House debates

Thursday, 10 August 2006

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Export Control and Quarantine) Bill 2006

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 June, on motion by Ms Ley:

That this bill be now read a second time.

11:21 am

Photo of Kirsten LivermoreKirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | | Hansard source

I am pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Export Control and Quarantine) Bill 2006. The opposition supports the passage of this bill. While this bill is not controversial in any way, it is a significant piece of legislation because it concerns matters of vital importance to our food processing and export industries and therefore deserves serious consideration and the support of both parties. Basically the bill provides for technical improvements to Australia’s regime of export control and quarantine. It does that by closing some gaps that have been identified in the present system of export inspection and introducing a number of new offences to strengthen the integrity of the export chain.

To appreciate the importance of maintaining the highest possible standards of export inspection and quarantine in this country, one only has to recall the potentially disastrous events of the early eighties which led to the enactment of the current Export Control Act 1982. In August 1981 discoveries were made in the United States of horse meat having been substituted for beef by an Australian meat export establishment. As a result of that, the reputation of the Australian meat industry was severely tarnished. In response to the meat substitution scandal the Customs (Unlawful Exportation of Food) Act 1982 and the Meat Export (Penalties) Act 1982 were enacted. These acts were replaced in 1983 by the present Export Control Act 1982. So, while the debate today is technical in nature, the changes proposed send a strong message that we take protection of our export industries very seriously indeed. We cannot afford to take any risks with Australia’s reputation for the highest quality food exports.

Specifically the bill seeks to amend the Export Control Act 1982 and the Quarantine Act 1908 to create new offences that will apply to persons who are in control of the preparation of food products for export and who fail to ensure that the goods are prepared in accordance with legislated requirements, especially food safety legislation. The bill also seeks to provide a legal basis for the recovery of fees for quarantine services provided under the Quarantine Act to other Commonwealth bodies. It will extend the services for which fees may be charged under the Export Control Act to services provided by the secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry or by the secretary’s delegate. It will clarify the use of certain terms and definitions in both the Quarantine Act and the Export Control Act and insert a new definition of ‘fish’. The definition of ‘preparation’ will also be extended to include the catching of fish.

As I mentioned earlier, the Export Control Act dates back the early 1980s. It set up a regime for the export inspection of prescribed goods, including meat, fish, fresh fruit and vegetables, dairy produce and grains. Inspection is carried out by authorised officers of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service in order to ensure that the goods that are to be exported meet the strict requirements set out in the regulations made pursuant to the Export Control Act. These requirements are aimed at ensuring fitness for human consumption, quality and accurate trade description of the goods.

Members on both sides would agree that the officers of AQIS do a fine job and their ability to enforce high standards is central to maintaining the integrity of our food exports and allowing us to compete for premium markets. Australia enjoys a reputation for the high quality and safety of the food products it grows, processes and exports. That reputation has been hard-earned and must be protected against any poor practices, either negligent or wilful, that could harm our standing in the world market.

I will digress for a minute to let the House know about a visit I made some years ago to Kailis Bros, a food processor in WA. It is a very successful operation, exporting all over the world. It gave me a real appreciation of the enormous competition out there in the food-processing sector and in the markets Australia is trying to break into. It highlighted to me the enormously high standards that have to be maintained by food processors wanting to export into that world market and wanting to compete effectively.

Kailis Bros provide products to organisations such as airline caterers, education facilities and health care providers, among many others. They process all sorts of seafood products, dessert products, frozen fruits and vegetables, and pasta products. The day we visited this plant, we watched the processing of lasagne, which was being put into frozen packs and exported to Japan. The owners of this food processing plant were explaining to us the stringent requirements that their Japanese purchasers placed on the products that came out of their plant. They were making lasagne this day, and it actually came down to the diced onion having to meet the specified requirements and the fact that there could not be one shred of tomato skin going into these products.

That was an example to me, and allowed me to appreciate what our food processors have to do and the high quality systems they have to have in place if they are going to compete in the international market. So, when you see the investment that was made by just one organisation, one business over there in Western Australia, to maintain their presence in the Japanese market, you understand the essential role that our food inspection service plays in maintaining those markets. If they could not let wrongly sized diced onion go into their product, we certainly have to make sure in Australia that we have the highest and most stringent standards of food quality and export control across the food processing sector.

Ever since the scandals of the early eighties, successive governments have taken a serious view of malpractice in the export food industry. Consequently, there has always been in the Export Control Act measures to deal with any such malpractice that may endanger the reputation of Australia’s export industries and jeopardise overseas markets. Currently, there are penalties for false declarations and trade descriptions, but gaps have been identified that this bill seeks to address.

This bill creates four new offences to deal with people who fail to ensure that goods are prepared for export in accordance with legislation. Two of those new provisions apply strict liability to some of the physical elements of those offences. These changes to strengthen and extend the reach of the legislation have come about because offences under the Export Control Act currently only apply to the persons actually exporting prescribed goods or to persons in possession of prescribed goods intended for export. So the focus up to now has been on persons involved in the post-production stage of the export chain. That left a gap—as the parliamentary secretary rightly pointed out in her speech, a serious gap—when it came to the actions of those people actually in control of the facilities where food products are processed.

This legislation creates new offences for persons in control of the preparation of food products for export who fail to ensure those goods meet legislative requirements, especially in relation to food safety. Two of the four new offences apply strict liability to some of the physical elements of the offence. ‘Strict liability’ means that the prosecution does not have to prove a fault element in relation to all or some of the physical elements of the offences, only that the defendant engaged in the relevant physical elements of the offence. This is necessary because otherwise persons in control of establishments preparing food for export could avoid the consequences of noncompliance by claiming that they were not aware of what was occurring in their establishment. This aspect of the bill sends a clear message that poor practices in the food-processing sector will not be tolerated. The stakes are too high to allow for any corner cutting when it comes to maintaining the standards of Australia’s food exports, even if it is unintentional on the part of the operator of the facility.

The fact that the offences apply strict liability means that there is a heavy and appropriate responsibility on the operators in the food export sector to have the best possible systems in place to guarantee the safety and quality of the food they produce for export. I think back to that example in Western Australia, where Kailis Bros had invested enormous amounts of money in setting up their plant and in pursuing that market in Japan in this particular instance. We just cannot take risks when our processors rely on the confidence of consumers in those markets to keep buying Australian products; we cannot afford to let poor practices in one area of the industry or in one particular business undermine the efforts of all those other businesses who are making those investments and doing the right thing.

The bill provides for penalties for the new offences, and the penalties are broadly consistent with existing penalties in the Export Control Act. The maximum penalty for the strict liability offences is 60 penalty units, and the other two new offences have a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

The legislation also clarifies the legal basis for the recovery of fees for quarantine services provided to other Commonwealth bodies and extends the range of services for which fees may be charged under the Export Control Act. Labor supports the inclusion of this measure in the bill. Labor has long supported full cost recovery for the provision of quarantine services and other services provided by government relating to the export of food products.

The other provisions of this bill make a number of definitional changes and clarify the use of certain terms within the Export Control Act. The main one of these changes is the extension of the definition of preparation to include fish, and it clarifies that the Commonwealth has appropriate legal authority to regulate the sourcing of fish for export. This is an important addition to the act because the authority to regulate the sourcing of fish for export is necessary to ensure ongoing access for exported fisheries products into overseas markets and to protect consumers by ensuring that fish, including shellfish, are harvested from areas that do not contain pathogenic organisms, biotoxins and chemical contaminants at levels that may represent a threat to consumer health.

The whole issue of food security and consumer confidence in Australia’s food exports is one of vital importance to my electorate. As members have heard me say countless times in this place, Rockhampton is proud to be the beef capital of Australia and is at the heart of the large and very successful beef industry in Queensland. How many times has the member for Batman heard me—

Photo of Martin FergusonMartin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | | Hansard source

Ram it down my throat?

Photo of Kirsten LivermoreKirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | | Hansard source

Exactly.

Photo of Tony WindsorTony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Windsor interjecting

Photo of Kirsten LivermoreKirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for New England and I will have that debate another day and I am sure I will win it on behalf of the good people of Rockhampton.

The importance of the beef industry to our national economy cannot be overstated, and I am sure the member for New England will agree with me on that. Australia remains the largest exporter of beef in the world ahead of Brazil. The meat and livestock industries in Queensland contributed over $3 billion to the Queensland economy, and that represents 30 per cent of Queensland’s gross value of production from agriculture. So, when you look at that context and the significance of it to my electorate, you can see why I support the measures in this bill that strengthen our export inspection and control regime, because maintaining the quality and safety of all food products exported from Australia has an impact on what producers and processors in my electorate are trying to do.

I want to talk briefly about where this bill fits into what is happening in the beef industry. As I said, this bill focuses on the processing sector—one of the end stages of the export chain. What is being talked about in this bill—that is, putting in more stringent requirements and enhancing the ability of AQIS and the export inspection regime to enforce standards in the processing sector—complements the work being done by the grazing industry and primary producers generally to meet those stringent standards of quality and safety being demanded by our export markets.

The most obvious example of that in the beef industry is the National Livestock Identification Scheme, which has been put into practice over the last couple of years. The NLIS is a major investment by the beef industry to make sure that we can guarantee that we can track cattle through the whole production process and that we can export beef with the best possible guarantee of safety and biosecurity as a result of being able to track each animal through the chain. As I said, it is a major investment by the industry. The NLIS is estimated to cost the Queensland cattle industry $32.5 million per annum. The majority of that is actually borne by the production sector. This is where the industry itself is making sure that it does everything it can to protect its markets and to protect its reputation in those world markets.

Of course, this has been forced on Australia and on the industry by things that are happening overseas. We need to be able to demonstrate that we have the highest standards of biosecurity and food safety to make sure that we can export products that meet the very highest standards that are being imposed on us by those overseas markets. We have seen what can happen overseas when disease outbreaks occur or when food security is compromised in some way. At the moment we are in a position where we have been able to capitalise on and take advantage of some of those outbreaks and things that have hit overseas markets, particularly in the US and Canada, and we have been able to take advantage of markets opening up as a result of disease outbreaks overseas. This is about an insurance policy for our local beef industry—that we are in a position to guarantee the quality of our products and to make sure that we have a system in place to minimise the impact of any disease outbreak that might occur.

The Productivity Commission has estimated that a disease outbreak such as foot-and-mouth disease or BSE could cost the industry, through loss of export and domestic market revenue, between $5.7 and $13 billion and the impact could last for up to 10 years. You only have to look at what happened in Canada, which has a similar herd size to Australia, where after detection of a single BSE animal the livestock industry has lost an estimated $3.3 billion plus a flow-on loss to rural communities estimated at $1.8 billion. The total broader economic impact of the BSE case in Canada is estimated at $6.3 billion. They are such very sobering figures for people like me and the member for New England who represent communities that rely so heavily on our beef industry and primary industry sector.

I highlight that to demonstrate to the House what is happening in the beef industry for two reasons—firstly, to show that the beef industry is certainly doing its bit to uphold Australia’s reputation in international markets. The reason I support this bill so strongly is because I see it as complementary to what is happening at that primary production phase, making sure that the processing part of the export chain is held to similarly high and stringent standards so that, overall, our reputation as an exporter of very high quality and safe food is maintained.

It is important that Australia’s trading partners can be confident of the quality and safety of food products exported from this country. The amendments to the Export Control Act and the Quarantine Act are sensible and are consistent with the approach taken by both the government and the opposition in these areas in the past. As such, Labor supports the passage of this bill.

11:39 am

Photo of Tony WindsorTony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Export Control and Quarantine) Bill 2006. I listened to the speech by the member for Capricornia, and I was particularly impressed with the comments she made towards the end of it. I thought her speech was very good, in total. She highlighted a very important point about the broader issue of quarantine and biosecurity when she related the experiences of Canada when it had an outbreak of mad cow disease and the costs that were incurred by that economy through what was, in a sense, a lack of vigilance. The figure she cited was something like $6.6 billion having been lost to that economy and, essentially, to the beef industry, and that has had a multiplier effect on the broader economy.

I have just spent some time in Canada looking at ethanol plants and some other things. One issue that was raised when I was there was the impact of the BSE outbreak on the Canadian economy. This highlights the point that we really do need to be vigilant in relation to quarantine and biosecurity. That may, from time to time, be seen as being a little protectionist by some who would rather just open the door to the free market and let the market flow. We are seeing that with a number of products at the moment—apples, cooked chicken meat and other variations of a similar theme. Because of various trading arrangements with others internationally and talks that are ongoing with the World Trade Organisation and others about trying to liberalise overseas markets for access of our products, in some cases there has to be a relaxation of the way in which we accept other products. I suggest that, once again, we need to be vigilant in how we go about those processes. If there are any risks at all, we should not give up our greatest agricultural advantage as a nation—that of being an island, of being a clean, green producer of food and of not being subject to some of the diseases that some of our competitors internationally are. We should not enter into an arrangement if there is any degree of risk.

That leads me to the debate on today’s legislation, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Export Control and Quarantine) Bill 2006. I support the legislation, but you can see a number of issues across the agricultural spectrum at the moment. The New South Wales Farmers Association and the National Farmers Federation have some issues with AQIS and some biosecurity problems. We have seen in recent years the possibility of the importation of cooked chicken meat from parts of Asia. More recently, we have seen the outbreak of avian influenza and how that could possibly have an impact further down the track. A number of years ago—when I was still in the New South Wales parliament—it looked as though cooked chicken meat was going to come in from Thailand. A number of political players at the time were quite upset about that because of not only its impact on regional economies but also the possibility of disease coming in with the various heating arrangements. I cannot remember all the detail, but certain guarantees were given that the meat had been cooked to a certain temperature to prevent disease outbreaks in Australia. Then along came avian influenza.

Thankfully that issue has gone away for the moment, but those continued pressures between global trade operators will return. As I said, we have to be very vigilant in how we go about addressing some of these issues. I am a member of the House Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and I am pleased to see that other very diligent members of that committee are here today. I look forward to their contributions.

I would like to read from a few press releases. The New South Wales Farmers Association on Wednesday, 19 July, headlined a press release with: ‘Farmers call for Senate Inquiry into national quarantine system’. It reads:

New South Wales Farmers’ Association today voted at their annual conference to call for an urgent Senate Inquiry into Australia’s Quarantine System, AQIS and Biosecurity Australia in order to stimulate public debate on how a better system could be established for all Australians.

Chair of the New South Wales Farmers’ Association’s Quarantine and Exotic Diseases Committee, Peter Carter

who is a fairly quiet individual, as I am sure that those who know him would verify—

says that an independent inquiry by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Senate Committee is needed to ensure our disease and pest free status is not being compromised by a system that doesn’t work.

They are fairly strong words. Mr Carter is a vet by profession. He has been involved with the New South Wales Farmers Association for many years and is a man whom I respect and who I believe has some knowledge of these issues. That that organisation and that committee chair are making those comments is something this House and the parliament should take on board. The press release went on:

“Agriculture won’t stand for the government doing an internal review of the import risk analysis system—the architects of the system should not judge their own system,” Mr Carter said.

“Getting the import protocols right is far too important to agriculture—if the bureaucrats get it wrong and disease comes in, it is the farmer who has to pay to clean up the pest or the disease mess, loses market opportunities or wear the higher production costs,” Mr Carter said.

There is a hint of warning there. A similar document on 26 June has the National Farmers Federation expressing some concerns about AQIS’s operation and biosecurity, highlighting the fact that we have to make more than sure that there are no risks if we start to break down some of the boundaries and allow other product into our nation, particularly product that we can produce domestically.

An issue I have raised in the parliament on a number of occasions—and there have been a number of meetings with ministers over the years—relates to a constituent of mine who runs a business called Angora City (Rabbits) Pty Ltd. The issue concerns the importation of rabbits into Australia and the dealings between different companies. In my view—and I have mentioned this before, so it is not news—Mr Warwick Grove, who is the director of Angora City (Rabbits) and who has established a plant, Guyra, in my electorate, has been appallingly treated by the system. He has not had the concerns that he has raised over a number of years dealt with sufficiently at a ministerial or a parliamentary level. I would ask that the issues that I am about to raise are considered. I also ask that this document be tabled so that others can look at it and give consideration to it. On 1 August, Mr Grave wrote to all members of parliament, so most members would have seen this. In his letter he wrote:

Dear Member of Parliament

I refer to my previous allegations of an “illegal” US Import into Australia on 4th November 1998 that had major ramifications for my company.

The Independent Government Doolan Enquiry into this matter was “all sorted out” prior to the release of the Terms of Reference on 16 July 2003. I first met with the then Executive Director of AQIS on 30th May 2003 in Sydney. I understand she has been “dishonourably discharged” (to quote a Senator). As such, I restate, I will not be going to the Ombudsman.

I think there had been suggestion that is Mr Graves should take his issues to the Ombudsman and whomever else. He went on:

There has been no reply from the past three Minister of Agriculture, Hon J Anderson, Hon W Truss and currently Hon P McGauren. Thank you to all members of parliament and senators who took the time to reply.

I enclose recent correspondence to Hon J Howard (Prime Minister) dated 18 April 2006—and 17 July 2006 ... I enclose letter to US Embassy dated 17 July 2006.

I state there have been two distinct standards by AQIS re the same animal import—

‘animal import’ meaning rabbit—

one from the USA and one from the EU. AQIS will be held to account as QUARANTINE DOES MATTER.

The Quarantine Forum in Canberra (Old Parliament House) on Friday 14 July 2006 was by Invitation Only. I could have organised many people to tell the real story of quarantine—the total and absolute—

I cannot pronounce the word he has here and it is probably best I do not try—

... disregard for due process. Also I was advised all agricultural groups were represented—regrettably the F.R.I.A. was excluded.

I seek a fair and just resolution. I assure you all, Quarantine Does Matter. My allegations are factual and based on original government documents.

Thank you for your time in considering this matter.

Yours sincerely

Warwick S Grave

Director

He is the director of Angora City Rabbits Pty Ltd. I ask that I be able to table these documents.

Leave granted.

The appropriate ministers would have seen these documents. But, if there are any members of parliament who have not seen the documents, they may find them extremely interesting in terms of an individual’s wrestle with the system—the way in which his application to import rabbits was treated, the trail of missing documents and the people who delayed things for a whole range of reasons, compared another company that was able to import rabbits at a similar time and its treatment—and also very much so that we can learn from any mistakes there may be in that process so that individuals and businesses such as Mr Grave’s who are trying to do the right thing in Australia are not treated in a shabby fashion.

I will conclude my comments with the comment I started with. In terms of biosecurity we have to make sure we are ever vigilant, that we do not allow ourselves to be compromised in any way and that we do not allow ourselves to be pressured politically by international forces in our trading relations. We saw what happened in Canada, with the massive loss of potential income when they were an active trader in the beef market. We have seen what can happen in the other parts of the world with the outbreak of some of these diseases. The one comparative advantage we have, which is that we are quite distinct from any other nation in the world, is geared around our being a nation continent. We must maintain the integrity of our food supplies both within that continent and on our borders.

We have a preoccupation to a certain extent with people coming here on leaky boats. We are debating legislation on that today and I think we will be voting on it in a very short time. At the same time we seem to be moving towards a process of relaxing our integrity in terms of biosecurity. We have to make sure that people who are involved on the ground—people like Peter Carter from the New South Wales Farmers Association—are involved in the decision-making process. It should not be left to a group of public servants. Well intentioned though they may be, they will be subjected to greater political pressure from other forces when the focus should be on the integrity of our national boundaries in terms of some of these diseases.

11:55 am

Photo of Martin FergusonMartin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Export Control and Quarantine) Bill 2006 and, in doing so, I endorse the remarks of the members for Capricornia and New England. We all appreciate this is an important bill, but it also goes to a wide-ranging debate—which was the case with the previous speakers. The intent of the bill is to ensure that our trading partners can continue to have complete confidence in the safety of our food exports. That is exceptionally important today in terms of our difficulties on the trade front. Offences under the Export Control Act currently only apply to those actually exporting proscribed goods or in possession of proscribed goods intended for export. This bill appropriately creates new offences for people in control of the preparation of food products for export. Importantly, offences will apply if those goods fail to meet legislative requirements, especially in relation to food safety.

The bill clarifies the Commonwealth’s authority to regulate the sourcing of fish intended for export. In that context, I remind the House that this bill is not only important nationally; it is exceptionally important to regional economies around Australia. That authority is therefore necessary to ensure ongoing access for exported fisheries products to overseas markets and to protect consumers by ensuring that fish, including shellfish, are harvested from areas that do not contain pathogenic organisms, biotoxins or chemical contaminants at levels that may represent a threat to consumer health. I am pleased to see that the Commonwealth is finally taking a lead with respect to protecting the sustainability and reputation of Australian fisheries in the international market. Obviously the opposition also believes we have to be more rigorous with respect to illegal fishing in Australia’s coastal waters, but that is another debate for another day.

I also raise in the context of this bill a broader debate going to the forest industry. This debate is also about seeking forest industry sustainability in the same way we seek sustainability of the fishing industry. I would like to see the Commonwealth, in the context of what it intends to do by way of this bill, start exercising more authority with respect to protecting the sustainability and reputation of Australian forest industries as well. This is also important in terms of our exports and potentially important in terms of import replacement in the foreseeable future. I contend that no other industry is under as much pressure from our trading partners as the forest industry at the moment.

I use this opportunity to remind the government of its responsibilities. Australia has 164 million hectares of native forests, four per cent of the world’s forests and 1.7 million hectares of plantations. About 10 per cent of our native forests are managed for wood production, with less than one per cent being harvested in any one year. That small proportion of forests harvested annually is regenerated so that a perpetual supply of native hardwood and softwood is maintained in this country. I know the Australian fishing industry is continuing to make the adjustments necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of its resources, as the forestry industry has done for many years.

I therefore go to Australia’s rigorous forestry standards. AFS has global mutual recognition under the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, the largest international sustainability recognition framework for forestry in the world. But unfortunately the environmental movement, as the member for New England and the member for Lyons are aware, is at this point running an aggressive and duplicitous campaign around the globe to undermine the status of that standard and the sustainability of the Australian industry. At the same time as the environmentalists are decrying and seeking to discredit Australia’s forest industry, they are running a campaign about illegal logging, interestingly, in Third World countries—a problem I argue they are directly fuelling because of their failure to back responsible forest industries in places like Australia. Make no mistake: these are not environmental campaigns. They are political and they are commercial, and they are starting to hurt Australia economically.

Increasingly, environmental non-government organisations around the world, with the complicity of some governments, are embedding themselves in policy and regulatory frameworks in which they have commercial interests, and they do so with no mandate from the people and with no accountability. The forest industry, I argue, represents a classic example. I will also use this debate to remind the fishing industry of similar pressures starting to emerge in our domestic and international fishing industry.

Instead of endorsing the AFS, developed in accordance with the usual rigorous standards and processes used in Australia and New Zealand to govern all kinds of industries and products, green groups have been lobbying to discredit the standard internationally and to hurt Australia commercially, which goes to the issue of making sure that we have in place appropriate export controls to guarantee the future of Australia. Instead they favour accreditation under the Forest Stewardship Council, or FSC, an organisation, interestingly, created by the WWF, with the clear intention of sidelining elected governments when it comes to forest policy. Behind its foray into the forest certification process, the WWF has a history of establishing buyer groups that effectively boycott timber products that are not FSC certified. Consequently, producers and suppliers are pressured to obtain FSC certification to maintain their businesses and their market access. The FSC’s business interests are effectively protected by the environmental NGOs, who have mounted a concerted attack over recent years on other certification schemes. The AFS is just one of these schemes.

It is instructive therefore to take a look at the membership and governance of the FSC, if there is any doubt about this. In Australia there are just 10 members, including five environmental NGOs—Friends of the Earth, the Wilderness Society, Friends of Gippsland Bush, the Western Australian Forest Alliance and WWF Australia. The executive director of the FSC hails from the WWF, and the members of the board are a very interesting group from Greenpeace, a cardboard manufacturer from Columbia, two members described as individuals from Bolivia and Argentina, and the list goes on. While there is some industry representation, it is severely limited. Multilateral organisations and governments are, interestingly, excluded, despite the fact that governments are major funding donors.

Further, it is my view that the FSC certification does not provide the guarantee of sustainable forestry that is claimed. Fortunately, both suppliers and consumers seem to be recognising this, with over 190 million hectares of certified forests now falling under the program for the endorsement of forest certification, which encompasses the Australian forestry standard. By comparison, with less than 80 million hectares of certified forests, the FSC is clearly not the global standard. Over 40 per cent of the total area of forests certified by the FSC is certified without any approved standards and over 80 per cent of the countries with FSC certification do not have approved FSC standards. Despite the fact that 550,000 hectares of plantations in Australia are FSC certified, as of June this year there was no Australian FSC standard against which to certify.

In 2003 Tim Cadman, the then FSC representative in Australia, issued a time line for 2005 for finalising national management standards so in 2006 interim certification could give way to accredited national standards. Those accredited national standards are nowhere to be seen. FSC certifications are often carried out against the requirements of a FSC draft standard or against a set of requirements developed by FSC certifiers themselves in preparation for their audit. They are not practices acceptable in any sector with international audit and certification rules.

It is my contention that the vast majority of FSC national standards and forest certifications would simply not withstand scrutiny by an international accreditation forum or the International Organisation for Standardisation, which is recognised by the United Nations. The body which recognises FSC principles, the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance, has seven full members, none of whom are national or international standard bodies but two of whom are the Rainforest Alliance and the FSC itself.

I also note that the Marine Stewardship Council is a third member, whose practices and affiliations are not unlike those of the FSC, which is very much related to the current debate. When I attended a Seafood Industry Council function in this place last night, I noted that an Australian fishery had become the first in the world to be certified by the MSC. I hope that the seafood industry is aware of the secondary boycott practices of organisations like the FSC and those behind the MSC. In addition, I sincerely hope that it does not suffer the fate of the Australian forest industry and the special impact that has had on regional communities, which very much depend on the forest industry for their economic sustainability. I also hope that the Australian government is closely monitoring artificial trade barriers in both the fishing and the forest industries of Australia. We, and especially Labor in government, took too many tough decisions not only to open up Australia to the impact of globalisation but also to seek to develop a freer trade world than to have it now undermined by an artificial set of trade barriers developed by some non-government organisations.

Interestingly, therefore, I refer to the fact that the Australian Forestry Standard—we should be conscious of this because it is about rigorous assessment—is proceeding through the very rigorous processes of Standards Australia and the PEFC towards full recognition. However rocky the road may be towards consensus, the organisation’s members are to be congratulated for their perseverance against the odds. Equally, I would welcome the Australian FSC standard, were the FSC prepared to meet the same rigors of Standards Australia, the ISO and the IAF. I make it clear that I will not support it while it makes its own standards, accredits its own people as certifiers and switches hats to environmental NGO mode when it needs to protect its business from competition.

The FSC logo can be used for woodchip and fibre products when only 17.5 per cent of the total wood fibre or 30 per cent of virgin wood fibre is FSC certified; it does not matter where the rest of the timber comes from. The FSC mixed label can be used on any wood product, even if only 10 per cent of the total material is FSC certified. Compare these low percentage requirements with the PEFC logo, which can be used on a product only if at least 70 per cent of the wood content is PEFC certified. If the FSC’s objective were truly to promote responsible management of the world’s forests, I believe that the organisation would be engaged more seriously with the forestry industry in Australia in trying to resolve some of the concerns I have highlighted today in order to protect our reputation and its reputation.

The Australian government’s priorities should be to ensure that Australia’s forest industries and, indeed, its fishing industries are managed sustainably, both today and into the future, for future generations and that they have fair market access for their products, both in Australia and overseas. I would also like to see the Australian government doing more to pursue with our trading partners the very serious question of secondary boycotts and to draw to their attention the need for rigorous international standards to apply to labelling and product certification.

The fact is that Australia is one of the few countries in the Asia-Pacific region with the land availability and capability to expand sustainable forestry through further plantation development over the coming decades. Because we are living in a historic era of global economic expansion, particularly on our doorstep in the Asia-Pacific region with China and India, demand for forest products, like other resources, is skyrocketing; therefore, the sustainable expansion of the Australian forest industry is very important to meet global demand and to contribute to our own economic prosperity. Most estimates are that already a third to a half of the world’s forests have been burnt or chopped down. That makes it more critical than ever for the world’s remaining forests to be managed sustainably for conservation, the world’s future forest product needs and the enormous environmental services they perform in maintaining global biodiversity and providing carbon sinks to manage climate change.

I therefore note that recently the Indonesian forestry minister was quoted as saying that the level of forest destruction in Indonesia has reached serious levels. There are claims that illegal logging in Indonesia destroys about three million hectares of forests every year. That is about three times Australia’s legitimate forest harvest each year. It is not just squatters but legitimate forestry companies that are contributing to illegal logging, deforestation and poor forestry practices in Indonesia.

Unfortunately, Indonesia is just the tip of the iceberg, including in our own backyard. The Solomons, Papua New Guinea, Costa Rica, Bolivia, Chile, Guatemala and a host of other developing countries feel under pressure to cut down their forests for timber or to make way for coffee plantations because this has been their only option to release their people from poverty and deliver a sense of economic future. It is estimated that almost 10 per cent of timber and wood products imported to Australia are of suspicious origin. That figure would be much higher for many of our trading partners.

The trade in illegal and unsustainable timber distorts trade, suppresses prices and causes major irreversible damage to the environment, especially in less developed countries. Dubious importing practices are already contributing to job losses in Australia, where local producers are arguably being unfairly undercut—for example, in Tasmania. I believe we cannot continue to ignore this problem. Our own environmental and economic future is in jeopardy if we do not accept measures to control importation of illegal and unsustainable timber products and if we fail to set an example in world’s best forestry practices with our trading partners.

I raise these issues because I think this is a debate that we have to become more rigorous about as a nation both domestically and internationally. If there are resources or industry or environmental policy issues to be addressed in our country, the place to address them in is our houses of parliament or through due process of our governments and institutions, including Standards Australia. The conservation movement is a legitimate stakeholder in the development of forestry policy and the implementation of forest management. But let us have an honest debate.

They have always been welcome in Australia around the negotiating table, but I think it is time they declared their hand, just as the rest of us have to. Are they representing environmental NGOs or are they representing their business interests like the FSC? It is an interesting question. I say they cannot have it both ways. At the end of the day, like everyone else we expect them to abide by the decisions of elected governments and particularly to adhere to negotiated outcomes. The Australian Labor Party knows full well that the key to a better Australia is jobs and economic prosperity for all. Australia’s forest and fishing industries are part of achieving that. They are also importantly central to sustained economic prosperity in regional Australia.

I say in conclusion, in supporting this bill and the government’s intent, that there is a lot of work still to be done in other areas encompassed by this bill. This government therefore needs to do more—a lot more—to provide fair access to export markets for those industries that are seeking to be covered by this bill. I have sought today to raise for further discussion and policy consideration an area of major weakness—the potential future sustainability of the timber products industry in Australia. I commend the bill to the House and ask the minister to take on board today the very serious issues that I have raised.

12:14 pm

Photo of Dick AdamsDick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Export Control and Quarantine) Bill 2006. They are very important issues that my colleague the member for Batman just spoke about: the certification of products and the enforcement of those certified products coming into our country. The objects of the federal quarantine and export services are to protect Australia’s animal, plant and human health status and maintain market access through the delivery of quarantine and export services. These services also have a vital role in implementing and administering strict quarantine control at Australian borders to minimise the risk of exotic pest and disease incursions. With the support of industry and the community, Quarantine responds to potential quarantine threats.

Maintaining access for Australian agricultural and food products to hundreds of markets around the world is essential. Export inspection, auditing and certification services help generate over $26 billion in exports by the meat, horticulture, grain, fish, dairy, organic and live animal export industries. The Export Control Act sets up a regime for the export inspection of prescribed goods. These goods include meat, fish, fresh fruit and vegetables, dairy produce and grains. Inspection is conducted by authorised officers of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, AQIS. The purpose of the inspection is to ensure that the goods which are to be exported meet the strict requirements set out in the orders made pursuant to the regulations made under the Export Control Act. These requirements are aimed at ensuring fitness for human consumption, quality and accurate trade description of the goods.

The current act arose out of events in the early 1980s which I remember well. In August 1981, discoveries were made in the United States that horse meat had been substituted for beef by an Australian meat export establishment. I had just left the Meat Workers Union and gone into the state parliament of Tasmania, so I know that this issue was a live issue in the meat industry at the time. The reputation of the Australian meat industry was severely tarnished. These amendments seek to ensure that our guidelines are strictly adhered to.

Other speakers this morning have talked about the need to make sure that we do not give away the opportunities that we have of protecting our export markets. We are an island continent. That gives us the advantage of being free of many diseases that exist in other parts of the world. We need to make sure that we do not destroy that. I come from an island state of this island continent which has even fewer pests than the mainland of Australia, and we get criticised for trying to protect our export industries from disease. One prime example is the fire blight disease which occurs in New Zealand. New Zealanders would love to export their apples and pears into my lovely island. Because of fire blight it costs 30 to 40 per cent more to produce apples and pears in New Zealand than it does in Tasmania. So you can see the advantage we have by not having that pest with us.

Successive governments have taken a serious view of malpractice in the export food industry. They have argued that any malpractice that may endanger the reputation of Australia’s export industries and jeopardise overseas markets for Australian goods must be strongly deterred. The Export Control Act includes penalties for false declarations and trade descriptions, and grants extensive regulation-making powers to the Governor-General, including penalties for offences against the regulations. This bill creates four new offences, including two strict liability offences, to deal with those people who fail to ensure that goods are prepared for export in accordance with the legislation. In her second reading speech, the parliamentary secretary said:

The creation of four new offence provisions is in response to a serious gap in the Export Control Act. Currently, the offence provisions in the act focus on persons involved with goods in the post-preparation phase with the result that persons who are the occupiers of establishments where the preparation of the goods occurs are immune from the serious penalties that apply to other offenders under the act. The new offences focus on the person responsible for the preparation of the goods for export.

Other amendments remove any doubt that the Commonwealth has a level of control over the sourcing of fish intended for export. To ensure ongoing access for exported product into overseas markets and consumer protection, fish, including shellfish, must be harvested from areas that do not contain pathogenic organisms, biotoxins and chemical contaminants at levels that may represent a threat to consumer health.

I believe this is very important and that we should show that this is a part of our export regime so that those who import can be pushed to follow the strict guidelines we have here. I saw the Indonesian minister in Australia this week endeavouring to ask Australia to take more food products from Indonesia but also asking that maybe we could help bring them up to a standard where they could import into Australia. Maybe we can assist them through the aid programs we have to come to grips with the standards that will need to be met before they can import everything they want into Australia.

This act also creates four new offences in the Export Control Act to enable the Commonwealth to prosecute those people who fail to prepare goods that are exported in accordance with the act. Labor believe the amendments are sensible, and we have long supported the full cost recovery of the provision of quarantine services and other services by government relating to the export of food products. It would be nice to think that similar provisions exist in other countries trading with Australia so that we could ensure products received were similarly scrutinised and that legislation existed to prosecute those who are not so careful.

The member for New England mentioned this when he spoke in the debate about chicken meat in Australia. When we got the bottom line of that, it was discovered that some of the Asian countries that wanted to import chicken meat to Australia did not have the standard of heat cooking they were supposed to have—the standard which was needed to import into Australia. When we start to bring together and weaken standards from one country to another, where we say, ‘That’s been done there, there’s no need for it to be done here,’ or accept another country’s standards, we should be very careful and make sure those countries have the standards that we expect them to have, otherwise it will be a weakening of our biosecurity regime.

In the world of multilateral trade, it is not only food items that travel between countries; it is all the pathogens that go with that particular food. Some we already have here, many we do not. The only means of control for some of these is at our borders, and that means we must be on the lookout at all times regarding the quality of our imports. Our quarantine laws are strict, and we must ensure that Australia remains free of some of the virulent diseases that are present on continents that cannot secure their borders from disease like we can. So legislation like this can give our growers and producers the edge over others as we ensure that our produce is as healthy as we can make it.

The previous speaker, the member for Batman, spoke about certification in the forest industry. There were also some issues about biosecurity there. There have been some pilot programs set up around Australia at airports and seaports to collect bugs that come in through the air off ships. There is a new program starting up there, which I am very pleased to see, to protect the enormous forestry industry of Australia. We need to be vigilant there as well. I certainly support certification in that industry.

In the fishing industry I have long advocated ensuring that we continue to do as much as we can in the world to certify fish that come from the international seas and that countries do not import fish that are not certified in a given way in a good world certification regime. This legislation goes some way to ensuring that we continue to have the safety margin we need during export and also gives us the opportunity to ensure strict guidelines are in place for foodstuffs entering this country. I support the legislation.

12:26 pm

Photo of Sussan LeySussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | | Hansard source

in reply—The Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Export Control and Quarantine) Bill 2006 amends the Export Control Act 1982 and the Quarantine Act 1908. Both of these acts are crucial to the regulation of Australia’s international trade in food and agricultural products. The key amendments to the Export Control Act create new offences relating to the preparation of goods for export and ensure that the act has sufficient authority to enable the regulation of the sourcing of fish intended for export. These amendments enhance the capacity of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service to maintain market access for Australia’s agricultural and food exports. The amendment to the Quarantine Act clarifies the cost recovery arrangements from other Commonwealth bodies for quarantine services provided by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service.

I thank members who have spoken on this bill: the member for Capricornia, the member for New England, the member for Batman and the member for Lyons. The member for Capricornia certainly mentioned the need for the highest standards in food preparation along our supply chain and emphasised the importance of that. The member for New England—and I thank him for supporting the legislation—related many of his comments and remarks to the risks associated with imports. That is not what this bill is about, but they are important debates, I appreciate, in his own area. The member for Batman gave rousing support for the forest industry, and I thank him for that. The member for Lyons made the important point that this gives our producers confidence that in our own exports to other countries we are exporting food products that are all that we have declared them to be.

This bill is about preserving the integrity of our export chain. Those are key and critical things that we need to be aware of and that this bill will strengthen and enhance. I will conclude with a good example. In today’s Land it was noted that we will now see an easing of the quarantine requirements for Australian tomatoes imported into New Zealand—two million of which were exported to New Zealand between 2002 and 2004—because during that time there were no shipments in which fruit fly was detected. So New Zealand has now decided to reduce the number of inspections, reduce dip-sampling requirements and remove the requirement to label individual pallets of tomatoes being inspected. I think that is a good example of how overseas countries can have confidence in AQIS and our own supply chain. That confidence will be further strengthened by the provisions of this bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.