This content is current only at the time of printing. This document was printed on 25 June 2021. A current copy is located at http://www.plural-consulting.com/node/19751
You are here
Part 2: Applications for products, actives and permits
The APVMA commenced assessment of 2510 applications and finalised 2545 applications between July 2015 and June 2016.
The overall timeframe performance in the same reporting period for all applications increased by 4 per cent to 68 per cent. This continued to vary by industry group and application type. For example:
- 57 per cent of applications for pesticides were completed on time
- 80 per cent of applications for veterinary medicines were completed on time
- 70 per cent of applications for actives were on time
- 70 per cent of applications for permits were completed on time.
At the end of June 2016, we had 1192 product, active and permit applications in progress—57 less than at the end of March 2016. Of these, 79 per cent have not passed their due date and are still within timeframe.
The following diagram summarises the workload and performance statistics for product, active and permit applications.
Summary of workload and performance statistics: July 2015 – June 2016
Applications processed by the APVMA July 2015 – June 2016
|Application type||Commenced||Finalised||Finalised within timeframe||2014–15?in timeframe||In progress||In progress, still within timeframe|
Product registration—veterinary medicines
On 1 July 2014, the APVMA adopted new legislation which changed the way we calculate and interpret regulatory timeframe performance within the agency. These changes mean it is inappropriate to compare timeframe performance for 2015–16 with results published in our annual reports prior to 1 July 2014.?
Caution is also needed when comparing 2015–16 results to 2014–15 data, as 2014–15 data included applications from both sets of legislation. In contrast, from 1?July 2015, all applications are now subject to the new requirements (regardless of when they were received by the APVMA) and timeframe performance is to be calculated and interpreted in the manner required by the current legislation.
The overall timeframe results were influenced by:
- the change in the calculation method for determining timeframe performance—see more information on interpreting timeframe performance
- unexpectedly high levels of unscheduled staff leave in the September quarter and delays in recruiting suitably skilled staff—see more information about APVMA staffing
- a focus on reducing the number of overdue product applications, especially those that commenced before 1?July 2014 and are still in progress.
Detailed results are divided into the following sections:?
- pre-application assistance
- preliminary assessment