Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The humbug we have heard from the other side, from the opposition, on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and related bills, particularly from the National Party, has only served to confuse the debate and concern people. The honourable member for Canning in his contribution last night raised the issue of wild horses and the 300,000 brumbies that he said were an issue because they could not be registered so we could not go ahead with the scheme. We are really getting into X Files stuff here. We also heard that the model is flawed, but there was no solution, no suggested model or action—just talk; they want to leave the industry where it was before. The pleasure part of the industry is part of what the other side profess to want to protect, but that would leave it still exposed. The passing of these bills would bring that part of the industry in so it gets the protection that it needs.

I also listened to the member for Wide Bay, the Leader of the National Party. The honourable member was saying, ‘Well, yes; they need to be in, but not now,’ and, ‘They need protection but not yet; it needs to go off somewhere else to be looked at.’ I have to ask the question: how much longer does the National Party want to look at this issue? I know that the honourable member has been talking about this since the late nineties. We are now in 2008, and he is still talking about it and still wanting it reviewed and sent off somewhere else. He offers no solution yet refuses to support these bills.

That these bills are opposed by the opposition shows the same neglect that gave us equine influenza. The opposition would leave the horse sector dangerously exposed to another disease outbreak. The bills actually set up a cost-sharing arrangement to deal with emergency responses; that is what they are about. Without this legislation, horse owners will be left on their own yet again. All the peak horse groups support the bills because they want the protection they provide. I will turn to those groups later on in my contribution.

People say: shouldn’t the levy be based on capacity to pay? All sectors of the industry benefit from the eradication of an emergency pest or disease through lower ongoing disease management costs. A pony club horse is as susceptible to disease as a thoroughbred. In other words, a disease does not discriminate between a pony club horse and a thoroughbred racing horse—neither does any proposed levy in helping to eradicate a disease. Moreover, this is what the peak horse industry groups propose to government. They do not have a problem with the levy mechanism—they proposed it. The Australian Horse Industry Council includes pony clubs, show societies and other smaller horse groups, and their board supports these bills.

Last night I heard the honourable member for Canning say that we have to put some dollars around this. The bills actually set the levy at zero. I think the opposition fail to understand that—there is no levy. The very purpose of the bills is to put in place a framework to share the costs of a future outbreak. There is no levy at present. They say we have to put some dollars around it, but how can you determine a levy when there is no disease to eradicate or manage and we do not know what it would cost to do so? The opposition completely fail to understand this point, the key point of the bills. The bills introduce a mechanism to share the costs of responding to a future outbreak. That is what they are about: protecting the industry. Also, the bills, importantly, require the minister to consult with industry before setting any positive levy.

In this debate I wanted to put on the public record my comments and views on the horse industry: how it has been neglected for far too long; how important it is to Australia and also to rural and regional areas as in my seat in Page; how devastating the influenza outbreak was to the industry, not just the racing industry, as seminally relevant it is to local economies; how the government has quarantined the horse industry from paying the costs of the recent outbreak; and, lastly, how certainty has now been brought to the horse industry by the government’s response to the Callinan report recommendations, by the finalisation of the Australian Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement and by these bills. The horse industry is viewed by many as a hobby area and/or a pleasure part, as we say—we commonly use that phrase. Indeed it is in a lot of ways, but it is more than that. It has a defining characteristic: the amount that it contributes to the local economy, particularly regional economies.

The seat of Page was spared an outbreak of the equine influenza virus, but the three-month lockdown late last year still meant really tough times for the horse industry, as we all know. But the EI did come close to the electorate. It was found in some trotting horses around the Gold Coast hinterland and there was a small isolated outbreak at Wauchope near Port Macquarie.

To get an idea of the size and importance of the industry, we must also look at the thoroughbred racing industry and the equestrian sector, both of which are particularly strong in the Northern Rivers. The Chairman of the Northern Rivers Racing Association, Bob Pavitt of Grafton, estimates that the six turf clubs in the region have a combined budget of about $2 million a year. These include the Clarence River Jockey Club, also chaired by Bob, which each July hosts the richest country racing carnival in Australia, attracting group 1 winners and high-profile metropolitan trainers; Lismore, which hosts its cup day later this month; Ballina; Casino; then Murwillumbah to our north; and Coffs Harbour and Bowraville in the south. Later this month, I will have the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Tony Burke, visiting and attending one of the cup days with me.

There is a huge multiplier effect to consider in terms of all the people associated with the industry. There are the feed suppliers, the farriers, the vets, the riding schools, the pony clubs and the retail saddleries, not to mention the tourism dollars generated by the bigger carnivals associated with the industry. The Rural Lands Protection Board’s statistics show that the horse population of Tweed-Richmond, excluding those on small holdings of below two hectares, was 4,062 in 2007 and about the same again for the Clarence Valley alone. So that is just under 10,000 in the Northern Rivers region. That makes up a sizeable part of the horse industry. The Clarence Valley probably has one of New South Wales’s most active equestrian communities. Grafton boasts a dedicated council owned equestrian centre, Hawthorn Equestrian Park. Hawthorn Park is managed by a local user group representing the vast array of the equestrian clubs and users including Paint Horse, Western Riding Club, Pony Club, Miniature Horse Club, Dressage Group and Harness Club.

I know that Bob Pavitt and Michael Timbrell, the Secretary/Manager of the Lismore Turf Club, really felt for their counterparts in hard-hit EI areas like the Hunter Valley and central western New South Wales, but even so the ban on moving horses, which worked to curb the spread of EI, had a significant financial and emotional impact on the industry, particularly in Page, the Northern Rivers and country New South Wales. Racing during that time was scaled down to race meetings featuring local horses only, but costs of staging those meetings remained the same. The clubs, owners and trainers of horses received compensation from the federal government and Racing NSW. According to Michael, this assistance saved quite a few people from economic hardship, indeed financial ruin, but we know that compensation can never adequately compensate everyone for all the losses. It can go only so far.

Turf club managers and pony club officials also found that the EI debate was a very fluid and changing one. Getting accurate and consistent information about the spread of EI was difficult at the time. The disaster, though, did serve to bring home to the wider public the importance of the horse industry to the regional economy. It also showed how resilient an industry it was. That is why it is so important that the government move decisively in this area and that we put that protection around the horse industry.

I would like to say a little bit about the racing industry and about the horses—it is not an industry that is unfamiliar to me. My grandfather, who was named Cookie, was a bookie and I spent a lot of my early years, even as a toddler, on the racetrack. I learnt a bit about the trade with my grandfather. My grandfather, as my grandmother used to say, had in his pocket either nothing or a thousand quid. He also liked to have a bit of a bet as well. So I grew up around the horses on the racetrack and I do know how to pencil, so in case I need another job I do know how to pencil and can do it quite well. I like the races, but do I bet? No. I save the betting for Melbourne Cup day, but it is an industry and not just about the racing. The horse industry is one that I particularly have affection for.

I now turn to the purpose of the three bills. It is pretty straightforward. It is to give the horse sector the certainty that other livestock sectors have when responding with government to emergency horse disease outbreaks. These bills enable the horse sector to become a party to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, the EADRA, as it is called. The horse industry has, for a number of years now, wanted to be party to this agreement. The bills set up the mechanism that incorporates a levy, the zero levy, now. That will apply in the initial registration of horses and then the legislation provides for the collection and administration of a levy in the same way that other parties to the agreement are included. The agreement operates so that the Commonwealth underwrites the industry’s share of the cost in the event of an emergency disease outbreak such as equine influenza, as happened recently in the horse industry. Then the industry is in a position to work out a cost-sharing arrangement.

The establishment of a levy arrangement through these bills triggers the horse industry to become a signatory to EADRA. The bills contain regulation-making power, or at least the legislative framework does, and the regs will prescribe the horse disease response levy rate. The regulations will be developed in close consultation with the industry to ensure that the principles of fairness and equity are paramount. Fairness and equity are the principles around which this legislation revolves and they are the principles that will apply to the sector and to those within the horse industry sector, particularly those who are part of the pony club and the pleasure part of the industry who may be asking, ‘What will happen now?’ Fairness and equity will prevail.

As members would know, there is currently a debt owing to the Commonwealth by the horse industry vis-a-vis the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement. I digress here to labour the point that the government would not consider and would not expect the horse industry to pay for costs outlaid, which are substantial, by the government for the equine influenza debacle as it would be penalising the horse industry for the systemic failure of the previous government—their failures at all levels: policy and leadership. To get back to the regulations, there is no need to set a positive levy rate due to the reason I have outlined above. There is no debt owing to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has said that there will be no debt to pay.

These bills therefore establish a zero levy and no positive levy rate can be set unless industry is consulted. On this point, I note that the horse sector, at peak representative industry level, comprises three peak groups: the Australian Horse Industry Council, Harness Racing Australia and the Australian Racing Board. These three peak bodies support the passing of these bills. There are of course other organisations but these are the peak three. In a letter to Minister Burke on 13 August, Thoroughbred Breeders Australia said:

TBA supports passage of the bills through the parliament in the spring session on the understanding that government will consult with industry to establish a fair and equitable registration scheme, to ensure the burden of the levy does not fall on too few horse sectors. The thoroughbred breeding industry will constructively engage with government and other horse industries to this end.

I welcome the support of both the peak bodies and the Thoroughbred Breeders Australia, which I sense speak for those not directly involved when they make the point about the need to have a fair and equitable registration scheme—principles that I subscribe to, as does the Labor Party and the Rudd Labor government. Those principles are reflected in the language used by the minister regarding this matter and the language within the legislative framework.

I have spoken to many people in the horse industry in my electorate of Page who also share the view of the Thoroughbred Breeders Australia on the need for fairness and equity. I say to the three peak bodies and to the honourable members that they have expressed their concern and that they will be listened to when consultations are taking place. I undertook with the locals to raise this when I could, and I do so now. I always remind members of organisations to be as active as they can in their respective bodies so that their voices will be heard through to the top.

By way of background to the EARDA, which is pivotal to these bills, it was struck in 2002 and essentially sets out—as agreements are wont to do—the roles and responsibilities of the parties. Where the industry cannot initially meet its cost-sharing obligations, the Commonwealth can underwrite the industry’s obligations, subject to satisfactory arrangements for repayments, including a statutory levy. Most of the horse industry bodies and indeed the country racing associations do not have the cash, the capital or the backing, particularly within the pleasure sector, to arrange commercial loans to support them through emergencies such as the equine influenza outbreak. Having this agreement in place means that swift and clear action can be taken if an animal disease emergency occurs—and God forbid that it does. But we have to plan for that happening because they do and will occur despite the best practices, despite the best policies and despite the best precautions, which we are now moving to put in place. When we came to government there was really very little in place for the horse industry and we found that the quarantine system was wanting, as detailed in the Callinan report.

The provisions of the EADRA will effectively limit the levy rate and, importantly, all parties, including industry—that is, all heads at the table—must agree on a response and its cost before it can proceed. The horse disease levy bill also mandates that the minister take into account the views of industry bodies in setting the operative levy rate. The minister has also informed the peak industry bodies that he will continue to discuss fully with industry any future action before implementing any levy system or levy rates. (Time expired)

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to follow the member for Page. I will speak briefly outside the leave of the bill and thank her for co-hosting a recent conference at Lismore dealing with the role of agriculture and soil carbon. I am also pleased that the Minister for Resources and Energy is in the chamber. Some constructive issues with regard to the soil carbon debate need to be addressed.

The Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and two cognate bills are significant, and many country areas and organisations have expressed concerns about them. I will allude to those concerns, some of which the minister may be able to allay in his speech in reply. Most members know that the electorate of New England is renowned for many things, including the fact that Tamworth, the major centre in the area, is the venue for the country music festival. Not only the thoroughbred and harness industries but also the recreational horse industry are an important part of the festival and the history of the area. Much has been done over the years to encourage and foster the development of the industry. Members would know of the controversy raised in this place about the development of an equine centre. That centre is currently nearing completion and will be part of the development of the equine industry in the region.

We now know that the equine influenza outbreak began at Eastern Creek Animal Quarantine Station and then spread to the Hunter Valley, Warwick, Narrabri and Moombi, which is a little place north of Tamworth. Horse owners and animals were confined to that area for some time. Members have spoken about the damage that the outbreak caused to the industry broadly and to individuals who were caught up in it because of the maladministration of the quarantine station.

Concern has been expressed that these bills were constructed as a response to last year’s equine influenza outbreak. As the member for Page said, the concept of the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement and the horse industry being involved in it has been on the radar for some years. I am not convinced, but some people have suggested that the bills were constructed to fund the response to last year’s outbreak. The Callinan inquiry has since tabled some findings. A degree of outrage was expressed early in the year and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, quite responsibly in my view, withdrew the bills. These bills are very similar, if not identical, to those that were withdrawn. It was suggested that the original legislation could retrospectively draw in funds to pay for the response to the equine influenza outbreak that occurred as a result of neglect at Eastern Creek. I thought their withdrawal was a positive move on the minister’s part. Some people still believe that retrospective bills are not necessarily the best mechanism to deal with future outbreaks—that is, to identify how to respond and how to fund that response. All members seem to suggest that the horse industry should be a signatory to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, and I agree. It is important for the industry to be a party to that agreement. However, there is confusion about the motivation for the bills and their retrospectivity.

As I said, many people were harmed as a result of the equine influenza outbreak. When the Callinan inquiry was established people had views about how the outbreak occurred and who was responsible, and many of those issues may well be resolved in court. A program has been set up to assist people and businesses that were adversely affected by the outbreak. Notwithstanding potential court action, the minister put in place some assistance measures. I have had cause on a number of occasions to make representations about the guidelines that were imposed and who was and was not eligible, and some of those issues are before the minister. I urge the minister, if at all possible, to err on the side of the applicant. Enormous damage has been done essentially because of the negligence of a government authority. As I said, that will be potentially fought out in court. However, where assistance is provided to recognise that harm has been done to individuals or businesses because of this outbreak we should err on the side of the applicant rather than be too dogmatic in the interpretation of the guidelines.

Quarantine arrangements will have to be improved for not only equine influenza—we could have another outbreak—but also many other animal diseases. If last year’s outbreak had involved foot-and-mouth disease, some of our livestock industries would have been decimated. The response to the equine influenza outbreak and the lack of preparedness at the state and Commonwealth levels highlighted that much more planning should be done to ensure that if a disease outbreak occurs again mechanisms will kick into gear more effectively.

I particularly congratulate the state primary industries departments for the way in which they responded to the outbreak. I had some involvement with the Moombi outbreak. People who were not skilled in responding to disease outbreaks were required to address this outbreak and to deal as diplomatically as they could with people who were outraged about their animals being confined to an area they did not come from and about the costs involved—both financial and emotional. There must be improvements.

I mentioned earlier that there are some concerns out there as to who supports these bills and who does not, even within some of the industry groups. The Horse Industry Council has been mentioned, and I am aware that not everybody in that council, for instance, is in agreement with supporting these bills. Some suggest—and others in other parts of the industry suggest—that there are some equity and fairness issues involved here. There are some concerns about the definition of ‘registered body’. There are some very real concerns as to what process evolves from the legislation if a registered body, a horse body, folds. The minister might be able to explain it to me in his concluding remarks. What arrangements would be put in place there? There are some arrangements in the legislation in terms of penalties, but those penalties, as I understand it, will not apply to individual horse owners. It looks as though they only apply to registered horse bodies that are going to be levied in the case of an outbreak. I would like those concerns addressed by the minister, if possible.

The definition of registration seems to be a little bit of an issue with some people as well. The minister and some of the government members, including the member for Page, have mentioned in their contributions that those concerns about equity and fairness will be taken care of in the regulations. I would like the minister to clearly spell out what they mean by that. How are they going to address those issues in the regulations, particularly given some of the definitional issues about registered bodies? I know some people in the Horse Industry Council, for instance, are concerned. Everybody seems to be in favour of the horse industry being involved in the EADRA, but some people are concerned that not all of the horse industry will be involved. Answers to the questions of how you capture that greater audience, how that relates to what the government are planning to do in terms of regulation and who they will consult with in the industry before constructing those regulations really do need to be fleshed out, if only to address some of the concerns that are out there in the horse industry.

I mentioned earlier the need for our quarantine arrangements to be upgraded. Australia is an island and has a great advantage in that sense. There are certain disadvantages, of distance, but one of the great marketing aspects that we have as a nation is our island continent status. Despite that status, there can be breaches, there can be outbreaks of disease, and how we respond to those outbreaks becomes very significant. I do not believe that we in Australia do enough to deal with the potential carriers of disease in this country. I think we pay the issue a lot of lip-service.

I was on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry during its inquiry into the problem of feral animals and the way in which certain states are having some success and others are not and all the demarcation issues that are there. The minister at the table, the Minister for Resources and Energy, was involved in that committee. We saw some outstanding results in some areas—for instance, the way in which Western Australia virtually eradicated the buffalo and the donkey. The Northern Territory also dealt with the buffalo. A lot of people had said: ‘It’s pointless even trying. They’re out of control. You can never do that.’ The Western Australians have effectively done it, and there are lessons to be learned from the way in which they addressed those issues. They deserve congratulations. I will not get into the techniques involved, but there are techniques that do work. We should not just give up just because it is costly to eradicate some of these feral animals.

The shadow minister and others have mentioned feral horses and the way in which they could carry equine influenza or other horse diseases in some future outbreak. They are another example of controls that should be taken. There are more feral pigs than people in Australia now—after all the programs that have been adopted over many years to try and eradicate those animals. If foot-and-mouth disease were to break out in any part of Australia, the feral pig population would be the ideal conduit for the spread of that disease. The capacity for that one disease to destroy a lot of Australia’s agricultural industries is very significant and should not be underestimated. We should not underestimate the spending that is needed and the improvements that are obviously needed in our quarantine arrangements, as illustrated by the Eastern Creek fiasco.

Recently I have spent some time in Central Australia, and the numbers of feral camels in that region are exploding. There are estimates now that there may be a million camels in the semiarid and arid zones of Central Australia. Many people do not go there, so they probably do not care. The major part of our environment is dry, semiarid and arid, and these animals that were introduced should be taken care of—not taken care of in a custodial sense but taken out of the environment in the appropriate fashion because they have the capacity to do enormous damage to that environment. I hear very little from the usual spokespeople for green and environmental issues when it comes to the destruction that is taking place before our very eyes as a result of feral camels in Central Australia. If we can believe the climate change data, additional rainfall will occur in some of those areas and there will be an additional explosion in the populations of some of these animals.

In conclusion I would ask the minister to respond to some of the issues I have raised, including: the levy arrangements on a registered body if that registered body does in fact fold; how the legislation would impact on recreational horse activities if the horses are registered in another country, and the need, or otherwise, to be registered in this country; and the fairness and equity issues that have been raised by many in terms of the regulations which may come after the passage of the legislation. The minister might like to explain to those bodies what he intends to do and what the preferred agenda is.

I also think there needs to be greater clarification on what happens to people who breach the law. I know there is mention of penalties in the legislation, but what does this legislation allow to happen if, for example, someone has 10 horses, registers three and is found to have an additional seven? If the legislation does not have some degree of policing capacity built into it, the obvious exit strategy for some people will be not to register all of their horses. I think the minister needs to explain how this is going to work, particularly in terms of registration.

This is a bill that I am still wrestling with in terms of my support for it or otherwise. I have looked at both sides of the argument. My vote will depend to some degree on how the minister answers some of those questions. Hopefully he can placate some of the broader concerns out there in the electorate.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and the two related bills—the Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Bill 2008 and the Horse Disease Response Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. Horses have been an important part of Australian life for many years, playing significant roles in transport, farming and the sporting industry. We need only look at the national impact of the Melbourne Cup every year or our interest and involvement in equestrian events at the Olympics or the image evoked by Banjo Paterson’s The Man from Snowy River to know that horses are an integral part of Australian culture.

We know well the dangers to Australia of exotic diseases. As the member for New England has just noted in his speech, our island geography has advantages; it has always provided some degree of protection. It is significant that only New Zealand and New Caledonia, with their similar island protection, remain EI free. Our Customs and quarantine services are known for maintaining a stern watch for foreign pests, diseases and weeds. However, we have not always managed to catch every problem—for instance, the cane toad, which was introduced in the 1930s, and the cabomba weed, which arrived from South America in the 1960s. The cabomba weed threatens to choke off waterways wherever it is found, and it needs to be aggressively eradicated. And of course there was the devastating appearance of equine influenza in August 2007. These examples speak to the necessity to be organised and decisive whenever we are dealing with such threats, whether they be animals, plants or diseases. Experience shows us that any time lost at the initial outbreak of a problem will add exponentially to both the difficulty and the end costs of removing the problem—assuming it can be removed at all once it has become widespread.

Australia has a deep reservoir of personnel, skills and experience in the management of livestock and protection from exotic diseases. In the words of the peak industry body, the Australian Horse Industry Council, we have been very fortunate to have access to what is undoubtedly the best animal health system in the world. However, despite our formidable capabilities in this area, the Australian horse industry was completely disrupted by the appearance of EI in August 2007. The epidemic had its origins in Japan and found its way into the Australian horse population after a quarantine breach allowed it to escape from the Eastern Creek quarantine station. The epidemic endured for some 130 days, from August last year until the time of the last confirmed cases in December last year, with 6,627 properties infected in New South Wales and 3,569 in Queensland.

Members will undoubtedly remember the daily tales of financial hardship, family dislocation and heartbreak that resulted from the disease. Horses perished, properties were quarantined, movement of animals was restricted, many families were stranded far from home, jobs were threatened and lost and the economic security of families and industries was imperilled because horse related industries, sporting events and recreational pursuits were paralysed. For those in the community with no particular knowledge of the horse industry, it must have come as a surprise to see the unfolding of so many dramas associated with the pandemic—how it reached so deeply into the community and impacted on so many workers and families in so many ways. It is a tribute to the outstanding expertise and commitment of those who managed the outbreak, including the many skilled and experienced veterinarians and government officers who implemented the backup systems, that it was controlled in such a relatively short time.

The significance of the industries affected by horse flu cannot be underestimated. A conservative estimate of the financial importance of the racing industry would value it in the billions of dollars. It employs almost 80,000 people Australia-wide. In my home state of Western Australia alone, the industry employs an estimated 12,000 people.

The extent of the horse flu infection last year was alarming. As I noted earlier, in New South Wales over 6,000 properties were infected and in Queensland over 3,000 properties were infected. In spite of the immensity of the problem, the combined efforts of industry and government were able to reverse the spread of the disease and eventually eradicate it from Australia altogether. Obviously, a task of that magnitude does not come cheap. In his report Justice Callinan cited ABARE monitoring of the estimated daily cost of the initial response to the outbreak at $560,000 a day for disease control and $3.35 million a day in forgone income in the equine industry. Over the duration of the outbreak this combined amount rose to close to $1 billion, although Justice Callinan stated that ‘it is unlikely to ever be possible to calculate accurately the total cost of the outbreak’. With figures like that it is not hard to see why the horse industry looks to government to strengthen preventative measures, learn from mistakes as diagnosed in the Callinan report and move to close those gaps and address those inadequacies. Minister Burke has asked Professor Peter Shergold to oversee the implementation of those recommendations contained in the Callinan report.

According to Parliamentary Library information, the total Commonwealth funding so far has been $352.9 million, including $255.7 million announced by the government on 15 February. The sheer magnitude of the cost borne by the Australian taxpayers and industry underlines the pivotal function of the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, or EADRA, and brings me to the business of the bills before the House.

The EADRA is the mechanism by which we manage the economic cost of controlling disease outbreaks in the Australian livestock, poultry and honey bee industries. Most industry bodies lack the financial ability to respond comprehensively to a disease emergency. Without that capacity the speed of response could be severely compromised. The EADRA is a world-first industry-government cost-sharing agreement that boosts Australia’s ability to respond quickly and efficiently to animal disease outbreaks. It sets out arrangements between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and Australia’s livestock industries for the control, containment and eradication of specified animal diseases. The Commonwealth became a party to the agreement in March 2002.

The EADRA obliges the Commonwealth to underwrite the costs of mounting an emergency response to an exotic disease incursion. Major beneficiaries of intervention share the cost, which is recovered by a levy on a taxable output of the relevant industry. There is a list of 12 guidelines as to what can be a suitable levy for an animal industry, but criteria that are suitable for other livestock industries do not easily fit the national horse industry. No component of the Australian horse industry has to date been a party to the EADRA because, according to the Australian Horse Industry Council, a taxable output of the horse industry has been very difficult to identify. This has hampered the process of it becoming a signatory to the EADRA. However, when responding to the 2007 EI outbreak the parties to the arrangement agreed to treat the horse industry as though it were a party to the agreement. The levy gives the industry the assurance that it will have the government’s backing if ever the circumstances of last year are repeated. These arrangements clarify responsibility for action at the most important time, when an outbreak is discovered. When that happens, we do not need to be wasting time dividing and apportioning financial responsibility. We need to be acting as quickly as possible in order to discover the source and extent of the outbreak and to contain and eradicate it. This levy provides the reassurance which small operators need that they will not be wiped out financially by the cost of dealing with a flu outbreak.

At this point I would like to note an issue which has been the topic of a very heated debate—the question of compulsory vaccination against EI. There are differing opinions on this within the horse industry. Those who support compulsory vaccination point to the way EI is managed in England, where vaccinations are compulsory for competitive horses. They say that this has minimised the time and money lost to flu outbreaks since the English program began. They make reference to the complete lack of naturally occurring resistance to horse flu in horses, a factor which can make an initial outbreak spread rapidly. In addition, they point out that competitive horses make up the large majority of horse movements and by vaccinating those horses who are most often being transported you remove one of the most probable methods for this virus to spread through the general horse population.

There are a number of other viewpoints related to vaccination, many of which are canvassed in the Australian veterinary emergency plan disease strategy for equine influenza of 2007. I must also thank one of my constituents, Dr Tim Mather, for his passionate and informative briefing on this subject. Dr Mather is a vet who has been closely involved with the horse industry. He noted that EI is endemic in other countries but we do not have it here. Australia is fortunate to be isolated and to have a hot climate, which makes it difficult for EI to get a foothold here. In his view the best way to control exotic diseases on both economic and scientific grounds is to ensure a good-quality quarantine program. Ideally this would include stationing quarantine staff overseas to conduct pre-quarantine inspections. I note that Justice Callinan’s report made detailed recommendations concerning quarantine and pre-quarantine procedures. Furthermore, horse flu vaccines are not cheap and none are developed commercially in Australia, which heightens the cost and makes it particularly impractical for smaller operators.

However, perhaps the most compelling reasons for not engaging in a preventative widespread vaccination program go to the science of the vaccination process itself. First of all, no EI vaccine exists that can guarantee knocking the illness on the head. The initial source of last year’s outbreak was an imported horse which had been vaccinated before being brought into Australia, so you could be engaging in a very expensive and very labour intensive action for quite limited benefit. The possibility of vaccine failure is especially concerning because vaccine presence has the potential to make early detection of an outbreak more difficult. At the moment blood serum tests cannot distinguish between increases in flu antibodies due to vaccination and those due to an infection. A generally vaccinated horse population could still be vulnerable to EI. The benefit is that there would be an enhanced resistance; the downside is that it would complicate and slow detection processes.

Secondly, there is the aspect of the disease which makes all influenza types so hard to fight, whether it is equine, bird or human flu: its high rate of mutation and variability. There is no single type of EI—or single type of influenza vaccine for that matter. There are different strains across the world varying in subtle ways from country to country and continent to continent. In order for an influenza vaccine to be optimally effective, it needs to be combating the particular strain it was built for. If you pitch a European variant of horse flu against a vaccine designed to protect against an American strain of the flu the vaccine will be offering protection below its optimal level. In addition, the various strains themselves can mutate and become more resistant, even against the vaccines which are designed specifically with them in mind. Last year’s vaccine against an American strain will not necessarily protect your horse against this year’s American strain. A preventative vaccine would need to be relevant to the strain of horse flu that broke out as well as up to date and able to handle whatever the latest mutations of that strain were. It is easy to imagine a general vaccination program developing into a continual arms race between the virus and horse owners—ongoing, expensive and potentially futile.

Perhaps the most concerning possible complication from vaccination is the Typhoid Mary scenario. When an outbreak strain encounters a horse which has been vaccinated against a different type of strain, there are some circumstances where the horse can be subclinically infected; in other words, the horse can be infected with the virus but show no obvious symptoms of the virus. In this scenario, the subclinically infected horse is still infectious to other horses, which has the potential to make the spread of an outbreak even worse and almost impossible to track. It may well be best practice to compulsorily vaccinate horses in countries where horse flu is an established ongoing problem which needs to be managed rather than prevented because those countries know which strain of flu they are dealing with: their native strain. In an Australian scenario where there is an outbreak of horse flu, we could not be sure which strain it is, as it could be from any of a large number of countries.

Regardless of which side of the debate you come down on, everyone recognises that the most desirable way of dealing with this problem is to ensure that our quarantine services are appropriately prepared to prevent another outbreak before it reaches our horse population. With this in mind, the government has commissioned former top public servant Roger Beale to comprehensively review our quarantine and biosecurity systems.

Returning to the levy, as I mentioned before, these bills provide the framework for the horse industry to be included in the EADRA. It is not hard to see why the industry would find this desirable. Costs for responding to a disease outbreak can be crippling. Commonwealth funding alone for last year’s response to the EI outbreak came to just over $350 million. Even the largest organisations in the racing industry would find costs of this magnitude difficult to absorb. For smaller parties, such costs are simply beyond their reach—they would mean a complete financial wipe-out. Without access to the necessary finances, the industry response will be slow and piecemeal and, again, I have to emphasise how important a rapid response is when dealing with an outbreak. Without the levy which these bills will allow for, the horse industry cannot be part of the EADRA. In the event of another outbreak of EI or, indeed, of any other serious disease in the horse population, the industry will be on its own, relying upon the goodwill of government to assist it.

Last year, during the outbreak and afterwards, the federal and state governments, in their response, bent over backwards to assist the horse industry. There was the provision of a very large amount of assistance. Considerable amounts of money were spent by both federal and state governments. The response was so effective that EI is regarded as having been eradicated from Australia—and no country previously had ever managed to eradicate horse flu once it had gained a foothold in the horse population. But the thing to remember is that that massive intervention, that massive support package, was based on the goodwill of government. In the end, Minister Burke decided, correctly, that it would be inappropriate to reclaim money from the industry. However, that there was that possibility hanging over the heads of those in the industry like the sword of Damocles speaks volumes for the inadequacies of previous arrangements.

People in the industry do not want the goodwill of government. Goodwill today could be indifference under a future government. Proper systems and proper safeguards need to be put in place so that people operating in the industry have an absolute, concrete understanding of what their situation is. After years of consultation, peak bodies in the horse industry have reiterated to the government that they wish to become signatories to the EADRA and support the introduction of a levy system so that the industry can be protected in the event of an emergency horse disease outbreak. These bodies include the Australian Racing Board Ltd, Harness Racing Australia, the Australian Horse Industry Council, Thoroughbred Breeders Australia and the Australian Equestrian Federation. I think it is fair to say that the horse industry is in broad agreement with the content of these bills and supports their passage through the parliament.

This government will not continue the practices which led to a failure of quarantine services. We will not sit and wait for the outbreak of disease in the horse population. The government will implement the recommendations of the Callinan report, the government will act to strengthen our quarantine and biosecurity services and the government will give those people working in the horse industry a solid footing so that they know that, if there is another outbreak, they will have governmental protection and not an industry catastrophe.

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in the House today to speak on issues that emanate from the introduction of the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008, the Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Bill 2008 and the Horse Disease Response Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. I want to speak to some of the issues that took place during the outbreak that occurred and about what I certainly believe to be an inequity with the way in which this levy is proposed to be collected. The method proposed for the collection of this levy is meant to be fair and equitable. However, far from that, I believe that the overwhelming proportion of horse owners who would become liable to pay any future levy really would not profit from it or really are not in the mind’s eye of the reasons for this levy.

There is no doubt that the racing industry is extremely important to the Australian economy and to social life within Australia, and the thoroughbred industry is also an extremely important industry; however, they do get a fairly concise and sometimes very rich income from the activities undertaken in the racing sector. Horses in harness racing and those in thoroughbred racing et cetera make up only about 20 per cent of the total number that come within the group from which this levy is to be collected. The other 80 per cent belong to the families—the mums, dads and kids—who are involved in various forms of dressage, pony club, polocrosse and general horse activities, and it is these people who would be charged with making up the balance of this levy. In my opinion, that is certainly not equitable. A potentially higher risk is associated with the thoroughbred sector. That sector involves imported race horses and shuttle stallions, which have a mandatory requirement for live joining, as opposed to horses for domestic use only.

In Australia the number of horses is estimated to be around 1.2 million. The total number of horse registrations per year, including pony club registrations, is estimated to be between 50,000 and 60,000. In the 2005-06 breeding season there were over 29,000 thoroughbred mares that produced almost 18,000 foals, of which 13,618 were registered. Even when this bill as proposed is implemented, it will result in perhaps only up to 50 per cent of all foals born being subject to the levy while the others will not be subject to the levy at all.

The total horse registration reveals that the majority—approximately 80 per cent—are with breed associations or pleasure performance-riding groups such as pony clubs, cutting, reining and campdrafting, as I have indicated. Why is it that they should be wearing a disproportionate amount to ensure that this disease or exotic diseases are counted when in fact, if their horses get equine influenza, they just put them in the paddock? Generally it is only an old, frail or fragile horse which will lose its life as a result of EI. It does not make any great difference to what they are doing. Horses were confined to many properties right across my electorate. I had people ringing my office daily about problems—they had gone down into Victoria to have a polocrosse meeting and were not able to come back. They were there for weeks and weeks. They were taken away from their businesses and their families, and they did not have enough money to properly feed the horses or enough money to accommodate themselves. They did not want to leave their horses with anybody else under the circumstances, so they had to bear a lot of the cost of EI. In fact, they gain no income from the horses; they are generally a pleasure pursuit industry.

The issue for the racing industry was the threat of being shut down. Of course it would be a big impost and would have a big impact on the Australian economy, with the way people’s gambling choices are today. It is quite extraordinary how much money is invested every day in gambling at the TAB or on the tote. It is a huge amount of money. It is a huge amount of money coming back in taxes to governments as well. There is ample opportunity to gamble in any way, shape or form. If you shut down the racing industry, you clearly create an enormous impact on the economy because those horses cannot race at that time. That is the problem they experienced. Why should the pleasure industry have to pick up the majority of this cost when, for them, their horse will get over EI and it just means confining them to a paddock and not moving them? Why should they pick up the majority of the cost? Just how many community events would be impacted upon during the shutdown was not recognised, yet we seem to be interested only in shoring up one particular sector of the industry. That the costs were borne by the community as a whole has to be taken into consideration as a result of the suspension of our recreational horse events.

The great drawcard for the show circuit in rural areas is the ability to go to a show and compete in the equine events. All of those shows—which were scheduled, had their entries and events finalised, had their programs printed and had their prize money—were pretty much in dire circumstances and lost an enormous amount of income as a result of their not being able to proceed. Most rural shows are centred on equine events. They were generally not able to access compensation. If they had lost money, they were able to apply for compensation. Did they actually get it? I think not. The communities and livelihoods of many of the businesses in the towns, which are supported by local activities, were certainly impacted upon and their losses were not recognised. The agricultural show societies and the horse transport companies particularly experienced great losses as a result of the cancellation of these horse events.

In the Riverina last year when the equine influenza outbreak was impacting on the local horse owners, my office was inundated with people inquiring about various issues. The problem that I had was the jurisdiction between state and Commonwealth. It is the state who issues the permits and allows the travel. I had many conversations in my office when people were complaining, ‘Why is it that trotters and racehorses can move from here to there, yet I can’t take my horse from one paddock, where there is no feed, to another paddock?’ I have here some of my electorate office feedback forms on this exact issue of the inequity that was dealt to many people during the outbreak of equine influenza. There is no doubt that the equine influenza outbreak was a major issue, particularly for New South Wales and Victoria. It was an issue that led to the most extraordinary amount of trauma for many families because, when you are a horse person, it is a way of life—you love your animals and you are absolutely devoted to them. They felt that they had no say.

The Australian Horse Industry Council, the Australian Harness Racing Council and the Australian Racing Board are the peak horse industry representative bodies and are the only bodies in the horse industry that are eligible to become signatories to the EADRA. I have a problem with that because they do not represent everyone in the industry. People who are generally interested in horses and run them for pleasure do not get a voice on these councils. These councils are the big boys from the big end of town. The little guys get no say. They do not get a say as to what vaccine could and should be used and whether it should be a live strain or not or about what they believe is best thing to do for their horses. Some of these people are very concerned that their prize horses will be weakened by the vaccines that are accepted for use under the signed agreements. It is wrong that the Australian Horse Industry Council purports to represent these members. Most of them cannot go to the meetings where these decisions take place, and they are not informed of how these decisions are made or that decisions were made. Many members were quite shocked and surprised when they found out that this levy was going to be applied across the board and that they were going to pick up the majority of the cost.

I believe that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the former minister have tried to do their very best across this entire process. But I do not think that they have arrived at the right result. People involved with pleasure and hobby horses are not the ‘industry’. They are not represented by the bodies that are signatories to the EADRA. It is as simple as that. People in my electorate have expressed a lot of knowledge on these issues. I am thankful to the department for sparing some time to talk with me, which I thank the minister for. The minister—who is seated at the table this morning—provided me an opportunity to speak with the department on issues raised by my West Wyalong equine community. That community have quite a bit of knowledge and are quite up to speed with what is happening. They had, I thought, reasonable and genuine questions to put, and the department was able to address many of the concerns that they raised. But I am still concerned that a disproportionate amount of the cost will be shouldered by the pleasure horse industry. I do not believe that it makes up the so-called ‘industry’. That is the unfairness of it.

I believe absolutely that there needs to be a levy in the horse industry. There are levies in many areas—for instance, horticulture. Levies are part and parcel of a growing industry. Those who are part of an industry take a share in the advantages and milestones of that industry. It is about taking a market share in an industry that is created. It is about taking a share in the benefits from an export market for that industry. It is also about bringing better pest control and better opposition to residual diseases et cetera in an industry. All of those who are making a living out of that industry share in the levies. I am no stranger to levies. I have always been supportive of the idea that those involved in an industry should be part of making sure that that industry prospers, flourishes and grows, and a levy is quite a sensible measure to achieve that.

But how you apportion the levy is the question that I raise here today. It is about the fairness and equity of a levy system. There must be a way of recognising that almost 80 per cent of the people who will be paying this levy are, in general, mums, dads and families. I do not believe for a second that a levy is fair on them when they are not deriving an income from their involvement with horses. Yes, they are deriving pleasure. And there might be others here who would say that they do derive an income, but compare it with the amount of money involved in Sky TAB. It has been on in my house at times. Watch Sky TAB and see the amount of money that is gambled in every pool, whether it be greyhounds, the trots or thoroughbred horseracing. That is where the money is. Day in and day out, you can see in your local paper pages and pages of racing activity taking place and the money being spent in that area. This is not a mums and dads issue. The mums and dads issue is about enabling the costly part of feeding, grooming and agisting a horse and also providing riding lessons for a child so that they can have access to that love of their life. For a child to own and ride a horse is to be part of a horse activity. That is costly enough.

This levy imposes an increased cost on families. If their horse gets sick, they will put it in the paddock. If they lose the horse, so be it. The horse will not have cost that family hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is what the Waterhouse and Smith stables spend on a horse. There will not be millions of dollars paid for a two-year-old horse. I cannot believe that anyone would invest that sort of money in a horse when only one horse can win a race. I find that extraordinary. That is where the bulk of the money should be put up for this levy. That is where the real impact is felt in the industry. The industry needs to be more responsible for diseases that could shut it down for a time.

Equine influenza is dangerous, and it is very sad that we had a breakdown in quarantine. That enabled this disease to enter Australia. But we have to be fair, so I say to the members of the House that, whilst I do not doubt the intentions of the bill, it is unfair. We need to look at this issue and provide fairness and equity. We need to recognise that the pleasure performance and hobby sector are going to pick up the bulk of the cost of this bill. They may be responsible for moving their horses. They may attend a polocrosse meeting across the road from a horseracing track. I am not saying that they should not contribute. I am saying that the pleasure horse industry should contribute but not to the extent that they will if this bill is passed.

The levy should be commensurate with the level of risk. By all means, stop them from moving around—impose bans and say, ‘You are not going to move here or there.’ By all means, make sure that the majority of horses are vaccinated et cetera. But the pleasure horse industry should not bear the cost; the cost should not be the same across the board. I really believe that this bill has not addressed many of the concerns raised by the horse owners, particularly by those in my electorate of Riverina. There needs to be a rethink of this issue. I most certainly disagree with the content of this bill and the way it is inequitably spreading the cost of the risk across the industry in a way that, I believe, has the pleasure horse industry picking up the majority of the cost.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member of this parliament representing Blair, a rural and regional seat in South-East Queensland, I am pleased to be able to speak on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008, the Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Bill 2008 and the Horse Disease Response Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 and to support the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry with this legislation. The Australian Horse Industry Council, in a message to its members on its website, said this:

The past year probably has been the most intense in the history of the Australian horse industry. The incursion of Equine Influenza (EI) into Australia from Japan in August 2007 caused complete disruption to the national horse industry. The successful emergency response to the incursion has seen eradication of EI from Australia in about 130 days - a truly remarkable achievement.

My electorate has been dreadfully affected by EI, and my constituents have come to see me in tears of anger and frustration at what they have experienced. The Australian harness-racing industry and the Australian Racing Board have been partners with government in the emergency response. In fact, I commend them for their participation in 56 meetings of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease and 24 meetings of the National Emergency Animal Disease Management Group. They were given leave to appear before former High Court Justice Ian Callinan, now known as the commissioner, during his inquiry subsequent to August 2007 relating to the incursion. In fact, the AHIC presented three written submissions. The AHIC has commended the minister, who is present in the House, and described his decision on behalf of the government to not require the repayment of $100 million spent on the eradication and proof-of-freedom campaign as generous. This money was given in addition to the $350 million provided in Commonwealth and state government assistance to affected horse owners.

It truly has been a horrendous year for the Australian horse industry. The entry of EI into Australia from Japan caused catastrophe and confusion. It was a very serious breach of quarantine. To allow EI into Australia via the Eastern Creek quarantine station was egregious negligence. The outbreak had serious economic and social consequences not just to Australia and Queensland but also to my electorate of Blair. To their discredit, the former coalition government failed to make arrangements for emergency disease preparedness in the horse industry. This was notwithstanding the industry’s proposal from more than a year earlier that they be a participant in agreements in relation to preparedness. The legacy of those who sit opposite in this chamber is procrastination and inertia.

The University of Western Sydney in August 2008 undertook a study into the human impacts of equine influenza. I commend the study and its outcome to members and to the public. Data was collected between 14 November 2007 and 7 January 2008. Complete data was collected from 2,760 respondents, which is a considerable number in the industry. The study was welcomed and supported by the AHIC. It was recognised that disease control measures were put in place to control, contain and eradicate EI. Those measures involved restriction and the quarantining of properties, which caused significant cost and disruption.

But it is psychological wellbeing that I want to focus on in my speech. Of the 2,760 people who responded, the vast majority were from New South Wales and Queensland, which were so affected. Forty-seven point two per cent of the respondents came from New South Wales and 20.1 per cent came from Queensland. The respondents were from all sectors of the horse industry: recreational, harness racing, thoroughbred racing, equestrian, stabling, agistment, veterinary and animal health, breeding, stud, farrier, commercial and others. The conclusion was that horse owners demonstrated high levels of resilience. We saw that every night in Queensland on the news. The stoicism, the incredible capacity to cope in the circumstances and the community approach of so many in the industry is to be applauded despite the feelings of despair, the loss of hope, the helplessness, the isolation, the frustration and the anger which was reported. They felt forgotten. But I am pleased the minister has not forgotten them and I am pleased that the Rudd Labor government did not forget them.

The response of the 2,760 people mimicked or reflected the response that my constituents gave to me. They talked about the fact that, as the member for Riverina mentioned, EI had an impact on country shows. I run mobile offices at all the country shows in my electorate, which takes in a large part of the rural and regional areas outside of Brisbane, down to the New South Wales border and the Boonah Shire and out towards Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley. And the shows there are the lifeblood of community. People get together at the shows for fellowship. They show off their produce. And I am pleased to see in the chamber the Attorney-General, who visited Gatton and gave a plaque to one of our life members. So he knows. The minister for agriculture has also been to my electorate and understands what it is like. In those rural communities, they get together for community dances and for church activities; they get together in P? they get together for social occasions far more than people in the city. So those community meetings are really important for bonding, for fellowship and for friendship; they are the wellspring of community life. I cannot stress enough how well-attended Rotary and Lions clubs and other groups are in those rural areas. In fact, they put those of us who live in the cities to shame in many ways.

Those people have expressed to me the frustration of the isolation and the quarantining and the impact on community life: reduced contact with friends; isolation; the cancellation of horse events in their areas; the cancellation of riding lessons, which a lot of rural people have their children engaged in; the lack of income and strain on finances; and the fact that they could not get a vet to come to their area. And there were people who came to their area, with goodwill, who failed to obey the quarantining requirements for cleaning and disinfecting that were so necessary when people went onto their property. A lot of people—those who were not ‘horsey people’, as it was put to me—did not get it. Separation from family also was mentioned. And people also reported a lack of information. People were unable to carry out their plans for the future. There was emotional distress—anger, disappointment, worry. And they also related to me, particularly those in dressage and equestrian activities. I played a lot of sport when I was younger—basketball, soccer, rugby league, cricket, touch football and table tennis; a lot of different sports—and I also ran. But I did it on my own or with team mates. Those in the horse industry engage their horses in those equestrian competitions. To see their animals suffering in this way is distressing. And it was not just a sniffle—these animals suffered dreadfully. It was a kind of rabies-like experience for them. I had people come to my mobile offices and to my electorate office in tears, in great anxiety at what their beloved pets and animals were suffering. So it really is a way of life for so many people in rural areas.

Certainly in Ipswich, which forms the bulk of my seat, the Ipswich Cup is the hub of the social season. Tens of thousands of people attend. Also, there is the Labour Day race meeting on the Monday, on Labour Day. I always go to the Labour Day march in Brisbane and then come back to the race meeting in Ipswich. I spoke to Brett Kitching, who manages the Bundamba Racecourse, and he talked about the cost to the club and the impact on the trainers, the farriers and all those who enjoy the industry, because that is their life. I have to confess I probably spent a bit too much time in my childhood on racetracks because my dad really liked to have a bet or two in Ipswich, though he was more involved in the greyhound industry. Certainly I spent a lot of time there. My old high school, Bundamba State Secondary College, was just across the road, and I hate to say this but a number of people used to go across to the racecourse, missing out on geography and English after lunch. But the racing industry is important to Ipswich.

I am pleased that the minister said on 15 February 2008 that the government had approved a $1 billion emergency funding package. That involved $691.3 million for ongoing federal funding to families and farm businesses affected, including exceptional-circumstances-declared regions; $7.8 million for interest rate subsidies; $97.2 million to reimburse the states and territories for funds; and $255.7 million for financial aid to individuals and businesses. It is those businesses which have suffered the most. People in my constituency have lost their incomes—lost their livelihoods. There are people in my electorate whose lives have been totally destroyed—and those are the words they have used to me. But it has been this Rudd Labor government which has supported farmers, small businesses and those in rural communities affected by the drought, and I am pleased to say that is the case. What have they received? They have received the equine workers hardship wage supplement, which is a Newstart-like type of assistance paid on a fortnightly basis to those people who have lost income that was directly derived from the commercial horse industry. There has also been the equine influenza business assistance payment of $5,000 to those businesses which derived the majority of their income from commercial horse industries and experienced a downturn in income. Further, there has been assistance in the form of the commercial horse assistance payment and grants for non-government and not-for-profit equestrian organisations.

I am also pleased that the minister has taken up the 38 recommendations of Commissioner Callinan from his inquiry. That was a very extensive inquiry—44 days of hearings, 260 witnesses, 80,000 documents and 41 formal submissions. Commissioner Callinan was always a robust advocate. He was more conservative than I would have liked him to be on the High Court of Australia, but he certainly said his piece and he was prepared to say what he thought, to his credit, on the High Court. In the report of his inquiry he talked about systemic failures: the understaffing of our quarantine services, which were not adequately funded and resourced; inadequacies and breakdowns; the impenetrable maze of bureaucratic confusion; a place of ignorance, misunderstandings, and misconceptions about fundamental matters—and it went on and on. I had a look at it—it is a damning indictment of quarantine in this country. I am pleased that the Rudd Labor government is acting on that, and these bills are part of that response.

I commend the minister. I know he has written to Roger Beale to address the issues as part of the review and he has appointed Professor Peter Shergold to oversee the whole process. At the time of a press release issued on 12 June, the federal government had expended $342 million to eradicate the virus and provide financial assistance. It is a huge sum of money.

I just do not get why the opposition is opposing these bills. The horse industry want these bills. The Australian Harness Racing Council, the Australian Horse Industry Council and the Australian Racing Board all support these bills. It is very peculiar for those people who sit opposite, who say that they support rural and regional communities, to oppose these bills. Regulations were drafted in 2007 to give effect to the Horse Industry Council’s submission, but it was advised that separate legislation would be required, and that is what these bills provide. The opposition of those opposite to these bills is a demonstration of the same kind of neglect that we saw in relation to the devastating EI outbreak last year. I just cannot understand why they are opposing them.

One purpose of these bills is to introduce a levy on the initial registration of horses so the horse industry can repay the Commonwealth for financial assistance if there is a future outbreak of an emergency horse disease. These are the terms set out in the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, EADRA. Another purpose of these bills is to provide for the collection of horse disease response levies by persons or bodies that register horses and relates to the liability of the horse registration bodies to pay the levy payments to the Commonwealth. The bills also impose penalties for unpaid levies and provide for remission of any penalties. They also provide for the gathering and collection of information and documents together with a strict liability offence for failure to comply with an information request. The bills also amend the Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Act 1996 to enable the Commonwealth to appropriate horse disease response levies paid to the Australian Animal Health Council and to repay the Commonwealth for underwriting the horse industries’ share of the costs involved in dealing with emergency outbreaks of horse diseases. Further, the bills enable the Australian Animal Health Council to utilise excess horse disease response levies for research and development purposes or the promotion and maintenance of horse health. The bills will help the horse industry fund its obligations under EADRA.

What do the horse industry say about these bills? They support them. The member for Page outlined in her speech a number of people who have written to the minister, and I will not repeat those names, but they are very supportive of these bills and also commended the minister for his response. By passing this legislation we would see the horse industry join other major livestock industries in the agreement. The bills establish a one-off statutory levy on registration of horses to meet the industry’s commitment to sharing the funding of responses to emergency disease outbreaks which affect horses. The consequential legislation allows the levies to be appropriated to the council, as I said, and contains other particular reforms.

All other major livestock industries are signatories to the EADRA, and the horse industry should be too. It is really a matter of catching up. The ratification was delayed by the neglect of the Howard government. I am pleased that in March 2008 the Rudd government postponed debate on these bills until the cost of the EI outbreak in 2007 was resolved. I have written to the minister on behalf of a number of my constituents who wanted me to tell their stories to the minister, to say how EI had affected them. I am pleased that the minister has taken the time to sit here and listen to so many speakers.

These bills will provide certainty in funding for emergency animal disease threats and certainty in terms of a rapid and effective response. As all the industry groups support this bill, so should those opposite. I hope that they use their numbers in the Senate to also support this legislation. The bills before us will have a big impact on the horse industry. No more do we want to see 6,627 properties infected and affected in New South Wales and Queensland. I commend the minister for the legislation. I commend the industry for their participation in these matters. These bills will deliver to the horse industry what they have been asking for for many years: a national system for responding to emergency animal disease. It has taken the Rudd Labor government to do this. I commend the bills to the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and cognate bills. I have been involved in the horse industry all my life, using horses not only for working on a property but also, I can reveal, as my mode of transport to school in my very early days of schooling in western Queensland. And, of course, representing the seat of Maranoa, horses are an integral part of work, pleasure and business.

When the impact of EI hit my electorate—in fact, hit Australia—it had devastating costs for many businesses and people. It is a disease that should never have entered Australia. It is quite obvious that the disease entered Australia through the use of shuttle stallions in the bloodstock industry. It was a very serious breakdown in our protocols and the administration of our protocols through the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service.

In fact, I first heard about it when people were advised at Morgan Park in Warwick in my electorate, where there were some 255 horses and 120 people for an equestrian event through that weekend. They were then locked down for the next five weeks. I shudder to even consider the impact of an exotic disease such as foot-and-mouth, should it ever enter Australia because of a breakdown in our quarantine system and the people who work in AQIS. I said directly to Minister McGauran at the time, ‘This is an absolute disgrace,’ because the impact of an exotic disease such as foot-and-mouth disease, should it ever enter Australia, would devastate our meat exports for possibly years to come. Obviously the minister at the time carried the responsibility—he is no longer in the parliament with us—and I expressed great anger at the fact that our quarantine system had broken down. The fact that we are an island nation is of great benefit to the export of many of our food products. I am pleased that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who has responsibility for this, is in the House today. I thank him for ensuring that the cost of the outbreak of equine influenza in Australia was not borne by the industry. Although I think he might have been intending to do that when he first became minister, I do commend him for listening to the concerns of the industry, the opposition and, I am sure, a wide cross-section of the horse industry in Australia. Out of fairness, the cost of eradicating the disease from Australia was rightly borne by the Australian taxpayers at the time.

In my electorate of Maranoa, I have some of the finest bloodstock in Australia. I have some wonderful thoroughbred studs in my electorate with a wonderful history of providing many cup winners in Brisbane, Sydney and the racing circuit around Australia, and I am very proud of that. In fact, right on the edge of my electorate the great Bernborough was bred and trained and he went on to win the Melbourne Cup. The Darling Downs in the eastern part of my electorate provides wonderful bloodstock for the thoroughbred industry. They were very much affected by this outbreak of equine influenza because it happened at the worst time of the year for many of them in the bloodstock industry. It was at the start of that period when they were mating mares to top stallions and they had bookings for mares. That is the way the breeding season works in the thoroughbred industry. For many of them there was a huge financial impact because they were unable to get the mares to the stallions. Of course, those mares not getting in foal because of the lockdown due to equine influenza will have a flow-on effect for many years to come.

Can I just look at some of the other horse industries in my electorate. There are sporting horse associations and, of course, the renowned Dalby Stock Horse Show is probably the premier stockhorse sale in Australia every year. They sell there once a year. It brings enormous economic benefit to the town of Dalby and, when the town is still suffering from the worst drought in a hundred years, that economic activity is very hard to measure. But that show was cancelled. People would come with their horses, they would talk about horses, they would trade horses and they would look at how they could improve their own stockhorses. There would be farriers, saddlers and tack sellers. There would be hospitality. The economic activity lost to the town of Dalby was a consequence of the lockdown due to equine influenza. The state polocrosse championships in Chinchilla, west of Dalby, were also cancelled. There was a similar effect on the hospitality industry—on the motels. That economic activity has a multiplier effect—if you spend a dollar, it multiplies by four or five in that community. The town of Chinchilla is suffering the effects of the worst drought in a hundred years. That economic activity was lost and many small businesses suffered dramatically because of the lockdown. Pony clubbers were unable to go to their pony clubs. It is a great activity for families. In fact, I started a pony club in my own district, aware of the importance of young children growing up with the lessons that they can learn through the pony club movement. They too were locked down, unable to take their ponies to competition events or even to that Sunday afternoon instruction at their local pony club. It is a major social event for many families and being able to participate in a pony club has a low cost to the family. I am very proud of the fact that I am a pony club instructor, was a regional chair and president of the district and established the Muckadilla Pony Club. It is not in action today, but it provided many years of great enjoyment and I think many great lessons were learnt by the children who participated in the pony club. Pony clubs were also affected by this.

Often not spoken about are the campdraft industries. I myself am quite amazed at the extent of the growth in campdrafting. They can get 500 or 600 nominations at a campdraft in a remote part of my electorate out in Canungra or Birdsville or up at Longreach. People will travel up to 600, 700 or 800 kilometres for the weekend for a campdraft, for a sporting event. They were unable to participate. In fact, I have just been out in that part of my electorate in the west, right out through as far as Birdsville. I arrived there and quite a few of the stockmen and people there were travelling right up to Camooweal—a day and a half’s drive—with horses for the National Bronco Branding Championships. Once again, it is a horse sport and it is a very old skill, but it has been kept alive by people with a great interest in horses and sporting activities—not registered horses, just horses off the parcel properties and people who breed them out of the sheer pleasure of being able to compete in a bronco-branding competition. It is an old skill. I have not found out who won it, but I am sure it will be someone from Maranoa, knowing the great stockmen in the west of my electorate and the passion that they have. We have held the title for a number of years. It is held every couple of years, and I am sure when I do find out it will have been someone from the west of my electorate out at Maranoa.

Contract musterers were affected. They are people who make a living with their horses by going to a property. That is the way they contract out their work in so many of the smaller pastoral properties today. But they could not operate. They were locked down and unable to derive an income for that period of the lockdown. The racing industry, which is the commercial end of the horse industry in Australia, was also locked down. Racing in my electorate is a great social event, as are so many horse events. That is the time when once a year the ladies will dress up and go to the local races and it really is a great social occasion. Many races, including the famous Birdsville races, had to be cancelled.

What amazed me about the lockdown was that the Birdsville races, some 1,800 kilometres from the outbreak at Morgan Park in Warwick in the east of my electorate, were locked down. If they were over the border in the Northern Territory, which is another couple of hundred kilometres west, the Birdsville races probably could have been held. I have to say, Minister—and you were not responsible at the time—that I was frustrated by some of those regulations. I could not see why, being so far removed from where the disease had been identified in the east of my electorate down into the Brisbane Valley, those races could not continue; but they could not.

People coming from Mount Isa got about 250 kilometres from Birdsville, spelled their horses overnight, and that was the night the lockdown occurred. People who work on stations and trainers from Mount Isa were locked down for five weeks in Bedourie with their horses, having to import horse feed. There was a similar situation for those coming out of Longreach and going down to Birdsville. They overnighted at Windorah, spelled their horses on the Cooper Creek—which I spoke about earlier in the Main Committee—and ended up being locked down for five weeks. There did not seem to be much commonsense about that. I wondered why they could not just go back to their stables up at Longreach, but instead they too were locked down, this time in the small community of Windorah. The lockdown might have had a bit of a commercial impact on the town, but there was a commercial loss to those people and their daily lives—they could not move, they had to look after their horses for five weeks. It was an enforced break from work; they had to do it.

All that is not to mention the money that is raised at these sporting events, whether it is a campdraft, bronco branding or the outback racing season—which starts this weekend, by the way. For those listening, you should, if you can, make it to Birdsville this weekend and Bedourie next weekend or the two on the weekend after. They are great outback racing weekends, and I know that they are already arriving in Birdsville. So often a third of the money raised at these events goes to the Royal Flying Doctor Service. These are communities that help themselves. I know that the federal government, in part, provides quite a substantial sum of money to the Royal Flying Doctor Service, but last year the money raised from racing was lost. The money was not raised so the Royal Flying Doctor Service was impacted upon because of the impact of equine influenza.

Can I say something about the lockdown at Morgan Park in Warwick. I mentioned earlier that there were some 255 horses there for that weekend’s equestrian events, which included, if my memory serves me correctly, some of the trials leading up to the equestrian team selection for the Beijing Olympics. They too were affected. Morgan Park had to be locked down for five weeks and that also had an effect on our Olympic team and the trials that led up to the selection of the equestrian team for the Olympics.

Events like this often bring out the best in people, and the people of Warwick were absolutely fantastic. Simon Goddard and his team organised that weekend’s activities at Morgan Park and they then had the responsibility of ensuring that the lockdown was secure, that the horses that were there were able to be cared for and that the 120-odd people who were locked down with their horses were able to be fed. There were issues of sanitation and the removal of horse waste. It was a huge logistical exercise. Imagine all of a sudden having 250 horses and 120 people locked down in a sporting complex for five weeks. They cannot go home and they have to look after their horses. I remember at the time that all that they wanted do was make sure that all of their horses got EI tests and got them quickly, because until they were able to test that the horses were either immunised or free of equine influenza those horses were going to be locked down.

I want to commend the people of Warwick and all of the support team behind Simon Goddard. They made a magnificent effort. It really did bring the best out in people. They are wonderful people. They did not seek any recognition; they just did a job. They knew it was there to do—a disaster had occurred and they did not seek recognition. People in town were cooking stews and casseroles and providing food. All the food had to be checked on the way in for fear of contamination beyond the borders of the quarantine area. So, to Simon and all the team there in Warwick, I commend you for your efforts.

I mentioned earlier that Minister Burke is not asking the industry to pay for the cost of the EI outbreak and the containment and eradication of that disease from Australia. I commend him for that. To do otherwise would have been grossly unfair, and I do recognise that that is the position of this government.

I now come to the point of the levy itself. The proposal to impose a levy on registered horses is grossly inequitable. We have about 1.2 million horses in Australia and possibly 50,000 to 60,000 of them would be registered. The legislation will force people not to register their horses and many will not be captured by it. It will also unfairly impact on the sporting side rather than the commercial side of the horse industry.

I recall at the time of the outbreak that all the news focused on whether the Melbourne Cup would be run in 2007. There was never a great focus on the campdraft lockdown or the small pony clubs in North Queensland and the costs incurred by the families involved. It was all about whether the Melbourne Cup—the king of sports—would be run. The commercial side of the industry was getting all the financial compensation. We all want the Melbourne Cup to be run, but that demonstrated that there is a side of the horse industry in Australia which is very commercial and which involves millions and millions of dollars. On the other side there are the pony clubbers, the campdrafters, the bronco branding teams, the contract musterers and the station horses. They are part of everyday life. Like someone who plays golf and has a special set of clubs, these people have a horse. It is their hobby and their sport. It is wrong to levy these people in the sport and recreation sector in the same manner as we levy the commercial side of the industry.

An analogy has been drawn by members on the other side of the House with the meat industries and the honey bee industry, which are all subject to a levy that can be called on in the event of an exotic disease outbreak in their industry. Those industries involve commercial business operators. There is a clear distinction between people involved in the meat and livestock industries and the honey bee industry and sporting and recreational horse owners. Like the thoroughbred and harness racing industries, those businesses are selling a commercial product; they have a commercial side to their operation. We cannot make that comparison and say that the sporting side of the horse industry in Australia should be treated in the same way that the commercial side of the industry is treated.

We all recall that this disease entered Australia with the shuttle stallions coming from Japan to service mares in the bloodstock industry. It had nothing to do with the pony clubbers, the campdrafters or the bronco branders. There are two different, quite separate, clearly identifiable sectors in the horse industry in Australia. I ask the minister to take that into account in any further considerations about these bills. I do not support the bills in their current form because they are unfair. The sporting and recreational side rather than the commercial side of the industry will bear 80 per cent of the cost. The commercial side has the capacity to pay and was ultimately the source of the accidental introduction of equine influenza through the importation of shuttle stallions.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the three proposed bills, namely the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008, the Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Bill 2008 and the Horse Disease Response Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. The purpose of these bills is to introduce a levy on the initial registration of horses so that the Australian horse industry, under the terms of the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, can repay the Commonwealth for financial assistance in the event of an outbreak of an emergency horse disease. They provide for the collection of horse disease response levies by persons or bodies that register horses and the liability of horse registration bodies to pay the levy payments to the Commonwealth. They impose penalties for unpaid levies and provide for remission of any penalties. They provide for the gathering and collection of information and documents together with a strict liability offence for failure to comply with an information request. They also aim to amend the Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Act 1996 to enable the Commonwealth to appropriate the horse disease response levies paid to the Australian Animal Health Council to repay the Commonwealth for underwriting the horse industries’ share of the costs involved in dealing with future emergency outbreaks of horse diseases.

These bills will enable the Australian Animal Health Council to utilise any excess horse disease response levies for research and development purposes or the promotion and maintenance of horse health. These bills also provide a mechanism for Australia’s horse industry to become a signatory to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement. The horse industry is presently not a signatory to the agreement as a levy collection mechanism could not be identified. An emergency response to the recent equine influenza outbreak was activated under the provisions of the EADRA without the horse industry being a signatory. Following significant industry and wider political pressure, the government’s decision to pay the costs associated with last year’s equine influenza outbreak was welcome news for the thousands of horse owners and breeders. We are all aware of the financial losses that were experienced by many in the equine industry resulting from the equine influenza outbreak.

As we have heard from the previous speaker, the impact on the horse industry and ancillary operations was massive. The lucrative Australian horse racing industries in the eastern states were closed down, gambling revenue on horse racing was curtailed and betting on alternative racing such as greyhounds also fell, whilst the impact stretched into the recreational and community sphere with campdrafting, polocrosse, gymkhanas and local horse shows postponed or cancelled. Many small professional training businesses faced extreme economic pressure during the quarantine period. The equine industry in Australia is a major employer. That is frequently overlooked. As a result, the impacts were very widespread and compounded.

In addition, the cost of maintaining a strict quarantine regime meant that horses could not be transported and that, in many cases, feed and care had to be maintained at sites away from any home base. This also caused considerable disruption to horse events and to our Olympic team preparation—but they did get a silver medal. The thoroughbred and harness racing industries were deeply affected by the loss of revenue caused by the cancellation of racing events and the impact of quarantine restrictions on breeding programs. Peak horse industry bodies had called for government assistance during the equine influenza outbreak and received both federal and state government assistance at different stages throughout the quarantine program. However, some of this financial assistance did not cover owners of horses from Western Australia who had mares being served in New South Wales or other states.

Mr Rob Witten from Capel in my electorate was one such owner. Mr Witten faced significant costs in extended agistment and veterinary fees whilst his mare was in New South Wales being served because the mare was quarantined at the stud for the duration of the equine influenza. The mare was quarantined in New South Wales for 12 months and it cost an additional $1,000 a month in agistment alone. However, there was no form of financial assistance available to Mr Witten and the many other interstate mare owners in the same position, whilst there was assistance available to other horse owners in New South Wales, administered through the federal government in three rounds. Some people missed out on business assistance.

The government instigated an inquiry into the outbreak, the Callinan inquiry, the report of which was released in June 2008. The investigation found the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service was culpable in that it failed to ensure diseases did not escape from its Sydney Animal Quarantine Station at Eastern Creek. The Hon. Ian Callinan stated:

The social and economic effects of an outbreak of equine influenza virus in the Australian horse population were predictable and foreseen … the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry assured the Minister … that it would not happen here.

But clearly it did happen here, and it had a major financial and social impact on Australia due to the disruptions of employment and the bans on horse movements within the racing industry and the recreational horse industry. It was certainly a wake-up call for the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. It was also an expensive lesson for all those associated with such a diverse horse industry that we all have to take responsibility for following and upholding decontamination rules.

The actual cost to the Australian horse industry, estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars, is still to be determined. More than $342 million in federal funds have been spent eradicating horse flu and helping individuals and organisations. But not all were assisted. Kerry and Darryl Bagley, of Baldivis, south of Perth in Western Australia, are recreational horse owners involved in eventing who were disadvantaged last year when the South Australian government cancelled a three-day event in November. They had already paid for their non-refundable air tickets and accommodation and these were not covered by travel insurance. They thought themselves lucky because they had competed for and won free transportation for their horse to the event, a once-only opportunity that cannot be taken up again. They are concerned that this proposed legislation will expect recreational horse owners to pay levies and yet still be disadvantaged because most of the funds, as we have seen just recently, although spent eradicating equine influenza, have been directed into the racing industry and recreational horse enthusiasts have been left out of any assistance.

Cathy Wood’s operation in the south-west, in my electorate of Forrest, was also affected by the EI outbreak. Cathy is a hobby breeder of standardbreds and thoroughbreds for the racing industry. She was unable to use compatible stallions in the eastern states for her mares. This may affect her yearling sale outcomes in the future yet she comments that she would be unlikely to be granted financial assistance. As a hobby breeder she is unlikely to benefit from future government assistance offered by a levy, the subject of these bills, yet she will be required to contribute to it as she breeds between six and eight foals per year that are registered. Cathy considers the levy to be a knee-jerk policy and proffers that prevention is better than a cure and it starts with quarantine regulations.

The EI outbreak also highlighted the inequalities inherent in the government’s proposed collection methodology. As a result of the EI emergency, Australian horse industry peak bodies have agreed to support federal government legislation to introduce a levy to raise funds for future emergency assistance measures. In the event of a future emergency disease outbreak affecting the horse industry, the Commonwealth government will initially finance assistance measures to the horse industry but that will be repaid from funds collected by the levy over time. Regulations to be made under the Horse Disease Response Levy Act 2008, when passed, will determine the amount of the levy. The coalition opposes these bills as they propose a levy collection method that is not accepted as fair and equitable by the overwhelming proportion of horse owners who would become liable to pay any future levy. The passing of these bills would result in performance and recreational horse owners contributing the largest proportion of the financial levy towards the cost of containing and eradicating diseases such as equine influenza, even though they receive little or no financial income from their horse activity.

Mr Anthony Wood of Boyanup contacted me to say he believes the levy should be applied on all horses crossing borders or seas. He has only one brood mare, which is served on the farm, and does not believe that his operation poses a risk because his horses do not move from his property. More importantly, the bills as proposed will still only result in 50 per cent of all foals born being subject to such a levy. The number of horses in Australia is estimated to be 1.2 million. The total number of horse registrations a year, including pony club registrations, is estimated at 50,000 to 60,000. In the 2005-06 breeding season, 29,070 thoroughbred mares produced 17,854 foals, of which 13,618 were registered. That represents only approximately 20 per cent of total horses registered nationally coming from the largest commercial group in the Australian horse industry.

An analysis of total horse registrations reveals that the majority of horse registrations, approximately 80 per cent, are with breed associations or pleasure and performance riding groups such as pony clubs and cutting, reining and campdrafting groups, with approximately 621,000 registered and 500,000 unregistered horses. Therefore, only a small proportion of the total number of horses would be subject to levy collection. Further, the majority of any liability to be recovered through the levy would fall upon pleasure and performance horse owners, who derive little or no income from their horses and consequently would also receive little or no compensation through the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement as a result of a disease event.

The Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement was put in place in 2002 and included the Commonwealth, states and territories and peak livestock industry councils as parties to the agreement. The EADRA replaced the Commonwealth/States Cost Sharing Agreement. The EADRA was negotiated with the goal of establishing a mechanism to facilitate the making of rapid responses to, and the control and eradication or containment of, certain animal diseases, with the costs of the response shared between governments and industry according to the classification of the disease.

The Australian Horse Industry Council, Harness Racing Australia and the Australian Racing Board are the peak industry representative bodies and the only horse industry bodies that are eligible to become signatories to the EADRA. The government claims that all three of these peak national horse representative bodies support the passage of these bills. This is not totally correct. The president of Thoroughbred Breeders Australia said in a letter to Minister Burke on 13 August 2008:

Thoroughbred Breeders Australia supports passage of the bills through the parliament in the spring session on the understanding that the government will consult with industry to establish a fair and equitable registration scheme to ensure the burden of the levy does not fall on too few horse sectors.

This is conditional support and relies upon the government to review the collection method for fairness and equity. The Australian Horse Industry Council has written in support of the bills even though many of their member organisations strongly oppose the bills. An AHIC survey of their member organisations, reported in July 2008, found that, while a majority of respondents support the industry becoming a signatory to the EADRA, the proposed collection method based upon horse registrations was not supported. Opposition to these bills also extends to the fact that they give no consideration to the potential risk of disease outbreak applicable to each sector of the Australian horse industry. Individual AHIC member groups have also expressed staunch opposition to these bills.

Pleasure horses and hobby horses are not the whole industry. However, they are a sector that supports the wider industry—farriers, feed suppliers, vets, event operators, trainers, breeders and tack and equipment suppliers—who would be liable for the greatest financial burden under the levy proposal. Under the proposed bills, the costs to industry of the EI outbreak would have been passed on, in the majority, to the pleasure, performance and hobby sector. Despite the learnings made possible through the EI outbreak, the government has failed to address any of the concerns raised by all horse owners. The government has also failed to propose an equitable base from which to charge such a levy and how often the levy charge will be reviewed. I would also ask whether international shuttle stallions will be subject to a levy. There are major inequities in the government’s proposed collection methodology. Therefore, I join with my coalition colleagues in opposing these bills.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to explain to the House the importance of the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and associated bills to my electorate of Swan. I congratulate the members for Maranoa and Forrest and all the other speakers for their contributions. I also note the presence in the House of the member for Canning, who made a significant contribution to the racing industry in Australia during his time as a trainer. It is good to see you here. The high number of members who have spoken about the subject shows the importance of the racing industry and the horse industry and associated businesses in Australia. Today I will outline the importance of the horse industry to Swan and remind the House of the significant impact of equine influenza in Western Australia. I will review the coalition government’s response to last year’s crisis. In this context, I will consider the bill that is currently before the House and put forward three aspects of the legislation that must be urgently reconsidered by the Rudd government.

Ascot and Belmont Park, the two major racecourses in Western Australia, are in my electorate of Swan. Ascot is the headquarters for racing in Western Australia. Situated eight kilometres east of the Perth city centre, and with the head office of the Western Australian Turf Club positioned directly opposite, Ascot is located within the boundaries of the City of Belmont. This also happens to be the seat of the Deputy Premier of WA, who is also the WA Treasurer. We believe he has been seen at the racecourse recently—in the last month—and he has also been spotted in the electorate. It must be an election year! That’s right, the WA state election is on this weekend.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But he is in Cottesloe.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you; I know that. Ascot is the grand old lady of Australian racecourses. Her committee buildings and grandstand look as majestic now as they did at the turn of the 20th century, when they were built. Racegoers during the summer months will enjoy picturesque gardens and magnificent facilities, including: the interstate and local bookmakers ring; an open-sided pavilion running the length of the main tote; nine superb alfresco dining and bar facilities specialising in fresh cuisine; and two tiered restaurants—‘The Terrace’ on the public floor and ‘Flying Colours’ for members—both of which offer racegoers fine cuisine and spectacular views of the track.

I do not know if the member for Maribyrnong will find any Penfolds Grange, which he spoke about yesterday, in those restaurants, but I am sure they can cater to his taste for ten-dollar bottles of wine if he orders early! It amazes me that the member for Maribyrnong can stand up in this House and use one of the products of another great Australian industry, the wine industry, to play the politics of envy with. Why would he attack a great Australian product and then pretend that none of the members of the government has ever tasted or sampled this fine product? Would he have the Australian people believe that neither he nor any of the members of the current government has ever tasted or even smelt that famous Australian product? The company that produces this product is a great Australian company that produces some fine Australian wines and earns export dollars for Australia. The member for Maribyrnong included that bit about wine during his talk on the equine bills, so I just wanted to acknowledge that in my speech as well.

Ascot’s 2,000-metre track is attractive, modern and well drained. It has a 300-metre inclining straight, which is regarded by experts as the toughest test of stayers in Australia. Belmont Park Racecourse is Perth’s winter racecourse. It has a circumference of 1,699 metres and a 333-metre straight. The track is situated in a prime riverfront position, with the facilities nestled between the city and the water. The racecourse falls within the boundaries of the town of Victoria Park. Belmont’s facilities are fully enclosed, ensuring that racegoers are warm and comfortable while they enjoy the spectacular views of first-class thoroughbred racing against the river backdrop. Thanks to its excellent drainage, which has ensured that race meetings are consistently held come rain, hail or shine, Belmont is renowned as arguably one of the best wet weather tracks in Australia, if not the world. The Ascot and Belmont racecourses are historic racing venues and are of significant heritage and cultural value to the people of Western Australia. People go to the races not just to bet or gamble but for the pleasure of watching the wonderful racing equine, the thoroughbred racehorse, compete at the highest level.

In fact, the historic Perth Cup—that gruelling 3,200-metre event—has been run since 1887. The first Perth Cup was won by First Prince—and I have been told he was stabled in my electorate. I encourage all honourable members to come to Perth and witness this fantastic spectacle of endurance, which is held each year on New Year’s Day. The 2008 event was won by Cats Fun, which was probably a good year for it to win the race as it looks as though it will be straddled by back-to-back premierships by the Geelong Cats in the AFL! The race was marred by a six-horse fall which resulted in two horses being destroyed and three jockeys being taken to hospital with minor injuries. The eventual winner had to hurdle one of the fallen horses. In the electorate of Swan there are 1,200 horse stalls registered, and a disproportionate 35 per cent of all thoroughbred racehorses in Western Australia are located in the electorate of Swan. Therefore, it is fair to say that horses are of some importance to the people of Swan, and I am sure we have a huge birthday party in Swan on 1 August every year in my electorate.

The horse industry is a large industry group employing many people. In fact, the racing industry is considered one of the largest employers in Australia—veterinarians, jockeys, trainers, reinspersons, farriers, track attendants, catering staff, livestock transporters, farmers, grain growers and steelmakers are just a few of the professions associated with this industry. Each of these professions represents jobs at stake for Australians and, more importantly, in the electorate of Swan. A Sydney Morning Herald article of 26 September 2007 stated that Centrelink had paid almost $1.4 million to people affected by the EI outbreak. This begins to paint a picture of the number of jobs dependent on this industry. This brings me to the threat posed to the horse population of Swan and Western Australia by the outbreaks of disease and in particular the outbreak of equine influenza last year. We must keep Western Australia equine disease free.

I will now give you some statistics on the Western Australian racing industry, including in the Swan electorate. In Western Australia last year 2,748 persons were registered with the racing and trotting industry. These people are the backbone of racing in Western Australia. The TAB turnover for the racing code alone was $295 million. In fact, in the 2007 racing year the Western Australian government pocketed $61.3 million in turnover tax. Surely the state government have a stake in this. They should look at releasing some of these taxes to pay for the levy, as they are probably the biggest winner out of the industry and have the most to lose from it.

Recently it was announced that state moneys for Perth racing would be raised to a level almost equal to those for the Melbourne Cup carnival for certain races. This is why I have been approached by many people from the industry and from my electorate who stress that Western Australia must remain free of disease—there is simply too much at stake. Australia was declared officially free from equine influenza on 30 June 2008. Western Australia was fortunate, due largely to the tyranny of distance and the strict quarantine protocols that are in place, that equine influenza did not spread across the Nullarbor. It is important to remember that, although Western Australia remained officially free of equine influenza, it did not escape its effects. The Western Australian racing, pacing and equestrian industries were still impacted on significantly.

When Australian Racing Board Chief Executive Andrew Harding said that the racing and breeding industries were losing $4.3 million a day, I can assure honourable members that he was not excluding Western Australia. The cost of vaccinating thoroughbreds and pacers in Western Australia was approximately $2 million. As I am sure you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is by no means a trivial sum of money. This could be a drop in the bucket of the state tax take, but where do we see the WA Carpenter state government on this issue, with their $2 million surplus? They are nowhere to be seen and, once the election is over this weekend, we can only hope they will not be seen for a long time. The racing industry people in WA are very wise and they will see the shallowness of the Carpenter government and their inability to assist the industry.

A significant number of top-quality WA brood mares were unable to be mated with stallions standing at stud last year. These stallions were stranded and could not be brought back to WA for the breeding season. Stallions shuttling to Western Australia from overseas or from the east coast were not allowed in. Some of these high-priced, well-bred stallions were unable to earn from their service fees, and the investment that owners had in these horses was stopped. Additionally, there will be some impact on the number of foals born in WA this year. Down the track this could affect the number of racing stock and therefore racing turnover with the WA TAB. Western Australia also has a burgeoning breeding industry selling racehorses and yearlings to South-East Asia, Singapore and South Africa. The potential loss of breeding stock would see us lose that market that has been so hard fought for. This must never happen; we must keep Australia and WA EI free.

I was personally astonished yesterday when I heard the member for Forde claim that the wonderful thing about equine influenza is that it is a disease that can be easily controlled. I do not think there is anything wonderful about the disease at all. If this is the attitude of the Labor Party then Western Australia has much to fear. Although there was obviously nothing like the devastation that happened in the New South Wales and Queensland racing industries, there was an impact that hit at a time when betting in Western Australia was booming. While racing in Western Australia did not have to stop during the outbreak, as happened in New South Wales and Queensland, the loss of those meetings on the east coast had a dramatic impact on betting turnover, which in turn affected TAB turnover. This then affected the revenue that the WA state government takes out of racing as a tax—another example of why the state government should cough up the levy and show their support for this industry. To give back some of the tax take and to protect this source of revenue is nothing else but common sense. Western Australia and the electorate of Swan have suffered along with the rest of Australia during this crisis and should have a strong say in this bill.

Before considering separate components of the bill before the House today I would like to reflect on the Howard government’s response to this crisis back in 2007. Where there are natural disasters that put livelihoods of Australians at risk, it is right that the government intervene. On 30 August 2007 the then member for Gippsland announced a $4 million fund to provide emergency grants of up to $1,500 for individuals suffering financial difficulties due to equine influenza. Following this, on 9 September 2007, the Howard government announced a $110 million funding package for people and businesses facing additional costs and significant financial hardship as a direct result of EI. This package consisted of, firstly, a $20 million estimated cost for an equine workers hardship wage supplement payment, which was aimed at workers who lost their job or most of their income and at sole traders in similar situations; and, secondly, a $45 million estimated cost for business assistance grants, which involved $5,000 grants to businesses that derive the majority of their income from the commercial horse industry and whose income suffered a significant downturn. The coalition government also provided a $44 million cash injection for primary horse carers at non-government not-for-profit equestrian organisations. On 21 October 2007 Minister McGauran announced a $117 million extension to the EI assistance package. This was simply additional funding that would allow the 9 September package to cover a further 12 weeks through to 8 February 2008.

I was pleased to note that after the change in government the incoming Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry saw fit to continue this important policy. However, it increasingly became clear that a long-term strategy was required to make sure that the industry was better prepared for future outbreaks. Immunity treatment provided by the government, for example, only lasts for 12 months and, to combat future outbreaks, horses must be vaccinated annually. A comprehensive strategy is required. This is why the debate in parliament today and yesterday is so important. It is a step towards a long-term plan for the industry, a long-term plan that is vital not just for the participants in the racing industry but also for stud farms, racehorse owners, trainers and jockeys and TAB shop owners—and not forgetting the parents who take their children out to pony clubs throughout the state. The Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 is the government’s attempt to respond to this. I have grave doubts about the ability of this bill to provide any long-term solution.

When I looked at this bill and the answers relating to why this legislation is necessary, I saw that part 2 of the second paragraph in the Q and A sheet states:

… most industry bodies do not have the reserves or the required capital backing to arrange for commercial loans to draw on in the event of such an emergency—

like an outbreak of EAD. That is obvious, but the government should then look at who benefits financially from this industry and who can afford to pay a levy. The total tax take from this industry by state governments through totaliser betting is enormous. Where is the investment by these state governments to protect their income?

First, I would question the minister on his approach to this important bill, which was not within the spirit of cooperation and listening. On 11 June 2008, the minister wrote to horse owners to discuss this important issue. Instead of taking a consultative tone, he used an aggressive and threatening tone, claiming that further assistance would be refused in the event of a disease outbreak such as equine influenza if the industry failed to sign up to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement. This is what the member for Wakefield referred to yesterday evening as ‘extensive consultation’. Is this the consultative tone that was flaunted by Prime Minister Rudd at his extravagant and hollow 2020 Summit? I do not think so.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Rudd government does not practise what it preaches when it comes to participatory democracy. Perhaps there is not enough media interest in the bill to make Mr Rudd’s ears prick up. Perhaps the Prime Minister’s spin doctor told him that there was nothing in it for him. Whatever the case may be, the Rudd government has let equine people down. In a democracy, people deserve to be listened to. Threatening letters are arrogant and inexcusable. Prime Minister Rudd and his government should not be allowed to get away with bullying the people of Australia. This is an appalling base from which a bill should progress. The EADRA was not designed back in 2002 to be a mechanism for the Labor Party, despite public opinion, to force through its own bills.

The member for Maribyrnong yesterday also mentioned in his speech on this legislation how he had practically saved all the members of the Australian Jockeys Association from complete decimation and is now their patron. Unfortunately, not to underestimate his contribution to the Australian Jockeys Association, I have not heard any jockeys in WA singing his praises and telling me that they have his picture hanging in their homes as a reflection of his magnificent self-praising deeds. Maybe he was just jockeying himself up for the minister’s job.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is a bit up himself, isn’t he?

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the member for Canning to withdraw that comment.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What comment is that?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know the comment you made. I am asking you to withdraw the comment.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The second point I would make in relation to this bill is the foolhardy provision to make all horses subject to an equal levy. This is despite the potential risk of exotic disease introduction and spreading being much higher with the number of movements, both internationally and domestically, that are associated with the racing industries. How is this fair? The Rudd government continues to favour flat taxes, with little or no regard for small business—in this case, the horse industry. Labor have implemented boring, uniform policies. They tend to ignore the great diversity that our nation has to offer and usually come up with the wrong answer.

My final point is that the coverage of this legislation will be far from comprehensive. It is estimated that only a small proportion of the total number of horses would be subject to levy collection and, furthermore, that approximately 80 per cent of any liability to be recovered through the levy would fall upon pleasure and performance horse owners, who derive no income from their horses and, therefore, would receive little or no compensation through the EADRA as a result of a disease event. This is not good for the racing industry or for the pleasure and performance horse owners, who rely upon each other in a symbiotic relationship in ensuring the overall health of the horse industry.

In conclusion, the horse industry is very important to the people of my electorate of Swan. The equine influenza outbreak had a significant impact on the people of Western Australia, and the coalition government’s response was considered and admirable. The Labor Party’s proposed response is non-consultative, unresponsive to diversity and unfair and it threatens the health of the horse industry as a whole. Finally, we must not forget that our star Western Australian Olympic equestrians—Clayton and Lucinda Fredericks; and Sonja Johnson, from Albany—would not have been able to compete if equine influenza had been in Western Australia. Therefore, on behalf of my constituents of Swan, I urge the government to rethink its legislation and to act in a sensible and consultative manner when dealing with this important issue. I urge it to get the people who can afford to pay this levy, the state governments, to pay it and let them protect their revenue sources.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have praised the minister on a number of occasions for being in the House when legislation is going through—he always is—but it disappoints me greatly to have no-one here from the departments. Without their presence here, you are just speaking into a hollow, resounding symbol. In the state house whence I came, the head of the department—if there was legislation that concerned any matters within his portfolio of responsibility—was always in the house to face the music. Vince Gauci, the very wonderful leader of Mount Isa Mines for many years—he turned Mount Isa Mines around and made it into the very profitable company it is today—insisted that management at all levels face the music. If you made a decision, you would front up to the men; you would meet with those people and talk to them. It behoved you to do that as a boss.

Here, in this place called Canberra, senior public servants hardly ever front up and sit over there in that box. I have hardly ever seen a senior public servant sitting over there. Instead, a couple of junior-junior-junior people are sent along. It is beneath the dignity of senior public servants to come down here, where the people’s voices are to be heard, and face the music. But very serious issues are being canvassed here. In my opinion, the equine flu case will be won by the racehorse and related industries. That means that the people of Australia will have to find $1 billion, because they are going to be successfully sued because of the irresponsibility abroad at the quarantine station from which this disease got away.

Let me be very specific—I do not have permission from the senior vet to say this, but he is one of the more prominent people in this field in Australia. I am sure he would be only too happy for me to use his name, but without his permission I cannot. He said he went to inspect a horse at this quarantine station. Because of the nature of the illness of the horse, he had to feel all around the horse. He said, ‘Not only did nobody require that I wash my hands, but there was no washbasin or anything in which I could even wash my hands.’ He said, ‘You are familiar with dairy factories?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ For example, in a dairy factory you have to remove your shoes, put their shoes on, put on overalls which cover your entire body and put on a hat. Before you leave, all those things are taken off, put on the ground, completely fumigated and cleaned. Also, when you walked in, you walked through a bath of disinfectant or antiseptic of some type for your shoes. That is a dairy factory. This was a quarantine station—there should be 20 times those precautions. People could just walk in. He could have taken material off the horse—cut a little piece from the flesh or the skin of the horse—and taken it out. And some procedures would have required that he do that.

I have spoken on this again and again in this place because I represent electorates on the receiving end of the incompetence of AQIS. I have spoken in here about the black sigatoka outbreak, which cost us $120 million. I have spoken in here about the papaya fruit fly. There is a case going through the Queensland courts. The Queensland government should be utterly ashamed of themselves. That case alone has probably cost $12 or $15 million—so far. The government will lose that case and, as a result, they will be paying out a hell of a lot more. There was also the white spot disease in prawns. There is hardly any inspection taking place of the prawns coming in to this country from countries where white spot is endemic.

The previous minister, the current Leader of the National Party, has borne the brunt of my anger. You have to be angry with him—he was the minister who made the decision on the citrus canker. Material was allowed to be brought in from overseas after they had already had an outbreak. They had an outbreak at Emerald, and they allowed and licensed them to bring material in from a country that is rife with citrus canker. He made the decision to bring the grapes in. I think he did that—I do not think he makes any decisions on anything except for being told what to do by the public servants. There was a party committee of the Liberal Party and National Party, and I think there were about 20 people at the meeting that day, and there was not a single person there who did not criticise him in a most unrestrained manner for having allowed the grapes in from California in exactly the same month that it was announced that one-tenth of all of the Californian grape industry had been wiped out by Pierce’s disease, carried by the glassy-winged sharpshooter—a little animal.

They allowed meat in from Brazil—a foot-and-mouth disease country. If America allowed meat to come in from a foot-and-mouth disease country, the beef industry of Australia would be bankrupt tomorrow. If that proposition, which is so abhorrent to every other country on earth, was accepted by Australia then we would be bankrupt tomorrow. What if Japan had accepted the principle that Australia accepted? We are out there showing a ‘good example’. What if that example was followed by other countries? Other countries believe in looking after their farmers instead of being acolytes at the high altar of economic rationalism or free trade—that is their religion, not their philosophy or policy.

The meat from Brazil ended up on the dump at Wagga. I think, as we talk, there are probably wild pigs nudging around at the dump at Wagga. If foot-and-mouth disease had got into the wild pig population we would never have eradicated it in Australia, and we would have become a foot-and-mouth disease country from which we could not export any cattle. To put that in perspective, Australia has about 25 million or 26 million head of cattle and Brazil has 176 million head of cattle. If the foot-and-mouth disease problems they have were ignored by America and Japan, we would have had our industry wiped out in three seconds. We have set a bad example and, by some miracle, we have not paid the price for it. I pay very great tribute to Senator Heffernan and his very unrestrained criticisms of AQIS.

During my time in this place—I do not know what it is but it is probably 14 or 15 years—and my 20 years in the state house, I doubt whether I have ever heard a positive comment about the performance of AQIS in even the most simple, elementary thing that is required of them. And I do not criticise their staff. In fact, I get stories from a lot of the people that they employ. The boys on the ground are fine; they do the best they can. I have said continually in this place that it is very simple. For example, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the papaya fruit fly outbreak or the black sigatoka outbreak, which cost the Australian economy $100 million, came in from the Torres Strait. All of these diseases are endemic in the Indonesian archipelago—Oceania. They come in through the Torres Strait, where at any time you can go to any of those islands. Melanesians and people from New Guinea, on the Torres Strait islands, come and go as they please and have done so for thousands of years. They bring those diseases with them. We can stop that: 99.9 per cent of every single thing that comes into Australia from the Torres Strait goes through the Horn Island airport, which is the airport for the Torres Strait, or crosses the ferry at the Jardine River, south of Bamaga.

So you have to have an inspector at the airport on Horn Island and you have to pay the ferryman. If you had just trained up the ferryman and paid him, you would not have had the black sigatoka and the papaya fruit fly outbreaks. Those two outbreaks might have cost the Australian economy $200 million or $300 million. It was recommended that the cadmium levels in peanuts be raised to enable Chinese peanuts to come into Australia. I thought the name of the game was to try and keep stuff out so that we could look after our own people in Australia. We decided that we should have more renal cancer as a result of that.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How about the horses?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is at the very essence of the horse debate.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Randall interjecting

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, this is at the very essence of the horse debate, my friend. You are obviously very ignorant of the principles involved. The honourable representative of the opposition is laughing. He thinks that is funny. But I will explain it to him, because obviously a lot of things go over his head. I will explain it in simple language so that even a three-year-old might be able to understand. If AQIS is not performing then you have to secure a horrific amount of money from Australian taxpayers. That is what this bill, the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008, is about today. It is because of the continuous failure of AQIS that the taxpayers of Australia are up for literally thousands of million of dollars. Mechanisms need to be put in place to prevent this from happening.

For your information, my friend, here is where the rubber meets the road: the people who are going to pay will be a tiny little narrow group of people, whereas the whole of the Australian people are now bearing the burden of the incompetence of AQIS. I think to some degree that the National Party has paid the price for the incompetence of their now leader. They rewarded him by putting him at the front of the queue and making him their leader—which is a message for every Australian. It will probably yield benefits for them in Rob Oakeshott’s electorate this weekend. Where the rubber meets the road is: who pays for this continuous incompetence? Firstly, the government should pay because it is at fault in the administration of this portfolio. There has been a continuous failure of government over the last 20 years to pull these incompetent people into line—and I always use as my example Horn Island and the Jardine ferry. What is that going to cost the Australian people? What has not paying the ferryman, not having an inspector there, cost us? The equine flu—

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The flu!

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, it went over your head. Even though I explained it in terms that a kindergarten student could have understood, it went over your head. I am not surprised that it went over your head. That says something about you, my friend, not about what I am saying. If you lead with your chin, you will get a broken jaw.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I invite the member for Kennedy to ignore interjections.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where the rubber meets the road is that 50,000 new horses are registered each year in Australia. If there is an outbreak of some description then the owners of those 50,000 horses will have to pay. The cost of repairing the damage of this last disease outbreak—isolating the disease and eradicating it—is expected to be $110 million. But I suspect that these people will not be up for $110 million. I suspect that they will be up for the $1,000 million that Mr John O’Shea and other leading racehorse trainers will be taking the government to task for. I do not blame the current government. The last government was responsible for this. I suspect that those 50,000 horse owners will have to pay not only the $110 million but also the $1,000 million. I would like the minister to clarify this and include a guarantee in the bill that we will not have to pay for the incompetence of the people at AQIS. They should have been sued over the papaya fruit fly, white spot, most certainly citrus canker, Brazilian meat, Chinese peanuts and fire blight in apples. AQIS should have been sued. I also think the individual officers that made those decisions should have been sued. That is going a long way, but there must be some punishment for the level of incompetence of the people who managed the quarantine station and allowed the equine flu to come into this country. If you expose this nation to the loss of $1,000 million then there must be some punishment that accrues to those who commit the grossest possible irresponsibility.

I thank Noel Chiconi, from many generations of horse lovers and cattlemen in Australia. I am happy to say that I have been associated with four generations of the Chiconi family and their great contribution to the cattle and horse industries in Australia. We cannot really run cattle without horses. There will be those who claim that you can, but I would simply say that you cannot.

As for the government listening to the Australian Horse Industry Council, in all rural industries we have a saying: the peak body disease. That is extraordinarily true. When any primary industry representative organisation goes above a certain level it becomes part of the government. It comes back and tells you why you have to accept a program—and that has again happened here. I could go through a hundred such cases, but time will not allow me. It was always said that the NFF stood for ‘no family farms’, because its policy was about corporate farming. Anyone inside rural industries of Australia knows that a former president of the NFF—I think it was Macfarlane but I may be doing him an injustice—went on to the Reserve Bank. People asked, ‘Was he representative of rural industries?’ I said, ‘He is representative of the enemies of rural industries.’

Here we have another organisation saying that they are representative. The pony clubs may be a bit bigger than the Australians Campdraft Association, of which Noel Chiconi is the president; in actual fact, the campdrafters are probably as big as any group on the Australian Horse Industry Council. He said that that they most certainly do not speak for the campdrafters. I dare say, if we went to the rank and file of every one of these organisations, we would find that they disagree violently with the Australian Horse Industry Council. We have asked the minister again and again. I remember when the former member for Gwydir Mr Anderson was appointed as the primary industries minister. Mr Causley, the now retired member for Page, said, ‘My first words of advice to you as the minister are: do not listen to the peak bodies.’ He was one of the most successful ministers in recent Australian history. He said: ‘Do not listen to the peak bodies. You will get yourself in all sorts of trouble, John. You will not be the minister in three years time if you listen to the peak bodies.’ The former Leader of the National Party and primary industries minister, the member for Gwydir, listened to the peak bodies. Three years later, he was not the minister. I knew what was going on behind the scenes: it was just put quite bluntly that he was no longer to be the minister.

He carried out the will of the peak bodies. That will is not the will of the people in these industries. They have had a free-market policy. You would not find a farmer in all of Australia’s farming industries—except for a couple of short-chinned galoots who had a silver spoon handed down to them from their grandaddy or something—who would think that the NFF spoke for them. Look no further than the biodiversity act and the Mabo act in this place. The member for Calare is smiling. I suppose he can, because he said, ‘Unless you change your position on Mabo, we’ll take the New South Wales farmers out.’ I must pay him tribute and praise him for that. But it was just a classic example of how the NFF never spoke for the farmers.

We would plead with the minister not to listen to them. We would say that, in this case of equine flu, the owners of horses that were registered in the last year in Australia would be up for $1,250 per horse. They would take the entire cost burden instead of all of the horse owners in Australia. But what we need is a fund that covers all of agriculture so that, when we have an outbreak of anything, the farmer will be game to open up. At the present moment, he is terrified to find out what the disease is because he will be wiped out financially. We need an all-encompassing fund.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Along with quite a lot of other people—particularly those from the more rural electorates, but also people representing those not necessarily in rural areas but who have an interest in horses or who have a professional interest, such as in the racing industry—I rise to speak on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and related bills. I suppose that I am more concerned with those people who either have horses as part of a professional industry, such as from the stock point of view, or are involved with pony clubs and showjumping—people who are very much affected by this bill but who are less involved with the threat to Australia from outside diseases. While I am a big supporter of the thoroughbred industry—it provides an awful lot of employment and activity right around Australia—it is the international thoroughbred industry that this is probably centred on because they are the ones who put the pressure on quarantine. The international thoroughbred industry are the ones who are moving horses around, by and large, and it would seem almost certain that it is the international thoroughbred industry who have brought on the recent catastrophic situation for the horse industry.

However, that said, while we do need all the protection we can have, I do not think that this is really the right way to go about it. To ask pony clubs and people who simply use station horses to be involved in a levy system which treats those who place the most pressure on quarantine—that is, the totally professional thoroughbred industry and in particular the international industry—exactly the same as those who simply go to a lot of expense to allow their children to participate in a very healthy and commendable activity, such as pony clubs and the like, does not seem to me to be just.

Look at what happened almost a year ago exactly—in fact, a year ago last week. I remember it well; the Condobolin Show was to be held on the Saturday. On the Friday night before, when it all blew up, horses reached Parkes from Sydney and, as events transpired, brought the equine influenza disease out there. Without going into how all of that occurred, it had a profound effect on central-west and western New South Wales. The Condobolin Show—where, thankfully, the disease never showed up—was quarantined for a few weeks after that event. Parkes was quarantined for months, and it had a profound effect on the horse industry right around the region. I do not need to go on about that; everybody is aware of it. The thoroughbred-racing industry in the bush was paralysed for a long time. People lost a lot of money and basically had a 12-month hiatus in their livelihood and their industry.

But it was not just the thoroughbred industry; it affected everyone involved in the horse industry, including those involved in pony clubs. I will never forget the year we spent going to shows without horses—it was very different! You certainly realised that horses play a bigger role in the smaller shows than they do in the big shows. Now all these shows are coming on again—as I said, it was only about a week ago last year that all this transpired—and you can go to those same shows today and see the kids there with their horses, especially in the central west, where the shows are now in full swing. Last week we had the Lake Cargelligo and the Narromine shows; Trundle Show was the other day and we have the Cowra Show next week. All those shows in the central west—Cudal et cetera—are on, and they are going to be totally different this year, through having horses there and the kids there enjoying themselves.

To look after an animal is a great learning experience for a child. Those who deal with young people who have a disability or a problem in their life which has caused them to become socially estranged say that horses are a great way of bringing them back. The people who do that—who give a lot of their time to do so—notice that. So the horse industry is not just about the Melbourne Cup. It is about kids. But it is also about disadvantaged people, and it provides a lot for them. It is quite fantastic to see how much people give of their time to help others less fortunate and what it does for them.

To return to the show situation: the Parkes Show, which I mentioned before, was on again last week. It is a three-day show, one of the biggest shows in western New South Wales. And of all the shows in New South Wales it was the only show that had to be cancelled last year because of equine influenza. As I said, it was quarantined pretty much on the Saturday or the Sunday, and the show was due to start on the Monday. The point I am getting at is that the show society at Parkes had absolutely no opportunity to make provision, simply because quarantined horses were situated within the Parkes Showground and were there for months afterwards. In fact, one of my employees at the time had three horses there—her children’s horses—and the expense and the trouble she had to go to were extreme.

Also, I would have to make the point to the House, as I have to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, that this show—because it was the only show that I am aware of that had to cancel, through no fault of its own—certainly should have come within the provisions of the assistance that we made available to charitable or non-profit organisations. I was talking to the Chairman of the Parkes Show Society, Andrew Hall, just recently, and I think that the amount they found they had lost was something like $80,000—and that was unrecoverable money. So I am very disappointed that the current government has not seen fit to include them in the reparations that were made. I believe that we were going to encompass them; however, that did not happen before the election. But that is not the point. The point is that, if the current provisions did not make it possible for Parkes to get that money, then the minister should make sure he makes other provisions to ensure that they do. That show was last week. The Parkes Show Society have had enormous trouble over the last 12 months. To fill an $80,000 hole in funds—for a voluntary, non-profit community organisation that runs a three-day show, one of the very few west of the Blue Mountains—is an enormous undertaking. It has done everything it was asked to do and provided every figure it was asked to provide. It was the only show in New South Wales that had to be cancelled; it was through no fault of its own, and yet it did it.

As regards this bill, I think it does create divisions within the horse industry. As I said, at one end you have the international thoroughbred industry, with stallions moving around the world, and they put a lot of pressure on quarantine. I am not going to go into whose fault it was, whether that of AQIS or whoever; the situations under which EI got in are pretty obvious. I accept that the minister and the department have to deal with that. And I do not think anybody has a serious problem with the horse industry having to contribute, as the other animal industries have to do. But, in terms of asking the industry to pay for all this in the future, the way that has been done is not equitable, and I think that in the future it needs to be made equitable.

I do believe they need to take another look at the way the levy is being applied, when 80 per cent of the levy would be collected from pleasure and recreational horse owners who do not have a commercial opportunity to raise that money. And it has got to be healthier for kids to have an interest in horses, whether their own or their friends’, than to be running around looking for drugs or whatever. So the horse industry is not just about professional commercial enterprises; it is very much about lifestyle. It is very much about having a healthy aspect to life, not just in rural communities but on the edge of Sydney and on the edges of cities everywhere. I would recommend it to anybody. I was lucky enough to have an upbringing where horses were a way of life, and I think you will find that everybody who has come into close contact with and had to look after a large animal is the better for it. And, as I said earlier, a lot of the horse industry is about helping people who have problems in their lives—either young people or people with disabilities—and they are wonderfully advantaged by the opportunities that people go to great lengths to provide for them. I think that we have to look at the aspect that so much of this levy is going to be collected from people who—I cannot put it any other way—have no commercial ability to offset that levy.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to place on the record my opposition to the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and cognate bills. At the outset, I compliment the honourable member for Calare, Mr Cobb, for justifiably and understandably raising the issues related to volunteers, horses and the disabled. I also compliment him on raising the issue of the horse industry associated with the show system that operates in New South Wales and across the country. The points that he made are very relevant.

In the electorate of Hume there are many mums and dads who have a pony in the backyard for their children, and I believe it is unfair to burden them with the cost of protecting the thoroughbred and racing industries. Getting back to the point raised by the honourable member for Calare, it is particularly galling to realise that groups such as Riding for the Disabled are also entrapped by this despicable revenue-raising arrogance. Not only will these bills load them up with responsibility for carrying the cost of disease responses; they will do so without providing representation or, indeed, the means to find the levy funds demanded. Basically, disabled children and adults who are being assisted by volunteers will have to find the money or give up this activity, which provides an outlet for physical expression and builds self-esteem. The volunteer-driven, community-minded organisations that are assisting disadvantaged people in society will be heavily hit by this levy and will have to either give up these activities, which add so much to each local community, or spend even more of their time fundraising to pay this outrageous tax so they can be allowed to provide their vital services.

In the Australian democracy we believe in representation at all levels, but the system of consultation proposed by this Labor government does not include many of those mums and dads. Peak livestock bodies do not represent these people; therefore they have no voice in the decisions being made about the imposts on them. Let us look at the history. The Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, EADRA, was created in 2002 and included the Commonwealth, states, territories and peak livestock industry councils. EADRA replaced the Commonwealth/States Cost Sharing Agreement. It was created with the goal of establishing a mechanism to facilitate the making of rapid responses to and the control and eradication or containment of certain animal diseases, with the costs of the response shared between governments and industry according to the classification of the disease. The peak horse industry representative bodies—the Australian Horse Industry Council, AHIC; Harness Racing Australia, HRA; and the Australian Racing Board, ARB—are the only bodies of the horse industry that are eligible to become signatories to the EADRA.

I draw your attention to this point, because even if all the backyard horse owners were to get together and form a body they would not be allowed to join EADRA. Secondly, note how all the peak bodies represent business, not the people who have a horse for pleasure. In fact, upon commencement of the EADRA in 2002 the Australian Horse Industry Council was unable to secure a suitable mechanism to raise funds to cover potential liabilities and thus is not currently a party to the agreement.

The coalition opposes these bills, as do I, as they propose a levy collection method that is not accepted as fair and equitable by the overwhelming proportion of horse owners, who would become liable to pay any future levy. The bills give no consideration to the potential risk of disease outbreak applicable to each sector of the Australian horse industry. For instance, what is the difference in risk between one horse in a backyard and a racehorse that is being shuttled between countries? There is potentially a much higher risk associated with the thoroughbred sector, associated with imported racehorses and shuttle stallions with the mandatory requirement for live joining, as opposed to domestic-use-only horses. Despite the potential risk of exotic disease introduction and spread being higher in the racing industries, with the associated number of movements both internationally and domestically, the bill proposes that all registered horses be subject to an equal levy.

The number of horses in Australia is estimated to be 1.2 million. The total number of horse registrations a year, including pony club registrations, is estimated at 50,000 to 60,000. In the 2005-06 breeding season, 29,070 thoroughbred mares produced 17,854 foals, of which 13,618 were registered. That represents only approximately 20 per cent of total horses registered nationally coming from the largest commercial group in the Australian horse industry. An analysis of total horse registrations reveals that the majority of horse registrations, approximately 80 per cent, are with breed associations or pleasure and performance riding groups such as pony clubs and cutting, reining and campdrafting groups. The unfairness of these bills is further exposed through these figures, which show that only a small proportion of the total number of horses would be subject to levy collection. Further, approximately 80 per cent of any liability to be recovered through the levy would fall upon owners of pleasure and performance horses, who derive no income from their horses and therefore would receive little or no compensation through EADRA as a result of a disease event.

The government also claims that all three of the peak national horse representative bodies support the passage of these bills. This is not totally correct. The president of Thoroughbred Breeders Australia, in a letter to Minister Burke of 13 August 2008, said:

TBA supports passage of the Bills through the Parliament in the spring session on the understanding that the Government will consult with industry to establish a fair and equitable registration scheme to ensure the burden of the levy does not fall on too few horse sectors.

This is conditional support and relies upon the government to review the collection method for fairness and equity.

The AHIC has written in support of the bills, even though many of its member organisations strongly oppose the bills. An AHIC survey of its member organisations, reported in July 2008, found that, while a majority of respondents supported the industry becoming a signatory to EADRA, the proposed collection method based upon horse registrations was not supported. Individual AHIC member groups have also expressed staunch opposition to these bills.

The Queensland Horse Council general meeting of 15 July 2008 passed the following motion:

That the QHC is not in favour of signing an Emergency Disease Response Agreement or committing to any associated levy at this time.

The National Campdraft Council of Australia also opposes the signing of the EADRA due to the financial impost that would be placed upon their members. Pleasure horses and hobby horses are not the industry. They are a sector that supports the industry, such as farriers, feed suppliers, vets, event operators, trainers, breeders, tack and equipment suppliers and so on, yet they would be liable for the greatest financial burden under the levy proposal.

The recent EI outbreak highlighted that EI caused significant social disruptions as well as economic impacts. The EI outbreak also highlighted the inequalities inherent in the government’s proposed collection methodology. The Callinan report found that, while the cause of the EI outbreak could not be definitively determined, the most likely cause was a failing within quarantine processes. That is in line with a standing committee inquiry that I was associated with which took evidence on the bee industry. This would indicate that we have a massive problem in the AQIS inspection and quarantine area that needs to be addressed.

I respectfully put to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that a message should be conveyed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Tony Burke, that this bill will put an impost on innocent people who are trying to have some recreational activity with horses and particularly on those volunteers who are associated with supplying a very humane and decent service to people suffering with a disability. The minister, as a decent human being, needs to consider that the levy process that he is proposing in this bill is not the way to go. This levy process will put pressure on people who are out doing some good in the community in an environment where a government agency is the prime reason for this levy being brought forward.

The Callinan report, as I said, determined that the most likely cause was a failing within the quarantine process. Under the proposed bills, 80 per cent of the cost to industry of the EI outbreak would have been passed to the pleasure, performance and hobby sector with only 20 per cent being passed to the racing sector. Why should the pleasure, performance and hobby sector pay for the problems of the thoroughbred and racing sectors? More importantly, why should they pay for a government agency’s incompetence in imposing an unforeseen cost on them? In fact, why should the industry pay for the response to a government created disease outbreak? How shall these peak bodies raise money to take the government to court to prove fault and then claim compensation? They do not have the means to do so, and that is another issue that quite obviously the minister’s minders either did not consider or totally ignored when they gave advice to the minister.

Again, in these instances, people with horses for pleasure would bear 80 per cent of the cost and, because they would not be suffering business losses, would be unable to claim compensation. Despite what was learnt from the EI outbreak, this Labor government has failed to address any of the concerns raised by horse owners—most of whom are working families. It has failed to address them because the minister, in a typical Yes, Minister manner, is listening to the bureaucrats, who have absolutely no interest in or, indeed, indication of how these stupid recommendations end up in legislation and impact on ordinary working Australians who have a love and a pleasure associated with horses.

This government’s sole action was for the minister to write to horse owners on 11 June 2008 directly threatening them by refusing further assistance in the event of disease outbreaks such as EI if the industry failed to sign up to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement. How is that for looking after the interests of working families! This Labor government has failed to assist the horse industry to help themselves prepare and respond to any future disease outbreaks and should stand condemned for its inaction and, more importantly, for the despicable way it has treated ordinary working families who have an association with an animal that is loved by each and every one of us in this place—the horse. I condemn the government for even contemplating putting this sort of legislation into this place. I will certainly be supporting the coalition in opposing the bill.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in opposition to the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and cognate bills and to draw the attention of the House to the impact that these proposed measures would have on horse owners in my electorate. This legislation would impose an unfair and inequitable burden on those horse owners that derive little or no income from their horses. The legislation would force these owners to pay a levy to cover the costs of a disease outbreak and to essentially subsidise the racing industry. As part of the agreement, each industry contributes funding which can be used to cover the cost of a disease outbreak within a particular industry. The government is also bound to provide financial assistance depending on the type and size of outbreak and the industry. The legislation before the House would force anyone who registers a horse to pay a levy to raise the necessary funds to allow the equine industry to become a signatory to the agreement.

I only have to drive 10 minutes from my home in Coffs Harbour to be among the many small farms in the Orara Valley. Many of these properties are home to horses which are used exclusively for non-business or recreational purposes. Many of the horse owners in my electorate make no income from their horses; they ride for pleasure. The statistics show that these circumstances are not unique to my electorate. Only 20 per cent of horse registrations in Australia are from the thoroughbred industry. This means that about 80 per cent of the horses registered in Australia belong to people who derive little or no income from their horses. These are people who own a horse to round up cattle, to ride at the pony club or to give their children the enjoyment of the ownership of a horse. These are people who compete in equestrian, campdrafting and showjumping events, often at great personal expense.

Some of these 80 per cent of horses outside the thoroughbred industry belong to people who run small breeding operations. These horse owners were hit very hard by the equine influenza outbreak. Because they receive little or no income from owning a horse, they were not eligible for government assistance but still had to bear the costs of extra vet visits and vaccinations. Under this proposed scheme, these small-time horse owners would receive little assistance in the event of a future disease outbreak but would be forced to pay the same levy as a professional racehorse owner, who may receive substantial financial support.

I have received numerous letters from people in my electorate who are furious at the prospect of paying a levy on every horse registration. One such letter I received was from a small breeder, Karangi Foxbridge Farm Arabians, who said of the proposed levy:

This is the final insult to the many small breeders that have been almost crippled by EI so far. I for one have had no assistance, vaccinations, or help from the Government. I refuse to pay for a situation which I had no involvement in creating. It is hard enough as it is to try to market horses, any added cost would mean the end of breeding horses for us.

Another of my constituents from the Clarence Valley wrote to me with a story typical of many caught up in the EI outbreak. He said at the time:

We have lost the opportunity to compete in the annual futurity event at Tamworth ... One of our two horses has been trapped interstate at some cost ... We have borne this rather stoically in my opinion, but to now hear that we may be expected to pay again for the inconvenience we have not caused makes us sad as well as angry. We should not have to pay a levy at all.

In the event of a disease outbreak, recreational horse owners would not receive significant financial assistance under the EAD Response Agreement, but they would still be required to contribute to the scheme. This plainly goes against the principles that are firmly established in our society.

In essence, the bill requires that recreational horse owners and small breeders, comprising some 80 per cent of horse owners, provide assistance to 20 per cent of horse owners who are commercial operators operating on a large scale as part of the thoroughbred racing industry. It is just not fair. To force recreational horse owners to pay a levy the same as large professional breeders and owners is indeed not fair. They generate significant cash flow. The racing industry is a major, substantial industry in our nation and it certainly has the capacity to pay; many recreational horse owners do not. In the event of a disease emergency, the racing industry will receive the majority of the financial assistance provided by the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement scheme and, as such, the racing industry should pay for the majority of the funding.

The government has certainly made the claim that the industry and horse owners support the proposal being put forward by the government. But, interestingly, I received a document from the Queensland Horse Council. They describe themselves as the peak body for the Queensland horse industry. They provided a copy of a letter which was sent to Minister Burke. The letter is quite enlightening. It says:

Dear Minister,

I am writing on behalf of the members of the Queensland Horse Council Inc. (QHC) in regards to the debate occurring in Federal Parliament this afternoon. We are deeply concerned that the pleasure and performance horse owners in Queensland and Australia in general are being misrepresented with respect to the signing of the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement (EADRA) and any resultant horse levies. As the endorsed Peak Body for the Queensland Horse Industry and representing 37 500 members made up from a wide range of equine activities, the QHC secretary, Ms Lorraine Decker corresponded to Minister Tony Burke conveying the members opposition to EADRA. In this letter sent on the 23rd July 2008 it stated that after three surveys of our members an overwhelming decision was reached not to become signatories to EADRA in its current form. The members were also opposed to compulsory horse registration and microchipping and were against any levies. Whilst it has been confirmed that The Honourable Tony Burke received this letter a response has not yet been received.

At an Australian Horse Industry Council (AHIC), Industry Advisory Sub Committee (IAC) meeting in Sydney on 13th May 2008 the topic of EADRA was also discussed. Present at this meeting were members of QHC, AHIC, Australian Campdraft Association, Pony Club Australia, Thoroughbred Breeders Australia, Equestrian Federation of Australia and Australian Quarter Horse Association just to name a few, all on behalf of the constituents.

The results at this meeting were quite interesting. Did we see an overwhelming show of support for the system of levies as currently proposed by the government, as has been claimed? No, we did not. The results of the vote, as indicated in the aforementioned document, show that 13 of the associations were opposed to any horse levy, two associations supported a horse levy and one association supported a future levy. So there was basically a vote of 13 to three against the imposition of such levies. Given that, the government is claiming to have some agreement from industry on this. This is quite alarming.

The letter went on to say:

It has been made known to the QHC that in Federal Parliament today it will be put forward that the Horse Industry is in agreement to EADRA and resultant levies ... This is in stark contrast to what the Australian Horse Industry is actually saying.

There we have it—evidence from a meeting at which there was a vote of 13 to three against the imposition of such levies. That is certainly not widespread industry support.

In conclusion, there is no question that the equine industry needs to raise enough funds to join other livestock industries in the disease response agreement. The problem is the way in which those funds will be collected. The vast majority of members of the Australian Horse Industry Council are against this proposal, and I call on the government to work with the different sectors of the equine industry to develop a levy scheme that takes into account the relative financial strengths of the different players within the industry. The recreational horse owners in my electorate will be unfairly targeted if this legislation is allowed to pass through the parliament in its current form. That is why I am joining with my opposition colleagues to oppose the passage of these bills through the House.

It was interesting to note that the member for Page, who was in this House earlier, was very supportive of the legislation, supportive of a levy on her local pony clubs and supportive of a levy on her local small breeders, who do not have the capacity to pay or to make substantial financial gain from their ownership of horses—in fact, to them, ownership of horses can be a very expensive exercise. So I would call on the member for Page to front her local pony clubs and explain to them why she is supporting a tax on their sport and a tax on their recreational pursuits.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the commencement of my remarks on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and associated bills, I should declare my interest in this matter. I am a racehorse owner and a racehorse breeder. I held a trainers licence for about 20 years. I am proudly a life member of the Carnarvon Race Club. I could spend the whole of this speech telling you about country racing. I was, for nine years, on the committee of the Western Australian Turf Club, including two years as its chairman. My son now holds the family trainers licence, and I am very proud to say that my daughter is the Chief Veterinary Officer of Racing and Wagering Western Australia. I think at the time when she was first headhunted and appointed as the chief vet of the Western Australia Turf Club, as it once was, she was the first woman in Australia to achieve that standing. By the way, I produced a maiden in an open race about a month ago. It ran third and paid 17 bucks!

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What were the odds to win?

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The evidence that I was not on it is the price! Nevertheless, I want you to understand that I attended as chairman of the Western Australian Turf Club at the old Principal Club meetings and I have been through all this debate over a long time. I also want to say that I have been appreciative and supportive of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s efforts to date. In terms of this speech, whilst I will point out what I believe are the pitfalls, I do have a suggestion as to how the government might reconsider this matter in gaining a contribution from the overall racing industry.

The points that I want to make go to the difficulties in collecting a levy of this nature from the industry in which I have taken a long and great interest. I have just received some advice referring to levies on livestock. I notice that there is one called the Beef Production Levy, though I am not sure how that is associated. There is a cattle and livestock delivered for export levy, a livestock slaughter levy, a cattle and livestock exporters charge and a cattle and livestock transaction levy. These are all levies that are collected, for a variety of reasons, and are often government subsidised. They represent promotional levies and other sorts of levies. Importantly, they are all levied at a very convenient point in the ownership of animals—when they are sold, exported or slaughtered. That is a simple process, and it delivers the funds that are needed for whatever purpose. When we get to racehorses or other forms of horses, I am not sure the public would be too interested in a slaughter levy. But the point I want to make is that it is extremely difficult to arrive at a system as simple as that.

The first question is: how would you do it? The arguments made by the member for Cowper—with which I somewhat disagree as a racing man—included, ‘It is just not fair; what about the poor, old pony club?’ and ‘Racing has the capacity to pay’. Fortunately, I am not a heavy gambler, so I probably would have been in severe debt. I know how little financial return there is for the average participant. It is often said that it is the only form of entertainment where the actor pays to perform. About 95 per cent of those participating do so at a financial loss. Again, if I had some spare time, I would be spending it on talking about the way the taxation commissioner has gambled with the racing establishment over time. He typically seems to think that, if you are making profits, you should pay tax but, if you are making losses, you should not claim them. I note that one of the courts the other day disagreed with his view on the rights of someone conducting a business of racing to lose money and claim tax deductions.

Mention was made about how many yearlings are bred for the racing and pacing industries of Australia. It is a huge number, but the fact of life is that about 10 per cent of yearlings sold at auction actually get to the racecourse—let alone deliver a stake—and it is a very expensive process, including the purchase or breeding of the animal, which I do, which leads to finding out if they are any good. Then of course you find, as we did just recently, that a horse shows some promise but then he gets a throat infection and he has had to be turned out at additional cost. But I will front up again, because I love the industry. I would say that there is no greater level of excitement than having a horse win a race.

I need to draw to the attention of the House where the money is and, as the equine influenza proved, what a significant contribution the racing industry makes to the national economy. When I was involved at the administrative level, we used to claim to be the third biggest single employer in Australia. It is a big employer and it creates all sorts of opportunities for people with perhaps little skill or knowledge to gain employment.

That is another issue confronting us which I think I should draw to the minister’s attention before explaining how I would address the problem. I have a son who is five foot 10 who has an 18-year-old son, my grandson, who is six foot four. The trend amongst Australians is that we do not starve kids into weighing 40 kilos or 45 kilos as mature people; yet, by the time you put a saddle on a horse, if you weigh over 50 kilos then you would probably exceed the 53-kilo minimum weight. Furthermore, when we send horses out to do their exercise, it is not a good idea to put 100-kilo people on their backs for that exercise—notwithstanding the fact that I used to.

The industry is desperately short of people to work in it, across the board. I personally visited South America and went to the Buenos Aires racetrack to talk with jockeys and others there who would be most excited and delighted to come to Australia. Whilst their remuneration in Buenos Aires in their currency is about the same as ours, our currency was at the time worth three times theirs. So they could come here, earn good money and repatriate some of it back to their family or relatives if they chose. I choose South America as an example because it has a horseracing culture. Little kids ride horses there. In some areas you can go to a restaurant and they will ride their horses in, with their Mexican type hats on and everything else. They are the people we want. Trying to bring people down from Asia does not mean there is a horse culture.

I encourage the minister to talk to his colleague minister about a simple fact: you cannot apply 457 visa principles to the racing industry. Everybody gets paid on a contract basis. A track worker today gets paid anything between $10 and $20 for five minutes work to ride a horse around the track. Jockeys typically get $100 for a losing ride and a percentage of the stake money, which, when it comes to the Melbourne Cup, would set you up for a couple of years. It is a lot better than what we earn. But the fact of life is that those principles apply, so when people come here they should not come on a guarantee of $50,000 a year, notwithstanding that they have much potential to earn more. The award for some of these people is probably $20,000 to $25,000.

It should be recognised that there is a special problem which relates to the size of the individual. It is a skilled category, I guess. Those people should be allowed to come here with a sponsor, probably the race clubs themselves, on a reasonable guarantee of the award wages for a stablehand but with the recognition that they will be paid the moneys they earn if they become track riders or take on jobs in any other of those categories. It is only the people who muck out the boxes who are on a wage. The reward system, otherwise known as a sling, also goes well throughout the industry. So someone needs to look at it as a special case. There is a need throughout the industry to bring these people in, if only to meet those special criteria.

I will return to the matter I really want to raise today. Gambling on racehorses is a great earner for state governments. The figures that I obtained from the statistics put out by the Australian Racing Board tell me—I presume it was last year, but it would not matter that much—that the New South Wales state levy delivered $228.68 million to state coffers. The figures for the other states were as follows: Victoria, $187.85 million; Queensland, $69.78 million; South Australia, $18.77 million; WA, $63.78 million; Tasmania, $6.23 million; the ACT, $5.2 million; and the Northern Territory, $9.16 million. It, by the way, gives nothing back to its local racing industry, and that is probably because most of the betting is not on its local industry; it is a device to give people the opportunity to bet worldwide.

At the same time, from the profits of those TABs, similar amounts do go to racing. In fact, the totals are comparable. The total of the state levies is $589.45 million. The payment to racing, which of course then materialises in stake money in most areas, is what keeps the industry alive and people paying large sums of money for animals to compete in these races. But many do it for the prestige. The late Jack Ingham complained in my presence once that he had to register 150 yearlings, poor fellow, in his own name. To get the prospect of a start for all of them in the Golden Slipper he had to pay upfront $100 or something. I am sure Jack could afford it, but the fact of life is that all of those contributions are frequently not taken into account.

Because of the complexity of collecting the proposed levy, I would encourage the government—wall-to-wall Labor, as we know, but maybe not after Saturday—to talk to the states. The fact of life is that there are sufficient funds accumulated by state governments for them to pick up this responsibility. The Commonwealth does not get them. By the way, I think in the interests of racing it is time that the Commonwealth looked at Betfair and other internet type gambling companies to find out whether they are making a contribution relevant to where they take their bets. But otherwise I think some fees through the licensing system should be levied to make their contribution. One of the tragedies of the English system, now slightly repaired, was that all the private bookmakers paid nothing for racing. Unless you were an Arab oil sheikh or an otherwise very wealthy racing person you could not get into it. The worst thing in the world is to have a situation where owners have to gamble to cover the costs of racing, because that is when they start to cheat—and historically they did start to cheat. They cheated magnificently, because they were taking on the public. Big stake money puts a lot of integrity into racing.

I would ask the minister to have a look at the state agricultural departments, which have all the basic responsibilities for stock inspection. The pony clubs do not contribute to the revenue of state governments. I accept that. It would be virtually impossible, because you would spend more money trying to get money out of them than it is worth. Any taxes ought to be applied to the registered racing industries and maybe showjumpers—think of the cost of getting them to the Olympic Games! But I think we would be better avoiding a levy, because it is not practical. The state governments, under their constitutional responsibility, should be responsible for this. There should be some form of agreement. Maybe the Australian government could be a participant in forming a fund for that purpose—taken from the levies they place on the gambling interests generated by horse racing and all the other animal racing industries.

I will close on that point. As I have said, I have found that the minister has been available to take my point of view on other matters, and I thank him for that. He knows that I represent a very large proportion of Australia’s agricultural industry. It is not my job to look for fault when I can look for benefits for my people, but I believe the government’s interests and the horse owners’ interests would be best served if this money were accessed from the current revenue arrangements.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I want to thank all honourable members for their participation in this debate on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and related bills. I have managed to be in the House for a good part of it, although some pre-existing commitments meant I was not here for some of the speeches last night and for part of this morning’s debate as well. I understand from comments made by the member for Kennedy that at least one time when I was not here my officials were not here either. As minister I take responsibility for that and I apologise to the House. I take my responsibilities as a legislator very seriously.

This is not easy policy by any stretch of the imagination. What we are dealing with here is something which has been worked through in all the other livestock sectors. Be it cattle, sheep, pigs or the chook market, all have levy systems in place. In each of those cases that was a much easier thing to set up because the common point is that these animals are being raised for slaughter. So it makes sense to impose a levy and it is very easy to find the point where you would impose a levy. At the same time, while there are differences in value from beast to beast, you do not get the extent of variation that you find in the horse industry. That means that, in trying to come up with a way to implement a levy system in the horse industry, getting everybody in agreement is a good deal more difficult than it is in any other sector of the livestock industry.

I want to address a number of presumptions which have characterised parts of the debate. A number of members opposite—not all—have run the argument that, because of the disproportionate value of horses, only the racing sector, or primarily the racing sector, should be levied. There are two points I want to make on that. The first is that, depending on the disease, the cost of managing a disease outbreak is basically a cost per animal, so the expenditure of the money, whether a horse has a higher value or not, does not make that much difference to the cost of the emergency response. The second presumption in a couple of the speeches, particularly by the honourable member for Cowper, is that somehow everyone in the racing sector is made of money. There is no doubt that when you go to the track there are some pretty wealthy people there, but there are also a whole lot of people whom you would never describe as wealthy. When we look at the wealthiest people in the racing sector and the people in the pony club, I think it is dangerous for us to presume that we have made a fair comparison across industries.

The worst option of all would be for the horse industry not to become part of the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement. If they were not part of it, there would be only two paths. Some members opposite have criticised me for writing to the peak bodies and saying that, while the government was prepared to wear the cost of the EI outbreak and not impose a levy—because we decided it would be wrong to do that retrospectively—there was an expectation that if the industry wanted to be part of the assistance that comes from the EADRA then they would have to sign up to it as well. That was taken as a horrible thing for me to say and a terrible threat to make to the industry. Can I just suggest that if we were to do what some members opposite have suggested—that is, not say to the industry that it has to sign up if it wants these sorts of protections to be in place in the future—the whole EADRA process would unravel. What justification would there be for the cattle industry, the sheep industry or the pig industry to continue with their levy systems if there was a view that if you are not part of it the government will always foot the bill anyway? The whole system would unravel. It does not matter which levy system you end up with, the horse industry is so vast and diverse that there will be a way of saying, ‘You’re not actually catching everybody,’ or ‘Maybe you could do it a better way.’ What we have here is a point where the three peak bodies have found a levy system that they believe they can all wear.

Other suggestions have been put forward, such as having a differential levy. These concepts were in part alluded to by the Leader of the National Party when he led for the opposition. If those opposite think for a minute that we would get the harness racing and ARB groups to sign up to that—because without them signing up we would not get there—when they put the argument quite forcefully that the cost of managing a disease outbreak is a cost per animal, not a cost related to the value of the animal, I do not think the opposition have thought through where it would land. It is not enough for just the parliament to agree; we need the peak bodies to reach agreement as well. I suspect what is proposed in the parliament today is not the ideal outcome, if any part of the horse industry could say, ‘We’re going to get an answer that’s just for us,’ because of course there will always be requests that the burden be placed on someone else. But I do not think there is a better option that will be able to get support from the three peak industry bodies. The members of those three peak bodies are not unanimously in support. Of course that is the case; you never get wild enthusiasm when a levy is involved. But we have to make sure that the sector is protected into the future.

We also need to understand EI is not the only threat here. Because so many people—whether they are involved in pony clubs, harness racing or general racing at the track—have been through a terrible time with EI, that has, understandably, characterised much of the debate, but we have to remember that this legislation is about protecting the industry if there is another outbreak of something. Hopefully there will not be another outbreak of something. If there is, would it be EI or something else? Who knows? I think we have all had it at the front of our minds—with the tragedies in recent weeks related to the impact not just on the horses but on the people and vets working with horses with respect to Hendra—that there are many diseases which can wreak havoc on those working in the horse industry or working with horses. The worst option would be for there to be no levy put in place.

Something which was, I think, well explained by the Leader of the Nationals in his opening remarks was the concept that, if this legislation passes, these levies will start at zero—there will be no immediate impost and levies will only come into place after discussions between the minister and those peak bodies. I agree with the comment of the Leader of the Nationals that it is a good idea for many livestock industries to build up a very nominal contingency fund over time, whether that be with a $10 levy or however that be done. I suspect that in the horse industry that is something that there would be no appetite to do in the immediate term, and that is understandable—they have been through a dreadfully hard time. In the absence of a contingency fund, the levy will remain at zero, but it will mean that we will not be in the situation we were in 12 months ago, when an outbreak occurred and there was no formal mechanism in place to protect the industry.

In March this year I announced that debate on these bills would be postponed until after I had received the Callinan inquiry report. After considering Commissioner Callinan’s findings, on 11 June I announced the government would not levy the horse industry to repay its share of the cost of eradicating the EI outbreak of 2007. I note that a year earlier, in 2006, the horse industry had proposed to the previous government a levy arrangement to protect the horse sector against the impacts of emergency animal disease outbreaks. So, for those members opposite who have argued that it is outrageous to impose a levy on the industry at all—and there have been a couple, neither of whom are in the chamber at the moment—that certainly was not the position of the previous government. I suspect it is not even the position of the executive of the opposition. While the intention at the time was for the horse industry and the government to share the costs of the emergency response following the outbreak last year, the new government decided that it would not be fair to ask the industry to make those payments.

Looking to the future, this package of bills will give the horse sector the certainty that other livestock sectors have when responding with government to emergency animal disease incursions. These bills will enable the horse sector to become a party to the EADRA, the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement—something that they have wanted for years and have been right to want. In short, this package of bills provides certainty for resourcing emergency responses to future horse disease outbreaks. These bills provide a mechanism to impose, collect and appropriate a new levy for the initial registration of horses. The levy will be payable only once and appropriated through Animal Health Australia. It will be paid once on the occasions when it is set at something other than zero. I am very pleased to note that this legislation is supported by those peak groups that make up the horse sector but I acknowledge that among their membership it is not a unanimous view and suspect there would never be a unanimous view on any proposal.

There have been quotes from the Chairman of the Racing Board saying, ‘I’m happy to extend my organisation’s wholehearted agreement’; from Harness Racing Australia’s chair saying, ‘Harness Racing Australia supports the bills currently before parliament, which will establish a zero rate levy’; and from the Horse Industry Council’s President saying, ‘The board of the AHIC advises that it supports the passage of these three bills.’ In recent days, this support has been reconfirmed by all organisations.’ They are the peak bodies that we need to be signatories to EADRA.

Before I get to my concluding remarks, I want to talk to some points that were raised by the member for New England. I have covered the issues he referred to of the division among groups and some of the equity concerns. He also raised questions concerning registration and noted that it is not compulsory for the owner of a horse to register that horse. That is true, and it does mean that, when you focus on registration, not every horse in existence is going to end up being subject to a levy. There were some bizarre comments, which I presume were included only for humour value, in speeches earlier saying: ‘What are we going to do about the feral horses?’ I think the answer to that is: the same thing that we do with respect to the levy on feral cattle—we acknowledge that there are some areas where numbers cannot be counted. Certainly, feral animals are viewed as pests rather than something the government would seek to profit from. The issues were raised a number of times so I respond to them, but I presume a big part of that has been in jest.

The registration bodies can refuse to register horses unless the owner has provided the necessary funds to pay the levy. I know the concern of the thoroughbred industry about this is that, because they have a higher percentage of registration, the registration process would put a higher burden on them. The pony club argument is often put that, because thoroughbreds have the option of registering overseas, the higher proportion of the levy would be put on the pony clubs. There is never going to be a perfect solution. I hope that, over time, the industry looks to a very nominal contingency fee because if it is a small amount of money a lot of these arguments become a good deal less significant. But the worst of all worlds will be if in a few weeks time the horse industry has not signed up to EADRA, not because of the lack of willingness of the peak bodies but because of the lack of willingness of the opposition when it comes to vote in the Senate. The implementation of any levy, if it were to change from zero, would happen only with the consultation of those peak bodies.

I am mindful that the Australian horse sector is still suffering from the devastating impact of EI and I want to give the industry breathing space as it fully recovers before even raising a new levy arrangement, notwithstanding that I think a very nominal contingency fee would be a way forward to build up some money in the event of future outbreaks. But, as I say, they are discussions to have into the future and I have no doubt that there is no appetite in the industry right at this point to start building up the contingency fund so soon after the pain of EI. Any money so collected would be administered at arm’s length from government and could not be used without industry’s approval. So, for those who have described it as a tax, it is not. It is not a tax when the government is not allowed to spend it. The money can be spent only with the approval of industry and would provide the horse sector certainty in the event of a disease outbreak under the EADRA.

There have been a lot of comments from members on each side and particularly from my side of the House about what might have been done to avoid the devastation of EI. There is no doubt in my mind, when I hear the figure of $1 billion quoted in terms of total damage to the national economy over EI, that we will actually never know the full extent of the damage of EI, because it was not just the people who were technically employed by the industry. It went to all the add-on parts of it, from the person selling meat pies at the side of the track to the people involved in transport and logistics through to the Spring Racing Carnival being cancelled and a whole lot of milliners not being able to sell any hats. There were businesses torn apart at every level during that time. The industry had not been prepared, and to some extent I appreciate that the then government had the challenge that there is no easy way of implementing a levy for this sector. I think that is why, when in their arguments those opposite have tried to find as many holes as they could in this process, with the exception of the member for O’Connor, members opposite generally have been very reluctant to put up what the alternative ought to be. I think there is a simple call on working out what the alternative ought to be and that is: you work it out based on what industry is willing to agree on. That means every industry group goes a little bit away from their ideal model and they end up with something—which we now have—which they say they can all work with, which they say gives them a way forward.

It would be devastating neglect if, when this bill goes through to the Senate—if I can work on the basis that we will get through here—the decision of the Australian parliament ends up being to leave the horse industry in the same position it was in at the beginning of EI. Taking responsibility and making a decision on these issues, where there are so many different interest groups, is always complex and always tough. For every objection that has been offered to these bills before the House, I offer one suggestion and that is to say that the alternative of being outside EADRA is so much worse. We have something here that the industry can agree on. I look forward to the Senate inquiry process, which I understand is being advanced. No doubt that will be able to look to the technicality of the bills. I appreciate that that is an appropriate process to follow, but I would remind all members of this House and of the Senate that we do not need something that we can agree on just on a political level; the reason for this levy being put forward is that, while there is a divergence of views among their membership, for the three peak bodies with which we are expected to negotiate, this is a system which they believe they can all work with. I commend the bills to the House.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please proceed.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In debate on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008, the members for Longman, Wakefield and Kennedy made a series of personal attacks on me which were both false and offensive. The member for Longman said that the Australian Racing Board wrote to me warning of ‘the dangers of replacing AQIS vets with cargo staff’. The AQIS proposal was to use specialist equine vets, not cargo staff, to take blood samples from arriving horses in Melbourne. Referring to the equine influenza outbreak, he then said that I ‘made changes that made this outbreak more likely’. This statement is simply false. The outbreak occurred in New South Wales, not Melbourne, where the AQIS veterinary issues were being discussed. In New South Wales, AQIS vets continue to take the blood samples. In fact, I was the minister who doubled the size of the quarantine service.

The member for Wakefield went even further, again quoting out of context from the letter from the Australian Racing Board and my reply, and said that I ‘dismissed legitimate industry concerns’. That is not true; I responded. In fact, the state racing ministers wrote to me in May 2005 congratulating me on my actions in relation to the quarantine issues in Melbourne. The member for Wakefield went on to say something that I found particularly offensive: that I had ‘culpability in the equine influenza outbreak’. I had not been minister for over two years when that outbreak occurred. The Callinan inquiry did not make any adverse findings against me, and I think those remarks were uncalled for.

Finally, the member for Kennedy made a whole lot of statements. I will not bother to respond to them. I just refer the House to my speech on 20 February where I responded to similar allegations made by the member for Kennedy on 8 February.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please proceed.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The previous speaker said that he had answered each of my allegations or criticisms of him. My criticisms of him were never answered, clearly because they could not be answered. I appreciate his humour, but reality and fact are reality and fact and it is on the record.

Question put:

That this bill be now read a second time.