Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the statement by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in relation to the import conditions for apples from New Zealand.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Needless to say, there is significant concern in agricultural sectors, particularly the apple and pear growing sectors, about the import of apples—especially given that, even though this process included the opportunity for industry to comment on the revised draft import risk assessment released by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry some time ago, the sum effect of that was that nothing the industry said had any impact on the decision. While there is a perception that industry has had the opportunity to have some input into and a say in this process, the net impact is that the government has effectively gone with the draft import risk assessment that was released by the government two or three months ago. Effectively the government has gone with the decision of the Prime Minister when she made a statement to the New Zealand parliament while she was there, I think in April, that we would of course accept the WTO decision. Certainly she gave the impression that it did not really matter what industry here in Australia was going to say; we were just going to let New Zealand apples in.

There is sincere and significant concern here in Australia that we will end up with fire blight. The New Zealanders say they do not worry about fire blight anymore; they have learned to live with it. Of course they have—they have had it since the 1920s or so, so of course they have learned to manage it. We are one of the few places that does not have fire blight, and we do not have the expense of dealing with it. Industry is understandably more than concerned about this decision, and particularly the pear growing sector. One of the reasons New Zealand does not have a pear industry is that they have fire blight, and fire blight is completely and utterly devastating for the pear industry. If anyone has seen a photograph of the impact of fire blight on a pear tree, they will know that growers effectively forget about growing pears. That is what has happened in New Zealand. I have had correspondence from someone in New Zealand saying: 'Why worry about our apples? I am enjoying one of your pears.' Of course he was enjoying one of Australia's pears—because of fire blight you cannot get a pear commercially in New Zealand.

All through this process there has been a withholding of information. Industry tried and tried to get access to New Zealand's integrated fruit management plan. They were told that it was commercial-in-confidence and it was not until the opposition demanded in this chamber that those documents be released that they were finally released. When they were released, we discovered that they were largely as prepared in the import risk assessment. All the government had to do was tell the industry that this was a reproduction of what was in the integrated fruit management plan and the industry would have understood that. But, no, the government would not put that on the table. They said sorry, you cannot have it, it is commercial-in-confidence. So of course this huge level of distrust has developed between industry and the government over this process. How could the industry not be furious about this decision and be complaining bitterly about the result it has had?

The industry through the consultation process actually put some very sensible propositions to the government. They asked that no apples be imported into Australia from orchards affected by fire blight. The New Zealand integrated fruit management system identifies those orchards, because the orchards are treated; they are sprayed. It is very easy to identify orchards with fire blight. My understanding is that only about 10 per cent of New Zealand orchards have an incidence of fire blight on an annual basis, so let us just rule them out. That lowers the risk and mitigates some of the issues. We are going to have just a simple quality assurance program. What we are being asked to accept here in Australia for the defence of our disease-free status is a quality assurance system.

One of the other questions the industry has is where is the verification system? Where is there a strong process of verification? My understanding is that the shadow minister put to the minister last week a request that we have a completed QA process, a full verification process, before the fruit is shipped. I would have thought that was a simple process that did not step outside the bounds of what is reasonable. Let us have verification that all the things that are supposed to be done are done before the fruit is shipped. Then we can have a level of confidence that there is proper verification down the supply chain, and particularly through the packing process and the inspection process. Even that has been ignored.

Given the science we have had put in front of us that fire blight loses its viability over time, it would have been quite reasonable to impose a short withholding period. My understanding is that fire blight does not seem to be an issue anymore for New Zealand apples going to Japan because there is a two-month withholding period for other pests and diseases and over that time the fire blight bacterium decays and becomes no longer viable. Why not put something simple like that in place to mitigate the issues that might impact on the industry here? But, no, the government has not accepted anything the industry has said and the industry is justifiably concerned. Apple and Pear Australia Ltd said today:

The measures adopted in the final policy and determination for the importation of New Zealand apples are horrendously weak and we are extremely concerned that the three pests recognised as major risks to our biosecurity won't be controlled to the degree the industry requires.

Industry remain concerned about the possibility of fire blight coming to this country and I think it is reasonable that they continue to be concerned. The industry goes on to say:

It is critically important that the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service maintains a high level of diligence in New Zealand and that there is no leniency in applying the phytosanitary measures.

One concerning thing which came through in this process was a statement by one of the representatives of the New Zealand industry who talked about the efficacy of the New Zealand system. There was an outbreak of one of the diseases in Taiwan that the biosecurity system was supposed to cover. This goes back to the issue of the withholding period. There was a breakdown in the New Zealand system which allowed a disease to get into Taiwan. The response from the CEO of Pipfruit New Zealand, Mr Peter Bevan, was:

No system is perfect and systems break down.

That is what we are supposed to accept—that no system is perfect, systems do not work all the time, systems break down and an admission from Pipfruit New Zealand that this does not work 100 per cent of the time. I do not think that is acceptable.

It is really disappointing that the minister has not chosen to accept any of the sensible recommendations made by the industry here in Australia. I believe we are therefore in a situation where our industry has been exposed to the potential for fire blight. We know what it will do to the pear industry and we know that it will have an impact on our apple industry. It is extremely disappointing that we have gone down that track today where the minister has effectively refused to listen to anything industry has said.