There are concerns that Federal Agriculture Minister Murray Watt has an ulterior motive with a rapid evaluation of Australias pesticides and veterinary medicine regulator and it could stretch the governments reach over the regulatory body.
Following several serious allegations against the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority (APVMA) from 2019-2022, an independent, strategic review into the APVMA operations was ordered by Mr Watt and commissioned by law firm Clayton Utz.
The results of the review, found APVMAs performance had fallen to dangerous levels since it was moved from Canberra to Armidale, New South Wales in 2019, by then-Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce.
Due to these findings, when the report was released, Mr Watt appointed Ken Matthews, a former employee of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), to conduct a rapid evaluation of the APVMA, including recommendations on its future governance, structure and funding arrangements.
However some key stakeholders fear the government will use this evaluation as a tool to gain more control over the regulation of Australias chemicals.
This concern is largely due to Mr Matthews involvement in the previous Independent Review of the Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Regulatory System in Australia, which sought to expand the role of the Agriculture Minister and DAFF in May 2021
WAFarmers Grains Section president Mark Fowler said while the group welcomed any review or measure which would improve the APVMAs functions, it was imperative the regulatory body remained completely independent of government, industry and uniformed popular opinion, rigorously scientific and evidence based and fit-for-purpose.
Otherwise we risk becoming like Europe, where chemical regulation is highly political and regularly disregards science in favour of popular opinion, Mr Fowler said.
The review report suggests that the APVMA is too close to industry.
If that is correct, then we agree that this needs to be addressed as a matter of both importance and urgency.
Equally, we would be concerned if the findings of the report were used as a basis to erode the independence of the APVMA by giving a greater regulatory role to either the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry or DAFF.
Mr Fowler said the group was also concerned the evaluation process was being driven by the Australian Greens party which he said was opposed to chemical use and conventional agriculture generally.
We have seen the way in which the government has recently disregarded science and evidence in favour of popular opinion by banning the live sheep trade, he said.
We also fear that, just like with the live sheep trade, the government may have cut a deal with the Greens in this area in order to get the rest of its legislative agenda passed.
While the Clayton Utz review specifically pinpointed the relocation of APVMA from Canberra to Armidale as one of the root causes of issues within the organisation that had occurred since, Mr Fowler said reversing this decision would serve no good purpose.
This was ostensibly done to decentralise government administration, create country jobs and reiterate to APVMA staff the nexus between the work they do and the people who it affects, he said.
We fear that the present government will use this as a lever to return the APVMA to the city.
