John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a citizen of a country that is very dependent on exports, whether it be primary industries, minerals or food and fibre, I rise today to speak in support of this very important motion, which is around the AQIS export service inspection costs, the rebate, which has just been knocked off by the government, and the efficiencies that were promised as part of the deal struck back in 2008-09. This motion is important, as the industries have without doubt been left in the lurch following the government's axing of the 40 per cent AQIS export service inspection rebate. The Labor government has failed to deliver on its side of the bargain. On 1 July this year, the inspection service rebate ceased, yet promised reforms and efficiencies have not been in place, putting significant strain on the six most affected industries: horticulture, meat, dairy, fish, grain and live exports, as well as many small niche industries involved with them.

This government has once again failed to deliver on its promise and, as a result, I have introduced this motion into the parliament, calling on the government to keep the AQIS export service rebate in place until the government upholds its end of the bargain. There was an understanding by all industries that the promised reforms would be put in place by the time the rebate period cut out, which was 30 June-1 July this year. This clearly has not happened, and the government should be, and is being, held accountable.

The reforms in 2009 came after the Senate disallowed moves by the Rudd Labor government to axe the AQIS export certificate rebate, which was worth approximately $40 million annually and higher, depending on the amount of produce exported. As a result of our standing shoulder to shoulder with the industries and not allowing the government to simply walk over the top of them, as they normally do with agriculture, the former minister for agriculture, Tony Burke, announced he would offer the industry a $127.4 million export certification reform package to fund efficiencies, reforms and the AQIS costs until July of this year. Now, we agreed to this and, in a letter of agreement written to me and signed by Minister Burke, he stated:

Successful implementation of these reforms will provide a reduction in annual regulatory costs to the export industries in the order of $30 million per year from 1 July 2011. It will also provide the opportunity for removal of substantial costs from the export supply chain for industry and AQIS.

That was in the letter we got. But now, as we have come to expect of the Rudd-Gillard government, the government has not fulfilled its side of the agreement. None of the reforms and efficiencies were actually delivered by the time the rebate cut out. There was also a commitment by Minister Burke for an independent study of the legitimate costs of government as agreed by the minister. This has not even commenced. The minister has claimed that this is an audit of AQIS's cost—and I acknowledge the member for Lyne, who is polite enough to indicate he wants to table that. I have no problem with that. But that is a separate commitment. The government has not delivered on its commitment for a legitimate cost-of-government survey. Let us remember that our main competitors, Brazil and America, require almost no contribution from industry. They pay 85 to 90 per cent of similar costs in their countries.

The minister is wrong. As a legitimate cost-of-government survey it was a commitment to examine if any of the costs related to AQIS export service inspection fees and charges were related to costs that serve the broader Australian public, to establish the level of that broader public benefit, beyond those directly involved in the industry, and whether a clean reputation for exports or the ability to resolve problems arising quickly has a broader benefit to the Australian community, as indeed the high level of Australian agricultural and fishery commodities do. The government has acknowledged that there are certain activities that are not costs that industry should have to pay for, but instead of maintaining the vital activities it is just discontinuing the services in its desperate search for cash.

Market maintenance and improvement activities, technical operations and assistance and overseas inspector capabilities to deploy when issues arrive all have a broader benefit to Australia and our export reputation. Our competition provides these services and does not expect industry to have to bear the costs. The government has made a promise, yet no reforms have been delivered, no efficiencies have been gained and no legitimate cost-of-government studies have been delivered. Despite not delivering on its promise, the government has collected on its side of the deal and removed the 40 per cent rebate as of 1 July.

Let us look at the horticulture industry, for example. That industry reform process alone has cost a staggering $1.6 million over the past two years in an attempt to increase efficiency within the industry, but there has been no progress. The horticulture industry is one of the success stories in Australia in recent times, and the fruit and vegetable part is one of those where it is line ball as to whether they are importers or exporters. The horticulture industry taken as a whole is a huge growing industry and is contributing a lot to exports. Yet if we send the wrong signals to the industry that the government will stand beside it we limit its desire and its need to expand. The government has tried to simply move the responsibility of inspections from government to industry, yet for such a diverse and seasonal industry with many small operators it is unlikely to work. Operators are not large enough to absorb the cost of inspection staff and it is going to be very difficult to find and train staff for such seasonal work. The government cannot even clarify whether the export industries involved will be comfortable with AQIS's proposed approach. This is not reform; it is just cost shifting. As of 1 July 2011 all industries involved are facing increased costs. With the removal of the rebate the industries will have no choice but to pass these costs on to producers.

Because of the coalition making it plain that we would once again stand with our export industries, we have introduced this motion to show that even though the meat industry has done a deal with government—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Only because you had to. Because the industry asked us to we have agreed to sign off on that and we are not going to use the opportunity given to us to stand aside. However, there are five other industries which still need the government to work with them to sort it out. This is especially important as the government is also about to hit these meat processors with the world's biggest carbon tax. I could talk about that for a long time, but I will not. Do not underrate the effect that has on the meat industry and the processing industry, whether it be horticulture, meat or whatever. One of Australia's better abattoirs looks to be going to get costs—because they will trigger the carbon tax, and there will be their power bills—of $3 million a year extra. At a time when we are crying out for export industries to help us, that is not a great way to help them.

The government has been forced to act on the meat export industry and I now call on the minister to provide a similar package for each of the other export industries and to carry out the legitimate costs of government study it promised under the original agreement. It is ridiculous that the government has had over two years to implement efficiency measures, but two years on they are no closer to any reforms. They have had to concede that with the meat industry they are three years behind because the current deal does assist in some measure those in the meat industry to get the efficiencies that were originally promised of $30 million a year. In three years time they will far exceed that. I ask the current minister to fulfil the deal put forward by Tony Burke, who was then the minister, in 2008-09 because Australia's export industries, agriculture and fisheries, need them.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Being an old meatworker, over the years I have scrutinised the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service, especially under Liberal governments. I once studied meat inspection so I know a bit about lymph nodes and other things. But I did not go on because other things intervened, especially politics. I believe there is a need for change, and change is certainly coming around. There were inherent inefficiencies in the system that the previous government had not addressed in 2001. I will come to those later. However, since this government has been in there has been considerable change. Maybe the honourable member opposite has not been keeping up with those changes. There has been an investment of $127.5 million over three years in the development of a modern export certificate scheme that maintains Australia's reputation as a producer of high quality safe food products; $85 million was in export certificate rebates and the remainder was a project and AQIS staff redundancies, which had to occur. We have also finalised a review of the fee structures and the overhead allocations that have set new fees and charges, which we will be able to see on the department's website, and which will cover all the industries that the member for Calare has sought. I would like to table the independent review of AQIS fees and charges in the meat program. This was tabled on 8 May 2010. I seek leave to table it.

Leave granted.

The government has approved a cost recovery impact statement and it is available on the department's website. I see that in 2001 the then government took 40 per cent off the export fees and put it on to the budget. That was real efficiency! It is probably why the constituents of Lyons lost out on some of their health budget coming through to Tasmania—because some of it was taken off by that sort of process. It was not about making industry more efficient et cetera—I concede that the member for Calare was not the minister at the time.

There has been extensive consultation with the Australian Meat Industry Council, in particular, the budget for the meat program in 2011-12 and that will be $56 million. For last financial year the budget was about $78 million, and the previous budget for that was closer to $85 million. So this will allow not only costs to be reduced but also more meat to be processed in Australia. It brings down the cost of processing. The budgets for respective programs are all subject to a process of consultation and ultimately become part of the public record. The government has been working hard to ensure our major trading partners, including United States, understand that proposed reforms to the meat inspection system will provide at least equivalent outcomes and greater transparency than the scheme under which we operate now.

The US has the most complex regulatory requirements, as I remember from my days in the meat industry, followed by the EU and some northern Asian markets. Meat exports exceed $5 billion per year, so it is a considerable industry for our country. Therefore, we should get these reforms right. I am told the US formally accepted the proposed export meat inspection service model in March this year and we are moving towards a full roll-out of the AEMIS across all red meat processing establishments to reduce government program costs from around $80 million per year to approximately $56 million per year. So the government and industry have been working hard to find efficiencies in each of the export certified programs. The member for Calare might note that it has been a collective effort. We could reduce costs even further but the government and the meat industry are not interested in efficiencies if they compromise market access.

On 5 September the minister announced that the government would implement the Australian export meat inspection scheme from 1 October and provide $25.8 million in transitional assistance. I understand that the opposition has begrudgingly—I heard the members say this—come to the party, announcing it would support the regulations underpinning the reform. I am pleased that they have done that. The minister has told me that he has arranged a briefing for Mr Cobb on the status of the meat program and advised Mr Cobb and Senator Colbeck that the government is continuing to work on a sector by sector basis on reform. Government is continuing its reform process but there is no one-size-fits-all approach to these matters. The minister says he will continue to liaise with the export sectors to discuss their proposals.

So this motion from the member for Calare is rather behind the times in as much as what he is asking for has already been covered and he has not recognised the amount of work already undertaken in this area. Perhaps he has not been briefed by his own side. Maybe he needs to talk more with his own people. I think the opposition is trying to give the impression that something is wrong when the government and the industry are getting on with the business of supporting regional jobs and reducing red tape, making our industry more efficient and more effective, as we need to do. I think that new technology is being drawn down to help reduce these costs. Of course, that will add to productivity and improve our export prices and our overall position. Australian processing and our manufacturing sectors do have to be price sensitive, especially with the price of Australia's dollar.

We need to keep this industry up on its training, to engage people to enter the trade, enter the work and work in the meat industry. I am sure you, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, who have quite a works in your electorate, would always be thinking about where labour is required to get into our regional works. There are lots of regional jobs in Australia. My local works, which is pretty much a large one from Tasmania's perspective, employs hundreds of people and this works, where I worked many years ago, has been employing people for 50 to 60 years. It is tremendous to see that that is still occurring. We need to continue making our industries more effective and more efficient, but it is not about government carrying costs for industry. Industry has to carry its own costs. We need high-performance meat inspection and a certification model which is at the forefront of international expectations to carry us into the future. This industry is worth many billions of dollars to us. We have to make sure that it is efficient and effective and we need to always make sure that we do that. We have started that across several of the sectors which are important to us, but it is no good trying to say that you can do this half-heartedly. You have to go in, negotiate right across the industries and achieve an efficient outcome. The international market access across all commodities through this will help us regain more market access, I believe, over the next 18 months. I oppose the motion.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight because I seconded this motion. I thank the member for Lyons for his contribution but I would point out to him that the government only came to the party and delivered the $25.8 million to the industry after this motion had been moved in the House. I think it would be fair to say that the only reason that they did this was because this motion was moved and they were probably deeply concerned that this motion would be passed.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those on the other side may laugh, but I would like to highlight that the coalition has once again played a very constructive and positive role in producing an outcome, in this instance for the meat industry. I would like to especially recognise the member for Calare for the role that he has played in bringing about this positive outcome.

It is a positive outcome, but there is still more to be done. I do not think that those opposite should rest on their laurels and think that because they have delivered this money that that is the end of it. There are still very deep concerns, especially amongst the smaller players in the industry, about the implication that this move to full cost recovery will have. As a matter of fact, last week I had a representation from industry in my electorate asking me to once again take up this issue, and that is something that I will be doing. I have asked the constituent to provide me with the relevant information and I have said that I will approach the minister. I intend to do that and I hope the minister will be prepared to listen.

For the benefit of the House, I just want to outline what the member for Calare and I, in seconding this motion, set out to achieve. We wanted an immediate commission of an independent study on the legitimate cost to government of AQIS export service inspection fees and charges for the six affected industries as evidenced at the AQIS-AMIC joint ministerial task force meeting on 7 May 2010 and we would still like to see that. Obviously we have the horticultural industry, the fish industry, the dairy industry, the live export industry and the grain industry still waiting to see what the government will do. We have also called on the government to table in the House a document that explains how the government will provide a reduction in annual regulatory costs to the export industries in the order of $30 million per year from 1 July 2011. We would still like very much to see that document and also a document that outlines the completion of reforms that were to be delivered as part of the agreement to remove the AQIS export service rebate between the government and the six affected industries—the meat industry, the fish industry, the dairy industry, the horticulture industry, the grain industry and the live export industry. We would still very much like to see this.

We also noted that the above commitments were part of a package agreed by the former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in return for the passage of their legislation to remove the 40 per cent AQIS export service rebate. We called on the government to continue the AQIS export service rebate until the reforms are delivered as agreed by the government.

As we saw, the minister has, to the tune of $25.8 million, come to the table, sat down and negotiated with the Australian meat industry to get a resolution. It is not by any means a perfect resolution, but it is better than where we were and I am happy to say that. I commend the industry for having sat down with the government and for being able to put a strong case to get that $25.8 million. That is a good outcome of the motion that we have put in the House and a good outcome that it has pressured the government to sit down with the industry and deliver this $25.8 million. I know that those opposite are not very good at giving credit where credit is due, but if some of them do I am sure the member for Calare would gratefully receive that feedback. If you were going to be fair about it, that is what you would do.

I hope the government are going to sit down with the other five affected industries and come to a similar resolution with them, because this is too important an issue to those five other industries for the government to sit back, rest on their laurels and say, 'We have done this for AMIC, so that is where it is going to stop.' I hope we will see the government continuing to sit down, listen and deliver much-needed resources to those other industries as well.

I would say once again that I also think the government needs to consult with the smaller businesses, especially in the meat industry. We have to recall that ultimately what we are doing is passing on to business 100 per cent of the legitimate costs for inspection services. There is no other country in the world that does this. We are passing 100 per cent of the legitimate costs for inspection services onto business. This is a big step. We have to make sure that our meat industry remains as competitive as possible. If we do not, they operate in an international environment and our meat producers will suffer as a result.

Let us not forget that the government is also putting additional costs on the meat industry. The meat industry is a trade-exposed emissions-intensive industry. What they are about to be hit with in the carbon tax legislation is going to make them less competitive and is going to put their costs up. We are going to be doing this at a time when we are also hitting them with this extra cost to their business with regard to inspection services. So I plead with the government: reconsider the way you are going to treat meat processors under your carbon tax legislation. You are going to put a huge additional cost on the meat processors and they are trade exposed and emissions intensive. So think about that. You might have come to the table late with your $25.8 million for the inspection services—and there are still concerns around the smaller processors—but, when it comes to your carbon tax legislation, you could be doing insurmountable damage to the international competitiveness of meat processors. So think long and hard about that and think whether you have that right.

It has given me great pleasure to second this motion, because one of the most efficient and best meat processors you will come across globally is in my electorate of Wannon. I refer to Midfield Meat. They are a huge employer, they do an outstanding job, they are mechanised to a standard that you cannot find anywhere else in the world and they are also a terrific community based company which puts a significant amount back into our local community. I also have smaller meat processors right across my electorate who do outstanding jobs as well. This is an important motion; it got the government to act—just before time. Let us hope the government now will act on its carbon tax legislation as well.

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

I was going to start off somewhere else but, having listened to the honourable member for Wannon, I have to give a few targeted rebuttals to some of the absolute nonsense I have heard here tonight on this motion. The honourable member said to give credit where credit is due, so I will start by noting, with respect to the move to full cost recovery, two things which relate to what the honourable member for Wannon said. Firstly, he said that it does not happen anywhere else. Yes, it does—that is not what the meat processors and others say and they are people that I talk to regularly. Secondly, I note that it was under the Howard government that this system started. So I am happy to give credit where credit is due—not like you, coming in here when you end up in opposition and pretending that you had nothing to do with it and did not know about it. You come in here and all of a sudden just do a complete turnaround—180 degrees.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not think the member is being relevant to the submission.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

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

I am being very relevant—I am talking about the absolute political and popular opportunism of the National Party in bringing this motion before the House. You talk about relevance, but this motion has no relevance to what is going on.

I will turn to what is going on. The conversation on this issue, as members would know, is a conversation that takes time because we are working across a number of highly significant industries. The meat industry is the one that I know most about but I have information about all of them. That conversation continues. It is, in fact, more than a conversation; it is a consultation, conversation and deep engagement with the industries and with the government.

Before I go into that, I will go back to 'credit where credit is due' and I want to pay credit to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig, for the work he has done and for the agreement he reached recently with AMIC. I have seen the letters and I have been involved in it. the chairman of the Australian processor council and of the Australian Meat Industry Council, Mr Gary Burridge, is also the CEO of the Northern Co-operative Meat Company, which is in my electorate. So it is an issue that I am engaged in at a local level but with which I also have some familiarity at the national level. The agreement is something that AMIC is really pleased about—they put out media releases on it. It is what they have been working towards and it is what I have been supporting them working towards. It is no good writing a three-part motion, coming in here, getting up and just mouthing off—mouthing words and not doing any of the hard yards and the work to support the industry. A key area where they need support is particularly around access.

Yes, we can talk about money and, yes, we can talk about certification, but we have to maintain that market access and we have to have regulatory schemes in place that do not impede or damage that market access. That is where the government, through the minister, is doing a lot of work with the industry. That is what it is about: cooperation. It is not about the nonsense that we have heard here tonight.

I have a couple of points I would like to make. Firstly, in the honourable member for Calare's motion he talks about immediately commissioning an independent study on the legitimate cost to the government of Australian quarantine and of AQIS. It goes on about the six industries. If you read it, it is designed to engender some urgency, as though there is some panic around it. There is not. There is a lot of work that has been happening and it is just part and parcel of that modus operandi.

My understanding is that there is a review of the fee structures and the overhead allocations. All the honourable member has to do is go onto the DAFF website, for a start, and it is there to read. I am really pleased with the agreement that was reached with AMEC and the terms of reference also for the AMEC-government joint ministerial task force with the export meat program and export certification reform.

The work that has been happening and the work that still has to happen is really clear with those joint terms of reference. The government has invested a lot of money in this. The government has invested $127.5 million over three years in export certification reforms. That is money well spent and money that I want to see spent in that area. I understand that $85 million of that was in export certification. The government also approved the cost recovery impact statement. The budget for the meat program, as I have outlined, was subject to extensive consultation and we know what the budget allocations are from 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12.

The industry and the government are always working to find efficiencies, and that helps productivity as well as savings. That is part and parcel of what industries do and what governments do all the time. It has been a great collective effort. We talk about credit where credit is due, and I know that in my local media I claimed some credit: I crowed too, because I represented the local industry. I worked collaboratively with the minister and with the local meat industry to ensure that there was that support in moving to that full cost recovery with the export certification scheme. The industry has been really sensible in moving to this.

With the motion that we have before us it would be more useful if the time were spent even talking about how we can collaborate to some of the members who are seized and concerned with these issues. There is nothing against that in this place. It does not matter what party members come from, they can do that. We do that from time to time, and when we do that we do it well. And yet, time after time I am in this chamber and find myself speaking on motions like that which the honourable member for Calare has put up that are both out of time, out of date and irrelevant to what is actually happening at government level and in the industry.

My seat is a rural seat. I have agricultural industries, and I care about them and work with them. What galls me is seeing the National Party members just playing around all the time with this. When they are in government they are with the Liberal Party as part of a coalition and they support free trade and those things. Yet they come in here and say something else and go out into the electorate as though they do not. I have seen it with bananas and I have seen it with apples. They just go out and say what they want to and what they think somebody in the electorate wants to hear. That is not conscionable, it is not fair and it is not real to do that to farmers and to the industry. We have an obligation to be absolutely upfront with them about what is happening.

We are a trading nation. In the meat industry alone a lot of the chilled and packaged meat is exported. I want to give support where I can, and that is why I work to make sure that we, like the transition with the cost recovery and the certificate scheme, give support where the industry can work to find its efficiencies, where it can work to ensure that it stays competitive and where it can ensure that it continues to have market access but also develop further market access. That is what it is about: staying competitive and staying relevant. It is not about these nonsense motions that we have before the House.

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

I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Calare. I note that the motion states:

That this House:

(1) requires the responsible Minister to:

(a) immediately commission an independent study on the legitimate costs to the Government of Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) export service inspection fees and charges for the six affected industries (meat, fish, dairy, horticulture, grain, and live export) as evidenced at the AQIS—Australian Meat Industry Council joint ministerial taskforce meeting No. 15 on 7 May 2010; and

(b) table in the House:

(i) a document that explains how the Government will provide a reduction in annual regulatory costs to the export industries in the order of $30 million per year from 1 July 2011; and

(ii) a document that outlines the completion of reforms that were to be delivered as part of the agreement to remove the AQIS export service rebate between the Government and the six affected industries;

The motion continues:

(2) notes that the above commitments were part of a package agreed to by the former Minster for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in return for the passage of the Government’s legislation to remove the 40 per cent AQIS export service rebate; and

(3) calls on the Government to continue the AQIS export service rebate until the reforms are delivered, as agreed to by the Government.

The motion touches on the fact that the coalition came to an agreement with the former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Tony Burke. This was in exchange for an agreement to remove the 40 per cent AQIS export service rebate with an eventual move to full cost recovery. A $127.4 million package was supposed to be offered to the industry to fund efficiency reforms.

The government has not, as we know, fulfilled its side of the agreement. There has been no independent study of the legitimate costs of government as agreed by the minister. None of the reforms and efficiencies will actually be delivered by the time the rebate cuts out. Some of the review of the reforms of the industries to increase efficiency actually led to more costs, more paperwork and more bureaucracy, contrary to the aims of the review. There is more than one industry involved here. It is not just the beef industry. It is the horticulture, meat, dairy, grains, fish and live animal industries. There was an understanding by the industry that these reforms would have been completed by the time the rebate period ran out, but this clearly has not happened.

While I am speaking on this issue, as a dairy and beef farmer myself I want to touch on an issue that I would very much like the minister to address. It is the issue of industrial action taken by AQIS vets in the export abattoirs in my electorate, such as V and V Walsh and Harvey Beef. V and V Walsh sent me a letter recently. It said:

V & V Walsh Proprietary Limited, in operation since 1957, has never in its history had its day-to-day meat processing operations interrupted by industrial action.

The company has been made aware about protected industrial action by members of the Commonwealth Public Sector Union who perform the on-plant task of meat inspection under the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service and is likely to occur on site in coming weeks. The company is likely to be subject to work stoppages each day which will impose significant financial hardship on both the company and its employees. Over the past three months the company has been operating on a four- and three-day week due to a range of issues and is just beginning to increase its production. The disruptions will not only have financial implications but the flow-on affects for export production, storage, transportation and customer distribution will be a costly, unforeseen add-on which will have significant impacts on the company and its daily operations.

This is a major issue in my electorate which has been going on for nearly six weeks. It affects not only the abattoirs but their workers and their families, those on single incomes and I understand that these are now four-hourly rolling stoppages. So this is a very serious issue for each of the individuals, as it is to the workers and their families. I call on the minister to resolve this issue. I really want to know what is the basis of the industrial action by the AQIS inspectors? What impacts dopes the minister consider this is having on the abattoir management, on the economics and on the workers? I would really like to know whether worker's incomes geed adversely affected and to what degree and what action has the minister taken to resolve this dispute. As we know, meat processing can be an extremely finite business. We also know how important it is in regions like our own, particularly given the impacts of the reaction the government had to the banning of live exports. It has had an impact right throughout the whole of the south-west as well as in the north-west of our state.

I do notice that the Beale quarantine and biosecurity review commissioned by Labor called for hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent on AQIS and quarantine annually just to provide real and proper protection for our nation's borders, but instead of responding to this report, the government has failed to act, expect to spend the 2½ years since its release running down the report and stripping out its assets.

Australian agriculture and food producers rely on our clean green image and on our capacity to produce some of the best quality food in the world. Agricultural production in this country drives $155 billion a year in economic production, which is over 12 per cent of GDP. This generates about 1.6 million Australian jobs and $32 billion a year in farm exports. And we do not always compete on a level playing field. It is very important that we do everything we can to protect our borders and our biosecurity.

It should not be underestimated. Anyone who lives in a regional area does not underestimate the importance of the beef industry and even the industries mentioned in this report. I have beef, dairy and horticulture in my electorate. I do not have grains but certainly I have horticulture, meat, dairy, fish and live animals represented in my electorate. So the issues that the member for Calare has raised in his private members motion are extremely relevant to growers and to the industries in my electorate.

In relation to the AQIS vet issue, the minister does need to respond. There have been six weeks now of this particular action. It is having an impact on the families in my electorate. It is having an impact on the businesses in my electorate and each one of those needs to get on with what they do best. I call on the minister to act. What action has the minister taken to resolve this dispute? What is he intending to do so that not only the abattoirs but the workers and the communities surrounding them can continue to do what they do best?

I finish my speech by simply saying that I support the motion by the member for Calare. The issue of the legitimate costs to government of AQIS export service inspection fees and charges is not just for one single industry; it is for all of those mentioned. As I said, we have half a dozen different industries: the fish industry, the dairy industry, the meat industry, the horticultural industry, the grain industry and the live export industry. These are not resolved yet. In the same way as the industry action in my electorate with the AQIS inspectors has not been resolved, these broader issues have also not been resolved by the minister.

I call on the minister to act on all of these issues. We should not take this industry for granted. This industry has done it particularly tough. A number of the growers have found continuing to produce some of high-quality produce very tough in the circumstances that they have found themselves in.

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

I oppose this AQIS export service rebate motion. In the four years I have been in this place I have seen some conservative claptrap and Tory tosh but this motion takes the cake. Those opposite take credit for school funding in their electorates when they came into this place and opposed it under BER. They take credit for roads and community infrastructure in their electorates when they opposed it under the Nation Building and Jobs Plan we have had. Now we have the member for Wannon taking credit for $25.8 million when they have not even supported it. They finally came grudgingly to the table and now say they support it. They are taking credit for it when they did not actually support it in the first place. They say one thing here and go back to their electorates and say another thing.

This motion is such a waste. We could be doing so much good. We have had a motion this evening about a national disability insurance scheme. We have had bipartisan support for that scheme. There are motions on lots of important issues. This is such rubbish.

The coalition has grudgingly now come to the party and announced it will support the regulations that underpinned the reform. This has been a collective effort between industry and the federal Labor government. On 5 September we announced that we would implement the Australian Export Meat Inspection System from 1 October 2011. We have provided $25.8 million in transitional assistance. I did not see that budgeted in the coalition's $11 billion black hole when they were wanting to come into government before the last election. I did not hear them talking about that at any stage. As a number of speakers from this side have said, we have invested $127.5 million over three years for export certification reforms and, as the member for Page said, $85 million in export certification rebates.

This motion tonight is another example of the coalition's constant carping, moaning and bleating. They give the impression that something is wrong when in fact it is not. The government and industry are working together to build regional jobs and support the industries that previous speakers on the opposite side have talked about by cutting red tape and getting rid of prescriptive rules—making sure we get rid of the bureaucracy—and making sure our agricultural, horticultural and meat export industries are as efficient and effective as they possibly can be.

The member for Calare has form. He was rolled by the Liberals with respect to the dangerous legislation to ban New Zealand apples, which would have put at risk Australia's $32 billion agricultural exports industry. Now he is looking around for a degree of relevance, so he has put forward this motion. The only risk to the meat industry in this country is from those opposite. This is typical of the National Party. We are used to it in Queensland. When they get back to their electorates they are all sympathetic and sensitive but down here they will follow the Liberals mindlessly. That is exactly what they are like. We have made a big difference in this industry. It is an industry that is particularly important in my electorate, because I have meatworks such as Kilcoy, which supports about 750 jobs; Coominya; Churchill, a small meatworks which deals mainly with domestic work; and, of course, the largest meat processing plant in the country, owned by JBS Australia, at Dinmore, where I started my working life as a cleaner. The CEO, John Berry, who is a member of the Australian government's meat ministerial task force, has informed me that, as of 1 October this year, JBS will implement the Australian Meat Inspection System, AEMIS, in 11 processing sites across the country. Under the current certification system, JBS would have paid $15 million in AQIS inspection charges. Under the new model, with the $20 million three-year assistance package, they will pay $9 million.

The minister is conducting similar consultations with various sectors. These reforms will take place sector by sector. The member for Calare has been informed of this. Once again, he is playing politics. He is trying to drive the wrecking ball of negativity from those opposite through our reforms. Those opposite are simply miffed that Australia's meat exporters, whom they believe should be their good mates, colleagues and comrades, are negotiating and making arrangements with a federal Labor government. It is all about the Nationals over there and the Liberals from the country areas being miffed that their people are dealing with a federal Labor government.

The meat exporters overwhelmingly support the outcome announced by the minister in early September. The member for Calare has come to the party. He now says he will support it. But you would not know that if you listened to the drivel he was going on with. There is mindless negativity stamped all over this motion. When it comes to good policy, those opposite have been found wanting on this motion and on so many others. Of course, this motion is from the same people who stripped millions of dollars out of the biosecurity system when they sold off Australia's post-entry quarantine facilities in 2001 and then leased them back. This federal Labor government is committed to reforming our biosecurity system because we know that regional Australians rely on a strong biosecurity system for their livelihood. It is obvious that the previous coalition government was more committed to eroding the national asset base.

Under the watch of members opposite a string of foreign pests invaded Australia—pests that continue to plague numerous parts of my home state. Now my constituents now find their livelihoods under threat from the Asian honey bees, fire ants and equine influenza. In 2007, then Prime Minister John Howard admitted they had been warned about changes to the quarantine laws which would allow equine flu into the country. The Leader of the Nationals, a previous agriculture minister, received letters from the Australian Racing Board warning of the potential dangers in 2004 and 2005. So those opposite, when it comes to a whole range of agricultural industries—horticulture, racing, a whole host of areas—have failed.

I cannot count the number of speeches I have heard from National Party members opposite in which they have rabbited on about honey bees, but the truth is those opposite did nothing to eradicate them when they were in power. It is their policy, they say, to return to full recovery with respect to this particular issue, but they are bereft of ideas on how to do it. They might as well throw the—

Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene to ask a question.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Blair willing to give way?

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

I do not wish to take the question, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those opposite have not given any indication of how they would fund the 40 per cent AQIS export rebate that the member for Calare was talking about. Perhaps it is going to be thrown into the $70 billion black hole, or maybe the $11 billion black hole they had at the last election. As I said, they have cobbled together this motion to distract us from the fact that they did nothing during the 11½ years there were in power to address the failures in Australia's biosecurity system. And they have done nothing in opposition. They are a policy-free zone on this issue—not just policy-free, but funding-free, because they have not come up with any ideas as to how they would fund any of these sorts of things. Since becoming the shadow spokesperson, the member for Calare has not put forward a single proposal—not one proposal—for how to make AQIS's service delivery more efficient.Those opposite are not fair dinkum about supporting our initiatives for export certification reforms. Why? Because good policy is something that is entirely gone from their agenda. They have no interest in it. Motions like this clearly show that that is the case. We are doing work with the industry, and on 6 September—let's talk about the facts, not the fiction—Gary Burridge from the Australian Meat Industry Council and the minister announced a new regulatory reform for meat exports: the Australian Meta Export Inspection System, which would be implemented on 1 October 2011 along with, as I mentioned before, the $25.8 million in Australian government funding to support the transition to new arrangements. The industry supported it. AMIC, Gary Burridge, the chair of the ministerial task force, said, 'AMIC will work closely with the Australian government as we implement the new system.'

That is what it is all about. They hate the fact that people they believe belong to them are working with the federal Labor government. That is what this motion is all about. It is an attempt by the member for Calare to be relevant. They hate the fact that an industry that they feel should be supporting them is working with the federal Labor government. I oppose the motion.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I point out to the member for Blair, who is leaving the chamber as quickly as he possibly can, that he entirely misses the point of this motion. This is about the fact that this government and the previous minister had promised support for the industry in return for these changes. I will expand on that later, but the fact is that the government has again welshed on their promise.

I thank the member for Calare for raising this important issue. Australia has a proud export history, and I think it is important to ensure that this country can continue exporting viably into the future. This motion calls on the responsible minister to commission an independent study of legitimate costs to the government of AQIS export service inspection fees and charges for the six affected industries as evidenced at the AQIS/AMIC joint ministerial task force meeting on 7 May 2010. What could be more innocent than asking for an independent study of legitimate costs?

This motion also calls on the responsible minister to table in the House a document that explains how the government will provide a reduction in annual regulatory costs to the export industries in the order of $30 million per year from 1 July 2011 and also a document that outlines the completion of reforms that were to be delivered as part of the agreement to remove AQIS export service rebates between the government and the six affected industries, as I mentioned earlier. The motion also calls on the responsible minister to note the above commitments were part of a package agreed by the former minister for agriculture in return for the passage of their legislation to remove 40 per cent of the AQIS export service rebate and calls on the government to continue the AQIS export service rebate until the reforms are delivered, as agreed by this government.

The previous Labor government minister responsible for agriculture made promises that to date still have not been fulfilled despite the current minister offering some band-aid assistance. In 2009, the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Tony Burke, announced that, in exchange for axing the 40 per cent AQIS service inspection rebate, he would offer the industry a $127.4 million export certification reform package to fund efficient reforms. For two years this government failed to deliver on that promise. The 40 per cent export rebate ceased on 1 July this year, but up until last week there was still no action from the current minister. Because the government had refused to offer assistance to any of the export ministries affected, despite the 2009 promise, John Cobb, the shadow minister for agriculture, introduced this motion. The minister finally last week recognised that there was a problem—about time—and announced the establishment of a $25.8 million package for the meat export industry. This is a small contribution to fix the large problem caused by this government. More needs to be done.

The minister has only offered to the meat industry a package where there are five other industries affected by the removal of the 40 per cent rebate—horticulture, dairy, fish, grain and live export. This package offered by the government only covers a small section of the reforms promised in 2009. An established pork abattoir in my electorate has raised concerns about the government's lack of reform also. The pork industry is required to pay 100 per cent of meat inspection costs with no government contribution. The regulatory costs are a huge burden to the business on top of the removal of the rebate from 1 July 2011. The majority of pork export abattoirs have successfully operated under the meat safety export program for the last 13 years and frankly this package that the government has announced will do nothing to assist abattoirs such as the one I have mentioned. In fact this government could do very well to cost the abattoirs such as this one one more. (Time expired)

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I really do thank the opposition for giving us this opportunity just to focus for a while on a very good success story that this government has. I will outline the success story in my speech. In around two weeks time a brand-new food safety regulatory system is coming into force and it will be a world first. It is designed to give local producers, local industry, local workers much better control over their product, their workforce and the success of their export lines. This is the substance of the motion before us and yet those opposite have chosen to focus on something else again on themselves. That is no real surprise here. My colleagues have spoken and we heard previously many of them speak on these distractions that are already taking place. The great reform that is the substantive subject of this motion is exemplified by the new Australian Export Meat Inspection System. It is considered great and it is a great shift from the past, a great opportunity for current and new employers and industry players and also a great example of how Labor and industry work together to achieve superior outcomes for all those involved.

The reforms we focused on are broad applying to a range of foods but with the very limited time I have in this speech this evening I will only be able to focus on the example of a seismic change that is occurring within the meat export industry. Graintec Scientific have referred to this overhaul as the most significant reform in decades. Australian Meat Industry Council manager Steve Martin describes the reform as the culmination of five years of AQIS and AMIC work on maximising efficiency and productivity replacing a system based on the world of some 30 or 40 years ago. He said:

We needed something that better reflected the needs of 2011 export market access.

I am not quoting the minister there these are the words of Steve Martin manager of the Australian Meat Industry Council. This is a fact that the government has known to be correct. This is the goal that this government has striven to achieve. This is the outcome that this government will deliver next month. Industry support for this change is evident in the Australian Meat Industry Council's presentation of the 2011 Red Meat processing innovation award to a Queensland family run meat processing company called Nolan Meats. This award was presented less than two weeks ago on 7 September. Nolan Meats was presented with this prestigious award for what Beef Central describes as:

… its work in pioneering the application of food safety reform under the ground-breaking Australian Export Meat Inspection System.

So I want to read into Hansard some of Beef Central's account of Nolan's meats historic success piloting the new Australian export meat inspection system:

Nolan Meats has long had a goal to gain access to all international markets, with company people fulfilling the meat inspection role. It saw such a move as simultaneously providing a stronger career path for personnel, and greater flexibility and efficiency within the role carried out by meat inspectors.

“Most importantly we believe AEMIS enhances product safety,” company director Tony Nolan said.

“It’s about building-in quality at all points of the supply chain to reduce costs: not putting faith in government to ‘inspect quality in’ at greater cost, at just a couple of points in the chain.”

“Quality and safety are our responsibilities under the system,” Mr Nolan said.

"Having our own personnel take ownership and responsibility for meat inspection enables us to have a QA culture that embraces ‘total accountability’ instead of the government’s ‘all authority and no accountability’ culture,” Mr Nolan said.

As a result, productivity has been greatly improved, by having meat inspectors multi-tasking and performing all or part of other tasks necessary to allow smooth and efficient production flow. It also allowed valuable feedback to be transferred back up the supply chain where problems were identified.

The company has now achieved market access to countries that had been considered, under Australian Government Market Access terms, to be ‘too sensitive’ for the new AEMIS system. These included Japan, Taiwan and Korea.

All costs were borne entirely by the company and it says it expects to achieve a five-fold return on its investment. So we have evidence of the potential for productivity gains, and while my colleagues have talked a lot about the meat industry, it continues (Time expired)

Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(Durack) (20:21): I rise this evening to support this motion because my concern in this whole issue is that the government has not honoured a commitment. I still believe in a sense of honour being displayed in this place. In 2009 the Senate disallowed moves by the Rudd Labor government to axe the AQIS export certification rebate, which was worth approximately $40 million annually, depending on the amount of produce exported. The coalition came to an agreement with the former minister for agriculture in exchange for an agreement to remove 40 per cent AQIS export service rebate with an eventual move to full cost recovery. Mr Burke offered industry $127.4 million package to fund efficiency reforms. Mr Burke claimed that his export certification reform package would make reform of the AQIS export certification program a main priority. In addition, he also committed to a study by an independent authority that would examine the legitimate cost to government of inspections. In a letter of agreement signed by Minister Burke he stated:

Successful implementation of these reforms will provide a reduction in annual regulatory costs to the export industries in the order of $30 million per year from 1 July 2011. It will also provide the opportunity for removal of substantial costs from the export supply chain for industry and AQIS.

Well, guess what. That has not happened. The government have reneged on a deal and we have to listen tonight to drivel from the government about how this is about other things and it is about who is mates with whom and whether or not the industry is currying favour now with the ALP instead of its traditional supporters in the coalition.

That is irrelevant. What is pertinent here is the fact that the government committed to a deal and government have not honoured that deal. And that is what I personally find absolutely offensive. And the industry has now in the latest move agreed to a compromise situation that will allow the meat aspect of the industry to move ahead, to clear out some of the cobwebs of the past, to clear some of the costs as they now move to self-trained, self-employed veterinary inspectors et cetera in the industry.

What about the other five industries that have been left out in the cold in this regard? What about the fishing industry? The dairy industry? The horticulturalists? The grain industry? The live export industry?

The live export industry knows where it stands with this government—slaughtered. We know that the horticultural industry is trying to make a positive move in solving the global food delivery situation. They are trying to expand export businesses. They are trying to grow products that are suitable for the export market. They are trying to analyse and develop those markets overseas and do they get assistance from this government in line with this commitment package? No, they do not. That is my concern. There seems to be a great deal of concern and lip service to the repartee in this debate but no-one is really concerned about who is hurting out there in industry; who is looking for a break so their effort is represented and supported by government by equal effort? It is a tough game developing new markets, especially in horticulture. My mob from the Ord, my mob from the Gascoyne in Carnarvon are trying to expand their horticultural markets because they are prepared to make a quid and put in the extra hard yards to develop Australian exports. They get no help whatsoever from this government because the government sees it all as populace moves and if they can win the votes by making a popular decision, that is what is important to them.

I can tell you from my growers, and it is horticulturalists I am speaking of specifically here, that there is no support coming from government and support is needed. When you are trying to compete in a global market a long way from home, you need all the support you can get. Some support from this government would be support, so I support this bill. It is a necessary wake-up call to government. Something ought to be done; the minister ought to do the honourable thing and step up to the plate. (Time expired)

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion is nothing but a stunt by the member for Calare. As he well knows, the minister has in fact arranged briefings for him on the status of the meat industry and has also advised him that the government is continuing to work on a sector-by-sector basis on the necessary reforms to the agricultural sector of this country. The member for Calare has been made aware of that and could take up the opportunity of the briefings that the minister has arranged for him.

In the year 2000 the coalition government introduced a cost recovery for export services and while it later introduced a 40 per cent rebate on export services costs, this was a temporary rebate that should have lapsed. The fact of the matter is that when the member for Wide Bay was in the cabinet the Howard government had intended the rebate would finish in June 2008. It had made no provision whatsoever for it in the forward estimates.

Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Makin willing to give way?

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am not. My time is being wasted in terms of my opportunity to speak on this matter. It is interesting that neither did the National Party's 2000 election platform make any financial provision for the continuation of that rebate. The Nationals had entrenched a cumbersome certification system and agreed to provide transitional funds to extend the rebate until 30 June 2011 whilst developing reforms to enable industry and AQIS to introduce efficiencies to become more internationally competitive. That is typical of the National Party in government. As far as Australia's biosecurity system was concerned they were all talk and no action. When the leader of the Nationals was at the cabinet table he agreed to sell off all of Australia's post entry quarantine facilities, stripping hundreds of millions of dollars out of a future budget.

I repeat it will cost the Australian taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars to reinstate Australia's post entry quarantine facilities sold by the leader of the Nationals with no regard for changes in land use, no plan for maintaining and apparently no regret for putting Australia's agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries, Australia's research community and Australia's medical practitioners without a guarantee of continued access to the best genetic resources in the world.

Since he became the spokesman, the member for Calare has not provided one suggestion for how Australia could improve its quarantine and biosecurity system. He has not secured one single dollar in the shadow cabinet to reform Australia's quarantine system in the way it needs to be. It is all right to come into this place and argue for changes, but I suggest that the first place he should argue for those changes and secure them is within his own party room. He has not done that. He simply came here quite clearly as a stunt to try and appease people in his own electorate. As usual, the Liberal Nationals left the hard work of reform to the Labor Party. Not only is the Labor Party delivering, we are doing a better job than those opposite could do.

In December 2009, the Labor government commenced the $127.8 million export certification reform package to develop a modern export certification system that maintains Australia's reputation as a producer of high-quality safe food products. The government established six task forces to develop and deliver reforms and efficiencies to the system. If the member for Calare wants to find out about this legitimate costs of government then he need only visit the departmental website where he will find a report which the department commissioned as agreed by the former minister—that is, Minister Burke. It is an independent review of AQIS fees and charges. If those opposite want an update on the progress of all of those activities of the task forces they need simply visit the department's website. It is all there for them to see.

Meanwhile the Gillard government is getting on with the business of implementing better government service delivery for Australia's food exporters. A fortnight ago, the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Australian Meat Industry Council announced the commencement of the Australian export meat inspection system together with up to $25.8 million in funding to support the transition to the new system. The Gillard government will continue to provide the most cost effective flexible export certification system that can be implemented whilst maintaining export market confidence. The Gillard government is getting on with the job of improving service delivery and jobs in regional Australia.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.