Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Western Australia) Act 1995

In ForceWA

Jurisdiction

Western Australia

Collection

act

Plain English Summary

7/10 complexity

What this law does, who it affects, and how it works

Mechanically, the Act makes the Commonwealth Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code (the "Agvet Code") and its regulations operate as laws of Western Australia (WA). It does this by adopting the Code and the regulations into WA law, so they are treated as the Agvet Code and Agvet Regulations of Western Australia (sections 5–7).
The Act gives the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) the functions and powers under the Agvet Code as they apply in WA and lets APVMA carry out those functions in WA (section 21). The WA Minister can enter written agreements with the Commonwealth Minister under which the APVMA acts as an agent of the State (section 22). The Commonwealth Minister retains a power to give directions to APVMA in exceptional circumstances (section 24).
The Act makes certain Commonwealth administrative laws apply to Agvet matters in WA: for example, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Ombudsman Act and the Privacy Act apply as if Agvet matters were Commonwealth laws (see the definitions in section 3 and the application in section 16). That means APVMA decision‑making in WA will be subject to those Commonwealth administrative procedures and review routes (sections 16–18A).
It creates operational detail about inspectors, analysts, delegates and validation of past actions (sections 28, 28A, 28B), and makes fees and other monies payable under the Agvet provisions payable to the Commonwealth (section 29). It also allows WA authorities to hand across documents or substances to APVMA (section 30).

JSON API

Deep Dive

5,280 words · generated 11/05/2026

What it does

The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Western Australia) Act 1995 is the Western Australian component of a national cooperative scheme for the regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemical products. Its central function is to adopt, as a law of Western Australia, the Commonwealth Agvet Code set out in the Schedule to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 (Cth) and the regulations made under section 6 of that Act. This adoption is effected by sections 5 and 6 of the WA Act. Section 5 provides that the Code set out in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Code Act “applies as a law of Western Australia” and may be cited as the Agvet Code of Western Australia. Section 6 does the same for the regulations in force under section 6 of the Commonwealth Code Act, which become the Agvet Regulations of Western Australia. The Act also, through Part 5, applies the Commonwealth administrative laws , the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Ombudsman Act 1976, and the Privacy Act 1988 , to matters arising under the applicable provisions (those provisions are defined in section 3 as including the Agvet Code, the Agvet Regulations, and related Commonwealth laws). The object stated in section 15 is to help ensure that the Agvet Code of Western Australia and the Agvet Code of each other jurisdiction are administered on a uniform basis. The Act further confers functions and powers on the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) under Part 7, provides for the binding of the Crown (Part 4), establishes the relationship with other State laws (Part 10), imposes fees (Part 9), and confers prosecution functions on the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Part 9A). The preamble sets out the underlying reasons: protection of health and safety, ecologically sustainable development, furthering trade and commerce, uniformity across Australia, and an open and accountable regulatory system. The Act itself is essentially an enabling and machinery statute; the substantive regulatory obligations are found in the Agvet Code that it applies. The Act also contains provisions dealing with ancillary offences (section 8), delegation, the validation of inspectors’ actions, exemptions from liability for damages (section 31), and transitional matters. It operates alongside corresponding Acts in other States and the Northern Territory to create a single national regulatory framework for agricultural and veterinary chemicals.

Current sections

Direct links to the current provisions in Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Western Australia) Act 1995.

Authorised Version

The authorised version of this legislation is published by the jurisdiction's legislation service. Follow the link below to read or download it from the official source.

View on official register

Sourced from the Western Australian Legislation website (legislation.wa.gov.au). Not the authorised version.

The Act is presented as implementing a uniform national regulatory system for agricultural and veterinary chemical products to protect health, the environment and trade, and to make regulation cost‑effective and predictable (Reasons for enacting the Act). The mechanical changes above show how it tries to deliver uniformity: by adopting the Commonwealth Code verbatim for WA and by giving Commonwealth administrative laws and the APVMA operational force in WA (sections 5–7, 16–17, 21).
Costs and who pays: compliance costs, application and licence fees, and other monetary obligations created under the Agvet Code in WA are payable to the Commonwealth (section 29). Firms that import, manufacture, supply or handle chemicals must comply with a national registration/permit/licence regime administered by APVMA (sections 5, 21). Those compliance costs are concentrated on registrants and manufacturers; they are dispersed across users and consumers via prices, but the Act puts direct payment obligations on regulated persons (s29).
Incentives and private choice: the Act centralises approval, registration and licensing with APVMA (section 21). That reduces duplicate state approvals (a benefit for manufacturers and distributors) but places decision‑making and operational compliance under a single national regulator and its associated fees and conditions (sections 5, 21, 26). Firms will tailor product development, manufacturing and market entry to APVMA standards and fee structures; licensing conditions can restrict where and how manufacture or use occurs (see manufacturing and licence references in section 31).
Effects on competition and ownership: a single national approval process tends to standardise market entry requirements. That can lower costs for firms that operate nationally (one approval instead of many) but can raise barriers for small or local operators if APVMA fees, testing or manufacturing requirements are proportionally higher for them (sections 5, 21, 26, 29). The Act allows WA to modify application of the Code by regulation (section 36(3)(b)), which preserves some scope for local adjustment.
Transparency, review and administrative accountability: applying Commonwealth administrative laws (AAT review, FOI, Ombudsman, Privacy) to Agvet matters in WA makes APVMA’s decisions subject to established administrative review and information access processes (definitions and section 16). That increases procedural oversight but also imports Commonwealth procedural standards into WA decision‑making and may change timelines and costs for applicants (sections 3; 16–18A).
Enforcement and risk allocation: criminal prosecutions for indictable offences under the Agvet Code in WA can be instituted by the Commonwealth DPP (s35A), and the Crown cannot be prosecuted (s13). The State and its coordinator are protected from liability for damages arising from APVMA decisions or actions (s31(1)), which shifts risks to private parties (regulated businesses and third parties). At the same time, section 31(2) makes clear that private defendants cannot automatically escape civil liability simply because APVMA approved a product.
Bureaucratic discretion and capture risk: APVMA and, in exceptional cases, the Commonwealth Minister have powers and directions over administration (sections 21, 24). The Act also permits WA regulations to alter how the Code applies locally (s36). These provisions create identifiable nodes of decision‑making (APVMA, Commonwealth Minister, WA regulations) where policy choices affect market access and conditions; the Act therefore creates practical incentives for regulated parties to engage with those decision points (for example, via submissions, applications, or agreements under s22).
Implementation and coordination risks: the Act depends on cross‑jurisdictional integration — e.g. APVMA applying Commonwealth administrative laws in WA and WA adopting the Code by reference (sections 5–7; 16–18). That reduces duplication but requires procedures for information sharing and consistent practice across jurisdictions (sections 22–23, 30). The Act validates past actions by appointed inspectors and analysts where necessary (section 28B), reflecting transitional implementation issues.

Main concepts

The Act introduces several key defined terms in section 3. “Agvet Code of Western Australia” means the provisions applying because of section 5; that is, the Code set out in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 as in force for the time being. “Agvet Regulations of Western Australia” means the provisions applying because of section 6. The “APVMA” is the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority continued in existence by section 6 of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth). “Applicable provision” is defined broadly to mean a provision of the Agvet Code of a jurisdiction, the Agvet Regulations of a jurisdiction, or a Commonwealth law that applies in that jurisdiction in relation to a provision of or an offence against the Agvet Code or Agvet Regulations. This definition is central to Part 5, which applies Commonwealth administrative laws to these provisions as if they were Commonwealth laws. “Commonwealth administrative laws” means the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Ombudsman Act 1976, and the Privacy Act 1988 (and the regulations under those Acts). “Participating Territory” means the Australian Capital Territory or another Territory declared under section 25 of the Commonwealth Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act 1994. “This jurisdiction” means Western Australia. The Act distinguishes between the “Commonwealth Minister” (the Minister within the meaning of the Agvet Code of the participating Territories) and “Minister for this jurisdiction” (defined in section 7(1) for the purposes of the WA Agvet Code as the Western Australian Minister). The term “confer” includes impose. “Function” includes duty. “Instrument” is defined extremely broadly to include any document whatever , including Acts, instruments under Acts, awards, licences, agreements, applications, warrants, indictments, and process in legal proceedings. “Jurisdiction” means a State or the participating Territories. “State” includes the Northern Territory. “Territory” refers to a Territory under section 122 of the Commonwealth Constitution other than the Northern Territory, Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, or the Cocos Islands. By section 4, the Jervis Bay Territory is taken to be part of the Australian Capital Territory for the purposes of the Act and the WA Agvet Code. Part 1 of the WA Agvet Code itself modifies definitions for the purposes of the Code: “Minister for this jurisdiction” is the WA Minister, and “this jurisdiction” is Western Australia. Section 7(2) applies the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act 1901 as a law of this jurisdiction to the WA Agvet Code and Regulations and any instruments under them, as if the WA Code were a Commonwealth Act and the Regulations were Commonwealth regulations. Critically, section 7(4) disapplies the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) to the WA Agvet Code and Regulations and related instruments. This is a significant interpretative departure , the local general interpretation legislation does not apply; instead the Commonwealth Act applies. The concept of “ancillary criminal laws” in section 8 refers to section 4, Chapters II, LVII, LVIII, and section 562 of The Criminal Code (WA), and these apply to offences against the WA Agvet Code, with modifications set out in subsection (2).

Who it affects

The Act affects a wide range of persons and entities involved with agricultural and veterinary chemicals in Western Australia. First, the Agvet Code of Western Australia, by section 11, binds the Crown in right of Western Australia, and by section 12, the Agvet Code of each other jurisdiction also binds the Crown in right of Western Australia. However, section 13 provides that nothing in Part 4 or in the WA Agvet Code renders the Crown in any capacity liable to prosecution for an offence. This creates a carve-out: the Crown is bound but cannot be prosecuted. The Crown nevertheless remains subject to the provisions despite any prerogative right or privilege (section 14). The APVMA is the primary regulator; Part 7 confers on it functions and powers under the Act and the WA Agvet Code, including the ability to enter contracts, hold property, and do all things necessary or convenient (section 21). The APVMA can also act as an agent of the State under an agreement or arrangement with the Commonwealth Minister (section 22). The Commonwealth Minister has the power to give directions to the APVMA under section 10 of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act, and that power extends to functions under the WA applicable provisions (section 24). Inspectors and analysts are affected through Part 8: section 28 allows State officers to be authorised by the APVMA Chief Executive Officer under Commonwealth law to exercise powers and perform functions of an inspector for the purposes of a “relevant law”, and those powers and functions are conferred on the officer. Section 28A gives inspectors and analysts specifically the functions and powers conferred under the applicable provisions of this jurisdiction. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is given functions by section 35A to institute and carry on prosecutions for indictable and summary offences against the WA Agvet Code and Regulations. The persons who manufacture, supply, handle, import, or use chemical products are distinctly affected by section 31, which grants exemptions from liability for damages to the State and coordinators for loss or injury from handling approved or registered products, or from refusal, suspension, or cancellation of approvals, registrations, permits, or licences. Conversely, section 31(2) provides that if an action is brought against a person responsible for the importation, manufacture, supply, or handling of such products, it is not a defence that the APVMA has approved, registered, permitted, or licensed the product or step. So the exemption protects the State and coordinators, not private defendants. Fees under the Act and Agvet Regulations (Part 9) affect all persons required to pay them; section 29 provides those fees must be paid to the Commonwealth. The regulations under section 32 may prescribe matters for giving effect to the Act, and section 36 allows regulations to modify the application of the Agvet Code in WA or to specify that other enactments have effect despite the Code, with possible retrospective effect subject to safeguards. Those affected by retrospective regulations include any person (other than the State or its authority) whose existing rights would be prejudiced or on whom liabilities would be imposed for pre-publication conduct (section 36(5)).

Key duties and rights

The Act creates few direct duties itself; most substantive duties arise from the Agvet Code it applies. However, the Act imposes duties on the APVMA: section 21 confers the functions and powers expressed in the Act or the WA Agvet Code, and section 23A extends the duty imposed on the APVMA under section 8A of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act in respect of consultation with the Gene Technology Regulator to corresponding matters under the WA applicable provisions. Section 23A(2) gives the Gene Technology Regulator the right to give written advice to the APVMA about the application, reconsideration, or issue, within the period specified in the notice. The Commonwealth Minister has the right under section 24 to give directions to the APVMA in exceptional circumstances, and that right extends to directions in relation to the APVMA’s functions under the WA provisions. The Commonwealth Minister also has the power of delegation under section 71 of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act extended to powers under the WA Act (section 27). State officers, when authorised under section 69F of the Commonwealth Administration Act, have the rights and duties of an inspector conferred by section 28; they must exercise those powers and functions in accordance with the authorisation, but section 28(2) deems any action valid despite non-compliance with a condition or restriction of the authorisation. This creates a form of immunity from invalidity. Inspectors and analysts under sections 28A and 28B have their actions validated retroactively if they would have been valid had the relevant section (section 7 of the 2001 amendment Act) been in force earlier , this is a savings/validation provision of great significance for past administrative actions. The Crown has the right under sections 11-14 to be bound but not prosecuted; however, section 14 overrides prerogative rights so the Crown cannot claim those rights to avoid the provisions. Persons dealing with the APVMA are affected by section 18A, which provides that references to Part IVA of the Commonwealth AAT Act are to that Part as it has effect as a Commonwealth law , this is important for tribunal review rights. Section 29 creates the right of the Commonwealth to receive fees and other moneys (not penalties or fines) payable under the applicable provisions. The APVMA has the right under section 30 to receive documents or substances held by previous State registering authorities, despite any other State law. The exemption from liability in section 31(1) is a right of the State and coordinators not to be sued for damages for loss or injury from handling approved/registered/permitted/licensed products or from inability to use products due to APVMA decisions. This exemption is broad and covers various scenarios listed in the section. On the other side, section 31(2) denies defendants (private parties) the defence of APVMA approval in damages actions brought against them. The Governor has the power to make regulations under section 32. Section 36 gives the power to modify the application of the Agvet Code in WA via regulations, subject to safeguards for retrospective operation.

Penalties and enforcement

The Act does not itself create penalties for substantive offences; those penalties are found in the Agvet Code applied by section 5. However, section 8 establishes ancillary criminal liability for offences against the WA Agvet Code or Regulations. Section 8(1) defines “ancillary criminal laws” as section 4 (matters that are not offences because of necessity etc.), Chapters II (parties to offences), LVII (attempts and incitement), and LVIII (conspiracy) and section 562 (accessory after the fact) of The Criminal Code (WA). Section 8(2) provides that those ancillary criminal laws apply in relation to an offence against the WA Agvet Code or Regulations, with modifications: section 555A (which deals with certain provisions) applies as if the words “under this Code” were deleted, and section 562 is modified to provide that any person who becomes an accessory after the fact to a simple offence is guilty of a simple offence and liable to the same penalty as the principal offender. Section 8(3) confirms that references in the WA Agvet Code or Regulations to an offence include a reference to a related offence under the ancillary criminal laws. This means that attempt, incitement, conspiracy, and accessorial liability under WA criminal law apply to Agvet offences, but with these specific textual adjustments. Enforcement is carried out by inspectors and analysts. Section 28A gives those officers the functions and powers conferred under the applicable provisions of this jurisdiction. These inspectors would have powers of entry, search, seizure, and sampling as provided in the Agvet Code. Section 28B validates any action or omission by an officer before the commencement of the 2001 amendment that would have been valid had the amendment been in force earlier; this implies that prior administrative actions may have been technically invalid but are now retrospectively validated. Part 9A (section 35A) is a central enforcement mechanism: the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions may institute and carry on prosecutions for indictable and summary offences against the WA Agvet Code and Regulations, including proceedings for committal for trial, and may do anything incidental or conducive. The Commonwealth DPP can also carry on prosecutions instituted by the State Attorney General or DPP if requested in writing. This creates a hybrid enforcement model where the Commonwealth DPP conducts prosecutions under State law. The Crown is not liable to prosecution (section 13), so enforcement cannot be brought against the State as a defendant. Fees and other moneys are payable to the Commonwealth (section 29). The Act does not specify maximum monetary penalties or terms of imprisonment; those will be in the Agvet Code as applied. The Act’s Part 8 also includes section 25, which provides that orders under section 7 of the Commonwealth Code Act have the same effect as provisions of the WA Agvet Regulations for the purposes of the WA Code. Manufacturing principles under section 26 also have effect for Part 8 of the Code.

How it interacts with other laws

The Act is carefully designed to interact with both Commonwealth and State laws. The most significant interaction is with Commonwealth laws. By section 5, the Agvet Code set out in the Commonwealth Act becomes a State law, but by section 7(2), the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act 1901 applies to the WA Agvet Code and Regulations as if they were Commonwealth enactments, and the WA Interpretation Act 1984 is expressly disapplied (section 7(4)). This means that interpretation of the WA Agvet Code follows Commonwealth interpretive principles. Part 5 (sections 15-18A) applies four Commonwealth administrative laws , the AAT Act, FOI Act, Ombudsman Act, and Privacy Act , as laws of this jurisdiction to matters arising in relation to the applicable provisions of this jurisdiction. Section 16(1) provides that these Commonwealth administrative laws apply “as if those provisions were laws of the Commonwealth and were not laws of this jurisdiction.” This extends the full suite of merits review, freedom of information, ombudsman oversight, and privacy protections to decisions under the WA Agvet Code and Regulations. Section 16(2) and (3) clarify that certain provisions in the Agvet Code requiring reasons or governing confidential commercial information do not override the AAT Act or FOI Act as applied. Section 17 confers on Commonwealth officers and authorities the same functions and powers under the applied administrative laws as they have under the Commonwealth originals. Section 18 ensures that references in a Commonwealth administrative law to another provision of such a law are to the provision as applying because of section 16. Section 18A deals specifically with Part IVA of the AAT Act , references to that Part are to it as it has effect as a Commonwealth law. Interaction with State laws is governed by Part 10 (section 36). Subsection (3) allows regulations to specify that a particular WA enactment has effect despite the Agvet Code, or to modify the application of the Code in WA, or to exclude a provision of the Code altogether. This is a powerful override mechanism. Subsection (4) permits such regulations to have retrospective effect from the date the relevant Code provision applied, but subsection (5) protects persons (other than the State) from prejudicial effects on existing rights or from liabilities for pre-publication conduct. This is a safeguard against arbitrary retroactivity. The Act also interacts with the Gene Technology Act 2006 (WA) through section 23A, which extends the duty of the APVMA to consult the Gene Technology Regulator under Commonwealth law to corresponding matters under the WA Agvet Code. The Gene Technology Regulator may give advice under that section. The Act further interacts with the Co-operative Schemes (Administrative Actions) Act 2001, as noted in the note to section 28B. The Act defines “corresponding Act” and “corresponding law” (section 3) to facilitate cross-recognition with other States and the Northern Territory. Part 3 (sections 9-10) helps ensure that references to the Agvet Codes and Agvet Regulations across jurisdictions can operate as a single national code. Section 10(1) states the object: to help ensure that the WA Code together with each other jurisdiction’s Code constitutes a single national Agvet Code. Section 10(2) provides that a reference in an instrument to “the Agvet Codes” or “the Agvet Regulations” is taken to be a reference to the WA Code or Regulations and also includes a separate reference to each other jurisdiction’s Code or Regulations, subject to contrary intention. This facilitates seamless interaction across borders. The provisions relating to the binding of the Crown (Part 4) ensure that the Crown in right of WA is bound by the Codes of other jurisdictions (section 12) and that WA’s own Code binds the Crown (section 11), but with the critical qualification that no prosecution lies against the Crown (section 13). Section 14 overrides prerogative rights so that the Crown cannot rely on them to avoid obligations under the Codes of other jurisdictions.

Amendment history

The Act was originally enacted as Act No. 3 of 1995, received assent on 17 May 1995, and sections 1 and 2 commenced on that day. The remainder of the Act commenced on 24 June 1995 by proclamation (gazette 23 June 1995 p. 2419). Since then, the Act has been amended by several subsequent Acts. The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Western Australia) Amendment Act 2000 (No. 4 of 2000) received assent on 10 April 2000 and commenced on that date. It amended section 36 (relationship with other State laws). The most significant amendment was the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Western Australia) Amendment Act 2001 (No. 21 of 2001), which received assent on 26 November 2001. Most of its provisions commenced on that date, but sections 4(b), 5, 7, and 8 commenced on 30 January 2002 by proclamation (gazette 29 January 2002 p. 475). The 2001 Act inserted Part 5 (application of Commonwealth administrative laws) with sections 15-18A, inserted section 33A (transitional provision), inserted Part 9A (conferral of functions on Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions) with section 35A, inserted sections 28A and 28B (inspectors, analysts, and validation of actions), and made other amendments. The Criminal Procedure and Appeals (Consequential and Other Provisions) Act 2004 (No. 84 of 2004) amended section 3 and came into operation on 2 May 2005. The Gene Technology Act 2006 (No. 20 of 2006) inserted section 23A (consultation with Gene Technology Regulator) and commenced on 28 July 2007. The Statutes (Repeals and Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2009 (No. 8 of 2009) amended sections 3, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 30, and 31, and commenced on 22 May 2009. The compilation table shows that a reprint was made as at 1 March 2002 (including amendments up to the 2001 Act), and the current reprint is Reprint 2 as at 9 September 2011. Notably, Part 6 (sections 19-20) was deleted by the 2001 Act, and Part 11 was omitted under the Reprints Act 1984 section 7(4)(e). The Acts Amendment (Federal Courts and Tribunals) Act 2001 section 37 had not come into operation when it was deleted by the 2009 Act, so it never took effect for this Act.

Litigation history

The Act itself does not cite any decided cases. The litigation history associated with this Act is derived from enforcement actions under the Agvet Code it applies and from challenges to administrative decisions of the APVMA under the applied Commonwealth administrative laws. The Act provides the legal machinery for prosecutions: Part 9A confers on the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions the function to institute and carry on prosecutions for indictable and summary offences against the WA Agvet Code and Regulations (section 35A). This means that any criminal litigation for Agvet offences in WA is likely conducted by the Commonwealth DPP, not the State DPP, though the State DPP may also act if requested. The ancillary offence provisions in section 8 expand criminal liability to attempt, incitement, conspiracy, and accessory after the fact, so litigation may involve those charges. The AAT Act as applied (section 16) gives a right of merits review for certain decisions of the APVMA under the WA Agvet Code; that would generate litigation in the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal and then appeals to the Federal Court. The Freedom of Information Act as applied allows challenges to decisions regarding access to commercial information and other documents. The Ombudsman Act provides an investigative avenue. The exemption from liability in section 31(1) has the potential to generate litigation about whether the exemption applies , for example, whether a loss was “directly or indirectly suffered as a result of” handling an approved product or an inability to use a product due to a refusal or suspension. The scope of the exemption could be litigated in State courts. Section 31(2) is significant in product liability litigation: defendants cannot use APVMA approval as a defence, so that issue is not available in civil proceedings. The validation provision in section 28B could be relevant in challenges to the validity of inspectors’ actions, as it retroactively validates actions that would have been valid had the amendment been in force earlier, but only to the extent they would have been valid. This might be invoked in criminal or civil proceedings where the legality of a search or seizure is challenged. The interaction with other State laws under section 36 , particularly the power to modify the Code by regulation with possible retrospective effect , could give rise to litigation about the validity of such regulations, especially concerning the protective limits in section 36(5) against prejudicing existing rights and imposing liabilities for pre-publication conduct. The Courts might also interpret the meaning of “co-ordinator of this jurisdiction” in section 31(1) , that term is not defined in the Act, which could lead to litigation. The disapplication of the WA Interpretation Act (section 7(4)) and the application of the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act (section 7(2)) could produce litigation on interpretative disputes unique to the WA Agvet Code. Because the Act is a uniform scheme, there may be cross-border litigation where decisions of the APVMA in one jurisdiction affect another, but the Act itself does not create private rights of action except as limited by the exemption in section 31.

Gotchas

Practitioners should watch for several traps in this Act. First, the disapplication of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) in section 7(4) means that the usual WA rules of statutory interpretation do not apply to the Agvet Code or the Agvet Regulations of Western Australia. Instead, the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act 1901 applies by virtue of section 7(2). This is easy to overlook when construing a provision of the Code for a client. Second, the definition of “ancillary criminal laws” in section 8(1) picks up extensive provisions from The Criminal Code (WA) but with modifications. Section 8(2) deletes the words “under this Code” in section 555A, and inserts a new subsection into section 562 to make accessory after the fact to a simple offence a simple offence with the same penalty as the principal. An unwary practitioner might assume standard criminal code provisions apply unchanged, but they do not. Third, the validation provision in section 28B retroactively validates actions of inspectors and analysts done before the commencement of the 2001 amendment that would have been valid had that amendment been in force. This could defeat a challenge to the lawfulness of a search, seizure, or other enforcement action that predates 30 January 2002. Fourth, the retrospective regulation-making power in section 36(4) allows regulations to modify or exclude provisions of the Agvet Code with effect from a date earlier than the regulation’s publication in the Gazette. However, section 36(5) limits this: the regulations cannot affect prejudicially the existing rights of any person other than the State or its authorities, nor impose liabilities for acts or omissions before publication. This means a person cannot be made criminally liable for conduct that was lawful when done, but the State can adjust its own position retroactively. Fifth, section 31(2) is a trap for defendants in product liability actions: the fact that the APVMA has approved the active constituent, registered the product, issued a permit or exemption, or issued a licence is not a defence. Even if the product complies with all regulatory standards, a manufacturer cannot shield itself by pointing to regulatory approval. Sixth, the exemption from liability in section 31(1) protects the State and its coordinators, but not the product manufacturer, supplier, or handler. A plaintiff may still sue the manufacturer, and the manufacturer cannot rely on the APVMA approval as a defence. Seventh, the application of Commonwealth administrative laws in Part 5 means that decisions under the WA Agvet Code are subject to merits review by the AAT, FOI requests, Ombudsman investigation, and privacy obligations. A client may not realise that State-level regulatory decisions are reviewable under Commonwealth tribunal processes. Eighth, the fees imposed by Part 9 (section 35) must be paid to the Commonwealth, not to Western Australia. This could cause confusion about where payments should be directed. Ninth, the definition of “instrument” in section 3 is extremely broad and includes any document whatever, including Acts, awards, licences, agreements, and legal process. This means that referencing the “Agvet Codes” in any instrument triggers section 10(2), which deems the reference to include separate references to each other jurisdiction’s Code, unless a contrary intention appears. A poorly drafted contract that refers to “the Agvet Codes” might inadvertently incorporate the laws of every jurisdiction. Tenth, the Act uses the term “co-ordinator of this jurisdiction” in section 31(1) but never defines it. This creates ambiguity about who exactly is protected by the exemption from damages. A potential defendant would need to ascertain whether the term is defined elsewhere (perhaps in the Agvet Code) or by practice. Eleventh, the provision that the Crown is not liable to prosecution (section 13) means that even if the Agvet Code binds the Crown, enforcement cannot include criminal proceedings. Public authorities that breach the Code cannot be prosecuted, though other remedies such as injunction may be available. Twelfth, the power of the Commonwealth Minister to give directions in exceptional circumstances (section 24) is conferred directly, bypassing the State Minister. A client who disagrees with a direction may not have recourse to the State government.

How to comply

Compliance with this Act requires understanding that the substantive regulatory standards, obligations, and procedures are contained in the Agvet Code itself (the Commonwealth Code as applied by section 5) and the Agvet Regulations (as applied by section 6). A person or business involved with agricultural or veterinary chemicals in Western Australia must comply with the Code’s requirements for approval of active constituents, registration of chemical products, permits, licences, labelling, packaging, record-keeping, advertising, and reporting. Because the Agvet Code of Western Australia is identical in text to the Commonwealth Code and the Codes of other States, compliance with one jurisdiction’s Code generally ensures compliance with the others, but the specific interpretive rules under the WA Act must be noted: the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act applies, not the WA Interpretation Act. Practitioners should ensure that any submission or application to the APVMA is made with the understanding that the decision is reviewable under the Commonwealth AAT Act as applied by Part 5. Clients should be prepared to engage with the AAT, FOI requests, the Ombudsman, and privacy complaints. If a client receives a notice from the APVMA or from an inspector, they should be aware that the inspector’s powers are conferred by section 28A and validated by section 28B. The inspector may have been authorised under Commonwealth law, and the actions may be retrospectively validated even if there was some technical non-compliance. When facing enforcement action, it is crucial to understand that the Commonwealth DPP may prosecute, not the State DPP (section 35A). The ancillary criminal laws (section 8) mean that a person may be liable for attempt, incitement, conspiracy, or being an accessory after the fact to an Agvet offence, with modifications to the usual Criminal Code provisions. A company should have compliance programs that cover not only the principal offence but also potential accessorial liability of directors and employees. On the civil side, if a client is a product manufacturer, supplier, or handler, they cannot rely on the fact that the APVMA approved the product as a defence in a damages action (section 31(2)). The Act does not provide a defence of regulatory compliance. Therefore, risk management should include product liability insurance and careful independent assessment of risks, not mere reliance on the registration. If the client is the State of Western Australia or a coordinator, the exemption in section 31(1) applies, but the exemption is limited to the specific scenarios listed. The exemption does not cover all actions, so the State should still ensure that its employees and agents act within authority. When the APVMA delegates powers or the Commonwealth Minister gives directions, those are binding under sections 24 and 27. Clients interacting with the APVMA should be aware that the Commonwealth Minister may direct the APVMA in exceptional circumstances. Part 9 requires payment of fees to the Commonwealth , ensure that payment instructions are followed correctly. If a regulation is made under section 36 that modifies the application of the Agvet Code in WA, particularly if it has retrospective effect, clients should monitor the Gazette and check whether their existing rights are affected. However, section 36(5) protects against prejudicial effect on existing rights of persons other than the State. A client whose conduct was lawful before the retrospective regulation may have a basis to argue the regulation does not apply. Finally, the requirement for a review of the Act after five years (section 34) suggests periodic scrutiny, but the Act has been amended multiple times since. Practitioners should ensure they are using the current reprint and have checked for any subsequent amendments not consolidated in the 2011 reprint. The defined terms list in the Act is useful for conformity. The central guiding principle is that this is a cooperative scheme; compliance with the national framework as administered by the APVMA and the Commonwealth DPP will usually satisfy the WA Act, subject to the interpretive and jurisdictional nuances described above.