Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016 was debated in this place during the course of the 44th Parliament and lapsed as a result of the now-infamous double dissolution, which produced some interesting results. We are back here debating it once again. I say at the outset that the opposition will again be supporting the bill before the House, but throughout the course of my comments I will be expressing the same concerns that I expressed the first time the bill was debated here—concerns that the minister still has not adequately dealt with. I have invited him to give some additional reassurances about some of the measures in the bill. Indeed, I have written to him today, hoping to secure some of those assurances in writing. Given the public nature of the document, it does not contain anything that might relate to a private matter, so I will seek leave to table that correspondence to save the time of the House.

Basically, this bill seeks to overcome impediments in the current legislation which prevent the research and development corporations from developing and maintaining industry levy registers. To put it in simpler terms—and I believe it will come as a shock to members in this place—the research and development corporations which are recipients or beneficiaries on behalf of the sector of levies paid by producers and growers do not have a database of the people who make those contributions. Indeed, in most sectors they do not even know who those people are. In other words, the levies are paid to what are generally described as agents. In most circumstances, those agents might be, for example, processors. So the department of agriculture receives the levy on behalf of the research and development corporations and then passes it on to the research and development corporations, less an administrative charge for the work involved in collecting the levies et cetera, but the research and development corporations do not know who is paying those levies. Obviously, the extent to which they have knowledge varies across sectors. Some research and development corporations have many more contributors than others. Obviously, the more contributors and the more collection points and transactions along the way, the less likely it is that the research and development corporation will have visibility of who it is that is paying those levies.

It makes absolute sense. Labor supports in principle the idea that the RDCs, who are the bodies making decisions about how levy payers' money is spent, have the capacity to interact with levy payers. In other words, sensibly, they will have the capacity to go back and consult levy payers about how they believe their money should be spent, how well and how efficiently they think their money is being spent and whether they are happy with their compulsory investment in research and development. That absolutely makes sense. This legislation will overcome an enormous shortfall in the arrangements we have. Again, the opposition supports that.

Our ongoing concern is around who will have access to this information. The collection and retention of data is of course becoming a big issue in society generally at this time of digital disruption and at this time in our history when data is, if you like, gold. We are very keen to assure ourselves that the data and information will not go to others and will not be misused. The best example of that—and it is a concern of mine—is what we generally describe as representative organisations like, for example, the Cattle Council. I am not singling out the Cattle Council; I am just using it as an example because it is one of the bigger sectors and one of the bigger representative bodies. We are concerned that an organisation like that could potentially use the information for political purposes. These are elected bodies. They are sometimes in very good shape, but they sometimes find themselves struggling, including in financial terms. They also, therefore, face difficult situations with their membership. I think we would all agree—in fact, I do know that we all agree and I believe the minister agrees—that it would not be appropriate for the information gathered as a consequence of this bill to go into the hands of representative organisations who might then in turn use it for political purposes.

I raised these matters the last time this bill was debated here. Again, I am not satisfied that my concerns have been addressed. Indeed, when referring to the purposes for which the database might be shared and while also giving assurance about the need for ministerial approval in certain circumstances and departmental secretary approval in other circumstances, in his second reading speech the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources said:

Where an eligible recipient is permitted to disclose levy payer information to a third party, that person or body may only use the information for restricted purposes relating to R&D, marketing, biosecurity or the National Residue Survey, or in connection with any activity carried out by the RDC for the benefit of producers in the industry it serves.

I did study some law, but I am not a lawyer. I would have thought that a lawyer looking for a tight arrangement about whether or not this information is going to be shared with people for whom it was not intended would not be very happy with 'the benefit of producers in the industry it serves'. That could mean so many things. Obviously, that could mean that someone may conclude that providing the money to the representative organisation is in the interest of the producers. That may well be the fact. It could possibly be the case that sharing the information with the representative organisation is in the interest of the producer or grower. The representative organisation may have something in mind that undoubtedly would be in the interest of the producer or grower. But of course that is not the point here. We as the opposition want assurances that that is the case. That line in the minister's second reading speech causes me great concern.

Typically, the government says, 'This will all be dealt with in the regulations and the guidelines.' In other words, the government is saying on this very important matter: 'Don't worry. Trust us. It'll be okay.' I have learned not to do that, particularly with respect to this government. I opened by making the point that this bill is here for a second time. The now minister travelled extensively around the country in the lead-up to the 2013 election, making lots of promises to producers and growers about levies, in particular with respect to the grass-fed cattle levy. He was not the shadow minister for agriculture at the time, I remind people, so I do not know what the shadow minister for agriculture thought about his musings in the lead-up to the 2013 election. The minister made lots of promises, most of which he has not delivered on. The grass-fed cattle levy is the perfect example. It is a matter that Minister Joyce promised to send to a Senate committee. He belatedly and reluctantly eventually did that, but since that very extensive inquiry, which travelled very extensively, consulted widely and made, I think, seven recommendations, the minister has not embraced or properly responded to those recommendations.

On this matter, it is similar. He made promises in the lead-up to the 2013 election. And why was he making promises? Because axiomatically, understandably and predictably, very few growers and producers believe they receive value for the levy. This is a compulsory levy that primary producers have to pay and, of course, reaching out and touching the benefits of R&D is a very hard thing to do, so, understandably, the growers and producers are sceptical about the value they receive from their levy. Therefore it is understandable that Minister Joyce would be making comments pre-election. The fact that we are only finally debating this bill and, hopefully, sending it through its final stages in 2016 is best explained by the incompetence of this government. We are not prepared to take as a lick and a promise their guarantees on information sharing, and I do look forward to a proper response from the minister on the issues I have raised.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that the member for Hunter answered his own question, where he indicated that he is particularly concerned about the provision of information pursuant to this bill, namely, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016, when effectively he went to the bill. It is perhaps best summarised by saying to him that any and all information collected under this bill must be used for an activity related to rural research and development, or for biosecurity or national residue survey purposes. So the member for Hunter, in an attempt to find foul with the bill, has answered his own question. This information can only be provided in a circumstance where it is for a purpose related to research and development or biosecurity matters.

In any event, I rise in support of this bill. Perhaps that is not a surprise, given that I supported a bill in the very same terms during the course of the 44th Parliament—it is not a surprise to see me supporting it here at the beginning of the 45th. Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, you know that Barker is an agricultural hub for South Australia and, indeed, for the nation. It is home to some of our country's most fertile agricultural and horticultural assets and land.

Indeed, Barker hosts many of our nation's top primary producers: from farmers deep in the south-east on cattle properties to blockies in the Riverland growing late navels, we see the spectrum, if you like, of primary production across an electorate which is 68,000 square kilometres. Obviously, primary production employs the vast majority of my constituents: from small family-owned enterprises to large company-run farms, Barker is home to that full range of primary producers.

Farmers across my electorate, and indeed across the nation, are consistently searching for more opportunities and further development in research. In the last parliament I stood in this chamber and spoke of the importance of research and development, particularly in the primary industries sector. This importance has not diminished since I was last here in March. Rural research and development serves to help not only the producers of our nation but also our budget bottom line. For every single dollar that is invested by the government into rural R&D we see a $12 return over 10 years. That is a significant achievement: a one-dollar investment creating a $12 return.

As a coalition we remain committed to facilitating innovation across the agricultural sector. We have been laying the foundation to transition from the mining boom to the new, innovation-driven economy. This bill clears the constraints of the old economy, opening the channels of dialogue between rural R&D entities and the primary producers who fund and benefit from them. We are seeking to enable a productive dialogue between these two incredibly important entities for the next step in Australia's economy, opening the possibility for rural research and development corporations to identify and connect directly with the primary producers they serve.

This bill amends the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 to allow for the distribution of levy payer information by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to rural RDCs for the development of levy payer registers. This decision comes on the back of numerous reviews and inquiries which have identified improved consultation with levy payers as important for the ongoing strength of Australia's R&D architecture. This consultation will enable producers and rural research and development corporations to collaborate successfully on the relevant issues.

Levy payers should have more of a say in how their funds are expended, and the rural research and development corporations should know who provides the levy and what their objectives are. This bill allows for a register, providing these corporations with the ability to identify and consult directly with producers on research priorities and levy expenditure, and the relevant allocation of voting entitlements.

We are introducing this bill to fine-tune rural R&D, allowing the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to allow levy-payer information to be provided to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and to distribute contact information of people who have paid or are liable to pay a levy or charge; and may include the amount of levy or charge on a leviable commodity.

This amendment is consistent with the government's Public Data Policy Statement, which commits to securely sharing data between Australian government entities to improve efficiencies and inform policy development and decision-making.

As I said earlier, all information distributed under the bill must be used for an activity related to rural research and development, or for biosecurity or national residue survey purposes. We are talking about greater situational awareness when discussing the primary production sector, enabling the government to better formulate future policy decisions in a targeted, focused and informed manner.

This bill is consistent with the government's reasonable and responsible approach to agricultural policy. It is only the coalition that understands the plight of rural and regional Australians and the importance of reasonable policy when it comes to agriculture. Today the coalition is delivering a better outcome for primary producers across the nation and, indeed, in my electorate of Barker. The provisions in this bill will create greater clarity for our primary producers, their representative bodies and their related research entities.

When this bill was introduced in the 44th Parliament it was well received by representative bodies, which I noted when I first spoke in support of the bill. Jed Matz, the CEO of the Cattle Council of Australia, welcomed the benefits of more communication between entities. He said:

This will have multiple benefits such as improved disease management and prevention, improved extension services, more targeted communication and policy.

The sheepmeat industry is also supportive of the legislation. The President of the Sheepmeat Council of Australia, Jeff Murray, said:

The introduction of this legislation is an important step in empowering industry representative organisations … Once passed, these amendments will enable peak bodies such as SCA—

the Sheepmeat Council of Australia—

to identify the industry issues and priorities of the levy payers we represent through better engagement with them and therefore empower us to oversight levy expenditure more effectively.

These are but a few of the many organisations supporting our legislation here today. Those opposed to the bill could not say they have received such endorsement from the primary producers of this nation. That is what is very interesting about the contribution we have just heard from the member for Hunter. I often wonder about the member for Hunter. He has won out with the opposition—a group that are effectively union dominated and overwhelmingly hail from the inner city or, at least, from cities. The member for Hunter is given the responsibility of speaking for the Australian Labor Party on questions of agriculture and the bush. He does a reasonable job and is an honourable advocate. But, frankly, it is very difficult for him to convince his fellow representatives from the Australian Labor Party to work for the interests of Australians living in rural and regional communities. That is why this bill is an example of the differences between our respective parties.

Aside from the National Party, with whom we are in coalition to form government, there are 14 members of this place who hail from rural and regional Australia. I am one of them. I love visiting our capital cities but I often say about Adelaide that the best view of it is in the rear vision mirror as I enter my electorate via the Adelaide Hills or the Northern Expressway through the Barossa. I see that some on the other side are giggling. But when you have assets like mine—the Coonawarra, the Barossa, citrus from the Riverland, the whole of the Murray in South Australia—it is not hard to see why those of us who visit capital cities are quite happy to leave them. I am a proud and parochial South Australian, so for me it is Adelaide. I am quite happy to leave it and return to the serenity and great beauty of regional centres.

When we talk about the differences between the coalition members of the House and those on the other side—and invariably I am talking about agriculture—I am reminded of one of the great failings of this place when those opposite were seated on this side of the chamber and my predecessors were in opposition. That, of course, was the live cattle export fiasco. That was a knee-jerk reaction, policy making on the run, which saw an industry decimated overnight. That was something we did not support, and would not support, because we are not about policy on the run or policy in any other way than by consultation, not reaction.

I eagerly anticipate the benefits this bill will deliver to agriculture. Our government will ensure a strong future for primary production in our nation. I commend the bill to the House.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016 is the first step to enable rural research and development corporations, RDCs, to establish a levy payer register if they choose to do so. This bill will strengthen the ability of RDCs to connect directly with those who fund their work. The levy payer registers will allow RDCs to identify and consult directly with the levy payers who fund the research and development system and ensure accuracy in the allocation of voting entitlements. As it currently stands, the department cannot distribute levy payer data to RDCs except in the wool and dairy industries. The bill will remedy this by allowing the government to provide levy payer information for the purposes of a levy payer register to 13 other RDCs should the RDCs choose to do so.

There are a number of steps in the process for each levy payer register to be established. We need to bring along a diverse range of industry and levy payers. That will necessarily take some time. Developing a fit-for-purpose, cost-effective system to deliver levy payer information to RDCs is a complex process. Each industry will need to take the time to consider what benefit a levy payer register will offer in view of the cost of establishing and maintaining such a register. Recognising that each agricultural industry is different, the distribution of levy payer information to an RDC for a levy payer register will only occur where an RDC, in consultation with industry, requests its distribution and that request is approved by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Levy payer registers could include information such as the name, address, contact details and ABN of any person who has paid, or is liable to pay, a levy or charge. The information may also include details of the amount of the levy or charge that a person has paid or is liable to pay. To be clear, financial information will only be available to the RDC, and any requests for access to this information from a third party will be considered by the secretary of the department.

My department has already started consulting with RDCs, industry representative bodies, and levy collection agents on how to best collect levy payer data and on the systems that all parties will use to collect and distribute that data. Workshops are also under way to determine user requirements for the IT system underpinning levy payer registers. These consultations will inform the regulations that sit under this bill to mandate the collection of data to populate a levy payer register. The government will continue to work with industry and RDCs to ensure that Australia's R&D system remains transparent and consultative and delivers tangible benefits to Australia's rural industries into the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.