CropLife Australia, Media Release, 30 June 2026

CropLife Australia, the national peak industry organisation for the plant science sector, has warned that the latest quarterly performance report from the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) confirms the regulator remains well short of what Australian farmers and the plant science industry should be able to expect.

The APVMA’s March 2026 quarter report shows some improvement from the previous quarter, but core agricultural chemical registration results remain poor with only 71.9 per cent of product registrations and 68.3 per cent of permits completed within timeframe.

Concerningly, the regulator completed only 43.9 per cent of major agricultural chemical applications within timeframe. This is the critical category for new and innovative crop protection technologies and uses.

Matthew Cossey, Chief Executive Officer of CropLife Australia, said the APVMA should not be allowed to present this report as genuine recovery or improvement.

“Moving from crisis-level performance to mediocre performance is not success,” Mr Cossey said.

“The APVMA is still failing to meet basic expectations of timeliness and predictability for agricultural chemical approvals. These matter for our farmers and the nation’s productivity and innovation.

“That fewer than one in two major agricultural chemical applications are being completed on time is simply not acceptable. These applications deliver farmers access to the new products and uses they need to manage pests, diseases and weeds, protect crops. This access is essential to productivity growth and the international competitiveness of Australian farmers.

“The same category was already at crisis level last year. It is now worse. A sustained failure of this magnitude in any other organisation would normally result in wholesale change in the Board and senior management.”

Mr Cossey said the report confirms the APVMA’s agricultural chemical registration system remains burdened by backlogs and poor predictability.

“The report shows that over a third of the 600 agricultural product registrations currently being assessed are already outside of timeframe. That is not a stable and predictable operating environment. It directly affects investment decisions, product availability and farmer access to new technology,” Mr Cossey said.

“Farmers are being told to produce more with less, adapt to changing pest pressures, reduce environmental impacts and keep food affordable. Yet the regulator responsible for approving the tools they need is still not delivering. This has ramifications for farmers and hits consumers at the check-out.

“The report highlights that even the APVMA’s own pre-application assistance program, the process intended to help applicants submit better and more complete applications, recorded only 17.1 per cent of applications were processed on time.

“The APVMA cannot continue to point to application quality as a reason for delays while its own fee-based pre-application assistance pathway is late more than 80 per cent of the time. Instead of supporting industry, this adds another barrier,” said Mr Cossey.

Mr Cossey said the report raises further governance concerns, with the APVMA warning future performance is expected to come under renewed pressure because of a rectification program arising from a long-standing legislative non-compliance issue involving registered products with multiple formulations.

“That is a significant admission and one needing serious action,” Mr Cossey said.

“While APVMA has stated that the issue is administrative and legal in nature and does not present safety or efficacy risks, it is another example of internal system failure consuming regulatory resources that should be focused on timely assessment of applications.

“The fact it is an administrative matter which diverts the regulator’s focus away from delivering benefit to Australian farmers and the community raises serious questions of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF).

“Given DAFF’s three core objectives are sector growth, resilience and biosecurity, this issue should have been resolved before it became an impediment to the regulatory system. With the APVMA’s approval pipeline integral to these objectives, DAFF’s failure to help the regulator develop and implement a pragmatic solution creates future strategic risks and raises concerns about the department’s competence.

“The plant science industry recognises the skill and dedication of the APVMA’s scientific staff. This is not a criticism of individual assessors. It is a criticism of governance, systems, culture and management discipline that have allowed chronic underperformance to persist for too long,” Mr Cossey said.

CropLife Australia said the APVMA Board and senior leadership must now move beyond general assurances of improvement and provide a clear, measurable recovery plan for agricultural chemical registrations.

“Australian farmers and the plant science industry should not be penalised twice: first through some of the highest regulatory costs in the world, then through delayed access to products and technologies they have effectively paid the regulator to assess.

“The APVMA’s own report confirms the job is far from done. This is despite the leadership and resolve Minister Collins and Assistant Minister Chisholm have shown in providing the policy intent and resources to see the APVMA deliver for Australia.

“It is now on the Board and the CEO of the APVMA and DAFF to ensure that the regulator delivers the timely, efficient and predictable assessments Australian agriculture needs and the law requires,” concluded Mr Cossey.