APVMA: Companies fined for breaking agvet law have identities kept secret

Companies which have been fined for breaking agvet law are having their identities kept secret by the regulator, despite similar government authorities releasing names publicly for transparency.

APVMA does not publicly name the companies it fines, unlike the ACCC and TGA.

AGRICULTURE chemical and veterinary medicine companies fined for breaking agvet law – some upwards of $60,000 – are having their identities kept secret by the federal government regulator.

The Weekly Times can reveal the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority does not publicly reveal the names of companies it fines – unlike similar federal government authorities.

It has also refused to disclose the names of two companies which were fined $63,000 each last year for failing to comply with an APVMA issued recall notice for their products – some of which were not registered for use in the country.

The APVMA, which receives the majority of its funding from the companies it regulates, says it does not name companies fined as the payment of a fine is not an admission of guilt.

“The APVMA does not identify recipients of infringement notices as the payment of an infringement notice is not an admission of liability under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994,” a spokeswoman said.

However, payment of a fine handed down by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Therapeutic Goods Administration is also not an admission of guilt or liability, but both authorities publicly name companies for education, deterrence and transparency purposes.

All three authorities must have reasonable grounds to believe there has been a breach or sufficient evidence to take the matter to court if necessary to be able to issue a fine.

National Farmers’ Federation chief executive Tony Mahar said farmers relied on the APVMA for access to safe and effective agvet chemicals to control pests and diseases on animals and plants and therefore must have confidence in the regulator.

“Where appropriate and legal, optimum transparency around the processes that underpin the APVMA is desirable,” he said.

When The Weekly Times questioned Agriculture Minister David Littleproud with its findings and asked whether he would take action, Mr Littleproud said he “understands that the policy is currently being reviewed”.

The APVMA said it “regularly reviews its practices and procedures … as part of continuous improvement” when The Weekly Times asked for information about the review.

The revelations come as an APVMA investigation into Chinese state-owned chemical giant ADAMA’s contaminated Gibberellic Acid, which allegedly destroyed growers’ vines, enters its third year.

In 2019-20, the APVMA’s average time to finalise a compliance matter was aboutfive months.

The APVMA would not say when it expected the investigation to include as it “does not comment on matters currently under investigation”.

MORE

GRAPE GROWERS COURT BATTLE OVER CONTAMINATED SPRAY

REGULATOR CHOSE NOT TO RECALL ADAMA’S CONTAMINATED SPRAY