Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Quarantine Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2014 and the other bills in this cognate debate and also in support of the amendment put by the member for Hunter, who is Labor's spokesperson for agriculture, fisheries and forestry. Agriculture is absolutely critical to our future as a country. I represent a regional and rural seat in South-East Queensland and, as a federal member in my third term, I have seen firsthand and from personal experience the importance of food security and agriculture to our economy. Labor, in government and in opposition, has been committed to guaranteeing the long-term productivity and sustainability of Australia's agriculture, fishery and forestry industries; we think this is crucial.

The agricultural sector contributes about $38 billion annually in export dollars and about $47.3 billion to the gross value of production, so this is an important sector for our economy. We face challenges in areas of biosecurity. We need a biosecurity system that protects the health of all Australians. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. We have a wonderful natural environment which faces the challenges of floods, droughts and fire, so we need a biosecurity system that makes sure that we have competitive agricultural, farming, fishery and forestry sectors.

We also face the challenge of agri-terrorism and the risk of climate change and the challenges that it brings. We have also seen the risks of pests and disease status challenge us. We have a competitive advantage in this country when exporting to world markets because other countries recognise our pest and disease control status. We expect our exporters to be treated fairly under the World Trade Organisation rules and, in turn, we also expect our trading partners to be treated fairly. We have real and legitimate concerns about our biosecurity.

We saw the challenges that that brought to our economy in the agricultural and farming sectors, particularly in equine industries in the last few years. There was devastation in not just one part of Australia but whole areas, and that created a challenge for those people who work in the horse industry, particularly those who keep horses not just for sporting activities but also for use in agriculture. I represent an area where the racing industry is important, particularly to Ipswich. The Ipswich Cup is the most visited regional race day in the country. It brings a huge amount of money into the Ipswich economy, so the equine industry is very important for Ipswich and its surrounds.

This legislation is important, and it comes about because of the Beale report. The review panel, chaired by Roger Beale AO, presented a pretty far-reaching and comprehensive blueprint for a stronger biosecurity system. Now in opposition, we are calling on the government to carry out a number of things which we think are important, and the member for Hunter has raised them. We had some legislation on the table and asked the government to reintroduce the biosecurity bills to replace the Quarantine Act 1908. That was a recommendation of the Beale report and built on work we undertook in this space when Tony Burke was the minister for primary industries.

The Beale report indicated that our governance in this area was totally outdated—a 100-year-old act of parliament. So we introduced the Biosecurity Bill 2012. One of the other recommendations was that we needed an inspector-general—a peak organisation across this space. So we introduced the Inspector-General of Biosecurity Bill 2012 into parliament on 28 November 2012. It went to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry. The bills have lapsed and we are calling on the government to resurrect those bills. They are important. The Beale review was highly commended and its report, One biosecurity: a working partnership, is important. It has far-reaching recommendations and we call on the government to act on this.

This particular quarantine charges legislation before the chamber is basic. It covers a legislative package designed purely as a cost-recovery mechanism. Governments of both persuasions do this. It is important that cost-recovery in the industry takes place so that taxpayers do not foot the bill. It does give the power for the Commonwealth government to sell goods and vessels to recover outstanding debts and deal with goods and vessels that are abandoned or forfeited, and it provides an opportunity for regulations to be undertaken to make sure that taxpayers are not out of pocket in this area.

We are critical of the government in relation to this area, as indicated by member for Hunter in his motion. There is a voluntary retrenchment program across this space and we saw that announcement back in November 2013. We have seen a number of retrenchments. It was not about natural attrition; they called on people to take voluntary redundancies as part of cost-cutting measures. The shadow minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, the member for Hunter, has called on the government to reverse this and said that those job losses within the department would strike at Australia's front-line defences against introduced plants. We have seen that more than 500 public servants in the department want out, most of whom work in the agriculture and border protection divisions. So we are concerned that if the government continues down this road, our biosecurity safety could be at risk. We think the government should have a look at this. This is particularly concerning for us.

We saw the impact with equine influenza across the horse industry—not just for equestrian and farming but also for the racing industry. Through Senate estimates, we have seen some more concerns in this area as well. We think the government should look at this. The government do go on a lot about the fact that they are a government for all Australia, particularly for the regions. This impacts agriculture and they should really look at this. The facts and figures are clear, redundancies are taking place in this space. There is a risk to our reputation as a clean and green producer of food if these redundancies continue. We call on the government to look at this and to review this.

The Canberra Times reported on 6 March this year that the agriculture department is the latest government department to be swamped with requests from its workers for redundancy payouts. We think the government should have a look at this. We do not want to risk the biosecurity of this country. We support this legislation before the chamber but we have also put forward the amendment from the member for Hunter because we are very concerned about the job losses in this space. We are very concerned about the risk to Australia's reputation and the risk to the farming, agriculture and fishing industries of this country from job losses across the Public Service.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it quite remarkable that, after six long years, Labor are at last talking agriculture. They suddenly have a new-found interest in farming. Suddenly they have discovered the fact that there are regional and rural areas in Australia which need protecting. Whilst I commend the member for Blair for finally figuring out that there is life beyond the bright lights of the metropolitan areas, and whilst I appreciate the fact that he says he is from Ipswich, which is a regional area of sorts, I just find it incredible that Labor have finally discovered that there are regional areas which need protecting.

Certainly, this cognate debate into the Quarantine Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2014, the Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2014, the Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2014 and the Quarantine Charges (Collection) Bill 2014 goes to the very heart of protecting our wonderful diversity in regional areas. I am joined here by the member for Mallee, whose area, like mine, produces many fine products—the food and fibre which feed and clothe our nation but, perhaps more importantly, other nations as well. Those agricultural industries need protection. They need good quarantine measures.

The package of bills presented to the House by the Minister for Agriculture seeks to put in place appropriate cost recovery mechanisms to support Australia's capacity to manage biosecurity risks. Careful management of biosecurity risks is central to Australia's position as an exporter of high-quality agricultural products—the sorts of products that come out of Mallee and Riverina. It is a trade that is forecast to be worth around $38 billion to the Australian economy this year. It is critical—if we are to protect Australian crops and livestock from diseases of which we are currently free but which blight the produce of other countries, we need to have in place good quarantine measures.

I found it remarkable that Labor, the member for Hunter, the shadow agriculture minister, and others opposite now find it so critical to Australia's export demands and needs that they all of a sudden find voice in such matters, when they did not give two hoots when they were in government. I refer to Batlow, a town in my area, east of the Riverina electorate, which was placed at risk. The entire town's economy was placed at risk because of the lack of biosecurity, the lack of protocols and the lack of foresight by Labor. Apple orchards have been vital to Batlow's economy for 120 years. In 1922, the first cool stores in New South Wales were built at Batlow. At the same time, a railway was constructed from nearby Tumut. These developments facilitated Batlow's trade with Sydney and beyond. In times of this nation's greatest need, the dark days of World War II, the district served an essential role by supplying the troops with dehydrated fruit and vegetables. These days, up to 40 apple growers at Batlow provide employment directly and indirectly to 2½ thousand people—all hard workers; all taxpayers.

That wonderful history and those jobs were placed at risk by the Labor government, which could and should have done more to look after its own. I am talking about 2011 here. Instead, as with most things agricultural and many things of importance to regional Australia, Labor either caved in or, worse, did nothing. The same could be said about Labor's inaction on the Asian bee incursion, which was another critical quarantine risk, the mouse plague, live cattle exports and its abysmal failure to give good governance on the water issue. It deserted regional Australia when it was most in need.

Australia is at present free of fire blight. Fire blight can destroy an entire orchard in a single growing season. An outbreak would devastate Australian horticulture, cause considerable environmental harm and be impossible to eradicate. Labor opened the way for apples to be imported from New Zealand. It was the first time for 90 years that apples from New Zealand were going to be allowed into Australia, all just to give the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, something to talk about when she historically addressed the New Zealand parliament. Up she got and announced, 'Oh, it's great. New Zealand apples will be allowed into Australia.' She had a photo opportunity with the Prime Minister of New Zealand, John Key, and they laughed about whether the All Blacks or the Wallabies would win the next test match and who would eat whose apples. Whilst it was a great photo op for our Prime Minister, it left my Batlow apple growers at great risk. They were absolutely fraught with worry and concern that New Zealand apples were going to come into this country, bring with them the fire blight, which is well known in New Zealand, and eradicate our entire crops and orchards.

It was of grave concern at the time that three of the first 13 consignments of New Zealand apples were denied entry. That is a damning rejection rate. Australia originally barred apple imports after discovering in 1919 the bacterial disease fire blight in fruit from New Zealand; it was banned not long after that. Prime Minister Gillard, addressing the New Zealand parliament on 16 February 2011, announced Australia would lift the 90-year ban. By 18 August that year, just a day after the all clear was given, seven permits had been issued to New Zealand orchards. They thought: 'Let's cash in on this. We've got so many apples we are now going to invade the Australian market.'

Later that same month a live insect pathogen and potentially fire blight carrying leaf matter had already been found in one of the first consignments of New Zealand apples bound for Australia. The news justifiably angered many, especially those in the industry who campaigned against Labor's decision prompted by a World Trade Organisation ruling. The industry warned that this could expose crops to crippling diseases such as fire blight and pests. One of the very first consignments was refused after a small piece of leaf matter which could carry disease and an insect, an apple leaf curling midge, were found during inspection in New Zealand. I am sure the member for Murray, who will follow me, will have something to say about that. Alarmingly the live insect was found four to five months after the fruit was harvested. The midge eats leaves and can defoliate trees depriving them of nutrients. Australia does not have leaf curling midge, and strong chemicals are needed to control it. Some of these strong chemicals are banned in Australia. But that does not matter to some of the WTO rules we have and it certainly did not matter at the time to Labor.

A recent coalition delegation to the Hawkes Bay region on the east coast of New Zealand's North Island heard some disturbing remarks from one of the countries largest apple growers who openly admitted in response to questioning about the instance of fire blight: 'If you look hard enough, for long enough, you will find some.' There was also this quote: 'Half of our orchards have never had fire blight.' Well, if half of them have not had fire blight, you might wonder about the other half. Fire blight is not a notifiable disease in New Zealand. Every safeguard is taken against it, I must admit, including sophisticated warning systems linked with weather updates. But, when it does occur, treatments including streptomycin and antibiotics not registered for use in Australia are applied. Water used in processing fruit headed to Australia is often the same as that which washes streptomycin and other contaminants from apples destined for other countries as New Zealand orchards are only required to change the water every 48 hours. The Australian Labor government, at the time, did nothing.

I, along with the then shadow minister for agriculture, John Cobb, the member for Wannon, Dan Tehan, and the member for Murray, Dr Sharman Stone, went to New Zealand on a self-funded tour. We looked at the apple orchards. When we came home we made sure, through insistent lobbying, that our protocols for quarantine were such that no New Zealand apples were going to arrive here. I am proud to say it is now March 2014 and we have not had one crate of New Zealand apples come to Australia. But that may not have happened. I see the member for Makin nodding. He knows how good the apples are in Australia—as I am sure you do, Deputy Speaker. I am sure the member for Lalor doesn't mind a crunchy Pink Lady either. We need to protect what we have here in Australia. Sometimes through inactivity governments just do not do it. But I am glad to say that no New Zealand apples came to Australia because of the good work done by the shadow agriculture minister at the time, and others, to make sure that our quarantine measures are enforced.

It is so important. We sometimes have the biosecurity measures in place but, for whatever reason, we do not actually ensure that every letter of the law is followed. As I say, careful management of biosecurity risk is essential to ensuring we have clean green exports as well as product for our own domestic use. It was not that long ago that Labor just ignored that very premise. It was a particular concern to growers in Batlow. Batlow is Australia's apple capital—Tasmanians might disagree—and an outbreak of fire blight would be devastating.

These bills will enable cost recovery for the direct costs of providing services to importers under the Quarantine Act of 1908 and indirect activities such as surveillance, risk analysis and the gathering of intelligence which genuinely support Australia's biosecurity. The amount of charges is to be set out in delegated legislation, but Australian farmers can take comfort that the regime established by these bills requires that the Minister for Agriculture must be satisfied that the amount charged will not be more than the likely costs of delivering the activity.

Unlike his predecessor, the Minister for Agriculture, a National Party member, actually understands the consequences of government decisions on the livelihood of farmers and their communities, and our farmers are so important. The Minister for Agriculture, like me, grew up on a farm, and he still farms to this day—like the member for Mallee, who gave a great speech in parliament yesterday about the hardships faced by farmers. I listened intently, and he too understands why and how farmers are so important.

Barnaby Joyce, the member for New England, knows the challenges and realities of life in the Australian bush. They can take heart that there will be no repeat of the woeful and quite frankly inept actions of the previous government's ban on live exports to Indonesia. This new regime will support the risk based approach to biosecurity management which has over time replaced the system of mandatory border intervention targets in relation to certain products. At best, this was a blunt tool which failed to direct resources based on a deep understanding of biosecurity risks—in terms of both the likelihood and potentially devastating consequences for industry—across the range of products imported into Australia which can change over time.

As I have said in this place many times before, good regulation gives regulators flexibility in their approach to enforcement so that the nature of their enforcement action can be adapted to the severity of the noncompliance and the circumstances of the individual. I am pleased that these bills include provisions to both impose late payment fees and remit those fees where appropriate.

One of the first site visits I made as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance was the site of the new post entry quarantine facility at Mickleham in Victoria. The Department of Agriculture currently operates post entry quarantine facilities at five sites across this nation. At each site, the facilities are over 25 years old and are fast approaching the end of their useful life. The new facility at Mickleham will replace these dispersed and outdated facilities. It is a major undertaking with an expected cost of $293 million.

We in the coalition are getting on with the job of doing these things, but I must admit Labor has had something to do with that site and it will be a good facility when it is up and running. Certainly, with the new government focused on agriculture, it is going to reap the rewards for our farmers and indeed the nation as a whole. Construction is being managed by the Department of Finance and is expected to begin soon, with the first phase due for completion in late 2015 and a final second phase due for completion in late 2018. Hopefully, the coalition will still be in government.

Funding Australia's biosecurity system is critically important if we are to ensure that Australia's unique animal and plant health status is maintained. This status is in turn, as I have said before, vital to our ability to export clean, high-quality produce to the rest of the world. We had the opportunity to be the grower of great food, to feed the Asian century, to feed that growing middle class in Asia. Prime Minister Gillard said that herself in one of, I thought, her best speeches as a keynote speaker to an international food summit in Melbourne. She said that we need to be there to feed the growing Asian nation boom.

Unfortunately, the policies that Labor put in place did not follow through, but I am glad to say that now the coalition is in power, we will put the policy settings in place to ensure that our farmers, who are unquestionably the very best in the world, following world's best practice, will be there to ensure that we are able to feed that growing Asian market and feed our own domestic supply needs with the very best, cleanest, highest-quality food. I commend these bills to the House. It is very important that they be supported.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on the Quarantine Charges (Collection) Bill 2014 and associated bills. I share the concerns of the member for Riverina with respect to the intrusion of fire blight into Australian apple orchards. Just for his interest, I represent an electorate that borders perhaps the prime apple-growing district in Adelaide. Last year when the issue became a real issue for Australia, he might be interested to know that I, some of my colleagues from Western Australia—including the member for Freemantle—and some Tasmanian Labor colleagues met with the then agriculture minister, Senator Joe Ludwig. He, in turn, listened and shared our concerns and ensured that the biosecurity arrangements for the import of New Zealand apples into Australia were set so high as to ensure exactly what has happened—that is, we have not seen any New Zealand apples coming into the country. Having said that, I entirely share his concerns about diseases entering into the Australian agricultural sector because it could destroy and ruin the whole sector. I will fight as hard as anyone in this place to ensure that that does not happen.

The agriculture, farming and fisheries sectors are important to Australia, especially when we consider that by 2050 it is estimated that world food consumption is expected to rise by some 75 per cent. Here in Australia the sector currently provides one in six jobs and, as we all know, it sustains many regional communities. In fact, Australia produces food to feed some 60 million people around the world. Not surprisingly, 90 per cent of the fresh fruit and vegetables that we eat in Australia are produced here in Australia. I think that is a good thing because it gives us some level of confidence in the fresh fruit and vegetables that we consume.

Agriculture, farming and fisheries are indeed important not only to our economy right now but to our economic future. They are important because we have an opportunity to produce more food here in Australia and because, with a growing demand for that food, we know that that it turn means growing opportunities for our export markets. Getting into new markets depends on many things, including there being a demand for Australian produced food and also perhaps on getting some new free trade agreements with other countries. To ensure that there is a demand for Australian food, we also need to ensure that we maintain the image that we have of Australian food as being clean and green. This is a phrase we quite often use in this place that, I believe, is not only true but ensures that Australian produced food remains in demand and remains, in many places, the food of choice for those who are able to access it.

This bill, obviously, seeks to address the very issue of making sure that we have and maintain the clean green image in our food production. We do that essentially through maintaining a robust and appropriate biosecurity system. The bill in essence responds to the Beale inquiry that was commissioned by the previous Labor government and which in turn made several recommendations, amongst which was the need to invest more in our biosecurity systems in this country. And if we are going to provide that investment then maybe the costs should be shared between government, those people who are going to directly benefit from food production in this country and the biosecurity supports that are provided.

As we know, and as other speakers have commented already, biosecurity risks are very real. We have seen several events in recent years of those risks being presented to the Australian market. In fact, the Beale report quite rightly refers to a Productivity Commission estimate made in 2002 that had the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease which occurred in the UK hit Australia, at that time it would have affected the Australian market to the tune of $2 billion to $3 billion if it were managed very quickly. If it were not managed very quickly and it extended on to, say, a 12-month outbreak, then the cost could have been as high as $8 billion to $12 million. Such is the magnitude of the cost to the Australian economy if we get it wrong and if disease is allowed into the country. We have seen again in the last decade or so, outbreaks of bird flu, mad cow disease and equine influenza, which in fact did get into the horse industry in Australia, which all presented serious risks but, fortunately, were pretty well managed in Australia and did not affect our industries anywhere near as much as they could have or they might have in other countries.

As I stated earlier, a reliable biosecurity system comes at a cost and this legislation is essentially about raising revenue. One of the things I want to make clear is that there are two issues. Cost recovery is one thing; raising revenue is another. I certainly hope that this legislation is indeed about genuine cost recovery and not about raising revenue, because I note that one of the first pieces of legislation brought into this House by the government is in fact this legislation after it has been sitting dormant for the last couple of years because we could not get it through the Senate in the last government. The Abbott government has now very quickly moved to bring it into place. I suspect they do so because they are looking at raising revenue out of it as much as the real need to ensure that we have an effective biosecurity system in place. It simply highlights that the Abbott government talks about, on one hand, cutting costs to business in this country but very quickly is bringing in legislation which is indeed going to add to those costs, and I want to come back to that in just a moment in a bit more detail.

I am also concerned—and I noticed one of my colleagues mentioned the issue earlier—that there may be cuts to biosecurity expenditure in this country in the coming May budget. I believe that that would be a foolish step by the government, and the few dollars that might be saved in the process—if that is what the government intends to do–will cost this country dearly in the long term, because of the problems that might arise as a result of having a weaker Australian biosecurity system.

I said a moment ago I wanted to come back to the issue of costs and I do so now. One of the matters that has been raised with me by several exporters and growers in this country is the issue of costs they incur for the production of their product and, in particular, when they try to export their products to other markets. I note that there was in fact a press release issued not long ago, and I quote from the Victorian Farmers Federation:

Merbein fruit grower Darren Argiro said that in the last two years, AQIS’ export registration fees for packing sheds had blown out from $330 to $8530.

It is an incredible increase, something to the tune of a 25-fold increase to the cost for those exporters.

I have had similar concerns expressed to me by growers in the very region where Mr Argiro comes from. I thought I would look up the horticultural export program list of fees that applied for 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013. If I am reading this list correctly—and I may not be and I stand to be corrected—the fees imposed for the recovery of order and inspections are from $36 per quarter hour, which obviously translates to about $150 an hour. But if you have the inspection done on a full daily basis, it costs $1,152 per day to have your packing shed inspected on a daily basis or $5,760 a week. I find those costs quite excessive and I can understand not only the concerns of the growers with regard to the fact they have to pay them, but that it also in turn makes their product less competitive in overseas markets because they incur these additional costs. It is a concern I have, because I doubt very much that their competitors in other places and in other countries are incurring this same level of fees.

One of the things we need to bear in mind when we look at cost recovery is that, if we want our growers to get into other markets we need to understand and accept that they are competing with growers in other countries who are also trying to get into those same markets and who may not have the same robust biosecurity processes in place as we have in Australia, and that in turn puts our growers at a real disadvantage. I would hate to see that happen.

As we all know, most of these growers are only what we would refer to as small business operators. For them, these kinds of additional costs on top of the plethora of other fees and charges that they pay governments on a daily or weekly or yearly basis really do make a difference to them. So I simply impress upon the Minister for Agriculture and the department that, whilst they use the term 'cost recovery', they need to ensure that it is a fair and reasonable cost and not an excessive cost on those growers, because if it is it could ultimately kill off their businesses.

Last night I attended the Costa fresh food presentation here in this place. Frank Costa, who is the chairman of the Costa Group, raised a matter with all of us who were there that I believe is worthy of consideration. He talked about the bumblebee and made the comment that in Tasmania pollenisation of different crops is allowed by the bumblebee as it is in many other places in the world. He made the point that on the Australian mainland it is not allowed and yet the bumblebee from his understanding presents no risk to the rest of the agricultural sector whatsoever. It has caused no risk in Tasmania and it has caused no risk in other places in the world. Again, these are claims he has made; I am simply passing them on to the House. If he is right, then I would urge the minister to consider his pleas to allow the bumblebee into mainland Australia because it will save growers I think he said something in the order of 13 per cent of their growing costs, which is quite considerable. Allowing the bumblebee into mainland Australia is a real issue for growers. Again, I raise this matter for consideration by the minister and the department as opposed to simply arguing the case that it should or should not be allowed to happen.

As I said at the outset, this is legislation that follows the bill inquiry report which was initiated by the Labor government. It is legislation that we on this side of the House support, because in principle we want to ensure that we have a robust and effective biosecurity system in place; however, as I made clear in my address today I simply want to ensure that it is not an excuse for revenue raising as opposed to cost recovery.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They always say that when people put in the word 'that' you should ignore everything that comes before it. That is pretty good advice. It is advice you use certainly when dealing with the media. If you hear 'He is a good person but', remove everything before 'but' and hear what they say next. With an amendment, if they say remove everything before 'that' then basically they are completely changing the context of what was said. In this case, the government will not be supporting the amendment.

The member for Makin mentioned bumblebees. I thank the opposition for their statement that they will be mindful that, if we do intend to go down that path, the Labor Party will not be lining up with the Greens and will be proactive in making sure that a relevant debate is had. Without prejudice I am considering seeing if we can do a further examination of and test theories about bumblebees, and do those tests in Tasmania where there already are bumblebees. There have been bumblebees in Tasmania since about 1880, so even if they escape from a glasshouse they will just go back into the bumblebee population. Bumblebees have also been in New Zealand. We are basically talking about using bumblebees for the crosspollination of plants, but introducing them in such a way that they cannot go out into the bee population and breed. You can do that by just having one sex of the bumblebee. In many instances where they are wanted to be used, they would not survive in any case, even if they did get out.

However, I do note the concerns of apiarists, and varroa mite is one of the issues that they bring up. We have to make sure that there would not be an incursion of varroa mite by bringing the bumblebees across to the mainland. A further investigation of that process in Tasmania is something that I do consider.

The issue that pertains to this bill—and we have noted that we will not be supporting the amendment—is trying to get cost recovery. I wish that this was not the case, but, when a nation is left in a position where the current cost streams that have been delivered to us and the current debt that was left with us would lead our nation to a position where we were $667 billion in debt, that is untenable. We cannot end up in that place.

In my own department, on the first day—as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, when you come into a department, it is like taking over a business—they said: 'Congratulations. Here are your 4½ thousand staff. Here's your budget. And here's $48½ million loss for the previous year. And there's no money, so you've got to try and clean it up.' This leaves you in an invidious position.

The one department that the Labor Party did manage to cut costs in, whether we liked it or not, was agriculture. We went from a budget of about $3½ billion a year down to about $1.7 billion. They just did not believe in that part of the economy, and that is disgraceful. It is so vitally important, Mr Deputy Speaker, to where we go—and you would know this, coming from Townsville, knowing about the live cattle trade that comes out of the port of Townsville and knowing how important the agricultural industry is. I am very proud of the fact that, since we have been there, from the good people of the city of Townsville, the city of Darwin and Northern Australia, over 500,000 head of cattle have now left and we are starting to get money back into that section of the economy. That was cut off at the knees by a ridiculous decision by the previous government.

I was always concerned, too, that with the previous government it seemed like agriculture was the booby prize if you did not get another portfolio. If, at the end of the day, you had not got anything else, it was the last lolly in the jar, and it was: 'Oh, well, you can be the Minister for Agriculture.' That is basically how it was treated.

Mr Broad interjecting—

The member for Mallee clearly understands how important this is. I will give you an example from recent history of how important agriculture is to the coalition. Do you realise that in this nation we thought we were going to make a loss? You see, this is the difference from when they were in government. We did not make a loss. We thought we were going to make a loss of $100 million in January. Mr Deputy Speaker, do you know that in January we made a profit of $1.4 billion, a surplus of $1.4 billion? And guess where a large portion of that came from—agriculture; it came from turning around agriculture.

It was from those terrible people in the live cattle trade putting all those cattle on the boats and getting paid for it so that money could flow into our nation. And those terrible ma-and-pa farmers, as they are pejoratively called by Mr Paul Howes, from the AWU—he used to be a friend of the Leader of the Opposition; I do not know what he is now; 'dangerous', I think, is the best word for him—harvested 17.2 million tonnes of wheat in Western Australia, and they managed to ship in excess of six million tonnes of it. This meant that our nation made money. We actually started getting back into the main frame.

There are two sections in this nation that I think we should be really focused on. There are people in this nation who actually put money on the table. There are others who put it on and take it off, and there are others who produce extremely good social goods, and we need to be mindful of them. But I will tell you the two sections that do it, and Townsville would be very aware of this: agriculture and mining. They put money—big lumps of it—on the table. That is why it is so vitally important that we stand behind our agricultural industry. It should not be some dismissive sideline; it is absolutely vital for where we are going.

In the circumstances we have been left with we unfortunately do have to do cost-recovery—we have to pay our way. We have to make sure that if the costs are out there we cover them. I have debts in this department that we have to clean up. I am also mindful that we have to do this in the most effective and fairest way and make sure people are getting a fair return for the costs that they incur. We have put $15 million aside to try to assist the smaller producers and we will be doing a review to make sure that the charges, especially in the horticultural industry and areas such as that, are fair in how we do this. If we can do it in a cheaper way but with the same outcome then that is what we should endeavour to do. I commend the Quarantine Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2014.

As we are still talking to the amendment, I will not repeat myself in the concluding speech. This amendment this is just so typical of the Labor Party. We were down there yesterday on a non-controversial bill and all of a sudden guess what happened? The shadow minister, the member for Hunter, jumps up and moves an amendment. I am sitting there at the table and thinking, 'This is news to me.' I said, 'You've got to circulate the amendment.' He says, 'I don't think you have.' The more I looked and the more I thought about it, I thought: 'You know what? He's moving an amendment to the wrong bill. But no-one could be that silly. No-one who holds a shadow ministry could actually move an amendment to the wrong bill.'

I always give people the benefit of the doubt so I very politely and deferentially put a point of order and said to the shadow minister for agriculture, the member for Hunter, 'Excuse me, with the greatest of respect, I think you are moving an amendment to the wrong bill.' He said, 'No, you've got it wrong. This is the amendment.' Then the member for Grayndler—he was a bit like Carl Lewis—came screaming in and said, 'What on earth are you doing?' Then there was a kerfuffle and the member for Hunter went back to these dispatch box and said: 'I apologise. I have made a mistake. It is actually the wrong bill.'

It was wrong in that bill, it is wrong in this bill and we do not support it.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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