Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak to the matter and to support the motion that the Senate take note of the report by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. It is important to understand that agriculture is an industry of some $40 billion of value to the Australian economy. It employs almost 300,000 people, nearly all of whom are in rural Australia. We have been invited to talk about rebate and reform. I suggest that we also need to rethink. Yes, as previous speakers have said, the industry and AQIS, government and us, are very much in favour of the need to reform. What has been put to industry is that it is essential that the 40 per cent rebate be dropped in advance of reform. We have heard very clearly in the last few months, and particularly in the last few days in the committee hearings, that the industry wants to see reform take place before the rebate is dropped. That is not unreasonable. This is a very, very significant industry. I urge the minister and the government, faced with the size of this industry and the risks to it, to find the sum of $20 million, up to $25 million, so that we can progress. Then we can do what AQIS and the industry are calling for—that is, to set the reform path but to do so in advance of the 40 per cent rebate being withdrawn.

It was of particular concern to me to learn that the Beale report author, Mr Roger Beale, upon whose recommendations most of this decision was based, had not in fact undertaken an economic survey to determine what the impact would be on the industry and on rural communities in the event that this 40 per cent rebate was lifted. I have been endeavouring to find out whether the government itself actually undertook such an economic impact statement. It is of enormous concern that our producers would be faced with the removal of the 40 per cent rebate—which many of our competitors do not have to pay—when nobody seems to understand what the economic impact would be on the industry sectors and on the communities they serve. I believe such an impact statement needs to be done. Again, I urge the minister and those responsible to reconsider this quickly so that we do not interrupt that process.

There is no doubt at all that hard work has gone in—it has gone in from senior AQIS personnel and it has gone in from industry personnel—and we learned of genuine goodwill. But, as Senator Colbeck has said, to think that this can be undertaken in this financial year is also an unrealistic time frame. It is also unrealistic to think that industries can absorb this loss of 40 per cent. Industry have said to us continually, particularly the meat industry that accounts for some 70 per cent of all export certification and inspection costs, that they are quite happy to pay their share of the costs that can be apportioned by AQIS to those services that they perform. But, not unreasonably, they have also said that they do not see why—bearing in mind again that they are 70 per cent of the size of the cake—they should be bearing the costs of head office and other related costs. I cannot see why either. The point was made, for example, that the car industry, a smaller industry than the meat industry with fewer employees and a much lower export income—in fact, only a quarter of the income earned by the meat industry—has received very significant support from government. The point it would make is that it also would be keen to see that continued level of support whilst the reform process is worked out so that it can move on.

When I speak of the meat industry, it is important to understand the impact. For example, in Western Australia we have only one export abattoir responsible for cattle slaughtering, and that is down in Harvey in the south-west. In the event that that export abattoir did not exist, you would have to go up the north coast and across the north of Australia to Townsville before you found another abattoir able to do that work. Our beef producers would be faced with the prospect of trucking cattle to South Australia or to Townsville. That is unacceptable, and I do not think that anybody would want to see that occur. My final point before passing over to a colleague who I know wishes to speak on this is the question of redundancies. Incorporated in the figure that is currently on the table is the funding of redundancies. It really is unreasonable that industry would be expected to fund the redundancies of a government agency.

In conclusion, I also congratulate the committee on the work that they did and on the quality of the report. I congratulate my Senate colleagues and those who appeared on the way in which it was conducted. But I say again: the opportunity is there for the government to examine this in the coming days and to put the extra sum of money onto the table so that this whole process can indeed continue.