When Barnaby Joyce announced in 2014 that the Coalition wanted to move four agriculture research agencies from Canberra to regional Australia, voters were assured the move would boost regional employment and improve stakeholder access to the agencies. More than two years on, however, this move to ship the agencies out to rural Australia looks more like a pig in a poke than a considered and justifiable decentralization strategy.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The proposed relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority from Canberra to Armidale has proved particularly problematic and contentious. From the outset, scientific and industry peak bodies (including the National Farmers Federation) questioned the wisdom of the move at the outset, arguing the APVMA's most important stakeholders were in Canberra, not in in Armidale. The authority's own staff, too, have been unenthusiastic. Only 100 of 190 employees have said they'd move to the Northern Tablelands city, with scientists and technicians reportedly prominent in the group standing firm against relocation. This might ordinarily have scuppered the move as the authority's ability to identify sufficient numbers of scientists with both the requisite skills and a willingness to move to Armidale is strictly limited.
Undeterred, the government is considering financial incentives of up to 15 per cent to lure the reluctant scientists north. Those agreeing to stay with the agency till December 2017 will be eligible for a 1.5 per cent retention bonus, rising to 3 per cent if they remain until December 2018. Those still in the authority's employ in mid-2019 will qualify for a 10 per cent bonus. Also reportedly on the table is the offer of up to 12 free return flights a year between Armidale and Canberra, and some relocating staff may be given the option of remaining in Canberra for up to two years before having to pack their bags.
The APVMA's moving costs have been calculated at $26 million, but this figure may rise substantially if the incentives on offer prove popular. If so, the far-from-compelling cost-benefit analysis that was initially undertaken by the government as justification for the policy will be further weakened.
The Coalition's preparedness to allow Mr Joyce to continue with this wasteful, unpopular and in all likelihood pointless exercise contrasts starkly with its habit of closely scrutinising every aspect of public sector spending – and of subjecting departments and agencies to endless budget cuts. However, the Liberals' willingness to pander to the electorally expedient whims of its junior coalition partner, is never to be underestimated.
Mr Joyce has extolled his relocation policy as good for local economies and good for Australia's agricultural productivity. The former, however, does not qualify as a net economic gain, since Canberra's economy will lose – in the case of the APVMA move, about $157 million. And other than former TV personality Don Burke, few have been willing to back Mr Joyce's claim of a net benefit to rural industries.
