Press conference in Brisbane, QLD

14 July 2023

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
PRESS CONFERENCE
BRISBANE
FRIDAY, 14 JULY 2023

SUBJECTS: Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

MURRAY WATT, MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY: Well thanks very much for joining me here today in Brisbane. Today I’m announcing that the Albanese Government will take firm action to ensure the integrity of Australia’s agriculture and veterinary chemicals regulation system.

The series of actions that I’m announcing today follows the investigation of serious allegations concerning the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority – the APVMA. In taking this action I’m publicly releasing an independent review into the operations, conduct and governance of the APVMA. This independent review – this is it here – commissioned at my request and undertaken by law firm Clayton Utz has found serious and systemic issues within the APVMA between the years of 2019 and 2022.

The APVMA is Australia’s independent regulator of agricultural and veterinary chemicals up to the point of sale. It’s an important organisation that is responsible for approving new and existing chemicals for our farmers, and is responsible for ensuring the human and environmental safety of those chemicals. As such, the APVMA must meet the highest integrity standards in performing its role. Unfortunately, the Clayton Utz review has uncovered serious allegations of poor governance, poor workplace culture and poor leadership that have clearly left the APVMA at risk of not meeting those integrity standards.

The review has found examples of potential noncompliance with Commonwealth Procurement rules at the APVMA, very high staff turnover and an unacceptably high number of workplace complaints. Concerningly, the review also includes allegations of industry capture of the APVMA, which appears to have played a key role in the APVMA not performing its full regulatory responsibilities.

Australians obviously need to have confidence that the food we eat is produced in a safe manner. Farmers need to have confidence that the food and fibre they are producing is safe, and our trading partners must continue to be assured that Australia is a trusted source of safe produce. And you can only achieve these things with a robust chemical regulator.

Importantly, the work undertaken by the Clayton Utz review does not indicate any instances where agvet chemicals have been registered inappropriately. Indeed several programs that monitor pesticide residues in agricultural produce and the environment, including the National Residue Survey, have not raised any concerns. But we cannot take this for granted, particularly following some of the allegations of poor governance at the regulator and the need to ensure effective regulation. Because the review also found that the APVMA has ‘prioritised regulatory performance in relation to registrations, assessments and approvals over regulatory performance in relation to monitoring, compliance and enforcement’. In addition, the review also found that the APVMA was reluctant to pursue prosecutions and other enforcement measures for serious breaches stating that the agency had ‘a clear preference for enforcement by way of education and engagement over infringement notices, enforceable undertakings, civil proceedings and prosecutions.’

Clearly these are serious findings and they require serious, firm action. So our first course of action will be a rapid evaluation of the APVMA’s structure and governance. This will be conducted by eminent former public servant Mr Ken Matthews AO, who already has a deep understanding of the APVMA. The report from the rapid evaluation will be provided to me by the 30th of September this year and will include recommendations on the future governance, structure and funding arrangements of the APVMA.

The Clayton Utz review has also highlighted long delays with the APVMA’s chemical review program. In some cases these reviews have been going on for over 20 years. I have therefore issued the APVMA with a ministerial directive to finalise outstanding reviews for eight chemicals currently in use - those reviews have been underway for more than 17 years each. This is the first time ever that this type of ministerial direction has been given to the APVMA. I’ve conveyed to the APVMA board and executive the need for swift action on these reviews. We cannot continue to have reviews of chemicals drag on for decades. This is not good regulatory practice. I understand the APVMA under new leadership has begun work towards addressing these issues. We need to provide Australian farmers and the community with confidence and trust in their regulatory bodies, and I’m certain these actions will convey to them just how seriously our Government is taking this situation.

Finally, I would also like to advise that in recent days both the APVMA CEO and board chair have tendered their resignations from their respective roles. Acting arrangements are in place while a nation-wide search is conducted for their long-term replacements.

In closing, I must mention that the review points to the decision made by former Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce to relocate the APVMA to Armidale as one of the key factors behind the demise of good governance at the institution. The report also found that the decision to move the regulator to Armidale resulted in a loss of corporate knowledge, a loss of corporate culture and a loss of experience and knowledge of public sector values. There are also questions for other National Party Agriculture Ministers as to their approach to the APVMA.

Unfortunately, this saga is just another in what has become a long line of examples of incompetence and maladministration under the former Coalition Government. This happened on their watch, but I am determined to clean up their mess. This review followed a range of very serious allegations which first surfaced at Senate Estimates last year, which have all been referred to the relevant authorities for further investigation.

As you can see, the Albanese Government is treating these issues with the gravity they deserve. By taking the firm action I have outlined today, we will ensure the integrity of Australia’s agvet chemical regulation, and we will maintain confidence in our world-leading food and fibre industries.

Thank you, and I’m happy to take questions.

JOURNALIST: Were you surprised or shocked at the outcome of that report?

MURRAY WATT: I was surprised by the range and scale of the allegations which have come to light through this review. As I’ve said before, I first became aware of issues at the APVMA concerning its culture when they were first raised in Senate Estimates at the end of last year. And that prompted me to take immediate action to have these issues investigated, but the number and range of issues at the APVMA have turned out to be far wider than I think any of us expected there to be. And that’s why I’m determined to stand up and be the person who gets these issues fixed, because we need a chemical regulation system with full integrity, and I’m confident we can deliver it.

JOURNALIST: Should Australians fear that chemical safety has been compromised?

MURRAY WATT: No, I do not believe they should. The advice to me is that Australian food is safe for people to eat, and that is evidenced through things like the National Residue Survey that has listed no concerns as to residues of chemicals in Australian food. In addition, as I’ve said, the report has found no evidence to the contrary – this is the report from Clayton Utz – and it did make the point that there’s no evidence that chemicals have been registered inappropriately. But I don’t want us to rest on our laurels. There is enough in this report to make me concerned that if we don’t take action then there is a risk of issues concerning food safety in the future. That’s not the case at the moment, and I don’t want it to ever be the case. And that’s why we’re going to take the action we’ve outlined.

JOURNALIST: Would you relocate the APVMA to Canberra?

MURRAY WATT: I expect all of those kind of things will be issues that Ken Matthews considers in his report regarding the structure and governance of the APVMA. No decisions have been made about any of those matters, and I’ll wait to get Ken Matthews’ report.

JOURNALIST: Last one from me, I promise: how many reviews do you think you’re going to have to call into with this report?

MURRAY WATT: Well I’ve collected a few statistics; my understanding is that the APVMA has completed over 60 reviews of chemicals over the years, but there are at least 10 reviews that are outstanding with several more needing to commence. And, as I say, what I’ve done is give a direction to the APVMA to bring forward and prioritise the reviews of eight different chemicals which have been under review for more than 17 years.

JOURNALIST: G’day Murray. You know, there’s been no evidence of inappropriate approvals, but the report also says– makes it abundantly clear that it’s focused on speed over accuracy, that APVMA was alarmingly close to industry, industry was the one who benefitted the most from the current regulation procedures. I think, all that said, I don’t know how it can be said that there were no chemicals, you know, under a cloud of suspicion approved inappropriately. Shouldn’t we go back and have a look at the chemicals that were approved in the last, you know, three years since it’s moved up to Armidale, three or four years, because it puts all those chemicals approved under a cloud of suspicion?

MURRAY WATT: Well, as I say, the Clayton Utz report does find that there’s no evidence that chemicals have been registered inappropriately. But I am concerned that there are a number of chemicals that are on the market in Australia that have theoretically been under review for more than 17 years, and I don’t think that’s acceptable. So my priority is to ensure that those reviews are completed, the one that have been underway for a long time, because we do need to ensure that Australians, our trading partners and our farmers have confidence in our chemical regulation system.

JOURNALIST: So there’s no plan to go back and double-check the chemicals that have been approved in the last three, four years?

MURRAY WATT: Not at this point in time. As I say, the advice from Clayton Utz is more focused on reviews that have been underway for a long time. But if evidence does surface that there is a question about any more recent registrations and any more recent reviews, then of course we would take action on that.

JOURNALIST: Thanks.

JOURNALIST: Just to clarify, do we have a total number of reviews?

MURRAY WATT: My understanding is that there are over 10 chemicals that are currently under review and have been for different periods of time. As I say, some for more than 17 years, some for shorter amounts of time. And there are a number of reviews that are due to commence. But at the moment the advice to me is that there are over 10 chemicals that are still under review with those reviews outstanding.

JOURNALIST: Do we know anything about the number of those that are ready to commence?

MURRAY WATT: Well I don’t have an exact number of that. Happy to come back to you on those that are yet to commence. I guess I’ve been more focused on those that are still underway. All good? Thanks very much.