Time to move on, in APVMA relocation debate

Even though the move may seem illogical and wrong and is opposed by the vast majority of industry groups and political forces, the time has now come to accept that it’s actually happening.

Federal Agriculture and Water Resources Minister Barnaby Joyce and the Coalition government are advancing the process and working out the finer details of charting the farm chemical regulator’s shift into the National party leaders’ New England electorate.

Call it a shifty act of political pork barrelling or self-serving electoral manipulation equal to Bjelkemander, or an injustice rivalling Essendon star Jobe Watson being forced to relinquish his 2012 Brownlow medal - it all makes no difference.

The APVMA’s ship will be sailing from its Canberra dock to a new port in Armidale.

But a smooth sailing journey, that minimises the risks and transitional impacts, to avoid a potential multi-billion dollar biosecurity disaster and significant, irreversible industry losses, must now be an urgent imperative and responsibility taken up collectively, by all.

Mr Joyce re-confirmed to Fairfax Media to kick-start the 2017 parliamentary year that the APVMA would definitely be relocated to Armidale because it was a cabinet decision that won’t be reversed.

It’s happening despite the criticism that abounds in often rough sailing political waters; especially from Shadow Agriculture Minister Joel Fitzgibbon who has huffed and puffed the most about protecting public servant jobs in the ACT, rather than raising warning flares about potential dangers ahead for the farm sector.

WA Labor Senator and rural advocate Glenn Sterle has described the APVMA relocation as an act of “stupidity” and “just crazy”.

“And this is not just a Labor opposition attacking the government; this is someone with some common sense saying, ‘Barnaby what the hell do you think you’re doing?’,” he said.

CropLife Australia, the National Farmers' Federation, Animal Medicines Australia and regional farm chemical suppliers are just some of the other groups that also have vehemently opposed the minister’s move.

But Mr Joyce said his opposite number’s rhetoric on the issue clearly showed that the Labor party had no desire for decentralisation; which is the central policy he’s pushed to justify moving the APVMA out to Armidale, to create an agricultural centre of excellence.

“They say they want to find a solution to the housing crisis, but as soon as you come up with one that talks about putting jobs in regional areas where there are cheaper houses, who is the main one who fights against it, the Labor party?” he said.

“The Labor party doesn’t want solutions; they just want fights.”

Mr Joyce’s decentralisation agenda includes moving other government agencies or creating offices out of Canberra and into regional areas, like the Grains Research and Development Corporation.

The Murray Darling Basin Authority is another government bureaucracy that’s squarely in his sights and now in the firing line of other National party MPs to boost their electorates’ fortunes.

Mr Joyce said moving the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation to Wagga Wagga from Canberra was saving $1.2 million per year, including $266,000 in rent alone.

He said relocating the APVMA to Armidale would create an agricultural centre of excellence on top of 100 local jobs and “Other benefits cannot be measured in dollar sums”.

“Our regional cities offer a better environment for families - fresh air, no gridlock, a sense of community and easy access to schools, parks, rivers and lakes,” he said.

“We don’t have an affordable housing crisis in our regions – but we do have loads of opportunity.”

But for the APVMA, warnings bells are already ringing loudly about diminished capacity due to the critical loss of regulatory scientists whose expertise plays an invaluable role in approving animal and crop protection products in a timely and efficient manner; especially emergency use permits that can help defend against biosecurity outbreaks.

The Authority’s residue team assesses the chemistry of new farm chemical products but the loss of staff hand-over-fist, during the disruptive relocation process, will only reduce its ability to respond effectively to a potential biosecurity crisis.

If the residue team is limping along, its powers and capacity to issue emergency chemical use permits, like those used to try and contain the recent outbreak of Russian wheat aphid in Australian cropping, is far less potent.

That segment of the APVMA has also played a critical but unheralded role in issuing emergency chemical use permits in 2007 in response to the infamous and crippling equine influenza outbreak in Australia and more recently following dangerous detections of the deadly Asian honey bee, found on foreign shipments.

It’s also understood the APVMA does ongoing pre-emptive work with state agencies to assess potential biosecurity outbreaks that could cruel the Australian farm sector, which industry members also fear could be at risk due to Mr Joyce’s hard-nosed relocation agenda.

An independent cost-benefit analysis of the $26 million move that was used to guide the relocation - but has largely been ignored in the final cabinet decision - contains damning statistics and warnings about the relocation’s high risks; especially on about 200 employees.

The report outlines what would happen, during the re-location transition and in the short term, if the APVMA can’t sustain its rate of effort to register new agricultural and veterinary chemical products.

A significant loss of staff prior to and during the transition period is expected, with just 15.2 per cent of current staff members having indicated a willingness to relocate, in the most recent survey.

Difficulty in replacing or recruiting key managerial and technical assessment staff, most critically regulatory scientists in the residue team, is also anticipated, the report said.

It says a three to five year lead time is needed to recruit and effectively train additionally required regulatory scientists to perform technical assessments.

But the report says potential productivity damage to agriculture and the farm chemical industry, via a one year delay in the approval of new chemicals, would ignite crop value loss of between $64m to $193m per year.

The report also cited damage to the APVMA’s reputation and the Australian agricultural industry, due to the move, and warned about an “exit” of key chemical companies from the Australian market and subsequent loss of future product releases.

“The APVMA model of cost recovery, through levies and product registration fees, may result in increased costs being passed on to industry,” it also said which means farmers may also be made to foot the bill, for the relocation.

“The most significant risk identified through the analysis relates to the ability of the APVMA to relocate, or to recruit and replace, key APVMA executive, management and technical assessment staff within the first two years of relocation.

“Critically, the loss of technical assessment staff (regulatory scientists) has the potential to seriously disrupt the ability of the APVMA to successfully fulfil its purpose and achieve its objectives in the short and medium term.

“The analysis found that if poorly executed, the economic costs of moving the APVMA could therefore be considerably higher than identified in the cost benefit analysis.

“Based on conservative estimates of a one year delay in the approval of new products, the potential impact on the agriculture sector for crops alone could be between $64m and $193m per annum.

“The risks to the ag-vet chemical industry associated with moving the APVMA are also significant with a one year delay in the approval of new chemicals potentially impacting industry to the value of between $0.8m and $2.7m per annum in terms of lost revenues.”

The report said a study commissioned by CropLife estimated that 68 per cent of the total value of Australian crop production of $26.7 billion can be attributed to crop protection products or agriculture chemicals like pesticides, while livestock farmers utilise more than $1.1 billion worth of animal medicines and productivity enhancing technologies annually.

The analysis says the strategic and operational benefits of having the APVMA operate out of Armidale appear to be limited but, “This is not to say that the APVMA could not operate successfully from Armidale over the longer term if key risks are addressed and transition is executed appropriately”.

“While a number of potential benefits of relocation were identified, the majority of potential benefits - apart from a possible reduction in property costs - are not anticipated to result in material economic advantages for society,” it said.

For its bit, with chemical companies already warning about delays in assessing new product applications, the APVMA’s CEO Kareena Arthy said the Authority was monitoring identified risks to performance and working closely with industry to effectively manage all applications throughout the transition period.

In December, an email from Ms Arthy, leaked to media, warned industry stakeholders about the APVMA’s ability to assess application due to the relocation saying by the end of the year, “We will be at half strength in the residues team”.

“While we will continue to undertake recruitment activities to replace staff, at this point we have exhausted all avenues to bring new people in or identify suitably qualified external assessors to address the immediate issues,” she said.

“Given that residues assessments are integral to a wide range of applications, there will be flow on effects to other activities as residues assessments are delayed and as staff are transferred between teams to fill critical gaps.

We are also understaffed at present in the pesticides, health assessment, environment and chemical review areas due to key staff being on long term leave, others departing the agency and difficulties recruiting suitably skilled and experienced people.

“However, we are hopeful we can pick up some new people in the current general recruitment round we are undertaking across the agency – albeit noting there will probably be a lag in bringing new people in and training them to be able to assess applications.”