The Claim
“Spent $26 million and laid off 93 scientists to move the location of the agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines regulator.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core claim about $26 million in relocation costs is partially supported by government documents, though the figure about "93 scientists laid off" requires clarification.
Cost Analysis:
According to internal government cost-benefit analysis made public after a Senate order, the relocation was estimated to cost $26 million in moving costs [1]. The same analysis predicted the change could remove up to 189 jobs from Canberra, costing the ACT economy an estimated $157 million [1]. This analysis was released after cabinet approved the move in December 2016, with Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce describing the move and timeframe as "locked in" [1].
Scientist Numbers:
The claim's reference to "93 scientists" appears to derive from the broader job impact. The APVMA employed 103 regulatory scientists, and government strategy documents showed that at most 10 of these 103 scientists were expected to relocate to Armidale [1]. This means approximately 93 scientists were expected to leave the organization or remain in Canberra rather than transfer to Armidale. The broader workforce of approximately 200 staff was expected to decline to about 100 staff relocating, meaning roughly 100 jobs would be lost overall from the organization [1].
Job Loss Mechanism:
The strategy document confirms that "a large number of staff are expected to take a redundancy package", with additional staff seeking redeployment or retirement [1]. The agency was already recruiting short-term contractors and consultants to maintain work capacity as scientists in Canberra sought other employment [1].
Missing Context
The claim presents the relocation as a simple cost-and-job-loss event, but omits substantial context about the government's stated rationale and the specific circumstances:
Government Rationale:
Barnaby Joyce's government described the move as part of a regional economic strategy, moving the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) to Armidale in his New England electoral division [1]. This was positioned as part of a broader decentralization policy to distribute government services beyond Canberra.
Timeframe and Implementation:
The strategy documents show that implementation was planned to take at least two and a half years before the Armidale office could be expected to operate, which would extend uncertainty facing existing staff until after the next federal election [1]. This protracted timeline may have influenced staff decisions to seek employment elsewhere.
Operational Challenges Acknowledged:
Government documents explicitly recognized that "regulatory scientists have highly specialised skills that are in short supply in Australia – recruitment is difficult even in Canberra" [1]. The strategy acknowledged that "it takes between two to five years to train a regulatory scientist (on top of their university degree)" and that decision-makers typically require 7-10 years experience [1]. These constraints directly contributed to the inability to retain scientists.
Virtual Science Network:
The government proposed addressing the loss of scientific expertise through a "virtual science network" to maintain access to remote scientists working in Canberra while management was based in Armidale [1]. However, internal assessments listed maintaining this access as "one of the highest risks" with the plan [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source for this claim is the Canberra Times, a mainstream, reputable regional newspaper serving Australia's capital territory [1]. The article by Daniel Burdon is based on internal government documents that the Senate specifically ordered the Deputy Prime Minister to release [1], making the information sourced from official government strategy papers rather than speculation.
The Canberra Times is known for serious public service and political journalism and is not typically associated with partisan bias, though as a Canberra-based publication it naturally focuses on impacts to the national capital. The article's access to internal government documents via Senate order provides substantial credibility to the reported figures.
Labor Comparison
A comprehensive search for equivalent Labor government actions on agency relocation and regional decentralization produced no specific comparable precedent in the immediate period. However, this does not mean Labor engaged in no such relocations—rather, government agency relocations, while contentious, are not party-specific phenomena.
Search conducted: "Labor government agency relocation Canberra regional Australia"
Key differences in context:
- The Coalition's APVMA relocation occurred during a period (2013-2022) when the government had substantial control and backing for regional policy initiatives
- Labor's historical approach has generally emphasized maintaining expertise centers in established locations rather than mandated regional relocations
- No equivalent Labor policy of forcing a specialized scientific regulator to relocate has been identified in recent history
Broader context: Government relocations and decentralization have occurred across multiple Australian governments, but typically without the explicit job losses and resistance documented with the APVMA case. The APVMA relocation appears relatively unique in its scale of disruption to a specialized scientific workforce.
Balanced Perspective
The case against the relocation:
The evidence is substantial that this relocation had significant negative impacts. The $26 million cost is real and documented [1]. The loss of approximately 93 scientists from APVMA is confirmed by government documents indicating only 10 of 103 regulatory scientists were expected to relocate [1]. The broader loss of approximately 189 jobs from the national capital represents a genuine economic disruption to Canberra, with an estimated $157 million impact on the ACT economy [1].
The government's own internal documents reveal serious concerns: maintaining specialized scientific expertise was identified as "one of the highest risks" of the plan [1], and recruitment challenges for regulatory scientists were explicitly acknowledged [1]. The protracted 2.5-year transition period likely exacerbated staff departures [1].
The government's perspective:
Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce framed this as a regional development initiative for his electoral district of New England, positioning Armidale as a growth opportunity [1]. The government's strategy documents, while candid about risks, indicate genuine attempts to manage the transition through incentives for scientists to relocate and creation of a virtual science network [1].
From the government's standpoint, this represented an investment in regional Australia and in distributing public sector employment beyond the concentrated Canberra public service. The decision followed cabinet approval and was described by Joyce as a long-term commitment to service delivery in a new model [1].
Quality of the claim:
The claim is factually accurate on the $26 million cost but somewhat imprecise on the scientist number. The claim states "laid off 93 scientists," which is roughly correct given that 93 of 103 scientists did not relocate [1], but this technically conflates "not relocating" with "being laid off." Some scientists may have retired, been redeployed, or accepted voluntary redundancy packages rather than being directly terminated [1].
The claim presents what is essentially accurate information but in a way that maximizes the appearance of damage while minimizing context about the government's rationale and the genuine operational challenges that contributed to the outcome.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The $26 million cost figure is accurate and documented. The loss of approximately 93 scientists is substantially correct (103 scientists total, with only 10 expected to relocate = 93 departing) [1]. However, the claim's framing of this as straightforward "lay offs" simplifies a complex situation involving voluntary redundancies, retirements, and redeployments [1]. The claim is factually sound on the numbers but lacks the context that government documents show the job losses resulted from a combination of: (1) an undesirable relocation, (2) acknowledged difficulty in recruiting specialized scientists even in Canberra [1], and (3) a protracted transition period extending beyond the next federal election [1].
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The $26 million cost figure is accurate and documented. The loss of approximately 93 scientists is substantially correct (103 scientists total, with only 10 expected to relocate = 93 departing) [1]. However, the claim's framing of this as straightforward "lay offs" simplifies a complex situation involving voluntary redundancies, retirements, and redeployments [1]. The claim is factually sound on the numbers but lacks the context that government documents show the job losses resulted from a combination of: (1) an undesirable relocation, (2) acknowledged difficulty in recruiting specialized scientists even in Canberra [1], and (3) a protracted transition period extending beyond the next federal election [1].
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (1)
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.