Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on the Quarantine Charges (Collection) Bill 2014 and associated bills. I share the concerns of the member for Riverina with respect to the intrusion of fire blight into Australian apple orchards. Just for his interest, I represent an electorate that borders perhaps the prime apple-growing district in Adelaide. Last year when the issue became a real issue for Australia, he might be interested to know that I, some of my colleagues from Western Australia—including the member for Freemantle—and some Tasmanian Labor colleagues met with the then agriculture minister, Senator Joe Ludwig. He, in turn, listened and shared our concerns and ensured that the biosecurity arrangements for the import of New Zealand apples into Australia were set so high as to ensure exactly what has happened—that is, we have not seen any New Zealand apples coming into the country. Having said that, I entirely share his concerns about diseases entering into the Australian agricultural sector because it could destroy and ruin the whole sector. I will fight as hard as anyone in this place to ensure that that does not happen.

The agriculture, farming and fisheries sectors are important to Australia, especially when we consider that by 2050 it is estimated that world food consumption is expected to rise by some 75 per cent. Here in Australia the sector currently provides one in six jobs and, as we all know, it sustains many regional communities. In fact, Australia produces food to feed some 60 million people around the world. Not surprisingly, 90 per cent of the fresh fruit and vegetables that we eat in Australia are produced here in Australia. I think that is a good thing because it gives us some level of confidence in the fresh fruit and vegetables that we consume.

Agriculture, farming and fisheries are indeed important not only to our economy right now but to our economic future. They are important because we have an opportunity to produce more food here in Australia and because, with a growing demand for that food, we know that that it turn means growing opportunities for our export markets. Getting into new markets depends on many things, including there being a demand for Australian produced food and also perhaps on getting some new free trade agreements with other countries. To ensure that there is a demand for Australian food, we also need to ensure that we maintain the image that we have of Australian food as being clean and green. This is a phrase we quite often use in this place that, I believe, is not only true but ensures that Australian produced food remains in demand and remains, in many places, the food of choice for those who are able to access it.

This bill, obviously, seeks to address the very issue of making sure that we have and maintain the clean green image in our food production. We do that essentially through maintaining a robust and appropriate biosecurity system. The bill in essence responds to the Beale inquiry that was commissioned by the previous Labor government and which in turn made several recommendations, amongst which was the need to invest more in our biosecurity systems in this country. And if we are going to provide that investment then maybe the costs should be shared between government, those people who are going to directly benefit from food production in this country and the biosecurity supports that are provided.

As we know, and as other speakers have commented already, biosecurity risks are very real. We have seen several events in recent years of those risks being presented to the Australian market. In fact, the Beale report quite rightly refers to a Productivity Commission estimate made in 2002 that had the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease which occurred in the UK hit Australia, at that time it would have affected the Australian market to the tune of $2 billion to $3 billion if it were managed very quickly. If it were not managed very quickly and it extended on to, say, a 12-month outbreak, then the cost could have been as high as $8 billion to $12 million. Such is the magnitude of the cost to the Australian economy if we get it wrong and if disease is allowed into the country. We have seen again in the last decade or so, outbreaks of bird flu, mad cow disease and equine influenza, which in fact did get into the horse industry in Australia, which all presented serious risks but, fortunately, were pretty well managed in Australia and did not affect our industries anywhere near as much as they could have or they might have in other countries.

As I stated earlier, a reliable biosecurity system comes at a cost and this legislation is essentially about raising revenue. One of the things I want to make clear is that there are two issues. Cost recovery is one thing; raising revenue is another. I certainly hope that this legislation is indeed about genuine cost recovery and not about raising revenue, because I note that one of the first pieces of legislation brought into this House by the government is in fact this legislation after it has been sitting dormant for the last couple of years because we could not get it through the Senate in the last government. The Abbott government has now very quickly moved to bring it into place. I suspect they do so because they are looking at raising revenue out of it as much as the real need to ensure that we have an effective biosecurity system in place. It simply highlights that the Abbott government talks about, on one hand, cutting costs to business in this country but very quickly is bringing in legislation which is indeed going to add to those costs, and I want to come back to that in just a moment in a bit more detail.

I am also concerned—and I noticed one of my colleagues mentioned the issue earlier—that there may be cuts to biosecurity expenditure in this country in the coming May budget. I believe that that would be a foolish step by the government, and the few dollars that might be saved in the process—if that is what the government intends to do–will cost this country dearly in the long term, because of the problems that might arise as a result of having a weaker Australian biosecurity system.

I said a moment ago I wanted to come back to the issue of costs and I do so now. One of the matters that has been raised with me by several exporters and growers in this country is the issue of costs they incur for the production of their product and, in particular, when they try to export their products to other markets. I note that there was in fact a press release issued not long ago, and I quote from the Victorian Farmers Federation:

Merbein fruit grower Darren Argiro said that in the last two years, AQIS’ export registration fees for packing sheds had blown out from $330 to $8530.

It is an incredible increase, something to the tune of a 25-fold increase to the cost for those exporters.

I have had similar concerns expressed to me by growers in the very region where Mr Argiro comes from. I thought I would look up the horticultural export program list of fees that applied for 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013. If I am reading this list correctly—and I may not be and I stand to be corrected—the fees imposed for the recovery of order and inspections are from $36 per quarter hour, which obviously translates to about $150 an hour. But if you have the inspection done on a full daily basis, it costs $1,152 per day to have your packing shed inspected on a daily basis or $5,760 a week. I find those costs quite excessive and I can understand not only the concerns of the growers with regard to the fact they have to pay them, but that it also in turn makes their product less competitive in overseas markets because they incur these additional costs. It is a concern I have, because I doubt very much that their competitors in other places and in other countries are incurring this same level of fees.

One of the things we need to bear in mind when we look at cost recovery is that, if we want our growers to get into other markets we need to understand and accept that they are competing with growers in other countries who are also trying to get into those same markets and who may not have the same robust biosecurity processes in place as we have in Australia, and that in turn puts our growers at a real disadvantage. I would hate to see that happen.

As we all know, most of these growers are only what we would refer to as small business operators. For them, these kinds of additional costs on top of the plethora of other fees and charges that they pay governments on a daily or weekly or yearly basis really do make a difference to them. So I simply impress upon the Minister for Agriculture and the department that, whilst they use the term 'cost recovery', they need to ensure that it is a fair and reasonable cost and not an excessive cost on those growers, because if it is it could ultimately kill off their businesses.

Last night I attended the Costa fresh food presentation here in this place. Frank Costa, who is the chairman of the Costa Group, raised a matter with all of us who were there that I believe is worthy of consideration. He talked about the bumblebee and made the comment that in Tasmania pollenisation of different crops is allowed by the bumblebee as it is in many other places in the world. He made the point that on the Australian mainland it is not allowed and yet the bumblebee from his understanding presents no risk to the rest of the agricultural sector whatsoever. It has caused no risk in Tasmania and it has caused no risk in other places in the world. Again, these are claims he has made; I am simply passing them on to the House. If he is right, then I would urge the minister to consider his pleas to allow the bumblebee into mainland Australia because it will save growers I think he said something in the order of 13 per cent of their growing costs, which is quite considerable. Allowing the bumblebee into mainland Australia is a real issue for growers. Again, I raise this matter for consideration by the minister and the department as opposed to simply arguing the case that it should or should not be allowed to happen.

As I said at the outset, this is legislation that follows the bill inquiry report which was initiated by the Labor government. It is legislation that we on this side of the House support, because in principle we want to ensure that we have a robust and effective biosecurity system in place; however, as I made clear in my address today I simply want to ensure that it is not an excuse for revenue raising as opposed to cost recovery.

See this speech in context