen: Again, if we had evidence and data supplied to us that suggested—if they’ve been used in accordance with the permit conditions—that there were impacts, we’d reassess those conditions. If we’re getting evidence that it’s been used not in line with the permit conditions, then we raise it with the controlled use authority, that being the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: What recourse have you got if you learn that they’ve done nothing about it?
Mr Hansen: Ultimately, we have to consider whether we renew the permit, and at that point in time we consider whether the instructions and the conditions on the permit are able to be followed by those that have sought the approval for use.
Senator ROBERTS: So you might either cancel the permit or not renew it—
Mr Hansen: Or not renew it—yes.
Senator ROBERTS: depending upon whether it’s deliberate noncompliance or whether it’s impossible to comply with.
Mr Hansen: That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. Over a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money has been spent so far on a program that’s failing to eradicate fire ants. It has completely failed. They’re now into the Darling Downs and into the Murray-Darling Basin. They’re up in Central Queensland. They’re in northern New South Wales. It’s been a complete failure. The eradication has completely failed. Not only that but it’s done enormous damage environmentally and to the human community. When will the government stop wasting money and destroying the environment at the same time, and hurting people and hurting animals?
CHAIR: I don’t know that that’s a question for the officer. I’ll let the minister have a crack.
Senator Chisholm: We disagree with you, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: On the basis of what evidence?
Senator Chisholm: I know that there was evidence given earlier—and I wasn’t here for that; I apologise. But I know Minister McCarthy was. The reality is that the work is slowing the spread of fire ants, compared to what we’ve observed internationally. We think that work is important, and we’ll continue to work with the Queensland government on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I challenge you on what you just said. You said that the work is slowing the spreading. By definition, that means eradication has failed—completely failed.
Senator Chisholm: We think the work that we’re doing is important and we don’t want to see the fire ants spread, so we’ll continue to invest with the Queensland government on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, how can you say that the work is important when it has failed? The eradication program has failed. It’s even failed as a containment program.
Senator Chisholm: We’ll continue to do our work with the Queensland government, because we think it is important.
Senator ROBERTS: But it’s failed. How can it be important when it’s failed?
Senator Chisholm: You might want to give up, but that’s not what we will do.
CHAIR: I’d say at this late hour, Senator Roberts, that I would say thank you very much. That conversation will go around in circles. Mr Hansen, arrivederci.
Mr Hansen: Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: Thank you very much.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your concise and direct answers.
I inquired with the Australian and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) about the responsibility for the safety of chemicals. I was informed that the APVMA is responsible for the safety of the chemicals they issue permits for, while the States are responsible for their application and that permits are issued based on the safety data on the chemical labels.
I mentioned that there were discrepancies between the data in the safety brochures and the actual permits and was asked to bring that information to their attention.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I will just continue. What was going to be my second set of questions, I will do now because I will continue on from Senator Canavan. There is label use and there is permit use. Where are the Australian environmental impact studies for both these chemicals regarding widespread applications in South- East Queensland and northern New South Wales? Do they have to do an EIS?
Mr Hansen: Not an EIS, but they need to meet the environmental thresholds of the statutory criteria in terms of not being harmful to the environment, and that’s an assessment that gets done by APVMA before we issue the permit.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s built into the permit?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Who is responsible for that? Is it APVMA?
Mr Hansen: It’s our responsibility to look at how they are proposing to use it, to put the restrictions on how it should be used to make sure there is no impact to the environment, and then the actual following of those instructions are the responsibility of the state jurisdictions.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; I’m appreciating your succinct answers. How does the program justify treating areas with no evidence of nests, and how can this be effective if the bait is only active for 24 hours after application?
Mr Hansen: I’m sorry, that’s something for the program.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know why there are discrepancies and contradictions between the latest permit and the safety data sheets regarding safety precautions and application guidelines? I think the permit they are talking about is the permit of the helicopter.
Mr Hansen: For the aerial applications.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Hansen: I heard that question before. I would be interested to see what the variations are—particularly the variations between label and not necessarily the safety data sheet but the label and the permit. If there were differences on that, I’d be interested to see them if you had them.
During the recent estimates, I raised several questions regarding the approval and use of mRNA vaccines by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). I inquired if the APVMA has authorised any mRNA vaccines. Mr Hansen confirmed that, as of now, no such vaccines have been approved. To ensure thoroughness, Dr Maria Trainer, joined the discussion. She reiterated that no permits or authorisations for mRNA vaccines have been issued, although she stated that there is a general permit for small-scale research (Permit 7250) that might cover such activities.
I questioned whether the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries had acted with APVMA’s consent in importing, testing, and manufacturing an mRNA vaccine for border disease. Dr Trainer clarified that while no specific permits were issued, research could legally occur under the general permit. For clarity, I asked for confirmation on whether the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute holds such a permit and was told that this would be provided to us on notice.
I also addressed concerns about the development of mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease by the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute. Dr Trainer confirmed that no applications for these vaccines have been received, with Mr Hansen adding that notifications about genetic material for vaccines would likely fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) and Biosecurity.
Lastly, I raised the issue of foot rot vaccines for sheep, noting that an overseas manufacturer has been approved while an Australian manufacturer has had its approval withdrawn. The overseas vaccine is more expensive and less effective.
I urged the government to commit to a process that ensures the availability of the more effective and affordable Australian-made vaccine for our sheep farmers. Senator Chisholm agreed to take this on notice, and Mr Hansen expressed openness to discussions with the Australian manufacturer for product registration.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to my first and most important set of questions. At previous estimates, I have asked if an mRNA vaccine has been approved by your agency, and the response was, ‘No it hasn’t.’ So let me first update, has the APVMA authorised for use any mRNA vaccines?
Mr Hansen: I understand the answer is still no, but if we are going to go down a line of questions on registration of vaccines, do you want me to get an expert to the table?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you like. That’ll make it quick.
Mr Hansen: Excellent. It will be Dr Maria Trainer, but, as far as I’m aware, the answer is still no to that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The New South Wales department of primary industries has imported, tested and now manufactured an mRNA vaccine for border disease for New South Wales at the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute. Was that action taken with the consent of the APVMA?
Dr Trainer: We have not issued any permits or authorised any messenger or any vaccines in Australia anywhere, but we do have a general permit for small-scale research, permit 7250, that potentially would allow for the research being conducted.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t know if they are doing research, but they could legally be doing research under a permit?
Dr Trainer: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice to provide whether or not the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute has such a permit?
Mr Hansen: Provided they met the criteria around the small scale, and that’s spelt out under the permit, then we wouldn’t be informed about it. But that’s something we can certainly make an inquiry about.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, and could let us know on notice, please. The Elizabeth Macarthur Institute has also declared they are developing mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. Have they applied for or advised you of their handling of this incredibly dangerous genetic material?
Dr Trainer: At this point in time, we’ve received no applications to register or authorise any messenger RNA vaccines.
Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t heard from them?
Mr Hansen: No, not on that, and I’m not sure that we would be the people that they would notify about bringing in the genetic material for the vaccine. That would be more likely DAF and biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I was told when looking into this matter that once we have foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease material in Australia, we can risk our disease-free status. Is it a true statement that if the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute mishandles this material and one animal is infected with foot and mouth, Australia will lose our disease-free status and the $20 billion a year this brings in?
Mr Hansen: That’s well and truly in the domain of DAF and biosecurity.
Mr Lowe: That’s an outcome 2 question.
Mr Fennessy: I can tell you that some of the work we may have done in the past is done offshore, so not in Australia. We might work with overseas labs. But it doesn’t come into Australia unless there is a biosecurity permit, and there haven’t been any permits allowed for that.
Senator ROBERTS: Who should we put a question on notice to in regard to that?
Mr Fennessy: To the department.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get on to something quickly. I’ll put most of it in a letter to the minister on a question on notice. There’s also foot rot for sheep. I’m advised that an overseas manufacturer has been given approval and the previous Australian manufacturer has not had its approval withdrawn. The overseas manufactured vaccine is more expensive for sheep farmers based on the need to more frequently apply it plus the cost. It is less effective, and the locally made, therefore, is more effective, cheaper and of higher value than the foreign made. We also have a declaration from a veterinarian that the local product is far more effective. Minister, is your government prepared to commit to a process—I’ve condensed a lot of things into this, and I will put it in detail in a question on notice—whereby it identifies or quantifies the need for this Australian manufactured vaccine and work on foot rot with the relevant parties to ensure the availability of this vaccine for Australian sheep farmers?
Senator Chisholm: I’ll take that on notice.
Mr Hansen: I can provide one more sentence to that, which is that the Australian-made vaccine had an emergency permit because there was no other registered product available in the market. The moment that there became a registered product that had actually come through the front door and had met all the safety criteria, the criteria for an emergency use permit no longer met. We would love the producer of that Australian-made product to come back through the front door for registration as a product, and we’re open to conversations with them on that when they are interested.
Senator ROBERTS: So would veterinarians and so would farmers. They would love that Australian manufacturer to come back. I must say, Chair, Mr Hansen’s comments have been exactly as you said: precise, succinct and direct. I love your forthcoming and forthrightness.
Senator Chisholm: You were the problem!
CHAIR: You got the MR tick of approval, so you’re on a roll here. Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.
