Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Motions Mouse Control Mouse Control Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. N. J. Centofanti: That this council— 1.	Notes that mouse baits currently permitted for use in South Australian cropping areas are not as effective as the double-strength mouse bait which has previously been available under an emergency permit; 2.	Notes that an effective formulation was previously available under an emergency permit, but an application for a minor use permit was turned down; 3.	Expresses its disappointment that a bait that has been confirmed as safe and effective by CSIRO research is not readily available to South Australian farmers without annually seeking an emergency permit; and 4.	Calls on the Malinauskas Labor government, in collaboration with its federal colleagues, to address the obstacles to the recent unsuccessful application for the minor use permit, and work with peak industry bodies to ensure that the most effective and affordable mouse control options are available to South Australian farmers as soon as possible, noting that time is of the essence. (Continued from 15 May 2024.) The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY Legislative Council The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (21:35): Mice have little impact when numbers are low, but during outbreaks they can cause serious economic and social consequences. For example, the 2021 outbreak in central New South Wales cost rural communities an estimated $660 million. In South Australia, outbreaks occur every four to six years, typically after long, dry periods followed by good rainfall. Current monitoring shows low activity across most cropping regions in Australia but higher than normal activity on the Adelaide Plains and the northern Yorke Peninsula is of concern for future impacts. Mice management relies on monitoring, managing grain spillage, and baiting. The Department of Primary Industries and Regions collaborates nationally to provide regular updates on mouse numbers, forecasts and management advice through the GRDC and the CSIRO national mice updates. Results and management recommendations will continue to be shared regularly with growers and stakeholders at sowing, growing and harvest time to support timely and effective control efforts using the tools we have. Zinc phosphide 25 is the only bait approved by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority for broadscale cropping systems. It is most effective when used early and in combination with clean harvest and grain spillage control practices. Zinc phosphide 50, a stronger bait formulation, was approved for temporary use under the emergency permit by the APVMA during the 2021 outbreak. The efficacy of zinc phosphide 50 bait is a matter for the APVMA scientific experts to evaluate within the context of the minor-use permit application assessment process. As with all minor-use permit applications, applicants need to supply the required quality of data and studies for the APVMA's regulatory decision-making in conjunction with the broader considerations the APVMA must have under its risk-based assessment against statutory criteria for permit approvals. I understand APVMA has advised PIRSA that the effectiveness of mouse control products in field and outbreak situations is challenging to accurately evaluate not only in terms of current regulatory compliance with use instructions by users (as relating to reported efficacy concerns for the 25 grams per kilogram product) but when efficacy can also be affected by a range of causes, including application method, accuracy of application, reinfestation, migration of mice, weather conditions, alternative feed sources, bait manufacture—how much is available on each grain bait. Application for minor-use permit by Grain Producers Australia: the South Australian government notes Grain Producers Australia's (GPA) application for a new minor-use permit to allow users to use 50 grams per kilogram (double-strength) zinc phosphide mouse bait was not approved by the APVMA. While this application was rejected, I understand landholders in South Australia have expressed interest in regaining access to this higher strength product for potential future outbreaks. The APVMA is the independent statutory authority and national regulator responsible for assessing, registering and approving agricultural and veterinary products proposed for supply in Australia. The decision to reject GPA's application was the sole responsibility of the APVMA to make in accordance with its statutory criteria. The onus remains on the applicant and any supporting data providers to meet the statutory criteria of the APVMA, and my understanding is the APVMA has made this clear to the GPA and further research in support of data collection may be continuing. Permit applications to the APVMA are assessed through a risk-based approach against statutory criteria—including safety, efficacy and trade—to protect the health and safety of people, animals and the environment. There are a number of steps in this process, which include reviewing the results of scientific tests, information available in published scientific literature and the data provided by the applicant. I am aware the APVMA's assessment of GPA's permit application took some months to be finalised, but I understand from the APVMA advice to PIRSA that the assessment was a complex process which required detailed consideration and clarification of the scientific data provided. CSIRO research on zinc phosphide mouse bait: CSIRO is an excellent, high-quality scientific research organisation. That said, their expertise is in relation to conducting high-quality scientific research and not regulatory decision-making. Whilst the CSIRO has reported the zinc phosphide 50 bait is safe and effective, it is up to the APVMA to make their regulatory consideration on permit applications based on assessment of regulatory quality data being provided and/or available in accordance with the APVMA's statutory criteria. The APVMA is the independent nationally and internationally recognised regulatory expert in relation to agricultural chemical regulation and permit applications in Australia. APVMA's assessments are based on their scientific assessment of regulatory quality data and studies that are provided as part of the application. Based on that assessment, in this instance the APVMA did not approve GPA's zinc phosphide 50 'minor use' permit application. This does not mean the bait may not be safe or effective but means the APVMA was not satisfied against its statutory requirements. I move the following amendment: Leave out paragraph 4 and insert new paragraphs as follows: 4.	Notes that the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is the independent nationally and internationally recognised regulatory expert in relation to agricultural chemical regulation and permit applications in Australia; 5.	Notes that the Malinauskas Labor government has been advocating to the APVMA to address the obstacles to the 2023 unsuccessful application for the minor use permit; and 6.	Calls on the government to continue to work with peak industry bodies to ensure that the most effective and affordable mouse control options which also consider adverse environmental impacts on other animals and wildlife such as grain-feeding birds are available to South Australian farmers as soon as possible. The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI Legislative Council The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (21:43): I would like to thank the Hon. Russell Wortley for speaking to this motion. I note his amendments and I indicate that we will not be supporting the honourable member's amendments. The proposed changes subsequently weaken the intent of the motion and remove the onus on the state government to demonstrate leadership on this important issue. The government can and should be taking an active role in ensuring that farmers have access to the tools they need when they need them to effectively manage mouse plagues. Whilst it is acknowledged that mouse baiting is not always necessary, the ability to— The Hon. C. Bonaros Legislative Council The Hon. C. Bonaros: Yes, always. The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI Legislative Council The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I note the Hon. Connie Bonaros' interjection that it is always required. But what is required is the ability to act swiftly during periods of high mouse activity, which is critical to preventing significant crop losses. Given that many of our producers have already endured the worst drought on record, avoiding further losses is essential to their ongoing viability. The limitations of single-strength bait are well documented, as is the demonstrated effectiveness and safety of the double-strength product supported by CSIRO research. Although emergency permits have been issued in the past, these permits are only ever intended as short-term solutions. The administrative time required to secure such permits often means baits arrive too little, too late to prevent the damage. If there are barriers to registration or steps the state government can take, working in partnership with their federal counterparts to expedite approval, such action would provide a significant benefit to the South Australian farming community. It would ensure our producers are better equipped to respond to future mouse plagues. Therefore, I commend the original motion to the chamber. The council divided on the amendment: 10 9 2 Ayes	10 Noes	9 Majority	1 AYES Bourke, E.S. Franks, T.A. Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M. Simms, R.A. Wortley, R.P. (teller) NOES Bonaros, C. Centofanti, N.J. (teller) Game, S.L. Girolamo, H.M. Hood, B.R. Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Pangallo, F. PAIRS El Dannawi, M. Henderson, L.A. Amendment thus carried; motion as amended carried.