Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) (Infringement Notices) Regulations 2023

The central concept is the infringement notice as a form of administrative penalty. An infringement notice is a statutory demand for payment of a fixed sum, issued by an authorised officer, which if paid within the prescribed period discharges any liability for the offence and no conviction is recorded. If the recipient does not pay and does not elect to have the matter heard in court, the penalty may be enforced as a civil debt. The Regulations do not set out that procedure; they only specify which offences are eligible and at what price. The underlying procedure is in Part 7 of the Act (section 69 onwards).

The unit of measurement for penalties is the penalty unit, defined in section 110 of the Sentencing Act 1991 and indexed annually by the Treasurer under the Monetary Units Act 2004. The endnotes to the Regulations include a note that for the 2025-26 financial year a penalty unit is $203.51. Because indexation is automatic and published in the Government Gazette, the actual dollar amount payable under these Regulations moves each year without further amendment of the regulations themselves. This means the real burden imposed by these penalties increases with inflation, which for a commercial operator may be a minor concern but for an individual farmer could be more significant over the ten-year life of the instrument.

A second important concept is the distinction between natural persons and corporations for penalty quantum and for eligibility. Several rows in Schedule 1 show different penalties: for example, item 2 (offence against section 18(4) of the Act) sets 5 penalty units for a corporation and 3 for any other case; item 16 (offence against section 54J) sets 5 penalty units for a corporation and 2 for any other case. Item 22 (offence against section 67B(1)) is the lowest penalty at 1 penalty unit, with no corporate distinction. This scaling reflects the expectation that corporations have greater capacity to pay and therefore a higher fixed penalty is needed to maintain a deterrent effect. But the further step in regulation 6(2) goes beyond penalty scaling to outright exclusion: for six specified offences the infringement notice option is not available to corporations at all. That forces those matters into court where the maximum penalty (set by the Act) could be many times higher than an infringement notice penalty, and where a conviction may carry reputational consequences.

Schedule 1 is divided into three Parts. Part 1 covers 22 offences against the Act itself, ranging from failure to give information to an inspector (section 18) to breach of a restriction on supply or use (section 67B). Part 2 covers 9 offences against the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Regulations 2017, which are operational obligations such as record-keeping and labelling. Part 3 covers 6 offences against the newer Ruminant Feed Regulations 2025, all at 2 or 5 penalty units.

The Regulations are subordinate legislation made under section 76 of the Act, which empowers the Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing infringement offences and penalties. Because they are a statutory rule, they are subject to parliamentary disallowance within 15 sitting days of being laid before Parliament. They also carry a ten-year sunset under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994, meaning they expire automatically on 5 December 2033 unless re-made before then.

The practical reach is directed at anyone who uses, stores, handles, sells, disposes of, or provides information about agricultural or veterinary chemicals in Victoria. That includes primary producers, crop farmers, livestock farmers, horticulturalists, commercial spray contractors, pest controllers, veterinary practitioners, agricultural supply retailers, and chemical manufacturers or importers who are required to keep records or provide information. The infringement notice regime is an enforcement tool against these persons for relatively routine regulatory breaches where a court prosecution would be disproportionate to the harm.

The corporate exclusion in regulation 6(2) is the most significant who-it-affects provision. It means that a company alleged to have breached sections 18(1), 20(1), 20(3), 21, 32(1) or 32(2) cannot pay a fixed penalty and move on: it must face court. For a small proprietary company that might otherwise have treated an infringement notice as a cost of business, this exclusion removes that option. The practical effect is that directors and senior officers of those companies have a stronger incentive to ensure compliance with those six duties because the company cannot settle administratively. Individuals within those companies who personally committed the offence, however, could still receive an infringement notice if they are natural persons. This creates an asymmetry: the company is ineligible for a notice but its employee may be eligible. The enforcement officer must decide whom to proceed against.

For natural persons, whether farmers, employees, or sole traders, the infringement notice pathway is available for all listed offences, including the six from which corporations are excluded. The penalty amounts are modest: 1 to 5 penalty units, which at 2025-26 rates is between $203.51 and $1,017.55. For a small-scale operator, that sum is not trivial but is far less than the cost of defending a prosecution. The regime therefore imposes a compliance-by-payment incentive: pay the fine quickly and avoid court costs, legal fees, and the risk of a higher penalty or conviction. The risk is that the penalty may be set too low to deter a large commercial operator from cutting corners, especially if the likelihood of detection is low. The differential corporate penalties (5 vs 2 or 3 penalty units for some offences) try to correct that but remain low in absolute terms.

Enforcement officers employed by Agriculture Victoria or authorised under the Act are the ones who will issue the notices. These Regulations give them the list of offences and penalties to apply, simplifying their decision-making. The Regulations also affect the courts indirectly: by diverting minor matters out of the criminal justice system, they reduce the court caseload but also remove the possibility of judicial scrutiny of the circumstances of each breach. The trade-off is between efficiency and individualised justice.

The addition of Part 3 for Ruminant Feed offences specifically affects anyone involved in the production, supply, storage, or use of feed for cattle, sheep, goats, or other ruminants. Those offences relate to the prohibition on feeding certain animal-derived material, and the infringement notice pathway makes it easier for inspectors to enforce compliance on farms, feed mills, and transport operations.

These Regulations themselves impose no new duties. The duties are located in the Act and the regulations referenced in Schedule 1. For example, section 18 of the Act imposes a duty on a person to give information to an inspector upon request; section 19 requires the keeping of records; section 20 prohibits supplying false or misleading information or documents; section 21 prohibits obstructing an inspector; sections 30 and 32 deal with compliance with notices, orders, and directions; section 42 deals with the proper disposal of containers; section 48 deals with the storage of chemicals; section 49 deals with transport and handling; section 52AA concerns restrictions on use of certain chemicals; section 54J deals with the duty to notify of notifiable incidents; sections 55 and 56 deal with the requirement to display warning signs and provide safety information; section 58 deals with the requirement to hold an assessment permit for certain uses; section 62 with the duty to have an agricultural chemical user licence or permit; section 67A with the duty to comply with conditions of a label or permit; and section 67B with the duty not to supply or use a chemical in a manner inconsistent with the label. The 2017 Regulations deal with record-keeping, identification of users, and notification requirements. The Ruminant Feed Regulations deal with the prohibition on feeding prohibited animal matter.

The rights that arise from the infringement notice regime are created by the Act, not the Regulations. However, the Regulations are necessary to trigger those rights: without them, no infringement notice can be issued for the listed offences. The key right for a recipient is the right to elect to have the matter heard in court rather than pay the penalty. In Victoria, an infringement notice must give the recipient the option to pay or to request a hearing. If the recipient pays, they waive their right to contest guilt and no conviction is recorded. If they elect court, they face the ordinary criminal process with the possibility of a higher penalty (the Act provides maximum penalties many times above these fixed amounts) and a conviction if found guilty.

There is also a right to have the infringement notice withdrawn or varied if the officer is satisfied that it was issued in error, but that is a matter of enforcement policy, not regulation. The Regulations do not address withdrawal or the procedure for contesting a notice. They only set the quantum.

For a person who receives multiple infringement notices over time, there is a risk of accruing a substantial aggregate liability. The Regulations do not impose any cap on the number of notices that can be issued in a period. A persistent failure to keep records, for example, could be met with repeated notices, each at 5 penalty units. The recipient’s right is to either pay each or elect court on each, which for a small operator could be burdensome.

The penalties are expressed in penalty units. For the 2025-26 financial year, one penalty unit is $203.51. Therefore the range of current dollar penalties is:

• 1 penalty unit: $203.51 (item 22, offence against s.67B(1)).
• 2 penalty units: $407.02 (several items including most Part 2 and Part 3 offences, and items 16 and 20 for non-corporate offenders).
• 3 penalty units: $610.53 (items 2, 3 for non-corporate; Part 2 items 5-9).
• 4 penalty units: $814.04 (item 15, s.52AA; item 21, s.67A(1)).
• 5 penalty units: $1,017.55 (most Part 1 items for natural persons, and corporate penalties for some items; also Part 3 items 4-6).

The penalty amounts are modest relative to the maximum penalties in the Act, which can reach 200 or more penalty units for serious offences. The infringement notice is meant for minor, often strict liability, breaches where the harm is small or the fault is low. However, the gap between 5 penalty units and the maximum (which could be 200+ units) is enormous. This creates a strong incentive to pay the notice and avoid court, even if the recipient believes they are innocent. A person faced with a notice for $1,017 would almost certainly pay it rather than risk a $40,000 fine in court, even if their defence is good. This is the classic compliance trap of the infringement notice system: the low penalty is affordable, but the alternative is ruinous, so the recipient pays even when they might win in court.

Enforcement of the infringement notice regime is carried out by inspectors authorised under the Act. The Regulations give them a predetermined tariff. Once an inspector issues a notice, the recipient must either pay within the time specified (usually 28 days) or apply to have the matter heard. If neither occurs, the notice becomes enforceable as a final order and can be registered as a judgment debt. There is no provision in these Regulations for issuing multiple notices for the same alleged breach or for appealing the penalty itself (the appeal is against the offence, not the fixed sum).

The 2025 amendment added the Ruminant Feed offences with penalties of 2 penalty units (for items 1-3, which appear to be record keeping or information offences) and 5 penalty units (for items 4-6, which are likely substantive prohibition breaches). The differentiation within Part 3 between items suggests a view that failure to provide information or keep records (2 PU) is less culpable than actually feeding prohibited material (5 PU).

The Regulations do not specify any formal burden of proof. In practice, the inspector must form a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed. But the penalty is payable without any adjudication of guilt. The burden of proving innocence shifts to the recipient only if they elect court.

The primary interaction is with the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992. The Regulations are made under section 76 of that Act and give effect to the infringement notice provisions in Part 7 of the Act (specifically section 69). Without the Act, the Regulations would be pointless; without the Regulations, the Act’s infringement notice power would have no prescribed offences or penalties. The two instruments must be read together.

The Regulations also interact with the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Regulations 2017. Part 2 of Schedule 1 incorporates nine offences from that instrument. Those regulations deal with matters such as the requirement to keep a record of chemical use, to have identification on vehicles, and to notify authorities of certain uses. The infringement notice regime for those offences streamlines enforcement but also creates a potential gap: if a person is served an infringement notice for a minor record-keeping breach, they may not appreciate that the underlying duty is continuing and that a subsequent breach could lead to a further notice.

The addition of Part 3 in 2025 means the Regulations now support the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) (Ruminant Feed) Regulations 2025. That instrument was likely introduced to respond to specific feed safety concerns. The interaction here is that the infringement notice pathway makes the new regulations easier to enforce from day one.

The Sentencing Act 1991 supplies the definition of penalty unit and the rules for rounding and indexing. The Monetary Units Act 2004 provides for the annual recalculation. The operation of these two Acts means that the dollar amount payable under these Regulations changes each financial year, and the enforcement officer and recipient must both apply the current unit value. There is a risk that an old infringement notice form printed with a dollar amount from a prior year could be invalid if the notice does not refer to the correct current penalty unit value. Practitioners should verify the applicable value as at the date of the alleged offence.

The Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 governs the making, laying, disallowance, and sunset of regulations. Because these Regulations are subject to sunset, they automatically expire in 2033 unless re-made. This creates a planning horizon for regulated entities: if the government does not re-make them, the infringement notice pathway for these offences will lapse. At that point, enforcement officers would have to proceed only by prosecution for any offence, even minor ones. That would increase the cost of enforcement and may reduce the rate of enforcement actions. The sunset is a mechanism that forces periodic review, but it also introduces regulatory uncertainty.

The Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) or its equivalent would govern the process if a recipient elects to have the matter heard in court. The Regulations do not reference that Act but the interaction is practical: once in court, the proceeding is a criminal proceeding and the usual rules of evidence and procedure apply. The maximum penalty is that set in the Act, not the infringement penalty.

The Regulations were made on 5 December 2023 by the Administrator of Victoria acting on the advice of the Executive Council, and commenced on 9 December 2023 (regulation 3). They revoked three earlier instruments: the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) (Infringement Notices) Regulations 2013 (S.R. No. 156/2013) and its amending regulations of 2014 and 2017. The revocation means that the old penalty unit amounts and offence lists no longer apply; any infringement notice issued after 9 December 2023 must refer to the 2023 Regulations.

The first and only amendment to date is the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) (Infringement Notices) Amendment Regulations 2025 (S.R. No. 120/2025), made on 25 November 2025 and commencing on 7 December 2025. That amendment inserted Part 3 into Schedule 1, adding six new infringement offences drawn from the Ruminant Feed Regulations 2025. The amendment did not alter any existing penalties or offences, nor did it modify regulation 6(2) (the corporate exclusion). The amendment was straightforward but significant because it brought a new regulatory area under the infringement notice umbrella.

The version history shows that the amendment was the only change. No other amendments, including any that might adjust penalty units due to indexation, have been made because indexation is automatic under the Monetary Units Act and does not require amendment of the regulations themselves. The endnotes confirm the Table of Amendments includes only the 2025 amendment.

The sunset provision means that the Regulations, as amended, will expire on 5 December 2033 unless re-made. That is a fixed ten-year period from the original making date. The 2025 amendment does not restart the sunset clock; it is merely an amendment of the original instrument. Therefore the entire consolidated instrument shares the original sunset date. This is a crucial point for future planning: the Ruminant Feed infringement offences will lapse in 2033 along with everything else, unless the government re-makes the entire regulation.

There is no reported litigation directly concerning these Regulations. Infringement notice regulations are rarely the subject of judicial consideration because they are procedural and the cases that arise involve challenges to individual infringement notices or to the validity of the underlying offence. Because these Regulations create no new rights or duties, the scope for challenge is limited. A person who receives a notice could argue that the offence prescribed does not match the conduct alleged, or that the penalty amount is incorrect, or that the corporate exclusion was misapplied. However, such arguments are fact-specific and unlikely to produce appellate decisions.

The underlying Act has been considered in Victorian courts in cases concerning the interpretation of sections such as section 18 (duty to provide information) and section 20 (false or misleading documents). Those cases typically involve prosecutions, not infringement notices, but they would inform the application of these Regulations. For instance, a determination in a prosecution that a particular omission is not an offence under section 18(1) would mean that an infringement notice for that conduct would be invalid. Conversely, a broad interpretation of the offence would widen the reach of the infringement notice.

The 2013 regulations that were revoked by these Regulations also had no notable litigation. The infringement notice system for agricultural chemical offences in Victoria has operated for over a decade without significant judicial scrutiny. This suggests that most recipients pay the penalty rather than contest it, which may be an intended outcome of the system.

The 2025 amendment adding Ruminant Feed offences is too recent to have generated litigation. Were a challenge to arise, it might focus on the reasonableness of the penalty amount or on whether the underlying Ruminant Feed Regulations were validly made.

Practitioners representing clients who receive infringement notices under these Regulations should be alert to the possibility that the notice is defective on its face if it does not correctly specify the offence, the applicable penalty unit value, or the options for payment or election. A successful challenge on those grounds could lead to the notice being set aside, but that is a matter of the general law on infringement notices, not these Regulations specifically.

The first gotcha is the corporate exclusion in regulation 6(2). A company that receives an infringement notice for an offence listed in that provision should immediately check whether the officer applied the correct offence. If the officer issued a notice under section 18(1) to a corporation, that notice is invalid because regulation 6(2) prohibits it. The company can simply disregard the notice, although it may still be prosecuted in court. This is a trap for enforcement officers as well: if they mistakenly issue a notice to a corporation for one of the excluded offences, the notice is a nullity and the enforcement effort is wasted.

The second gotcha is the interaction between penalty unit indexation and the infrequency of re-printing notices. Officers may use pre-printed forms with outdated dollar amounts. A notice that demands, for example, $1,000 for a 5 penalty unit offence when the current value is $1,017.55 may be argued to be less than the prescribed amount, potentially invalidating the notice. Conversely, demanding more than the prescribed amount would also be defective. Recipients should check the notice against the current penalty unit value published in the Government Gazette.

The third gotcha is the sunset. These Regulations expire in 2033, and if not re-made, all the listed infringement offences revert to prosecution-only status. A person who commits an offence after that date cannot be served an infringement notice even if the conduct would have triggered one before. This might create a temporary enforcement gap if the government fails to re-make in time. For legal advisors, this is a calendar note: from 6 December 2033, check whether new regulations have been made.

The fourth gotcha is the low penalty for record-keeping offences relative to the cost of compliance. For items 1-3 in Part 2 (record-keeping), the penalty is 2 penalty units ($407). But the cost of maintaining proper records throughout a farming business is ongoing and may exceed that amount many times over. The infringement notice regime may therefore be an ineffective deterrent for systematic non-compliance: a farmer who chooses not to keep records at all may regard a $407 fine as an occasional cost of doing business. The system relies on detection probability being high enough to offset the penalty. If detection is low, the regime fails to incentivise compliance.

The fifth gotcha is that the Regulations do not cap the number of infringement notices that can be issued for continuing breaches. A pesticide user who fails to keep records for a week could theoretically receive a separate notice for each day or each application. While this is unlikely in practice, the possibility exists, and the recipient would have to either pay each notice or elect court for each. The cumulative cost could become significant.

The sixth gotcha concerns the Ruminant Feed offences. Part 3 items 1-3 carry 2 penalty units, while items 4-6 carry 5 penalty units. An inspector may choose to issue a lower penalty for what appears to be a minor breach. However, the descriptor for each offence is not provided in these Regulations (only the reference to the Ruminant Feed regulation number). A recipient may not know what specific conduct triggered the notice, and the penalty amount may not reflect the seriousness of the actual breach. This lack of transparency in the Schedule (no offence description) is a design flaw: the recipient must consult the Ruminant Feed Regulations to understand what they are alleged to have done.

Compliance begins with understanding the substantive duties under the Act and the incorporated regulations. Because these Regulations only list which breaches can be dealt with by infringement notice, the primary task is to ensure that none of those breaches occur in the first place. For a farmer, that means: keep accurate records of chemical use (identification of chemical, date, location, crop, amount, wind direction, and operator details); retain labels and safety data sheets; store chemicals in secure, properly labelled containers; dispose of empty containers through approved schemes; display warning signs when spraying; hold an agricultural chemical user licence or permit where required; comply with all label and permit conditions; report notifiable incidents; and if feeding ruminants, ensure no prohibited animal material is present in the feed.

For a business, the corporate exclusion in regulation 6(2) means that certain breaches cannot be settled cheaply. The six excluded offences relate to interactions with inspectors: providing information, not giving false documents, not obstructing, and complying with orders. The most effective compliance strategy is to train all employees who may deal with inspectors to cooperate immediately, to provide only accurate information, and never to interfere with an inspector’s work. A single instance of obstruction by an employee can lead to a court prosecution against the company with no infringement notice option. The company should have a written policy for dealing with regulatory inspections.

If an infringement notice is served, the recipient should first check whether it is valid on its face: does it correctly identify the offence (with the Act or regulation reference), is the penalty amount correct for the current penalty unit value, and is it addressed to the correct person or entity? If the recipient is a corporation and the offence is one of the six excluded under regulation 6(2), the notice is invalid and the company should not pay it; instead, it should seek legal advice and expect a court summons. If the notice appears valid, the recipient must decide whether to pay or elect court. The choice involves weighing the certainty of a low payment against the risk of a higher penalty and conviction in court. For a minor, unintentional breach where the evidence is clear, payment is usually the sensible option. For a disputed breach where the recipient has a strong defence or where the penalty is unjust, electing court may be worth the risk.

The Regulations do not provide for payment plans or extensions. The recipient must pay the full amount by the due date, or apply to have the matter heard. There is no provision for part payment or for an internal review. The only formal avenue is court.

Regular auditing of compliance with the Act and the subsidiary regulations is the most reliable way to avoid infringement notices. For a small farm, a simple checklist covering the common record-keeping and labelling duties can prevent most of the listed offences. For larger operators with multiple employees, a documented compliance program with periodic inspections and training reduces the risk. Because the penalties are low relative to the cost of a compliance program, the rational economic choice for a large corporation may be to absorb occasional fines rather than invest heavily in compliance. The Regulations are structured to catch only minor breaches; they do not create strong incentives for systemic improvement.

Finally, stay informed about the sunset date. If the Regulations are not re-made in 2033, the infringement notice pathway will disappear. That could change the enforcement landscape dramatically, making court prosecution the only option for even minor breaches. Businesses should monitor whether replacement regulations are consulted on and made before that date, and if not, adjust their compliance expectations accordingly.