Senator HOGG (1:54 PM) —It is timely that the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 is before the Senate today. It was only last week that I had a representation from a constituent from the Sunshine Coast who has long been suffering, in his view, under the regulations contained in this piece of legislation. He claims that he has had a long and difficult time trying to survive as a small business operator. He runs a business manufacturing low risk, low toxic chemical household and pet products. The business has been going for some 20 years, and he has been operating the business himself for the last 10 years. His name is Brian Millar. He would be well known to the department and to a number of people, undoubtedly, throughout this place. He has made reasonable representations over the last nine years to seek redress regarding what he believes are unfair aspects of the existing legislation.

He put it to me that the National Registration Authority, which is responsible for regulations made under this legislation, went overboard with the regulations that were governing his business. He has made the claim to a number of people over a long period of time that he wanted the red tape cut to help his small business—he wanted a fair go—and that he was quite prepared to be regulated but not over-regulated, as he has been since 1994. My view is that Mr Millar deserves a medal for the tenacity and the struggle, from his own perspective, that he has maintained against enormous odds.

To show the tenacity of Mr Millar, he has been to see former Senator O'Chee, who represented his interests at estimates hearings back on 29 November 1994. Senator O'Chee did that fairly and well. He has been to see Mr Somlyay, the member for Fairfax, who was his member at that time. Mr Somlyay represented his interests not only in an adjournment speech on 5 November 1996 but on a number of other occasions as well. He was very satisfied with Mr Somlyay's representations. Unfortunately, when there was a redistribution in Queensland, the seat fell to Mr Slipper. Of course, he was not so happy with Mr Slipper's contributions. He failed to either return his telephone calls or meet with him on the issues that concerned him. He had correspondence with Mr Hockey on 2 June 2002, and he felt that he was treated reasonably well in that instance. As well, he had correspondence with Senator Troeth on 26 September.

This man has been so burdened by his problems that he has been to the Ombudsman and to Queensland government ministers. So he has been far and wide in order to get rid of the burden that he feels has been imposed on his business for a long period. He is a sole operator and a manufacturer. He works from a small block of shops at Forest Glen on the Sunshine Coast. He has had a conditional licence. He contends that his business has been subject to the same regime as big business, even though he is producing a substantially less toxic, low risk product than the big business operators. But what is really at the heart of his problem is the audit process. He claims it is burdensome, overwhelming and costly because there are now no auditors based in Queensland. If one looks at the sheet issued by the department, one sees that the auditor mentioned as a Queensland auditor is actually resident in Melbourne. To get that auditor to the Sunshine Coast would result in an enormous fee for this particular business—far out of proportion to the returns to the business.

He also claims that under the audit process the National Registration Authority have said that they will not pass any business on the first audit. Of course, they insist on his business providing an account of staff training, a lunchroom for staff and a separate toilet for staff. These requirements are based on the facilities from where he produces the chemical products that are used. The irony of this is that he is a single operator—he has no staff—and, because the audit process claims that these things are necessary, he will not get a full licence until he complies with all the requirements of the audit process.

Until these regulations are changed or altered to recognise the nature of the operation of Mr Millar's business, then his business will continue to be threatened. He put it to me—and this is interesting—that there is a comparable operator, a sole person operator the same as him, with operations under a house in the same vicinity. But because it is from a house and it is a licensed premises for the production of these chemicals, no such problems exist for that sole operator. Only poor Mr Millar is confronted with these problems. So, in his view, bureaucracy has gone mad.

Debate interrupted.