The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority will receive an $8.7 million funding boost in the federal Budget, with industry welcoming the move as a critical step toward improving the performance of one of Australia’s most important agricultural regulators.
CropLife Australia said the funding package for 2026-27 would help bolster the APVMA’s ability to deliver its “good public activities” and improve the regulator’s operations at a time when Australian farmers were under increasing pressure.
CropLife Australia Chief Executive Officer Matthew Cossey said the industry had long advocated for increased government support for the regulator, while also raising concerns about the agency’s declining performance and delays in meeting statutory timeframes.
“We have long advocated for this support and welcome the Government’s recognition of the importance of investing in the public-good work of APVMA in line with all other regulators,” Mr Cossey said.
“I specifically commend Minister Julie Collins and Assistant Minister Anthony Chiholm for their commitment, leadership and hard work in trying to improve the performance of the APVMA.
“It’s now on the APVMA Board and Management to see real and genuine improvement in the APVMA’s operations and meeting its statutory time performance.”
The Armidale based federal government agency regulates agricultural and veterinary chemicals in Australia, overseeing the approval, review and monitoring of pesticides and veterinary medicines to protect human, animal and environmental health.
The authority has long operated on a largely cost recovery basis, with around 95 per cent of its funding coming from industry levies and fees rather than direct government funding.
The Budget papers indicate over $10 million in public funding will be delivered to the agency in FY26-27, while industry contributions are also expected to increase under a new cost recovery program. Both funding increases were recommended in a major 2024 review of the authority.
The APVMA’s public good activities include chemical reviews, compliance and enforcement work, emergency permits and supporting international trade and biosecurity systems.
Industry groups and environmental activists have argued for years that requiring chemical companies to fund public safety reviews of their own products created both ethical concerns and practical difficulties, particularly where reviews could ultimately lead to products being restricted or removed from sale. By ensuring that chemical reviews, such as the review into the safety of common chemical glyphosate, are publicly funded, the public can have greater confidence in the independence and ethical conduct of the review.
Mr Cossey said the regulator played a vital role in supporting farm productivity and food affordability.
“This regulator plays a vital role in ensuring Australian farmers can access modern crop protection products in a timely manner which is at the foundation of farming productivity and ensuring downward pressure on the costs of every Australian’s food and grocery bill,” he said.
“It now falls to the APVMA to ensure they become more efficient and delivery quicker outcomes to support the hard work of Australia’s farmers and delivery for the Australian community.”
While welcoming the Budget commitment, CropLife said further work was needed to secure permanent funding arrangements comparable to those provided to similar regulators in Australia and overseas.
“While this commitment is for one year, we will continue working with the government to secure a longer-term, permanent arrangement,” Mr Cossey said.
“Other, comparable Australian regulators, such as the Therapeutic Goods Administration, enjoy ongoing public good funding, as do all the APVMA’s OECD counterparts.
“CropLife Australia supports a strong, efficient and independent regulator. While permanent ongoing funding is essential for certainty for the sector and Australian food production, this is an encouraging first step towards equitable public-good funding.”
Got something you want to say about this story? Have your say on our opinion and comment hub, New England Times Engage