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

This is a motion about a crisis in an industry which should be leading the next manufacturing revolution. We are aware that, just as the mining booms in the 1800s faded into history, so too inevitably will the dependency on minerals extraction in the 21st century. The food-processing industry is, however, a job-creating, wealth-generating enterprise that should be sustainable in perpetuity. This motion is highlighting the struggles of fruit growers in the Goulburn and Murray valleys as they and their manufacturers, SPC Ardmona, face unfair and destructive competition from imported fruit snapped up at bargain prices by the supermarkets which have the stranglehold on Australian food retailing. This unfair competition is compounded by domestic policy failures.

Coles and Woolworths should have the finest Australian processed fruit and vegetables on their shelves. They should be proud of their offerings, and they should be trumpeting the source of their ingredients on labels which stand out large and proud on every shelf and in every freezer. Instead they boast that they aim to have some 80 per cent of their offerings in home brands on their shelves as soon as they can. The dirt-cheap imports from China, South Africa and Italy—with some products directed through New Zealand—give them contents at sometimes half the price of Australian fruits and vegetables, while our shonky labelling laws hoodwink and bamboozle the shopper, who has to guess at proportions of local product in the can or bottle when the label reads, 'Made from local and important ingredients.'

Home brands full of imported product—some dumped and all of it inadequately screened for food safety—mean even greater profits for the big two supermarkets. Coles reported a 16.3 per cent increase in pre-tax profit since 2007-08 amounting to $1.356 billion in 2011-12. Woolworths in the same period reported an increase in profits of over $2.18 billion, up 3.6 per cent in sales, with a forecast profit even higher for 2012-13. Their sales rose by 4.8 per cent. Meanwhile, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports:

It was a mixed year for fruit production in 2011-12. Nationally … The number of bearing trees for citrus fruit fell by 9% to 6.8 million for oranges, and 20% to 1.5 million for mandarins. This decline was due to growers reducing their tree numbers or exiting the industry as a result of low domestic prices and an influx of imported fruit.

It goes on:

Nationally, production was down for a number of key vegetable crops as a result of depressed prices and/or poor seasonal conditions.

I think Coles and Woolworths need to hang their heads in shame.

The value of horticulture in the Goulburn and Murray valleys has been calculated to be some $2 billion annually at the farm gate, where the value-adding and employment multiplier effects begin. The fruit-processing industry in northern Victoria alone employs some thousands of workers, who range from growers to pickers, pruners, packers and those involved in transportation and storage of fruit, its packaging manufacturing, its cool storing, and pest management and control. Then there are the 870 full-time equivalent who work directly in the three SPC Ardmona factories at Shepparton, Mooroopna and Kyabram. Together, this huge workforce has processed on average over 150,000 tonnes of fruit and vegetables annually for this old company, SPCA, an Australian company which is now owned by Coca-Cola Amatil. It is not hard to understand that the regional city of Shepparton, the larger towns of Kyabram and Cobram, and dozens of other smaller surrounding neighbourhoods depend on the wealth generated by the world-class fruit growing that was established nearly 100 years ago in northern Victoria.

Fruit growing is a long-term business. Unlike croppers, orchardists make investments that take years to deliver return. They cannot pass higher costs on to the manufacturers or consumers. Orchardists growing processed variety fruits cannot switch their crop onto the fresh fruit markets without driving those prices below the cost of production, and that is something we saw last year. Orchardists have no choice but to meet the extremes of each season head-on, whether it is drought, hail, floods, high winds or tornadoes. Crop insurance is often prohibitive. They control pests and diseases with world's best practice regimes, which makes our fruit some of the healthiest, safest and finest eating in the world. But this pest control, whether it is biodynamic, organic or through some other means, does not come cheap.

In normal circumstances our orchards must and do react continuously to incremental changes in their circumstances and they manage their risk accordingly. However, the changes that processing fruit growers are currently experiencing—due to the high dollar; the flood of dirt-cheap imports, many of them dumped and snapped up by the duopoly of Coles and Woolworths, who have been joined by Aldi; and the exorbitantly rising costs of production that they cannot pass on—all amount to precipitous, sudden and unpredicted catastrophe, none of it of the orchards' own making and none of it the fault of the huge workforce which then takes that fruit, adds value to it and gives Australia some of the finest eating product in the world.

SPC Ardmona, now owned by Coca-Cola Amatil, once exported 30 per cent of their produce. Next year they expect to export none at all. They have just told their growers in the Goulburn and Murray valleys that they will take no fruit at all from half of their growers next year, or only half of the processed varieties they were contracted to collect. That is some 25,000 tonnes less of pears and peaches. That is an extraordinary volume, and it has been calculated that if you took that volume of fruit and spread it across the MCG, the Melbourne Cricket Ground, it would go to several metres in depth.

There is an enormous job loss already in these orchards as they receive this shocking news of the contracts being cancelled for next year. Already the permanent workforce has been reduced by some 46 per cent according to the data that has been collected from growers in a very recent survey. The annual ongoing total job loss, including casual and seasonal work, in the peach and pear orchards is estimated to be more than 1,500 workers. If this were a car industry, we would be killed in the rush of politicians wanting to have their photos taken beside men in hard hats with declarations of millions of dollars of support. There would be breast-beating about how shocking it is that Ford, Holden or maybe some other brand of Australian-made car needs support, how wonderful that vehicle is, and how Australia needs that motor vehicle industry because of its value adding, its employment and its icon status. Here we have a superb industry with magnificent product on its knees due to circumstances beyond its control.

SPC Ardmona executives are aiming to present an antidumping action request to the federal government. They want to challenge the legality of the fruit that is coming from South Africa and China and also the tomatoes from Italy. They want an antidumping action which will make it fair and put duties on those imported products to even up the playing field so that Aldi, Coles and Woolworths think twice before they bring in the vast tonnages of imported product, often now at half the price. We are also begging for a safeguard action. This is another lawful WTO measure which is used by many other nations and gives a response to a sudden, immediate, unprecipitated disaster which knocks out a local industry. If ever you want to see a disaster that was rapid in its onset and catastrophic, you need look no further than the disaster that has befallen the processed fruit industry of Australia.

We are now facing down a situation where there are thousands of people to be unemployed. Already, pruners who should be hard at work in the Golden and Murray Valleys are being turned away. Instead, people are turning on the bulldozers. If we do not have, in the very immediate short term, some $3,500 per hectare to bud over or remove the trees that no longer have any market for the fruit once taken to the factories, then the biosecurity disaster in terms of diseases in these unsprayed trees will be a catastrophe. None of us should take this lightly.

We have a four-month window of opportunity to shut down the blossom production of these trees or to bud them over to new varieties. If we cannot sell the fruit and there is no support, these trees must be bulldozed. We need the funds for that emergency right now. I beg the state government to work with the federal government to deliver that support.

We also need a comprehensive package just like the motor industry has been delivered which will give our growers an alternative way to make their living growing different varieties. These factories processing fruit need technology support so they too can better compete into the future. I commend this motion to the House. It is a crisis situation not of the people's doing.

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

I thank the honourable member for Murray. I know she is passionate about this subject and it is very close to her heart. It gives me an opportunity to speak about horticulture and also the vegetable industry. An industry in horticulture, which is growing and expanding in my area of the world, is cherries, raspberries and strawberries that are being grown in conjunction with growers in Queensland so that the seasons can be covered the year round.

Both the small fruits and the vegetables are iconic foods in Tasmania. We have always had a very big vegetable industry, and that is expanding somewhat with our new irrigation schemes and growing out. But of course, having a business model, having ways of marketing and making sure we can continue to expand, are some of the challenges. We must hang on to all these opportunities and find ways that we can feed them into the markets.

There are problems and there are barriers. Perhaps the most pressing of these are the proper labelling of product, and I notice in Tasmania that some legislation is being proposed to put simpler food explanation labels on products. That gives a larger and simpler explanation of the nutrition content and it would only take another small box to say it was grown and processed in Tasmania, in Australia, or half the label could say that these are peas from Tasmania. Somehow that seems to be a rather difficult thing to achieve.

At the moment, labels on tins tend to not state where the products were sourced, only what processing has taken place in Australia. I have often checked tins of fruit and vegetables that proudly boast of being an Australian product and then read the small print to find that it is a blend or that it is grown overseas and canned in Australia. There is always the reserve of using an Australian product but we reserve the right to source anywhere in the world. Of course that comes down to the business models that the retail sector of Australia uses, and the retail sector's business model is to put a product on their shelves sourced from anywhere in the world. If the price is right, they will shelve it.

Australian products with a simple, local label that says that this is an Australian product seem to be opposed at any cost. They seem to want to oppose that, and we see through their organisations they seem to do that all the time. As I said, it does not seem to be possible for Tasmanian peas to be labelled 'Tasmanian peas: product of Australia'. Saying, 'This is a Tasmanian product,' does not seem to take up half the packet of peas. We have a reputation for growing really good product. We have been growing peas in Tasmania for a long, long time. So you get to be very cynical about what some people's business models are and how they impose those on the consumers and the producers. I see that they are now opposing health labelling reforms as well, because it does not fit into their business models. There will be all sorts of reasons found, but none of them will be for a healthier nation, and that is a very sad process.

While I agree with a number of aspects of this motion, I certainly do not think that we should get into these arguments that manufacturing should not be supported and that we can only do something about agriculture if we stop supporting manufacturing. We can have manufacturing and agriculture, and we need both of them in our nation. So I do not think that we should set up these false arguments and run those things; I do not think it serves our nation very well. We do need a good, thriving agriculture sector and horticulture sector. So there are a number of aspects of this motion that I do not support.

Certainly the increased costs of doing business affect the survival of these industries, but it is more the lack of accurate labelling and proper descriptive labelling that can allow products to be dumped in Australia. That is a true thing, and we need to explore that. I would agree with an immediate and comprehensive antidumping investigation in respect of all fruits and vegetables and also fish and fish products coming into the country. I believe that there is a strong chance that many of these products are being dumped because of the ability to wander through our labelling laws and through some of the other arrangements we may have with some of the connections in food labelling and food standards. We need to focus on those things.

I have been extremely keen to see that fresh food is not subject to travelling over long distances. I do not think people will want that in the future, and I have some sympathy with the Slow Food movement, being a bit of a foodie myself. Slow Food opposes the standardisation of taste and culture and the unrestrained power of the food industry multinationals and industrial agriculture. The association believes in the recognition of strong connections between plate, planet, people and culture. Slow Food's approach to agriculture, food production and preparation is based on the concept of food quality defined by three interconnecting principles: a good, fresh and wholesome seasonal diet that satisfies the senses and is part of our local culture; clean food production and consumption that does not harm the environment, animal welfare or our own health; and fair, assessable prices for consumers and fair conditions and pay for small-scale producers. I do not think anybody could argue with that. While some of this can be seen as a bit trendy and a bit far-fetched, the principles of keeping one's food fresh and typical to a region and preventing it being moved over large distances may well be something that Australia needs to consider.

I also think that somebody's label from an actual, local region should not be manipulated when a company may be sold or broken up and that label is then taken and the product is made in some other area but they still put the label on it. You can just imagine if we made King Island cheese in Victoria. I do not think that would be a good idea, but I also do not think that it would be a recognition of what made that cheese originally. It is a great product. I have always had some feelings that these things need to be given some more consideration and we should give consideration to protecting a region's viability by protecting its labelling.

We can grow fantastic food, both animal and vegetable, in Australia, but, unless it is processed quickly and cleanly, a lot of food's value can be lost. So there is a lot of opportunity here, I believe, for us to think a bit differently from how we have in the past, and we can make some major gains. Hence my objection to live animal export, as I believe that we can kill and process animals more humanely, more cleanly and more healthily than anywhere or anyone overseas, if we understand the processing where product is grown and raised. Australia has a reputation for its safe and healthy product, and we should endeavour to promote that wherever we can in the world.

I have watched in horror, as many of us have, the nonsense that goes on with live animals being carted off and being badly handled when there is no need for that. We could actually replace a lot of opportunity in other parts of the world with chiller and freezing stores. I think we need to get that business model right and not just pay shippers and agents fees to do that. With any imports that can be gained we must value add. We must certainly promote Australia's healthy food and our eating experiences and we should not let supermarket shelves simply be filled up with overseas products. We should look at this dumping that is taking place throughout Australia. I support most of the motion but not quite all of it.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is wonderful, heartening and refreshing to hear a Labor member sticking up for regional produce, sticking up for regional jobs and sticking up for agriculture. Whilst the Tasmanian member for Lyons says he agrees with most of the member for Murray's motion, I think we concur: we agree with most of what he said—not all, but most. As I say, it is refreshing to hear a Labor member actually sticking up for agriculture. It is not very common, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would well know.

I do want to comment on a couple of things that the member for Lyons indicated. He said that we produce fantastic food here in Australia, here in regional areas. There is no argument with him there. I would actually even go a step further and say that we grow the very best food. In my area of the Riverina and certainly in the member for Murray's area, the very best food in Australia is grown. We need to do everything we can to protect and preserve those people and those industries who are growing the very best food to feed not just Australians but also many other countries and certainly those in the Pacific rim who otherwise would not have access to protein and fresh fruit unless it was coming from the member for Murray's area and certainly the Riverina.

The member for Lyons talked about the false arguments of manufacturing as opposed to agriculture—but there are no false arguments. I do not think you will find that there would be too much opposition to what the government has done to try to prop up the ailing automotive industry; however, now the government needs to stump up and step up and help the ailing agricultural industry. The member for Murray has called for support for fruit growers and workers in the local food processing industry. The motion:

(2) recognises the impact and toll that the increased cost of doing business has on local food processors;

(3) acknowledges the significance of iconic local food processors—

and certainly there is no more iconic than SPC Ardmona at Shepparton—

as key employers and contributors to regional communities;

Thousands and thousands of jobs are at risk if this motion is not passed by this House. The motion also:

(4) supports the ‘Toss a tin in your trolley’ campaign to encourage Australians to throw a tin of local canned produce into their shopping trolley, and urges supermarkets to promote this initiative;

That is a wonderful idea and it needs to be supported. The member for Murray also:

(5) calls on the:

(a) Treasurer to investigate an emergency World Trade Organisation safeguard action in respect of imported canned fruit and tomato produce; and

(b) Government to undertake an immediate and comprehensive anti-dumping investigation in respect of the request from SPC Ardmona and the canned food industry.

Certainly you would get no argument from me on that. I hope you do not get any argument from the government to absolutely back these important initiatives.

The Treasurer is going to be a very busy man in the weeks leading up to the election, as not only should he do what the member for Murray says with respect to this motion but he should also reject outright the proposed takeover of GrainCorp by Archer Daniels Midland, the American company—because we do not need our $9 billion a year grain harvest being decided by a boardroom in Illinois.

I am filling in for the member for Gippsland, who would like to be here but he is unable to do so. He was most supportive of the member for Murray, and his electorate is also very much at risk if this motion does not go through. The Gippsland food producers number many, including Patties, Vegco, Kerton Farms, Dennison Foods Manufacturing, Lion, Frais Farms, Happy Camper Gourmet and Murray Goulburn, and food processors Bonaccord, Bulmer Farm Fresh Vegetables, Riviera Farms and Covino Farms, which is also a producer. They all stand to risk their viability in the future if this food processing motion, put forward by the member for Murray, is not supported by this House.

The member for Gippsland wanted me to point out that food product manufacturing within the Gippsland electorate accounts for 2,524 jobs. We heard the member for Murray a little earlier say that many jobs are at risk. Bad public policy by this government and the global market trends that we are unfortunately suffering at the moment, with the high Aussie dollar and all the other factors, have provided a perfect storm of absolute risk for the food processing industry.

SPCA is the largest producer of premium fruit and vegetables in packages in Australia. It does a wonderful job. Production is based in Victoria's Goulburn Valley, a region with 870 full-time equivalent staff. They are taxpayers; they are good, hardworking regional people doing their best to make sure we have the very best product on our tables and doing their best to make sure that overseas countries have the very best product on their table. They are at risk because of a number of factors, but this government and this parliament can help by pushing this motion through and enabling that very necessary legislation to be passed to provide the help that they need.

SPCA indirectly supports more than 2,700 jobs in the Goulburn Valley region as well as those 870 full-time equivalent workers. The company directly injects about $63 million into the local economy through salaries and wages and provides apprenticeships, training programs, work experience programs and graduate student programs to young people in the region who want to stay in the fine area of the member for Murray's electorate. They want to stay regionally because they know that the freshest air is available in regional Australia and that the best lifestyle is available in regional Australia. They want to do what their dads, mums, grandads and grandmothers have done for decades past. They want to be involved in a great industry, but they will not be able to if we as a parliament do not support them and their industry.

In recent years, SPC Ardmona has utilised the products from more than 200 contract growers and suppliers of semi-processed fruit and vegetable products, such as fruit juice and fruit pulp, and has bought 150,000 tonnes of fruit and vegetables worth $32 million from contract growers. Those contract growers need certainty. They certainly have not had the sort of certainty that they absolutely need, due to poor public policy from this place—not least of which has been the Murray Darling Basin fiasco—which has been brought to bear by this very poor government.

SPCA has invested considerably in developing its business over many years, including major investments in production equipment and warehousing. It is doing its best to help this nation go forward. It needs this nation to help it in its time of need. SPCA brands include SPC, Ardmona, IXL, Goulburn Valley and Taylor's. We all know them; they are household brands. Unfortunately, they are not perhaps always at eye level in the supermarkets because of supermarket policies, but we know that they are the freshest and the best available for supermarket customers.

SPCA is suffering under the influence of a once-in-a-lifetime appreciation in the Australian dollar, which has made cheap imported food even cheaper. The current market reality is that the strong Australian dollar allows cheap imported products into Australia at way below the cost of production here—way below the cost of production in the member for Murray's seat and way below the cost of production in the Riverina.

Our farmers need help; they need help desperately. They need this government to step up—this government which talks about feeding the Asian food century demand, says that it has a national food plan and says that it cares about regional Australia but all too often shows that it does not by its poor public policies. It is extremely challenging for SPCA's branded Australian-made products to profitably compete. The Australian food processing industry may not survive to enjoy a more balanced playing field when the dollar returns to more normal levels. That is why it is critical at this juncture for this government to stump up, help and support the member for Murray's very sensible approach—a very sensible motion that we are hearing and debating here today to give SPCA breathing space through provisional safeguards. If it is not provided, viability of that company's position in the industry will certainly be under threat and it will have a devastating flow-on effect not just throughout the member for Murray's region and not just throughout regional Australia but, indeed, throughout the whole nation.

The government stumped up and helped Ford, which has now announced that it is closing despite the amount of money being poured into the manufacturing and car industry over the years. Whilst some people have questioned it, certainly this government now needs to show that it is also very much caring for regional Australia and a wonderful company such as SPCA, and certainly to show that it cares about the member for Murray's electorate. It has not done so in the past. I call on it to do so now in the interests not just of the member for Murray's electorate but of Australia.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I figure I should perform the hat trick in repeating at the outset, or at some point in the speech, that there will be things we will agree on and things we will most definitely disagree on in the course of this debate. Undoubtedly, Member for Murray, I think it is a good opportunity for us to discuss a sector that provides critical support within your electorate and in others and that also provides a valuable economic contribution to the nation. I think the member for Murray is most definitely right in highlighting the importance of the food and beverage manufacturing industry to our nation.

These are exceptionally difficult economic conditions both for the food and beverages and for the broader manufacturing sector. The manufacturing sector within the electorate of Chifley provides up to 10,000 jobs for locals in our area, and so anything that affects the member for Murray's electorate in this way is also something that I have a keen interest in, which is why I was very heartened that you had put the resolution forward and also heartened to participate in the discussion around this.

The conditions that are present within the food and beverage processing industry evolve and are certainly putting pressure on a sector that has a lot of potential for growth. In this nation it employs close to 230,000 people, many of whom are from our respective electorates. Like the rest of the sector, food and beverage manufacturing faces huge challenges, the most notable being what is happening with the dollar—something that will not go away anytime soon and will continue to put pressure on businesses operating within the sector. I have seen that within our area and it is something that I would like to reflect upon during the course of my contribution.

Other challenges include the small size of our domestic market—and we have variously touched upon this issue through the course of our respective contributions this morning—and the lack of manufacturing scale. The issue of the domestic market—the price sensitivity of customers and the fact that they are willing in many cases to substitute overseas products for locally produced products that they might have used for many years—is a constant challenge for the sector. Again there are those in my area that are responding to this. The availability of skilled labour and retail market concentration all contribute in their own way to putting pressure on the sector.

Ninety-nine per cent of the 13,000 food-manufacturing businesses—and this is worth reflecting on: 99 per cent—are SMEs. Ninety-nine per cent is a huge figure. The government acknowledges the challenges that face them and the other sectoral challenges that I mentioned a few moments ago and we have put in place measures to help industries to remain competitive and sustainable—not just this one but across a range of different sectors.

Look at what we are doing with AusIndustry and with Enterprise Connect. Look at the magnificent work done by the CSIRO, the cooperative research centres, the industry innovation precincts which are starting to roll out—with a specific focus of one of them on food. They all provide programs aimed at lifting innovation, investment and productivity to help manufacturers overcome and better deal with the challenges that I outlined earlier.

Stakeholders in the food industry are right to be concerned with long-term viability of food manufacturing in this country. It is the reason the government is particularly keen to encourage greater investment in R&D and to provide tax incentives and programs that increase the level of cooperation between public and business research institutions.

One area where food manufacturers in the Chifley electorate are looking to get some advantage and also to help reduce costs and improve the way they operate is in the area of clean energy. Businesses in the Chifley electorate are learning how to reduce the costs of production at the same time as reducing their carbon footprints. Since our carbon price came into effect, businesses are taking initiatives to take practical steps to improve the way that they use energy, to reduce power bills and to reduce their emissions. They are also doing it in part, as they tell me when I visit them, to respond to what consumers are expecting them to do too.

One manufacturer in particular I am very proud of in the Chifley electorate is Arnott's. They operate a plant in Huntingwood within the Chifley electorate. I was really pleased to visit them last month. It was the second time I have been there to look around their plant, not to just avail myself of free samples but to see the way they operate in a very competitive market. They produce a product that is more highly priced relative to competitors which does put pressure on them but they deliberately price to the quality of our market and also to export markets—notably Japan.

When I visited Arnott's, I was able to see a $113,000 federal grant in action improving production methods and helping Arnott's reduce their carbon footprint. It was provided to Arnott's from the government's Clean Technology Investment Program and represents a third of the total investment of $340,000 being made to upgrade refrigeration controls and also install other energy-saving equipment. This is not the full extent of Arnott's commitment to a clean energy future. Over the past six years they have invested a total of $3.4 million to complete 24 green projects just at the Huntingwood plant in the Chifley electorate alone. The majority of the investment is being paid for by Arnott's with the assistance of $610,000 in combined rebates, 18 energy-saving certificates, and five supplier grants

Since 2008, Arnott's reckon that the average cost of power has increased 7.1 cents per kilowatt hour to 11.4 cents per kilowatt hours, so these improvements are not only great for the environment but also for their bottom line. From our clean technology investment grant, Arnotts expects to reduce the carbon emissions intensity of their refrigeration equipment by 13 per cent, resulting in savings of about $50,000 in energy costs per year—that is a three per cent annual energy reduction or about 1350 kilowatt hours.

It is important that the manufacturers remain competitive, particularly in the food sector, and sustainable to protect jobs. In our area, Arnott's employ 400 people, many of whom live locally and who I know from various other walks of life and from doing great things in our community. Ninety-nine per cent of Arnott's products are made right here in Australia supporting jobs across the country, and they spend $300 million a year in raw ingredients and other services from Australian farmers and businesses. It is important that when we talk about things such as this, which was prompted by the member for Murray, we need to ensure that many manufacturers like Arnott's and SPC Ardmona have a future in this country.

The government is considering SPC Ardmona's call for emergency safeguard action and will respond consistent with our obligations to the World Trade Organisation. I understand any emergency safeguard measure will be subject to a Productivity Commission inquiry to assess whether there is clear evidence that increasing imports are causing or threatening to cause serious injury.

As much as there are a string of positives associated with what has been put forward today, I cannot avoid pointing out some other things which I think are important enough to go on the record. There are elements—not necessarily in place right now in this chamber—of the coalition that do provide some sort of confected concerned about the manufacturing sector. National party members get, Labor members get it but there are some Liberal Party members that clearly do not. Why?

You have only got to look at what they want to do in terms of manufacturing support and the fact that they want to take out $500 million in support. They failed to support the steel industry transformation plans we put forward. The member for Murray has rightly made reference to the auto industry and observed that everyone has been lining up to support the sector, and they are right to—46,000 auto industry workers look at having their jobs affected. I do not misinterpret the point that the member for Murray has made, but there are others who run the risk of dismissing the level of support for people in transition. For instance, with Telstra—a company that employed 90,000 now only employs 30, and a lot of that was shed through privatisation. There was not a single cent of support during that period of privatisation under the Howard government. Telstra have kept shedding and there has been little support.

Contrast what has been called for in this motion with the broader coalition policy. Broader coalition policy indicates no manufacturing support but, worse still, at a time when the member for Murray is rightly calling for support, another side of coalition politics is arguing for a $5 billion subsidy scheme for polluters through the Direct Action Plan. Where can you argue on the one hand that you cut support for manufacturing—the type of support that is being called for in this motion—and then hand over $5 billion in a subsidy through a direct action program advanced and advocated by the coalition? These are the types of pressures that do need to be confronted by the coalition. It takes nothing away from the member for Murray's motion. It is an important motion to discuss. It talks about jobs and it talks about having a viable sector in this country, and we all need to work to support that.

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

I am very pleased to strongly support the member for Murray and her private member's motion. I have seen her absolute despair for the growers in her electorate, because of the fact that there has been no reaction from this government to the plight of the SPC Ardmona growers. She lives in this community and sees their despair day after day. I commend her for this motion.

We know that it is in the member for Murray's electorate; fruit-growing industry has also long been a mainstay of the economy in my electorate the south-west of WA and the electorate Forrest. The value of fruit production in the area was around $80 million in 2010-11, according to the South West Development Commission. The birthplace of the Lady Williams apple variety was in Donnybrook in around 1935. Our growers have to compete in some of the most competitive marketing environments in the world just to stay in business. Yet, we do know like in the member for Murray's region, the legacy of the fruit industry is under threat as the industry struggles.

We know about rising costs on the ground. We know about the high Australian dollar. We know about tightening margins. We know that this is seeing more and more orchards being pulled out right across Australia and in my region. We have seen the impacts of the government's decisions on biosecurity and the impacts that that is having. We know the cost of labour is high and our producers have to constantly do more with less. The fruit growers in my area are paying close to $20 an hour for relatively unskilled pickers, and competitors in developing nations pay much less. The standard wage in South America is less then $4 an hour; for much of Asia, farm workers get less than $1 an hour. Yet, our Australian producers have be some of the most efficient in the world to compete at all. We know that where mechanical picking is still impossible for most of our orchard enterprises, the chance of competing with those foreign imports is negligible because of the high labour cost.

On top of this, there are significant differences in safety and compliance that our growers have to comply with—some of the most stringent occupational health and safety requirements in the world. By comparison, occupational health and safety barely exists for many of our competitors. More importantly, there is the difference in the quality and safety of the product. Australian producers bring to the market some of the world's highest quality and safest food, recognised worldwide. The OECD's report on food safety entitled, 'Food Safety Performance World Ranking of 2008' found that Australia was one of the top five performing countries, all of whose food safety standards were rated as superior. The top five were the UK, Japan, Denmark, Australia and Canada. The other OECD countries tested were rated as average to poor. Yet can you imagine the result if the same test with the same standards were applied to the non-OECD nations?

There is no doubting the quality of Australia food production. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade advise that Australia has a worldwide reputation for producing superior-quality premium food and Australia food producers are committed to providing the highest quality international standards of quality management and food safety. Yet look at the challenges they face, even with biosecurity with this government. In Australia's high-quality, high-safety and high-wage reality, is it any wonder that other nations are seeking to use their own competitive advantage, that of price? Given the reality, what is the response of the government? Ad hoc at best, with antidumping legislation and a lack of understanding of what actually happens on the ground and what you do in a fruit-growing business. There is no understanding at all. We have seen that with the whole handling of the biosecurity issue. Given the response to your SPCA growers, Member for Murray, I would ask the question: does this government actually want a fruit industry in Australia? That is the question I would ask and I am sure that is the question your growers are asking given the lack of response from this government.

Dr Stone interjecting —

'No evidence to the contrary,' said the member for Murray. I commend her for bringing this particular motion to the House. We need this parliament to actually stand up and take notice. This government has taken no interest in the issues facing your growers on a daily basis, and the member for Murray has to live in the same community and watch these families in these businesses suffer, and I commend her for this motion.

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

The Australian food industry is very important to the Australia economy and to securing Australia's future food needs. The food sector employs around 1.65 million Australians, or one in six jobs in this country. In 2011-12, primary production contributed $42.6 billion to the Australian economy, and food and beverage manufacturing earned about $91.2 billion. The sector generates $30.5 billion in exports, and the fact remains that Australia exports half the food it produces. By 2050, world food consumption is expected to be 75 per cent higher, so the potential for Australia's food production is obvious and presents Australia with significant trade opportunities. Those figures, however, are very much reliant on the production and export of grains and livestock.

A closer analysis of what is happening in Australia's fruit and vegetable production depicts a different scenario. Ninety per cent of Australia's fresh food consumption is locally produced, with fresh food imports still predominantly arising from seasonal factors, natural disasters affecting local production or fresh food which is not produced in Australia.

The situation with processed food is considerably different. According to a 2013 IBISWorld report on fruit and vegetable processing in Australia, Australian food processing is a $6 billion industry. It directly employs about 10,000 people. In 2012-13, processed fruit and vegetable product exports were valued at around $1.4 billion, or 23 per cent of industry revenue. Interestingly, imports for the same year were $1.96 billion. Imports accounted for almost 30 per cent of local consumption and imports have been rising by 1½ per cent per annum over the past five years.

It would appear food processing is cheaper overseas and that Australian major food retailers have been sourcing more processed food from overseas, resulting in some 3,000 jobs having been lost in the last decade. The problem with that is that Australian consumers are becoming increasingly concerned about the production methods and quality of food processed overseas. Not surprisingly, more and more Australians are demanding clear food labelling on packaged food, particular with respect to country of origin information. Australians, however, do want to support Australian food processors and Australian jobs. That was clearly evident recently in my home state of South Australia when iconic Adelaide food processor Spring Gully Pickles hit financial difficulties. When it became clear to the public that the future of Spring Gully Pickles was at risk, public support for the business's products skyrocketed and, rather than downsize or close, the business in fact grew and more people were employed so that production could keep up with the public demand for their products. Just a good example of how public support can make a difference to the future of companies in this country.

What we have also seen in recent years is the emergence of multinational takeovers and the ownership of Australian food industries by global food processors. The problems and risks with that is that multinationals will ultimately consolidate their food-processing operations to the lowest cost countries, as all other manufacturers are doing and that again results in the loss of jobs. That is one risk associated with foreign ownership. Another risk is that multinationals use clever accounting and transfer-pricing schemes to ensure lower profits are made in Australia and most profits are generated in low-tax countries, denying Australia of legitimate tax revenue.

With Australia's clean green image, the food production and processing sector presents Australia with a competitive advantage and immense potential. We can make the most of that potential or we can sit back and watch the opportunity lost. The government's National Food Plan, I believe, sets out a strategy for maximising food production opportunities within Australia. I also believe that the government's response to date with respect to the antidumping legislation that has been brought into the parliament has been very important in trying to stop the dumping of overseas products in this country. Whilst we may need to go further, and that is a matter for the parliament, this government understands the risks that dumping has presented to the food-processing manufacturers in this country and has been responding accordingly. The government's National Food Plan sets out an appropriate strategy which this parliament should support.

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

I rise to speak on this very good motion put forward by the member for Murray, Dr Stone. I do so with a heavy heart and serious concern because food processing is such a vital part of rural Australia. It is, if you like, a litmus test on the economies of what happens in rural Australia. In fact, for many towns, the food processor is, or was, the major employer, the backbone in the development of a town and integral to providing the critical mass for the town for essential services, be it schools, hospitals or whatever it is that we need. For these businesses to see a future in Australia, they also need to know that the business environment will change and that the cost will change from today, and that the cost of doing business in Australia will stop increasing at such alarming rates and in fact decrease.

Unfortunately, we have a government whose policies have deliberately added costs and red tape, and destroyed business confidence. As a result, Rosella, Windsor Farm, SPC, McCain and Golden Circle have all closed some or all of their Australian food-processing operations in the past three years. Simplot has now announced that two of its plants are under threat of imminent closure, particularly the one in Bathurst and possibly even the one in Devonport. The high dollar is certainly a significant factor, but Labor's policies have without doubt compounded the effect, with record borrowing and record debt through the five biggest budget deficits in history putting upward pressure on the dollar and on interest rates.

Supporting manufacturing through innovative policies should be a no-brainer for Labor to support the workers—their strongest supporter base in the past. But the demise of food processing has really highlighted how Labor have deserted its working class base. Around 140,000 Australians have lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector over the last five years. In fact, one manufacturing job is lost every 19 minutes in this country. That is Labor's legacy. Introducing 21,000 new regulations and over 30 new or higher taxes take a toll on business; they also foster a feeling of defeatism within producers, suppliers and manufacturers—no matter what you do to get ahead, the government will still whack you. I congratulate SPC, as they have been proactive with government at all levels, and they have even come to the opposition to try to find solutions to keep their plants operating. SPC have applied to the government for emergency safeguard provisions and antidumping actions to give them some breathing space to retool their business. The coalition has supported the investigations to see if there is a case for emergency safeguard and antidumping actions.

Other companies, like Simplot, are watching on with a keen eye to see if the government is going to be proactive in its support for these industries as a first step to reinvigorate business confidence. Simplot has nominated two plants under imminent threat of closure, one of which is in my electorate. For agriculture, the loss of processing capability or capacity flows through directly to the farm sector. Obviously it has, or has the potential to have, a huge effect on profitability and marketing options.

Only the coalition has the necessary solutions. We will abolish the carbon tax; eliminate at least $1 billion of costly red tape annually; reduce government waste; and provide businesses with the certainty they need to prosper, employ more people and bring back the strong economic management and business confidence that Australia so desperately needs. We will also reduce the upward pressure on interest rates by getting the federal government's budget back in shape. A root and branch review of the Competition and Consumer Act, and beefed-up antidumping measures, will help ensure arrangements for the long-term viability of the food-processing industry. Once again, I congratulate Dr Stone, the member for Murray, for this motion and ask the House to support it.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion and commend Dr Stone for bringing it to the House. I forget the name of her seat now.

An honourable member: Murray.

Murray. How can I forget Murray? Of course, it reminds me of my youth. I spent a bit of time on the Murray myself, on Nikalapko Station between Morgan and Waikerie every summer from about the age of 15 onwards, picking apricots and oranges when I could not avoid picking them—and peaches, which were not much fun. That particular station exported apricots to Singapore; it was back in the early 1990s and late 1980s. Of course, they got a much higher price for their exported fruit through quality and attention to detail, and as a result we got much better wages than you would picking oranges; in those days you were flat out getting about $30 a bin, as it were. So I think I have a fair understanding of the practical end of this industry, and it is obviously an industry which is suffering from the same challenges that are affecting all manufacturing industries—no less so the industry that dominates both Geelong and Elizabeth, and the deputy speaker would know very well about the pressures on Australian manufacturing.

These pressures are mainly due to our currency, and I think this is the great unheralded debate in Australia. We have been preoccupied by carbon prices and by the daily events of politics, and we are missing the two fundamental economic challenges that face our country. The first one is that we have had a prolonged high currency and, even though commodity prices have declined, our currency has remained higher than it otherwise should have because of the investments made by overseas investors and by central banks from around the world. Our currency has become something of a safeguard currency, which is a first in the history of our country. It tends to be a very highly traded currency and one that has followed commodity movements and acted as a shock absorber for our economy in bad times like the Asian crisis. Today, or at least in the last few years, it has acted in the opposite way. It is not a shock absorber at all; it is a shock contributor to manufacturing and it is the big issue, because of course we have other people lowering their currencies: the Japanese, the Europeans, the Chinese and the US. So it is no surprise to me that fruit growers and workers in these industries are suffering from that same fundamental economic challenge.

The other challenge is that, whereas once upon a time we lived in an age of easy money and easy credit, we now live in an age of very tight credit. It does not matter where you go in the country and what business you talk to: businesses when they talk to their banks face very, very stringent loan-to-valuation calculations and have had to make appropriate adjustments to that.

Those two big economic changes are not going to go away just because we are having a change of government. I hate to break it to members opposite, and I think they might regret some of their rhetoric in this chamber, because they think that a simple change of government will usher in this wave of nostalgia and the world will go back to the way it was pre global financial crisis and it will all be right. In actual fact, they will be dealing with the same challenges we deal with.

I think Dr Stone's motion—particularly in regard to the antidumping measure and the safeguard measures—does have a great deal of merit to it. I am on the record as calling for something similar for the car industry. I think we do have to think very carefully about the implications of our currency and the fact that the age of easy credit has gone, and nostalgia will not solve our problems; only discussion will.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also wish to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Murray and congratulate her for having done so. Many of us in this place represent areas of Australia where fruit growing is a very important local industry. In the electorate of Canning, which I represent, there are many orchardists and fruit growers who are under increasing pressure on a number of fronts. They are often reminded of the pressure on domestic industries such as manufacturing. However, many of the same hindrances, such as the Australian dollar, have similarly affected fruit growers all around Australia. Other cost pressures such as wage increases and the inability to secure reliable labour have resulted in many fruit growers abandoning their orchards and looking for a more secure, less volatile source of income.

The last thing fruit growers in Australia need is a federal bureaucracy that is intent on making life more difficult for them. However, sadly, this is what seems to be occurring. I have risen several times in this House to argue against the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—APVMA—and its continued push to ban fenthion, the last remaining effective cover spray for the control of the Mediterranean fruit fly, otherwise known as medfly. Growers in the Perth Hills, led by orchardist Brett DelSimone and other members of the Hills Orchard Improvement Group, have done an outstanding job in fighting the APVMA's attempt to ban this chemical, a proposal which is based on spurious science and no evidence that this chemical has in fact been harmful to those consuming fruit treated with fenthion. I applaud those growers who have put their operations on hold to fiercely fight this bureaucratic decision that, if it were successful, would see many orchardists have to leave their properties due to the fruit fly infestations that it would bring.

In fact, in the Canning electorate we have already seen and heard on the news about two major fruit-growing families, the Byl family and the Casotti family, who have decided that enough is enough and that their best option is to leave their orchard and have it chopped up and sold up as real estate. Keeping in mind that these orchardists have farmed the same property for generations, we can understand that such a decision is not taken lightly by those who have heavily invested in these orchards. My thoughts are with those families who have had to make this very difficult decision. The proposal by APVMA to ban fenthion has been named as one of the contributing factors to these families finally deciding that they have to leave their orchard and their income.

My frustration is born from the fact that unnecessary pressure is being placed on these growers. There are some variables that all primary producers acknowledge are out of control, and we have heard again this morning about the high Australian dollar. However APVMA's proposed ban on the last remaining cover spray that controls the devastating effects of medfly infestation is an absolute kick in the guts for these growers, who do not deserve it and do not need it.

I am continuing to press the new agriculture minister in Western Australia, Ken Baston, to understand the implications of the APVMA's proposal and the shattering effects this will have on the local fruit growing industry. I do hope that we will have more success with him than we had with the previous minister, who lazily and blindly absorbed advice from the bureaucrats in his department, DAFWA, rather than consult with those orchardists with generations of experience—in other words, the people on the ground who actually know.

There is a significant food security issue here. Without domestic fruit growers being able to remain competitive, they will inevitably continue to abandon the industry, and this will very quickly result in international competitors filling the gap. As we know from past experience, once imports fill the place of domestic produce, this market share is never recovered. I will continue to push both the WA state government and, indeed, the federal government, to avoid the unnecessary destruction of another primary industry and preserve the use of fenthion.

I urge the federal minister, Joe Ludwig, to stand up for the industry, stand up to his department and stand up for the growers who are set to lose their orchards due to this illogical push to ban fenthion. However, given his scant regard for the cattle industry and its destruction, I do not hold a lot of faith. But I do hold faith in the shadow minister, John Cobb, who has already outlined that the coalition's position, should we be the government in three months, is that we will not ban fenthion. We will make sure that the growers do have this cover and support so that the industry can be sustained and maintained. As I have already said, nowhere in the world has anyone ever demonstrated that this spray is in any way dangerous or will cause ill health. If fenthion goes, our domestically produced fruit will go, jobs will go, imported fruit will take over and Australians will be worse off as a result.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion brought forward by the member for Murray. We, on this side of the chamber, have no problems with the detail of the member for Murray's motion. In fact, the government is acting on one of the key points that the motion raises in relation to taking action on anti-dumping and has already put in place a number of anti-dumping measures.

It is important to have a balanced approach to this issue and to weigh up all of the sides. While there are challenges for manufacturers, including food manufacturers such as the canners referred to in the motion, it must be recognised and acknowledged that the food and beverage manufacturing industry is a growing and evolving industry. With over 227,000 employees in 2011-12, it comprised over 13,000 businesses at the beginning of that period, of which nearly 99 per cent were small and medium enterprises. The sector is also extremely diverse, covering: meat, dairy, fruit and vegetable, confectionary, beverages and baking, among others, with a wide variety of firm sizes and regional specialities. While it must be acknowledged that some firms are experiencing great challenges, others are expanding and responding to increased demand.

The government are clearly aware that a range of factors have contributed to uncertainty in the industry, such as: the current high value of the Australian dollar, increasing input costs, the small Australian domestic market, a lack of manufacturing scale in some sectors, availability of skilled labour and retail market concentration. That is why we, the Labor Party, believe in such a thing as having an industry policy. That is why we support acting to support industry and involving ourselves to assist manufacturers to overcome the challenges they face. For example, through a range of agencies under the industry portfolio including AusIndustry, Enterprise Connect, CSIRO, Cooperative Research Centres and the Industry Innovation Precincts, the Gillard government have a number of programs and policy initiatives aimed at lifting innovation, investment and productivity to help our manufacturers overcome the challenges they face.

Further, under our Australian jobs plan, we have a $504.5 million Industry Innovation Precincts Program. Through that program, the government are investing in an industry-led Food Industry Innovation Precinct to create valuable connections across the food industry value chain and help firms build the critical mass, business capacity and export readiness needed to take advantage of industry growth opportunities, especially in Asia.

However, the government have heard and understand stakeholders in the food industry who are concerned about the long-term viability of Australian food manufacturing. That is why we are particularly keen to encourage investment in research and development through tax incentives and other programs designed to increase the level of collaboration between business and public research institutions.

I have heard a range of reasons being mentioned by those opposite for the impact on the industry, not to mention that the carbon price always seems to be mentioned when we talk about manufacturing. A measured realistic reflection on this issue will recognise that the government is also providing substantial support to the food-manufacturing industry, to transition to a low-carbon future through the $200 million Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program, with $150 million of that program dedicated specifically to the food-manufacturing sector over six years. This support is funded by the price on carbon pollution.

Since the introduction of the carbon price, businesses have started taking practical steps to improving energy efficiency, reducing their power bills and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They improve the business bottom line and help tackle climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon pollution can often be reduced with relatively simple technology. In my role as parliamentary secretary I have seen this firsthand around the country. The Gillard government is working with many companies to invest in clean and renewable technologies.

We have announced funding for 223 projects, using the carbon price revenue from the clean technology investment program to leverage over $338 million in total investment.

Global food markets will remain critical to the ongoing success of our export-oriented food, commodity products, as well as value added processed food, particularly as a result of Asian economic growth, population growth and technological change. Progressive food manufacturers are responding to these pressures and demands and it is important that we leverage off our clean and green image and embrace a bright future for food manufacturers.

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am here today to support the motion moved by the member for Murray, Dr Stone, and to acknowledge that the economic contributions of the fruit growers and workers in the local food-processing industry are vitally important to Australia and its economy. Like Dr Stone's electorate, my electorate of Flynn houses the biggest citrus farm in the Southern Hemisphere and also we have some fine lemon plantations, many of the seedless variety, which have proven popular on the international market.

Also within my electorate I have 2PH Farms in Emerald and Abbotsleigh Citrus farm in Wallaville, near Bundaberg. These are major contributors to our export market. A few years ago the Emerald citrus industry was flattened by the terrible citrus canker disease. That meant the removal of hundreds of thousands of trees on that particular plantation and many other, smaller plantations around it. It also meant that any lemon trees and citrus trees in the township itself had to be removed. So if you had an orange or a mandarin tree in your own backyard, then that had to go. There was a complete shutdown of the industry for three years. Then they had to replant.

If you now go to 2PH Farms you will see any tree on that plantation is no older than five years. It just goes to show the resilience and the energy of these citrus farmers. Australia produces food for 60 million people in the world and, in the next 10 years, we know that number will increase to 120 million people. So we need these vitally important citrus plantations and canneries to keep on producing food as we know it today or have known it in the past.

There is plenty of competition and I believe that all states grow lots of citrus. They have enough competition amongst themselves to ensure that they are always thriving for more efficient ways in which to do their farming. I think our farmers are the most efficient in the world when it comes to citrus growing.

Some of my farmers in the Flynn electorate have moved overseas and set up plantations in South America. They are wary of the canker disease coming back and wiping them out again and they cannot afford to rebuild a second time. Because of that, they have invested some money in overseas ventures.

The problem we have, as the other speakers have said, is the high Australian dollar. We have cheap imported foods, which include canned fruit. With the cost of production in Australia, it is not easy to compete with the rest of the world. We have an uneven playing field when it comes to exporting and importing fruit. We import less fruit than we export. We face imports from South Africa, China, Spain and Greece. Italy is a big exporter to Australia of tinned tomatoes.

There are other smaller-scale players in my electorate in the Burnett region, Mundubbera and Gayndah, which are also very big producers. The Gayndah crop this year was flattened by a hail storm and then later we had those devastating floods which devastated the towns of Mundubbera, Gayndah and Monto and Bundaberg, where there was significant damage done. However, the industry is starting to get back on its feet.

It quite amazes me, when you go to the citrus plantations how much, I believe, good fruit is thrown on the ground. About 40 per cent of the fruit ends up on the ground. When you are walking around the plantation you do not want to step on it because it looks like good fruit but it gets rejected by the cannery and markets. Another high cost to Australian citrus farmers is near perfect fruit not being accepted by the canneries and associated markets. It all adds up the fact that our farmers are very efficient. They have very real problems with anti-dumping and we need to tighten up our anti-dumping legislation. (Time expired)

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

The member for Murray has moved this motion in support of SPC Ardmona, and I think the House is very supportive of that aspiration. I note that there are a range of possible assistance programs available to SPC Ardmona including the Regional Development Australia Fund, the Clean Technology Food And Foundries Investment Program, Commercialisation Australia, Food Industry Innovation Precinct, the Industry Collaboration Fund and Austrade. I encourage both the member and SPC Ardmona to explore those possible assistance programs.

The food and beverage manufacturing industry is a growing and evolving industry. It had over 227,000 employees in 2011-12 and has over 13,000 businesses—nearly 99 per cent of which are SMEs. The government is aware that factors such as the current high value of the Australian dollar, increasing input costs, lack of manufacturing scale in some sectors and retail market concentration have contributed to uncertainty in the industry. Through AusIndustry, Enterprise Connect, the CSIRO, Co-operative Research Centres and the industry innovation precincts, the government has many programs and policy initiatives aimed at lifting innovation, investment and productivity to help our manufacturers overcome the challenges that they face.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, I have become very aware of the good work done by Austrade in promoting people-to-people links. I am also aware of the high regard in which Australian food is held overseas with our reputation for quality. Indeed, I personally believe that food manufacturing in Australia has a very bright future and that we are one of the few countries in the world in a position to export significant quantities of food.

As a part of the $500-million Industry Innovation Precincts Program, the government is investing in an industry-led food industry innovation precinct to create valuable connections across the food industry value chain and help firms build the critical mass, business capability and export readiness needed to take advantage of industry growth opportunities, especially in Asia. For example, a new collaborative centre for food innovation was launched in northern Tasmania on 4 April. It brings together scientists and technologists from the University of Tasmania, the Commonwealth government's Defence Science and Technology Organisation and the CSIRO. The government has invested nearly $19 million into the DSTO Scottsdale facility.

As the member for Petrie pointed out, the government is also providing substantial support to the food-manufacturing industry to transition to a low-carbon future through the $200 million Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program, with $150 million of that program dedicated to the food-manufacturing sector over six years.

Global food markets will remain critical to the ongoing success of our export-oriented food commodity products, as well as value-added processed foods—particularly as a result of Asian economic growth and the government's Australia in the Asian century white paper. The work surrounding that will assist this.

The member's motion talks about safeguard action, and I can inform the member and the House that the government is considering SPC Ardmona's call for emergency safeguard action and will be responding to it. Any emergency safeguard measures would be subject to a Productivity Commission inquiry, and the role of that inquiry is to assess whether there is clear evidence that increased imports are causing or threatening to cause serious injury to the domestic industry.

The member's motion also proposes an anti-dumping investigation. The process for such an investigation is that in an application the Australian industry has to demonstrate reasonable grounds that there is dumping or subsidisation, and it must also demonstrate that it has suffered material injury as a result. If an application is received, Customs and Border Protection has 20 days to determine whether they will begin an investigation. The legislative timeframe for investigations is 155 days, although this can be extended by the minister.

From day 60 of the investigation, provisional measures may be imposed in the form of securities. This occurs where there appear to be sufficient grounds for publishing a notice and where it is necessary to prevent material injury occurring to the Australian industry while the investigation continues.

I point out that the Australian government has boosted funding for anti-dumping investigations by $24 million over the next four years. This additional funding almost doubles the number of investigators working on anti-dumping cases. In accordance with our WTO obligations, applications are treated as confidential until an investigation is commenced, but, afterwards, a public notice is issued. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.