Page 1275 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 29 March 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
be relocated to Armidale. In addition to the announcement being part of a tightly fought election campaign, it was also made six weeks before the government even received the final cost-benefit analysis. In fact, the cost-benefit analysis was not publically released until 25 November 2016, almost six months after the decision to move the APVMA was announced. And the cost-benefit analysis was made public only after the finance minister met the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Location of Corporate Commonwealth Entities) Order 2016.
The process leading to the order brought greater insight into the evidence and advice provided as part of the minister’s decision-making process. Along with Ms Arthy’s concerns on staffing and industry opposition to the move, advice provided to the minister also warned of a likely loss of stakeholder confidence.
The cost-benefit analysis further cemented that this move was a bad idea. Ernst & Young found that the move could not be justified and that the strategic and operational benefits of having the APVMA operate out of Armidale appeared to be limited. But the evidence and advice contained in the cost-benefit analysis made no difference as the minister—in opposition to all available advice and without completed analysis—had already made the decision to go ahead with the relocation.
The APVMA is not a singular case. All corporate commonwealth entities with responsibility for agricultural policy or regulation are affected by section 22(1) of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Workers from the Australian Grape and Wine Authority; the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority; the Cotton Research and Development Corporation; the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation; the Grains Research & Development Authority; and the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation have all had their jobs moved interstate.
But it is not only the workers who have been affected by these moves. Stakeholder and interest groups have also made the case against the relocation of public service agencies from Canberra. Brett Finlay from the National Farmers Federation stated that the federation supports the building of stronger regions, but it must ensure this is undertaken strategically as part of an evidence-driven plan to build the entire economy. The CEO of the National Farmers Federation, Simon Talbot, has said we cannot afford policies that put productivity second to political objectives. The federation also raised concerns about the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Grains Research & Development Authority.
CropLife Australia’s CEO, Matthew Cossey, has stated the considerable operational disruption created by the unnecessary relocation of the APVMA will severely impact farmer access to crucial agricultural products. Similarly, the spokesperson for the Australian Veterinary Association said that the APVMA has made great progress in recent years in implementing regulatory reforms and speeding up the process of registration of new veterinary medicines. The association is concerned about the potential loss of this expertise for those unwilling to move from Canberra.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video