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

I rise to speak on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012. As time moves on, acts always need to be tidied up, amended, and basically that is what this bill is about. It is about efficiencies, and it is good to see that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has produced a bill that actually reflects, more or less, the wishes of the agriculture industry. It is a bill that the industry pushed for with the future in mind. The industry is working towards facilitating a conducive environment in which agriculture can prosper. In this case, the department has acquiesced, as indeed it should. In saying this, the coalition does support the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012.

This bill will make minor amendments to eight portfolio acts to improve the operation of existing legislation and make technical amendments. I am pleased that the proposed changes are aimed at reducing red tape, complexity and unnecessary regulation that for too long have clogged up the system, even though the modifications seem minor in nature. I would have to say, though, that under this government the agriculture sector and most sectors have become more restrictive environments due to red and, in particular, green tape.

But amendments to the Wine Australia Corporation Act 1980 are welcome. To ensure accurate record keeping and effective auditing, labels have to provide truthful claims relating to the product. However, industry groups have raised concerns regarding labelling laws, which have become onerous and confusing. The proposed amendments would reduce the onerous record-keeping requirements of people who supply or receive wine goods that are packaged for sale to a consumer.

The industry approached the department seeking these changes. The most important role of the department of agriculture is to facilitate an environment which allows farmers and the industry to get on with the job and provide an environment where agriculture can prosper. We are talking about practical measures that maintain the integrity of the wine industry and associated programs.

Further changes to the definition of 'vintage' have also been welcomed. A vintage year at present is from the period 1 July to 30 June the following year; however, harvest normally occurs from the late summer, finishing before 30 June. Some producers make wines from grapes harvested after 30 June but before 1 September. Common sense will now see more accurate labelling of these late-harvested products. A vintage year will now be considered to be the period of 1 September to 31 August.

Amendments to the Fisheries Management Act 1991 are also sensible, moderate reductions in regulations to simplify and improve the administration of the fisheries.

Changes to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 allow the departmental secretary to consider all requests made by levy payers for the remission of penalties. It is amazing to think that penalties might be late in being paid. This delegation of responsibility to the departmental secretary will improve the efficiency and, one would hope, the speed of the penalty provisions process while, importantly, still allowing unsatisfied levy payers to seek a review from the minister.

A number of technical amendments will also be made to a number of other pieces of legislation, which allow for the correcting of errors and other issues which reduce confusion and deliver more clearly the original intent of the acts being amended. These would often be delivered through a statute law revision bill and would probably have passed through the house without debate at a later stage. However, due to the timing of the above amendments, we agree that it makes sense to combine these technical amendments so that the bills could be amended earlier.

The coalition supports these amendments as well as the repealing of the States Grants (War Service Land Settlement) Act 1952, which is now redundant. This was a great act—a historic act, actually—which helped returned war veterans repatriated after the war. Although there are still a few of the original returned servicemen operating under this act, by agreement with the relevant states those states have taken over responsibility for any continuing lease arrangements.

For too long, I have to say, there have been an increasing number of Green and environmental activist agendas under this government. Despite that, when the department sets its mind to it, it can actually deal with the industry and come up with changes which are in everybody's interest: they are more efficient and they get things happening. Certainly, I believe, this bill is one of those very few put forward by this government that actually see the department consulting and listening to industry and putting words into action. There have been massive increases in red tape and business costs under this government, and there are about to be a heck of a lot more from 1 July. But I have to say that these sorts of efficiency changes do not cost much and they are needed. They have to be done when you consider that the Prime Minister had the gall to say just a few days ago how our agriculture can respond to the needs of Asia, when at the same time they put a blight on the cattle industry and are going to severely limit the ability of the irrigation industry to provide for that same sector of our customers and bring a carbon tax on. I truly believe that, if you take away with one hand, you cannot give it back just by standing up in the public arena and saying how agriculture will deliver. The Prime Minister is probably right: agriculture most certainly will deliver, but it will be despite her government, not because of it. I find it pretty galling that, with the actions they have taken regarding the agriculture sector, she can stand up and skite about what they will do for Asia. They will do that despite her government, not because of.

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

The Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012 will make minor amendments to a range of portfolio legislation. The bill will amend eight portfolio acts to improve the operation of the existing legislation and make technical amendments. We need to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of regulation, reduce red tape and create clearer Commonwealth laws. It is always important to have easily read legislation. These proposed amendments will reduce complexity and unnecessary regulation, provide consistency, amend outdated and unclear provisions, and reduce the likelihood of reader confusion. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be well inclined to support that. The bill will also repeal one redundant act in its entirety—the old soldier settlers act. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry consulted relevant Australian government departments and agencies on the proposed fisheries amendments. The department also consulted relevant industry stakeholders on the proposed amendments to the wine legislation. So the proposed amendments involve minor policy changes to four portfolio acts. These are the Wine Australia Corporation Act 1980, the Fisheries Management Act 1991, the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 and the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991. The first amendment relates to the Label Integrity Program. The program aims to ensure the truthfulness of label claims on vintage, variety or geographical indication of wine manufactured in Australia. It relies on accurate record-keeping so that wine goods and their labels may be audited effectively and efficiently—and wouldn't that be the right thing to do and also a great thing for those who are running vineyards and making a living from their vineyards? So it is making sure that we have integrity in what we put on the label and that people know what they are buying. So from the vineyard to the bottle and to the glass you can tell someone—and they can learn and understand—exactly what grape variety it was, what year it was made, when it was laid down and went into the bottle and what was put on those vines. We get into a situation now where agriculture has to be able to show what went into producing the product, the food, the beverage. We need to be able to show the consumer that, and this will be an advantage for Australian agriculture into the future because we will be able to do that.

I understand that in the electorate of Braddon of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, there is actually a camera that shows broccoli growing and that that image is shown in a restaurant in Japan so people can see what they are eating: broccoli, growing in Tasmania. This gives integrity and can show people that. People want it and consumers into the future around the world will want to know what they are eating and drinking and where that comes from and what has been added to make that happen—and Australian agriculture can make these things happen for itself into the future. So this sort of thinking can really keep things going.

The program was amended in 2010 to extend record-keeping requirements to all participants in the wine supply chain. Before these amendments, the program focused on 'wine manufacturers' and did not provide for an adequate audit trail throughout the supply chain. However, since these amendments have been implemented, retailers and wholesalers have raised some concerns that the record-keeping requirements are too onerous. The proposed changes respond to those concerns and have been agreed to by retailers and wholesalers and the wine industry representative bodies. The proposed amendments would reduce the record-keeping requirements of people who supply or receive wine goods that are packaged for sale to a consumer. Suppliers and retailers who do not change labels or effect any label changes about wine goods would be required to provide the Wine Australia Corporation auditors with details of the manufacturer or supplier of the wine goods, rather than with full details of the supplier, recipient, goods receiver, vintage and geographic indication. Of course, they are all significant things for wine and for the wine industry, because there are people who spend their whole lives getting to know where the best wine grape grows and of course we have all had those arguments around the dinner table, Mr Deputy Speaker. This maintains the integrity of the program while meeting the practical requirements of suppliers and retailers.

The second amendment to the Wine Australia Corporation Act 1980 relates to the definition of 'vintage'. A producer does not have to describe the vintage year on a label but if a producer chooses to describe the vintage they must follow the rules relating to 'vintage' claims—and of course that gives integrity to that label. The 'vintage' indicates the year in which the grapes used to make a wine were grown. For example, when specifying 'vintage' on a label, a vintage year is considered to be the period from 1 July to 30 June the following year and appears on the label as the second of those two calendar years. Harvest normally occurs from the late summer, finishing before 30 June. Sometimes producers make wine from grapes harvested after 30 June but before 1 September. For example, producers of sweet dessert wine styles leave grapes on the vine for extended periods to increase the sugar levels and develop dessert wine characteristics.

To provide for more accurate labelling of those late harvested products, this amendment will change the definition of 'vintage' so that a vintage year is considered to be the period from 1 September to 31 August. For example, a wine made from grapes harvested from 1 September 2012 to 31 August 2013 could be labelled as a 2013 wine. The proposed changes respond to concerns raised by producers and are supported by wine industry representative bodies.

Schedule 3 of the bill will amend the Fisheries Management Act 1991 to explain requirements for directions to close a fishery, or a particular part of a fishery, to fishing. Amendments will be made to section 41A to correct some grammatical errors and delete redundant text. These amendments will better reflect the intention of the provision. Amendments will also be made for consistency and to simplify the administration of section 41A. It is an express condition of most types of fishing concessions, permits and licences granted under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 that the holder comply with a direction given under subsection 41A(2) to close a fishery, or part of a fishery. The amendments will remove the need for a separate decision or regulatory process to make the condition apply to statutory fishing rights. They will also ensure consistency among provisions that make compliance with directions a condition of other types of fishing concessions. These amendments do not change the meaning of section 41A, or of other provisions on conditions on concessions, but they will explain the meaning of such a provision to ensure consistency, reduce the likelihood of reader confusion and simplify the administration of the act.

Schedule 5 of the bill will amend the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 to allow the departmental secretary to consider all requests made by levy payers for the remission of penalties. The amendments will not make any changes to the substance of the law. Levy payers who are not satisfied with a decision made by the department will still have an opportunity to approach the minister to review a decision made by the department. At present, only the portfolio minister can remit amounts of penalty exceeding $5,000.

Schedule 7 of the bill will amend the Farm Household Support Act 1992 to remove specific references to departments and secretaries in the act so that, when changes are made to the administrative arrangements orders, the act will not require amendment.

Schedule 8 of the bill repeals a redundant act—the States Grants (War Service Land Settlement) Act 1952. The Australian government negotiated the sale and transfer of the War Service Land Settlement Scheme to each of the respective states. Western Australia was the last jurisdiction to operate the scheme. The Commonwealth and Western Australia executed a cessation deed on 3 May 2011. The legislation is now redundant and may be repealed. This legislation worked for a lot of returned soldiers, helped them get on the land. Some would say some of them did okay, because they got the right piece of land; others got the wrong piece of land, worked hard and probably never achieved very much. The neighbour bought them out and probably made a property that became successful.

A cousin of mine, Pucka Saltmarsh, farmed on King Island and his son, my cousin Kim Saltmarsh farmed there for many years along that old soldier settlers block. It is well known in Tasmania that people settled land and were able to go into farming under this old act and gave our returned servicemen an opportunity to do what they wanted to do.

This is really a tidy up act that will have no financial impact on government finances. The amendments make minor policy and technical changes that will improve administration of portfolio legislation, tidy up a lot of words that were hard to understand, give us a clearer picture of how the act works and how the legislation flows. It will help the improved administration of portfolio legislation and do that quite well. That is a very good thing to achieve. These are good acts tidying up good legislation. Congratulations to the minister and the parliamentary secretary for getting good work done. I support the bill.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak in relation to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012. I also note the contributions by the member for Lyons, the parliamentary secretary and also the shadow minister, who explained the nature of this bill, which is primarily one of an administrative manner. I also acknowledge the positive comments in relation to the way the department is working with the relevant industry sectors towards what I believe should be our common goal: to provide for sustainable and productive industries in these various sectors.

The bill also provides an opportunity for me to raise a few concerns that have been brought to my attention, primarily within the commercial fishing sector, and also to put forward some of the constructive suggestions that have come through from the industry in my region.

For those members who are not aware, Lakes Entrance is home to one of the largest commercial fishing fleets in Australia. It is a critically important industry for the East Gippsland region but also for the broader Victorian and Australian economies. There are many threats to the future viability of the commercial fishing industry. I have spoken in the past about the impact of things like the AFMA licence fee increases on the commercial sector but also the influx of inferior imported sea food products. There are other issues like threats to habitat through accidental events or inappropriate development, or the impact of invasive and introduced species.

There is also the ever increasing issue of green tape and red tape, particularly as it relates to the question of access to the resources and this obsession we have seen from the extreme environmental groups to shut down commercial fishing activities, regardless of the science or the proven sustainability of the catch. I welcome the intent within this bill to try and reduce the amount of red and green tape.

I hasten to say we have a fight on our hands. When I say 'we', I am talking about those of us who care about the commercial fishing industry, who believe in the future of the industry or who want to consume fish caught from clean Australian waters which have been sustainably managed. We have an enormous fight on our hands in that regard. We have to fight this overblown rhetoric that we are seeing and the hype we are seeing from the green movement. We have to make sure that the department and other statutory bodies let the science decide. We have to make sure that the decisions that we make are in the best interests of the entire community, the industry and the resource that we are trying to manage.

I have a very good relationship with my local fishing sector, with the men and women on the boats and the people who manage the local cooperative or represent the industry to governments. It is a relationship that I value very highly for the matter-of-fact and commonsense advice that these people are able to provide about the conditions on the ground and the way regulations or legislation imposed by governments affect the people in the industry.

If you believe the Greens, you would believe that these men are out there raping and pillaging the environment and the ocean on a daily basis. It is simply not the fact. I acknowledge that some of the past practices have contributed to some resource shortages and some environmental concerns, but the industry has changed enormously in recent times and recent decades. I commend this government and previous governments for being willing to work with the industry on things like setting catch limits to make sure that we manage our fishery in a sustainable manner and to ensure that future generations can not only continue to work in one of the oldest professions in the world but also continue to enjoy—do not smile, Parliamentary Secretary; I know where this is heading—the opportunity to participate in the bountiful harvest of the fishing sector.

As I indicated, we do have a fight on our hands. We need to ensure that the future is viable for these people and that this green tape and red tape that I have referred to does not overwhelm the commercial fishing sector. Today I make it very clear where I stand in this debate. I have said many times in this place that it is time for everyone who cares about the freedoms we have enjoyed in the past to take fish in a responsible and environmentally sustainable manner.

We need to make sure we stand together to push back against these extreme environmentalists and their philosophies. Lock it up and leave it is not an environmental policy. It has been a proven disaster on land and it will not work in the marine environment. We continually have to fight this ideology and embrace the opportunity for active management and use of natural resources in a sustainable manner. The claims we constantly see about collapsing fish stocks are unproven and untrue. I have referred previously to the work of Dr Ray Hilborn and his report entitled Australian seafood consumers misled by prophets of doom and gloom. The reason I raise those issues in the context of today's debate is to highlight the need for the science to decide and for common sense to rule when the department and the various agencies deal with the fishing sector. That is why I am supporting the proposed amendments to the bill today.

The bill also talks about labelling in the wine industry, but I do not think it is too big a stretch to refer to the seafood industry in that regard. In his comments the parliamentary secretary said that the bill would 'amend requirements of the labelling integrity program under the wine legislation'. The parliamentary secretary further said: 'The program aims to ensure the truthfulness of label claims on vintage, variety or geographical indication of wine. It relies on accurate record-keeping so that wines and label claims can be audited effectively.

That proposed change to the bill has been supported by both sides, but in the context of the concerns I am raising in relation to the fishing industry I would like to highlight labelling within the fishing industry. There is no description that comes to mind other than that it is a complete mess. It is confusing for the consumer and extremely frustrating for the industry itself. I have spoken in the House before about cooked seafood. I believe there should be a nationwide requirement that consumers be fully informed about the seafood they are eating.

I know that I have just talked about the need to reduce red tape and that I am about to suggest another regulation but, in the presence of the parliamentary secretary, I would like to comment a bit on that. In the Northern Territory, we have seen a trial introduction of regulations which has worked very well. It has actually added value to the Australian product. The restaurant and catering industry, I believe, can demand a premium for fresh Australian seafood. When consumers are fully informed about the origin of their seafood, they are more likely to make that choice to pay a bit extra for a product they can trust. I think the discerning customer, who cares about quality, who cares about the conditions in which the seafood has been harvested and who cares about the sustainability of the resource itself, should be able to make an informed decision. That is simply not possible today in Australia, apart from the Northern Territory, where the origin of the seafood you are about to consume is declared on the menus in restaurants and other establishments.

In relation to the retail sector and the labelling of seafood products, again I think we have an enormous problem. I am referring specifically to the two giants, Coles and Woolworths. They are locked in a battle for market share at the moment, and they are using every means at their disposal to try to attract customers. They like to trumpet their environmental credentials, and we saw Coles waffling on about hormone-free beef, I think, or something ridiculous like that. We have seen seafood species removed from sale under pressure from the Greens. But, at the same time, the supermarket giants are selling seafood under extremely dubious titles such as 'South American flathead', which I understand is a fish caught in Argentina that is not even of the flathead genus.

If we then go to the pre-packaged section, we see fish variously described as 'flathead fillets in beer batter' and 'flake fillets in beer batter'. They are obviously designed to instil confidence in the Australian market because the consumer has an understanding of what those products are, but what is actually in the box is by any definition not flathead and it is not flake. But that is on the box and it is a deliberate ploy to build confidence in the consumer by using names with which the Australian consumer has some level of familiarity and some level of confidence. It is a big issue facing the Australian fishing industry because our industry is subject to very strict conditions and regulations and is managed in an environmentally sustainable matter—and I am not confident we can say the same about these imported products.

I appreciate the opportunity to raise these concerns. I must stress that the fishermen who talked to me, and the professional staff, their elected office bearers and their various representative organisations, are not afraid of the competition. They have enormous confidence in their own local product, which they believe is drawn from better environmental conditions and standards. They have better-tasting fish and a product which is produced from a better managed fishery, but the problem is they are fighting with one arm behind their back. They are up against these imported products, which are being misrepresented in the marketplace and sold to the consumers, I think, in an almost nefarious manner. It is something that we need to work on in this place and I encourage the department to continue working with the industry in that regard to have a fairer playing field for the commercial fishing sector.

In the time I have left, I want to raise one other issue, relating to the commercial fishing sector, its relationship with the department and the manner in which we manage the resource in Victoria. I refer to an area of fisheries management which I have brought to the attention of the House in the past—and there have been some developments since then—relating to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, AFMA, and its dealings with the Victorian Department of Primary Industries. It relates to the strict 50-kilogram snapper bycatch limit per trip on each Commonwealth licensed trawler. For those not familiar with the issue, as I understand it, the snapper is subject to Victorian licensing arrangements, but sometimes it is caught by Commonwealth licensed vessels as an unavoidable bycatch. There has been targeting of snapper by at least one operator in Victoria. I have no sympathy at all for the licence holder concerned and I can understand why the Victorian department would like to crack down on that particular operator. But, when snapper is caught as a bycatch of normal fishing operations in Bass Strait and the quantity sometimes exceeds 50 kilograms, what is the fisherman to do with that snapper? Snapper is a highly desired fish. It is highly sought after, I know, by recreational and commercial fishermen. When the 50-kilogram limit was in place, basically it meant that if you caught more than 50 kilograms you could not land it; you had to throw it away. That is not a situation we want to see in the Australian fishing industry.

The industry and the department have worked with the commercial sector and we were hoping that we could achieve a result and a revised set of rules that would overcome this issue. What we came up with under this revised set of rules is a 200-kilogram per trip catch limit on these Commonwealth licensed vessels. If you were generous you would say it is an improvement because it has gone from 50 to 200 kilograms, so obviously there is some level of improvement. But the simple fact is that, in day-to-day operations in Bass Strait, if a fisherman puts a shot out and happens to pull in 250 kilograms or 500 kilograms of snapper, we still have the same problem: he cannot land those fish in Victoria. So what is the fisherman going to do? He cannot go to Lakes Entrance because he is not allowed to land in Victoria. He does not want to throw the fish away because that is just against his moral code and professional ethics, I would say, so he will go to Eden and land the fish at Eden, where he is allowed to.

There is an inconsistency there where, if you catch the fish in Bass Strait, technically you are in strife already because you are over the 200 kilograms, unless you discard it straightaway. No fisherman is going to discard that valuable fish straightaway; they are going to motor around the corner to Eden, land the fish there and get the return on that trip. It is an inconsistency; it is a problem. It will undermine the viability of the Lakes Entrance fishing co-op if this continues. As I understand it, it is not often that you will hit a batch of snapper in excess of 200 kilograms, but if you do get onto some, you do not want to just throw them over the side. The Australian public would be horrified if they thought that we had fishermen in Bass Strait throwing good fish away just to meet a regulation. We could end up with a situation where a fisherman who may catch more than 200 kilograms will turn up at the entrance to Lakes Entrance on the incoming tide and throw the fish overboard to make a point—and that would be a horrible point to make. He will land his 200 kilograms, he will throw the other couple of hundred kilograms on the incoming tide, they will flood through the lake system and people will say, 'What's going on?'

I think we need to come up with some solutions here, and it is not going to be easy. We need to make sure the fish are not being targeted—I understand that—but we also need to make sure that we understand the practical reality in that, when you are fishing in Bass Strait, occasionally you are going to exceed that 200-kilogram limit. The industry sources are saying to me that they can come up with a solution. They say the way to approach it would be that you have an exclusion zone in the area around Port Phillip Bay where the snapper were being targeted illegally in the past. They say have an exclusion zone there—that is a way to manage the targeting of the species—but also put a requirement in place for the fishermen that you move on from a place if you catch 200 kilos. If you happen to catch 500, that is fine, but you do not continue to target that particular spot. I think, with some goodwill and some practical management between AFMA, the department and the fisheries sector, we can overcome this issue.

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak today in relation to these issues. I congratulate the parliamentary secretary in relation to the amendments which are before the House. I look forward to continuing positive dialogue between the department, the various agencies and the people on the ground. I think that we need to continue to respect the people on the ground—or in this case at sea—who have a very practical understanding of these issues and are interested in working in a very positive way to secure the long-term viability of their industry. I thank the House.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too wish to speak on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012. The coalition is happy to see that this government is finally addressing some of the complexities and unnecessary red tape and regulation that make agriculture, fisheries and forestry in Australia even more difficult than they need to be. Many of the complexities have only been put into place in the last few years. This government needs to address them, but some of the complexities go back many years indeed.

It is not just the complexity and the pure quantum of regulation that need to be changed; there is also the issue of the costs that are often part of fees or different charges that are made. I use for example the recent removal of the 40 per cent rebate on AQIS inspections that we put in place when we were in government. We now have some exporters with increases in costs to export with these inspections of over 1,000 per cent. When you add the costs of the carbon tax to those AQIS inspection costs, you can see that we are really heading down the non-competitive-market slippery slope. That is just too hard when you think of the enormous global food task growing, especially in our region just to the north of us.

So the coalition are happy that we are seeing a bill containing minor amendments to at least eight portfolio acts, but we need to go much further. I will begin by talking about one of these areas, the vintage labelling. Of course, this is of great concern and interest in my electorate, where we have a number of wine producers. A vintage year at present is from 1 July to 30 June the following year, but some producers make wines from grapes harvested after 30 June. In fact, they develop their characteristic the longer they are sitting on the vines, so producers wish to produce some wine with harvests after 30 June. Common sense is now going to allow a vintage year to be considered to be the period from 1 September to 31 August. This is sensible, and I know the wine industry will welcome this.

We also have other areas of labelling which are equally difficult for different agricultural sectors. I refer to the pork meat sector. If only we could remove what is currently allowed, which is that, when a piece of pig meat comes in from another country—say from Denmark—and it is cured in Australia, that product is then allowed to be labelled as 'product of Australia'. That is just not appropriate. It is confusing and deeply distressing for those who wish to buy an Australian product to find that they have been hoodwinked by the label simply because the product was cured in Australia. It had no origin at all in Australia's lean, clean farm practice. The pig meat was produced in another country in another hemisphere.

There are a whole range of labelling issues. We know a lot about them because they are constantly before the public. Our labelling laws need a major pull-through, a major re-examination. It is adding to the supermarkets' capacity to increase their home brand, because the labelling laws allow them to get away—whether it is canned or plastic-packaged product—with not making it absolutely clear that there is very little Australian product in their generic or home brand. I want to also refer to the part of this bill which refers to the repealing of States Grants (War Service Land Settlement) Act 1952. A great deal of the farm development in the middle of last century in the electorate of Murray came as a result of soldier settlement—the Second World War soldier settlement activity. There was not so much First World War soldier settlement, which was more developed in the Mallee or west of Northern Victoria. Soldier settlers in particular pioneered the closer settled dairy industry in my area. They often had enormous burdens to carry with their injuries and life-changing experiences of the Second World War, including as prisoners of war, yet they literally soldiered on as farmers—some without much experience before, others already the sons of local farming families. These soldier settlers were given very generous treatment by the governments of the day, including very low-interest loans, including housing and shedding that was built for them, roadways, and the farms themselves were subdivided in order to be viable with the irrigated agriculture that was accessible and developed at that time.

Of course, 1952 is a long time ago. We understand that we do not have a soldier settler need in the way we did in those days, but it is a very important illustration of how low-interest loans can and should be applied to certain developing industries like agriculture. We have still in Australia some attempts to offer special concessional low-interest loans for young farmers or into agribusiness—I refer particularly to the recent flood related loans that in Victoria Rural Finance has been offering, which were in turn largely funded by the federal government.

It is almost impossible for a farmer to access those Rural Finance loans. The interest rates are not much better in some cases than commercial loans, but some of these flood related concessional loans are at two or three per cent interest, so that would be of enormous value to farms wiped out by flood: where all their fencing has gone, where they have lost a lot of their livestock, where gravel tracks have to be replaced, where their fodder has been washed away. They have also in my area come out of seven years of drought preceding the floods, so the equity on their properties was substantially eroded during those drought years. You can imagine their distress when they go to try and access these concessional loans made possible through the federal government's funding and they are told: 'Sorry, the equity in your property has dropped in recent years. It has dropped to quite low levels. Sure, you have a long history before the drought of very viable farming. We can see you are expert. We can see that you are only in your midlife as a career farmer—you are in your forties or early fifties; that is young for a farmer.' But they are rejected.

In the floods that occurred 18 months ago in the west of my electorate, only a handful of these concessional loans were approved through Rural Finance when two and three times that number actually applied. With this more recent flood that has occurred, I am told that virtually no-one has been approved for these concessional loans.

We did it right in the soldier settler days: we had potential farmers, often not experienced farmers, who had been broken by war. We were prepared to take them on and give them low concessional interest loans. We built their infrastructure for them, and they were magnificent in building the dairy industry of Northern Victoria—the biggest exporter of product out of the ports is still out of Geelong, major employers through the dairy manufacturing sector. We did it then and we have to remember the lessons of the past and not make it unrealistic and too hard for these often, through no fault of their own, battling farm sectors, who have seasonal conditions they cannot always predict wiping them out.

I want to acknowledge the extraordinary contribution that the soldier settlers made throughout Australia, but particularly in northern Victoria, and it is rather historic repealing this particular act as we are going to do in this bill. It is important to note the contribution that these people made and the foresight of that legislation at the time and the generosity of its conditions which allowed this industry to become a major Australian economic contributor and jobs provider.

In this bill we have reference to cutting red tape to try to make it easier for agribusiness to survive. That then makes it a little bit ironic that in the budget announced this week, some 48 or so hours ago, this same agriculture sector that is being targeted through these eight portfolio acts has seen the hypocrisy of $941 million of infrastructure funding for improved water use efficiency in the Murray-Darling Basin being deferred and $40 million for water buy-backs off drought-debt-stressed farmers being brought forward to be spent before the end of this financial year. Those same descendants of soldier-settlers in my area who have continued to dairy—often they are now up to their second or third generation in those families—are often now pressured by the banks to sell their water. But when you do that your capacity to recover from drought and then flood is substantially reduced. Yet this government has brought forward another $40 million to pay for a water buy-back tranche, one that it announced on the day that the actual submissions as to the Murray-Darling Basin proposal closed. I find that very concerning and it is deeply distressing to the agribusiness sector in my electorate that is trying very hard to recover from extraordinary seasonal circumstances. They would recover if only the foot were to be taken off their throats in terms of financial pressures and the demand that they sell their water to the environmental water holder, who has not as yet convinced me and many others that that extra water will indeed do the job that we want it to do in improving the Murray-Darling Basin's environmental sustainability.

We also have $34.4 million in reduced department and agency funding for direct agricultural support. We have circumstances throughout Australia needing funding—for example, tasks associated with weeds and feral animal control and agricultural research and development. All of those very important tasks are now being defunded or having funding deferred. This is a serious problem when we know that, in addition to mining where we have a competitive advantage throughout the world—or we should have and certainly we do before 1 July, when the carbon tax comes in—we have a competitive advantage with agriculture and food and fibre production, yet we are killing that competitive advantage by not understanding that government needs to be a partner in this business and certainly put some hope and faith back into the agribusiness sector.

At the moment we are seeing young farmers walk away, saying it is all too hard. We are seeing the agricultural education sector with the numbers of its new graduates or even those entering courses in agricultural science or natural resource management at their lowest ebb ever, with courses closing right around the country. This piece of legislation is an important step forward but we need to not step forward quietly. We need to run ahead. We need to address seriously the problems that are at the moment facing agribusiness so it can take advantage of the opportunities that are there for us. The government should really stop trying to kill off the goose that laid the golden egg for us not just in centuries past when we depended on living off the sheep's back but now, when we can do much better with our food production. I commend this bill but I want to see it go much further, and when we are in government we will make substantial new changes.

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

The question is that the bill be now read a second time. I call the parliamentary secretary.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker Windsor, and congratulations on your appointment to the chair. I cannot think of anyone better to be in the chair whilst we discuss and summarise the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012. I would like to thank my colleagues in the House—the members for Calare, Lyons, Gippsland and Murray, all good regional and rural representatives—for supporting this legislation and being so positive about it. I do note the comments by the member for Gippsland in relation to fishing and labelling and I also note the comments on rural concessional loans by the member for Murray. This amendment bill tackles the issue of reducing red tape and improving legislative clarity. It is an example of the government working with industry, as all members who have spoken have testified to, for more practical and effective regulation. It responds to industry requests for reform of regulation and it streamlines administrative practices. For example—you would probably be interested, Mr Deputy Speaker—it amends the Label Integrity Program to address concerns raised by retailers and wholesalers that record-keeping requirements are problematic. In response, it amends the definition of 'vintage' to address concerns raised by some wine producers who harvest their grapes later than the normal harvest period.

Amendments to the fisheries legislation will simplify administration for business. They will also ensure that, when it is necessary for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to issue directions to close a fishery, for example, the requirements are clear to fishers.

Amendments to levies legislation will result in improved response times for our industry levy payers when they submit requests for the remission of late levy penalties.

The portfolio continues to identify redundant legislation for removal from the statute books. The repeal of the States Grants (War Service Land Settlement) Act 1952 is a further example of the portfolio's efforts towards deregulation—and I note, in particular, the member for Murray's comments about the war service land settlements and the significant contribution that they have made to the development of agriculture and the Australian economy.

Importantly, the bill provides a cost-effective opportunity to clean up, so to speak, portfolio legislation. The various technical amendments will improve readability, update references and remove redundant text, resulting in clear legislation. After all, isn't this the very aim of good legislation? I thank all those responsible for giving effect to this amendment bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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