Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to the notice of intention I gave earlier today, I now withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name for today for the disallowance—

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I object to the withdrawal of business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 and ask to have my name put on that notice. The intention to withdraw this notice of motion was given earlier. I am getting in first to object to the withdrawal of business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2. I ask to have my name put on that notice.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had a bit of cross-information. Of course that motion can now stand in your name, Senator Fielding.

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

I move:

That the Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1), made under regulation 3 of the Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982, be disallowed.]

At the request of Senator Fielding, I also move:

That the following legislative instruments be disallowed:

(a)

the Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1), made under regulation 3 of the Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982 [F2009L02097];

(b)

the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Export Licensing) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 108 and made under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 [F2009L02110];

(c)

the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 109 and made under the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Act 1985 [F2009L02113]; and

(d)

the Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 110 and made under the Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act 1985].

Mr Acting Deputy President Hutchins, as we discussed at the tabling of the report on the disallowance of AQIS fees and charges yesterday, it is with no pleasure that we do this, but we find it necessary because of the complete and utter mismanagement of this process. There are real concerns about the way that the minister has negotiated this process, right from the time that we first put a disallowance on the table.

We are genuinely concerned about this process. If the government had been prepared to have or were interested in a genuine reform process, it would have adequately resourced it right from the start. It would not have come as a complete surprise, out of the blue, from the Beale process. The industry understood that Beale was reviewing AQIS in respect of imports into Australia. Industry told us at the inquiry last week that they had no expectation at all that Beale was going to make a recommendation to remove the 40 per cent rebate on AQIS export fees and charges; therefore, they did not engage with that issue. Had they known that it was going to be a problem, they would have engaged with it and put their point of view. The first the meat industry knew about it was at a meeting with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Burke, in February. They told us that at the meeting on Friday.

Over the last 24 hours, when the minister has suddenly realised that this is going to go pear shaped, there has been this frantic process to try to negotiate a way out of his problem. Again, it is a demonstration that the government has no real plan for reform. It has tried to cobble together a deal at the last minute. In fact, as late as two o’clock, when the beef industry found out that there was supposedly a deal floating around—they had not been consulted—they were trying to negotiate an outcome on behalf of their industry with the minister. But what about the fishing industry? What about the horticulture sector? What about those small abattoirs who still do not know, under this alleged deal that Minister Burke has done with the Greens, whether they are still paying an extra $50,000 a year? This does not demonstrate that. All that we know will happen under this deal is that the fees and charges will go up. We do not know how it is going to be applied. The government said in the budget that by going to full cost recovery there would be a $43 million a year saving in the budget. That is what the budget papers said. The government put $40 million on the table. Supposedly that $40 million is going into ‘effectively allowing a rebate on fees’, but what does that mean? Nobody knows what it means. Nobody knows what the bottom line of the deal is. We cannot tell the abattoirs in Victoria who look after the emu industry or the ostrich industry—the only abattoirs that do that—whether they are going to have to pay a $50,000 registration fee or whether the only export abattoir in Western Australia is going to be charged extra. We do not know.

The industry has put to the minister a list of demands. We do not know whether the minister has signed that off or not. He was almost promising them anything they wanted at one stage during the afternoon, but they have not had that signed off. He has looked after the big guys, but what about the rest? Those that ring up and complain might get some attention. Yet the Greens call this a great deal. They are prepared to sell-out agriculture for a bit of publicity. Granted, there is some money attached to this, and we said all along that there should be some more money put into this process.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne interjecting—

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

Senator Milne, I am glad you interjected, because that brings me to another point about the dishonesty of this government. John Cobb, the opposition spokesman on agriculture, went to the minister yesterday to try and do a deal. He was told there was no more money.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did he ask for?

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

He was told there was no more money at one o’clock yesterday, yet by yesterday evening there was $20 million on the table. How can you trust what this government says? How can the industry trust what this government says? They do not know whether there is going to be some money on the table. They do not know what it is going to apply to. We gave the government an opportunity three months ago to work through the industry plans and to put them on the table. We suspended our disallowance motion so that the government could have the opportunity to work through things with industry. We gave them the chance to work and negotiate with industry and to come back and show us the progress on the industry plans. They came to our inquiry last week on Thursday night and told us that all this could be sorted out in 12 months. AQIS said to the committee, ‘We are confident that all of these six reform plans can be dealt with within six months.’ Industry came the next day and said, ‘We don’t think that’s the case.’ The grains industry told us that it would be at least two years. The meat industry told us a minimum of two years for the big items and out to five years. The government appears now to be conceding that this is the case. Where is the confidence that existed last Thursday night? The whole process is a complete shambles. The government will not negotiate with the opposition but can do a deal worth $20 million later that night with the Greens.

What this deal does not do is protect the industry from higher prices. The government is going to charge higher fees. Then it is going to put it into the industry liability accounts and perhaps apply it later to fees and charges. This is what the letter says:

All cost reductions will accumulate to the benefit of affected sectors within the industry liability accounts, potentially enabling downward adjustment of fees and charges for 2010 and 2011, or continued investment in further reforms.

We said that this process needed funding in the first year and that the rebate should continue for the next 12 months. This does not guarantee that. The charges will continue. The only way to guarantee the rebate continues for 12 months is to disallow these regulations. That is the only way industry has any guarantee that the rebate will continue. The government is also saying, as I said yesterday, ‘reform or rebate’. The government needs to continue this process. Everybody accepts that there needs to be reform. The opposition has said all along that there should be reform, and we support reform. What we want is a proper process.

We said at the outset: put the industry plans in place, fund them, implement them and then pass the savings back to industry. That is a reasonable process. And industry sector after industry sector came to us last week and said exactly that: ‘We want the reforms identified, we want them implemented and then we’re prepared to go into a new cost structure.’ Where is the problem with that? Why is that an issue? The problem is that the government is not being straight up and down. It will not deal with the opposition. The opposition spokesman went to meet with the minister and was told there was no money.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne interjecting—

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

Well, if you are told there is no money, Senator Milne, what are we supposed to say?

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don’t accept that; I never accept that!

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

It is just absurd, Senator Milne.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Address your remarks through the chair, Senator Colbeck. And Senator Milne, please cease your interjecting.

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

The way that the government are treating agriculture generally is completely absurd. It is completely and utterly absurd. This industry exports close to $30 billion a year. They almost wet themselves when there is a gas deal signed with China that runs for 25 years for $25 billion—they go berserk. But here is an industry that is doing more than that every year, and what are they prepared to do? They will not even genuinely fund the reform process. There is $30 billion worth of exports every year. The beef industry on its own exports more than the car industry. They supply hundreds of millions to the car industry but they will not fund a simple reform process of export fees and charges. It is absolutely absurd.

Let us have a look at what happens in other countries. In Argentina, industry funds the on-plant inspection component only. In Australia they want us to fund that plus all the overheads. In Canada: on-plant inspection only. In Denmark: on-plant inspection only. In Great Britain: on-plant inspection only. In Japan: laboratory testing regimes only. In Korea, industry pays nil. In Mexico: vet costs only. And in the United States: shift and overtime only.

This is a significant industry for Australia. It is the sector that kept us out of recession, yet this is how this government treats it. It is not prepared to put up the money. The department have been absolutely decimated because of the fact that the minister will not stand up for them in cabinet. They have been copping all the cuts, and yet the government will not put in the money for a simple reform process, even though we are talking about an industry that exports $30 billion a year.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, come on Richard—what did your lot do in 11 ½ years?

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

You’ll get your chance. We put the 40 per cent rebate in place, Senator Sterle.

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senator Sterle.

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

I say to industry that, by moving this motion, what we are looking to do is to ensure that the government engages with them in a genuine reform process. That is what we are looking to do. Moving this motion does not mean that reform is all over. The government might be threatening that, but the government knows that it has to go ahead with the reform process. Yesterday there was no money available; suddenly today there is $20 million. We know that they have the money. They can spend $43 billion on stimulus but they cannot put money in to effectively fund a reform process. It is absolutely ridiculous. What we want the government to do now is to put in place a process that has agreed timelines, that has agreed work plans, that has agreed costings—and then to fund it. They can then come back to this place with that new reform process.

We have tried to be constructive all the way through this process. We could have knocked this off back in June. We could have disallowed these regulations back in June. But we did not. We gave the government the opportunity to continue with its reform process—to work with industry, to come back with agreed work plans, and then for us to have the opportunity to peruse that, look and see how they were getting on and then to assess whether or not we saw things as being genuine.

On top of that, we asked industry to come and speak before us. We put in place a Senate inquiry—which the government opposed; they were not interested in genuinely hearing what industry said—and industry came in and told us that they wanted a reform process that allowed them to work out what the savings might be: implement the reforms and then change the fees and charges. There is no equivocation on industry’s part. They want a reform process—as do the opposition and as do the miners, I am sure. I am sure they are all looking to see something like this happen. So, we say to industry: we know there is concern out there about what is happening here today, but now is your opportunity to sit down with government and negotiate a proper reform process. The pressure is now on the government. We said last week, in a taking note debate, that if this fell over it would be the government’s fault. Do not go blaming us: we gave you every chance. We gave the government every chance to sort this out, and they did not. They were running around between 10 o’clock this morning and four o’clock this afternoon trying to negotiate some sort of last-minute deal, but nobody can tell us what the deals mean. So how can we, with confidence, go back to that small abattoir in Myrtleford and say: ‘Look, you are not going to be charged a $50,000 registration fee’? We cannot. How can we go back to the cherry growers in Tasmania and say: ‘We are confident that you are not going to see an explosion that puts you out of the Japanese market’? We cannot. We cannot even go to the abattoir in Western Australia, which is the only one between South Australia and Townsville, right around the top, and say, ‘Your fees and charges will not go up.’

So what I say to industry is: go back to Minister Burke, take your proposals and your plans, and come and talk to us as well because we are genuinely interested in progressing this reform process. If the government is prepared to put a real deal on the table, we will support it. We have tried to be constructive all the way through this process. We did not come in here quoting press releases that were three months old or read last week’s submission to the inquiry to try to justify our position. We have worked with industry all the way through. We have taken on board their concerns and we will continue to do that so that we get a good outcome. We are prepared to work with the government to achieve that if they are prepared to work with us. So here is the opportunity for the government: if you want to get this right, sit down and deal with industry and this parliament in a genuine way and we will be part of the deal.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are after having only a few weeks ago debated this same issue about the AQIS export certification functions, the fees associated with it and the 40 per cent rebate that is given. The heart of the issue is: should we at this time be slugging horticulture, meat and livestock and the agricultural sectors, which are exporting, with extra costs. I do not think so. I have been consistent on this since the last time we debated the issue. Do I think that the government needs to ensure that the services that are provided to these industries become more efficient and are of a lower cost so as to increase Australia’s competitiveness? Of course I do. But to basically say to the industries that are exposed and are being given higher costs at this time, ‘We need to partner with you but you bear the costs,’ is ridiculous. At the last minute the government has come up with another $20 million to say, ‘We will cover the costs for the industry.’

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne interjecting—

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will tell you something: you have got to smell a rat when the Greens say that they are friends of the meat and livestock industry. You have got to smell a rat when they stand up and say that they are friends of agriculture or that they are there for horticulture. I have listened to them in the last two or three years that I have been here and they are not friends of those industries at all. When you see them doing a deal with the government you can bet your bottom dollar that there is something horribly wrong here.

The government has to get fair dinkum. They are going to have to do their homework. They are going to have to put decent reform in place. Get the efficiencies up-front before you start slugging hardworking Australian industries that are exposed competitively internationally. Talk to the exporters. They are still very concerned. I have spoken to them today, even since the other $20 million has come in. It is still basically saying, ‘You have got a one-year reprieve.’ The government should get on with it, get the efficiencies in place and then, as the costs come down, come back to the parliament and seek approval for jacking up the prices. That way it is a fair deal—rather than just saying, ‘No, industry can bear the cost.’ And then they say, ‘Don’t disallow this stuff now because we have got a deal with the Greens which says that the $20 million will actually help to offset the cost.’ How much it will do that, I do not know. But then at the end of that year, guess what? They are exposed again. And the government would say, ‘Trust me.’ Well, this one is a problem.

I do not see enough work being done in this area and I do not want to slug hardworking industries, that are exposed internationally, with extra costs at this time. You use the global financial crisis—which is there; it is legitimate—but you pick and choose what you use it for. These are hardworking Australians. They are already doing it tough. I cannot see the sense in getting them to foot the bill for your inefficiencies. The report itself said that a common theme in submissions was that the removal of the rebate should not have been contemplated ahead of the implementation reform. It is in the report as part of 2.4 under the heading ‘Industry support for removal of the rebate’.

I have spoken to some people this afternoon, even since the $20 million, and I tell you: when the Greens say that they are friends of the meat and livestock industry they have got to be kidding. When the Greens say that they are friends of agriculture they have to be joking. Let us be fair and reasonable here. Get on with the reforms yourself and get the efficiencies in there. The costs savings need to be there first and then we can look at how much of the rebate should be passed on to these hardworking Australian industries that are exposed on exports.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to comment on this issue, with which I have been involved since the start. People in the Senate will be aware that it was my disallowance that went on the Notice Paper straight after the budget. I note with interest that it is Senator Fielding and Senator Colbeck who have taken over my motion, because the one on the books that Senator Colbeck had did not do the job. It did not get it right.

I want to say to the Senate that I find Senator Fielding’s remarks beneath contempt. If you check the record, my colleague Senator Siewert served as chair, and I have served as deputy chair, of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee in the time that I have been in the Senate. Senator Siewert and I have consistently been members of that committee and have served on inquiry after inquiry and moved for inquiry after inquiry, unlike Senator Fielding, who has not moved for any rural and regional inquiries, that I am aware of, and nor is he a regular attendee at the committee or at the hearings. Also, he was not at the hearing last Friday when we heard the evidence in relation to this. I am very happy to debate the issues, but I have to say it is a reflection on the speaker if you cannot deal with the issues and you just contribute what is no more than a bigoted diatribe.

However, I move on to the issue in relation to this motion for disallowance. I want to say that I am totally committed to reform in the primary industry sector, in particular in relation to the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service and the reforms that are on the table. As everyone else has said in here, every single one of the sectors that have come before the committee and made a submission over this time have said that they are committed to reform. The issue that they had was that they wanted the reforms in place before the 40 per cent rebate was taken away. That was their issue. They did not want to have to incur the cost until the reforms were in place. I said that yesterday. I make it very clear that it was in 2001 that the rebate was introduced, under the Howard government. But I also want to say that in December 2002 the Howard government adopted a formal cost recovery policy aimed at improving the consistency, transparency and accountability of their cost recovery arrangements. It was the Howard government that did nothing to facilitate reform. They paid the rebate and they said the reform was necessary, but they also indicated that the rebate would run out. It was moved by the Howard government for one more period of time but the expectation was that it would run out. It was due to run out this year.

The Rudd government came back and said, ‘We will put $39.3 million on the table to facilitate the reform process and the agricultural sector will go to 100 per cent cost recovery for the department.’ In other words, they will pay 100 per cent. I did not believe that was fair because I did not think there was enough time to transition and because there is a global economic crisis. There is a high dollar. Every industry group that came before us said: ‘Look, we’re concerned about this. We actually want the reforms but we are concerned about the money.’ I went through all the evidence and I heard Senator Colbeck say several times that they need more money on the table. I believe that $20 million was the figure that Senator Colbeck referred to. But I want to put on the record in this Senate that it was not the Liberal Party and it was not the National Party that went to the minister and said, ‘I believe we need to have this much money and this is our proposal.’

I have done it twice. I went to the minister when I first moved this and said, ‘I would like to have a work plan on the table by 1 August which will do these things for the horticulture sector,’ because that was the sector that was most divided at the time. The minister agreed. I have to say that on 1 August there was a work plan on the table for the horticulture sector, as had been agreed. After the hearing last week, I was deeply disturbed by the fact that this was going ahead without money on the table for the farmers, so I went to the minister yesterday. I have to say that I am the only one who actually sat down and said, ‘I want $20 million, Minister, because these people need the rebate paid for the next 12 months, while the reform agenda is implemented.’ The minister already had $39 million on the table. He agreed to put $20 million on top of that so that the rebates and fees will be paid, the 40 per cent will be paid, for the next 12 months, until the end of the financial year. The farmers all know now that they will get the reform agenda, the work plans and the whole system that they are working on in place and they will get their rebate of fees and charges until the end of the financial year.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There’s not enough money.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that the National Party says there is not enough money when the National Party did not put a proposition to the minister. How much money did you ask for? I do not believe the coalition spokesperson went to the minister and put a figure on the table. I will stand to be corrected. I would like to hear from any senator in here who knows that Mr Cobb or anyone else went to the minister and said, ‘I want X amount of dollars.’ I do not believe they did. I believe they said, ‘We need more money.’ They did not ask for a specific amount. They did not have a specific proposal. They are clearly not used to negotiating if they take no for an answer. I do not believe in taking no for an answer if someone says that there is no more money. There was $3 billion on the table yesterday for the car industry. I made the point in my speech in here that if there is that much money on the table for the car industry then there is money available for the farmers. Senator Colbeck said before that $20 million would fix the problem. I am back here with $20 million, in addition to the $39.3 million the government had on the table. Now the coalition, together with Senators Fielding and Xenophon, are going to reject the $39.3 million for reform and the $20 million rebates for the farmers.

For the next 12 months that money will be recouped and they will get their 40 per cent, but the reforms will not proceed because there is no additional money in order to take both the rebates and the reforms beyond this particular package. I was at least prepared to go to the government and say, ‘This is what we need.’ The grain industry said that they want this to proceed; they do not want the disallowance. The horticulture council, having been very conflicted before, I have to say, were back today saying that with that $20 million on the table and the fact that they will get their rebate on fees for the next 12 months, until the end of the financial year, they do not want the disallowance to proceed.

I think you are going to find as you go out there that a lot of industry sectors are very annoyed, because the progressive end of the industry sectors realises that the best way forward for them is to get the reforms in order to reduce the costs. There is duplication. There is no doubt that there is duplication between federal and state inspection services. There is no doubt that we need an electronic system to be able to lodge documentation for accreditation and that sort of thing. There is no doubt that we need the AAs in place and the government negotiating with our high-value export markets like Japan and the US to get the protocols changed. Whether that can be achieved in the time frame I do not know. If it cannot then there has to be another mechanism because we have to get these costs down.

The only way you are going to get efficiencies is if you actually try for a reform process. I have to say that the coalition did not push a reform process between 2001 and 2007. Not a single reform was on the table from the coalition in that time, and nor is there today a proposal from either the Liberal Party or the National Party for how to progress the reforms—not one. There was not a proposal to the minister about a sum of money. There was not a proposal on the table for the minister about how to proceed. In my view this motion is just purely playing politics, because we now have a situation where the Liberal Party and the National Party are refusing $20 million for rural and regional Australia. What is absolutely on the table is an additional $20 million so that the rebates will be paid for the next 12 months while the reform process is on. So it is almost $60 million—the $39.3 million and the $20 million—that is on the table to get the reform agenda up and the rebates paid for the next year.

You are now risking all of that, and I have no idea what the minister and the government would do in response. But let me say that it will not be Family First putting any proposals on the table. It clearly is not the Nationals, it clearly is not the Liberals and it clearly is not Senator Xenophon with a proposal on the table. I know it is the citrus growers in South Australia who have been talking to Senator Xenophon, and of course he is listening to his constituents and that is more than reasonable. But we have got several industry sectors here who want to proceed. Grains said they want to proceed. Dairy want to proceed. The meat industry want to proceed with the reforms and they were very clear about that. They want the reforms, but they want to make sure they get the rebates so that they have a transitional package, if you like, to the new arrangements. They all want to proceed so that by the end of the next financial year the reforms would be in place, with a transitional arrangement.

Now there is nothing. If this goes down, there is no transitional arrangement. There is no $20 million on the table. There is confusion out there. Yes, they will get their fees and rebates paid for the next 12 months, but under this arrangement that is precisely what I intended—that is what the $20 million is intended to do. So I really think this motion is letting down rural Australia with a lack of leadership, to be honest.

Leadership requires that you go out there and drive a reform process that is in the interests of the country in the longer term. It is about making rural and regional Australian export industries more competitive, and that is what they want. I spoke to the cherry growers and what they want is the AAs in place. They want to have accreditation. They want to be able to compete with their New Zealand counterparts. That is what they want, and their frustration is that AQIS has not gone out there and finished the process for them. AQIS has let them down in terms of the reforms that they want, and they want those reforms now. They are not going to get those reforms if this goes down, and there will be a lot of progressive people out there who are frustrated in their efforts to become more competitive in their business and to hold AQIS to account. For years they have been saying that AQIS has been promising these reforms and has not delivered. This was a process for forcing actual reform to occur because the whole thing had to be done in the next 12 months in order to get the fees and charges down in the longer term.

I am not naive about the whole reform agenda being able to be delivered in 12 months. We heard evidence from a number of people that some reforms would be more readily accessible in terms of savings than others and that other reforms may take longer. But the clear evidence is that once you start the reform process you build momentum through that process and you get continual improvement; you get the department focused on actually delivering reform, which is what the agricultural community wants.

Contrary to Senator Fielding’s very poor understanding of this matter, I have been part of the agricultural community for my entire life, having been brought up on a dairy farm in north-west Tasmania. It was in order to save the farmlands of Wesley Vale that I campaigned against the Wesley Vale pulp mill for all those years. I stopped subdivision after subdivision of agricultural land. I brought in the mapping of soils in Tasmania so that we protected high-quality agricultural land, and to this day I am trying to stop the incursion of urban areas into high-quality agricultural land. We have to protect that land for food production into the future, and I am passionate about that. I am also passionate about making sure the people who are growing our food are competitive.

Biosecurity is a key area for Australia’s export competitiveness. We have to do better than we are currently doing in biosecurity, and that is why I have put so much effort into this. That is why I went to the minister the last time we were discussion this here, in June, and said to him: ‘We have to drive this process. We have to get an agreement for horticulture. I want those plans on the table by 1 August.’ And on 31 July I was on the phone to the minister’s office saying, ‘Are you meeting that?’ As a result of the deadline, they had a massive phone link-up that went for hours with the producers to try to get some agreement on a work plan and drive the process during that time. When we came back here after last Friday, I was the one who was then in the minister’s office yesterday with a proposal on the table, and I think $20 million is not to be sneezed at.

I think most growers would be relieved to know that that $20 million was to be spent on giving them their fees and rebates for the next 12 months while that $39 million is being spent on reform. If this goes down, that process will not occur. That would be appalling for competitiveness, because why would there then be any drive for reform into the next 18 months? There will not be, and a lot of these sectors will be very annoyed. So if the National Party and the Liberal Party and the two Independents think that this is some kind of leadership for rural and regional Australia, let me tell them it is not. It is actually pitching to a populist response rather than looking to industry leaders, who are the ones who are going to take us into the future with the best innovation in their sectors. It is the innovators in their sectors who are begging for this reform. And it is the $20 million that the government was going to deliver on top of its $39.3 million that would have supported those innovators in bringing about the changes in AQIS that need to occur to give us better biosecurity and better security for the producers and exporters around rural and regional Australia.

I ask people to think very carefully about moving this disallowance because this is an opportunity. Of course, there are risks associated with it. I sat and listened to all of the people giving evidence to the Senate inquiry about the risk that the reforms may not be delivered in time and that they would be passing out the cost recovery while the reforms may not be delivered. That is why I said, ‘We want the $20 million to give them the rebate at the same time that the reforms are being implemented so it is not costing them in the meantime.’ You can argue about whether 12 months was long enough, and perhaps it is not. I would have loved to have got more for years further out for some of these sectors; nevertheless, the letter signed by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry says in black and white that there is $20 million of new money. It says:

… the additional funding will effectively allow a rebate on fees and charges for the 2009-10 financial year to all affected sectors while the full reform agenda developed jointly by industry representatives and AQIS is implemented ...

That is my proposal, that is the proposal I went to the government with, that is the proposal that they agreed to and that is why we now have $60 million on the table. Senator Back said to me last night, ‘Surely there must be some resolution to this,’ and that is right—we want a resolution to it. At least I thought people were committed to finding some way through this to a resolution so that we got reform and money. But it appears that is not the case. I think that you are doing a disservice to the innovators and all of the sectors that have said that they want reform. You are now jeopardising reform for an uncertain future, whereas what is on the table is a reform agenda and 12 months guaranteed to get their fees and rebates paid. I think that is a good proposal for rural and regional Australia. It guarantees improvements in biosecurity and efficiency—those things that the coalition never did when it was in government. From 2001 to 2007 not one single reform was implemented or attempted, yet in that time the coalition government made the decision to go to full cost recovery having not implemented a reform. At least this is an attempt at a reform agenda and $20 million to help farmers adjust to it. The coalition—the Liberal-National Party—Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding will deny rural and regional Australia this $20 million.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some remarks on the disallowance motion for the 40 per cent rebate. It astounds me how many ways this Labor government can find to belt regional Australia. Here we have yet another example of this government being completely disconnected from and out of touch with our agricultural communities. We are talking about one of the few sectors that is underpinning the recovery of this country from the global financial crisis. But what do we get from the government? ‘Let’s find another way to whack another tax on them.’ It is not fair or right. Not only that but it is completely stupid. Why would this government go down a path that one of the people appearing in front of the inquiry said was an antistimulus move? Why go down this track when the government says it wants to do everything to stimulate our economy? Why would you put a new tax on one of the very industries that is underpinning the recovery of this nation? It is completely stupid.

There has been some discussion around industry support for the removal of the 40 per cent rebate. As far as I could ascertain through our inquiry and all the discussions with industry, there is no actual support for the removal of that rebate—none, nada, not any. We recognise support exists across all the sectors for reform. We all agree that there needs to be reform. Let us be clear—we have just heard a long contribution from my colleague Senator Milne on my left here—that the only thing tying together the removal of the rebate and progress on reforms is the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. There is nothing else that is predicating that happening. It is entirely within the minister’s purview to retain the 40 per cent rebate and to progress the reforms. Others in this debate and in this chamber would have you believe that it is some sort of ‘fairies in the garden’ thing, that you cannot possibly have the two together. Let me tell you that you can and you should be very clear that it is within the minister’s purview to do that.

What we have seen pop out of this absolute mess today—and I must say that it is my good colleagues Senator Back and Senator Colbeck who have driven this very clearly—is $20 million. It has popped out of nowhere. My gosh, here is $20 million that the government did not have yesterday and all of a sudden now they do. The question has to be asked: if that bucket of money comes out of nowhere—and we understood prior to now it did not exist for the minister—why on earth was consideration not given to retaining that rebate with the $40 million cost attached to it and putting the other bucket of money towards the reform? Why put the industry through all of this pain and angst when the government could simply have come up with that bucket of money and put it into the reforms to start with? Make no mistake: this is going to cost jobs and industries in regional Australia. We on this side of the chamber are not going to stand and wear it and just watch it happen. We are not going to let it happen. Gary Burridge of the Australian Meat Industry Council stated last Friday:

The removal of the 40 per cent Federal subsidy on inspection fees would come straight off processor margins which are already low and in many cases negative. Some small processors will be devastated. I suggest it will put some out of business. The only option for many processors would be to pass back the cost to farmers who can ill afford to bear these extra costs. Either way there would be jobs lost and big impacts on regional communities ...

We have had enough of regional Australia and farmers having to bear the cost of all of these things. It is simply not right. The minister very clearly outlined in his letter to Senator Milne:

The $60 million Export Certification Reform Package is a very substantial reform package that warrants the support of the Senate. If the fees and charges were disallowed, the Government would not be in a position to proceed with this reform package.

Why not? They have got the money. Why can’t they proceed with the reform package? The minister is having an absolute hissy fit because he cannot get his own way. It stands to reason that, if the money is there, he can put it towards the reform process. No amount of talk in this place, no amount of garble coming out of this place, can remove the very simple option of keeping the rebate and moving down the path of the reform process.

One thing that clearly came out of this inquiry was that the efficiencies from the reform process would not happen until further down the track. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that, if you remove the fees and charges now and if the efficiencies from the reform process will not become effective until further down the track—and some industries are saying for up to five years—there will be a massive hit on our industries. Our industries, particularly our smaller industries, will have to bear the burden now of a massive tax. Some industries will be hit with a $50,000 extra impost, which apparently the minister did not even know about. How is that fair? How is that right? How is that going to provide any incentive or stimulus—and the government is so keen on talking about that the entire time—whatsoever for the industry to grow and be sustainable? This is again a complete disregard from this government of regional Australia and of what they do.

One thing that was raised was that a lot of these costs are actually legitimate costs of government, and we are seeing the government trying to put the whole lot back onto the industry. A lot of the costs are legitimate costs of government and we know a lot of them are recognised in other countries around the world as for the public good. Yet what do we see our minister trying to do? We see our Labor minister trying to rip the guts out of all of these industries out there in our regional communities. They are doing it tough anyway.

Let us compare this $20 million bucket of money with what the government has on offer for other industries. My good colleague Senator Colbeck compared the beef industry and the car industry. What have we seen from this Labor government? We have seen $6 billion in assistance for the car industry. How many people do they employ, Senator Colbeck? I think it is around 50,000. They produce about $2 billion worth of exports. Let us look at the meat industry in comparison. It employs around 55,000 and generates about $8 billion worth of exports. That is four times what the car industry generates. What are they getting? They are getting relatively nothing.

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

Higher fees and charges!

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are getting higher fees and charges. Thank you very much, Senator Colbeck. I will take that interjection. It is simply stupidity to go down that track. All of a sudden, we are told that Senator Milne has found $20 million. Please. That money suddenly materialised today. Why on earth didn’t the minister come up with it a short time ago? He should have said: ‘Okay, industry. Here we go. We recognise we are going to rip the heart out of so many parts of this industry, particularly the smaller sectors, if we impose this new tax.’ That is what it is, my good colleagues. Do not look at it as anything but a new tax on the agricultural export industry. The minister should have said, ‘We’re going to impose this tax.’ That makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? This tax is being imposed on the one industry, as I said when I started, that is underpinning the recovery of this nation. It is a little bit too cute by half for other senators in this place—and I recognise their absolute right to do it—to sit here and say, ‘I did this and I did that.’ Let us have a look at what it is actually going to do. In the letter from the minister to Senator Milne, he said:

The additional funding will effectively allow a rebate on … charges …

When talking about the cost reductions, he used words like:

… potentially enabling downward adjustment …

I do not have the trust in this government that others do. I think I am very well founded in not trusting this government. This is about jobs in regional communities. This is about industries in regional communities. This is about sticking up for those parts of the industry that need someone to stick up for them. We are not going to stand here and say, ‘Yes, it’s okay for the minister to use standover tactics and say to the industry’—and this is effectively what he did—‘“If you don’t make any noise about losing this rebate then I’ll give you some money for the reform process.”’ It is not on. The minister knows he could quite effectively have left the funding there for the 40 per cent rebate and at the same time embarked on the reform process. We are not going to stand here and let those industries be belted by a new tax imposed by this Labor government. It is not fair. Anybody who understood regional Australia would not stand by and let it happen. Senator Milne has a bucket of money, but that is not the answer. The answer is to do it in a way such that the industry will not be belted by a tax while at the same time having the reform process go ahead. The minister knows it is well within his purview to do that, and he should do it.

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

What a disappointing process we have found ourselves in this evening. Last Thursday night the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport had the opportunity to hear from AQIS and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. On Friday we heard from industry. It was a very balanced committee inquiry. The process was excellent and the questions were good. The comments from industry all pointed in one direction—that is, that there was a willingness to work with AQIS, to work with industry and to work with the government to achieve the reforms that they wanted to see but that it was essential there was no risk at the time and that the rebate stayed.

We came to this chamber yesterday and flagged what we were going to do. As a result of that, the shadow minister attempted to speak to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in an effort to come to some understanding as to what would move this whole process forward, armed with the fact, as I said last evening, that AQIS itself was in a position of negotiation. Most industry was in a position where they were willing—they wanted to see reforms but they wanted to see the rebate in place first. The shadow minister reported that Minister Burke could not give him any undertaking that there were any funds. It was within the capacity of the minister, if he chose to, to convene a meeting with the committee members. I do not think there would have been any members of the committee who would not have been prepared to meet.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It never happened in the time you were in government.

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

We have all been in this place, as Senator O’Brien is well aware. Yesterday afternoon, the shadow minister attempted to meet with Minister Burke to put to the minister what the real issues are. The real issues are straightforward: firstly, that the 40 per cent rebate would be retained; secondly, as part of the reform process, that we would see agreement of work plans in each of the six industry sectors; and, thirdly, that those work plans would be fully funded. Only this evening have I had the courtesy, through Senator Milne, of receiving a copy of a letter from the minister to Senator Milne—not to others on the committee—in which he states that he will provide $20 million of extra funding. It was not there yesterday afternoon but was there by last night or by this morning, or by whenever this letter arrived. As Senator Nash has said, far from there being a guarantee of the 40 per cent rebate still being in place—I image the letter is accurate—the letter states:

The additional funding will effectively allow a rebate on fees and charges for the 2009-10 financial year—

How much is it? Is it two per cent? Is it 40 per cent? What is it? Why could the minister not have said in that letter to Senator Milne and why could he not have entrusted others by copying it to them? I do not even know whether my two colleagues on the other side of the chamber, Senators Sterle and O’Brien, have seen a copy of this letter. But why would it be that the minister could not have come straight out and said, ‘There will be a retention of the 40 per cent rebate while we go on with the reform process’? No. We have not been involved in this process. We have not been given the courtesy of the minister’s confidence. All we know, per the courtesy of Senator Milne, is from a copy of a letter to her in which the minister says that he will effectively allow some sort of a rebate on fees and charges while we go on. But it does not stop there either because he then says:

... all affected sectors will ... benefit from efficiency gains and cost savings—

but that these cost reductions—

... will accumulate to the benefit of affected sectors within the Industry Liability Accounts—

which are themselves at this time accruing. So we may or may not get cost savings and if we do, they will go into the industry liability account. Then the letter says:

potentially—

potentially—

enabling downward adjustment of fees and charges for 2010-11 ...

He has no confidence in industry and he has no confidence in his AQIS executives. Industry has confidence in the AQIS executives—they told us so—but the minister clearly has not because he is talking about cost reductions going into a liability fund and only then potentially will they enable downward adjustment of fees and charges. What a cop-out to go about this in this process, when there was a time when all of us working collectively and collaboratively could have achieved something. I am only new in this place, as you know. If this is the way business is done for an industry which is worth $30 or $40 billion, employing hundreds of thousands of people, with a downside possibility if this fails, as Senator Colbeck said, in Western Australia we will have to go from South Australia around the north of Australia to Townsville to find another export abattoir that kills cattle. That could be the effect of this and to see this opportunity lost in this fashion is a deep disappointment.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the motion for disallowance of the 40 per cent government rebate for the export certificate charges. I do not want to see the export markets that we fight so hard to obtain and hold made less competitive. The industry have said publicly that they do not believe that 12 months will be sufficient time to get the efficiencies through. Senator Milne has $20 million and that $20 million cuts out on 30 June next year. But we were told—and I listened carefully—that many of these efficiencies and reforms could take up to five or six years. Countries relied on having certificates from AQIS and they would not accept other forms of verification. You have to commend Senator Milne. She has tried, but I do not think that $20 million is going to satisfy the needs of the rest of the industries.

Another issue has come up. There is another way of licensing abattoirs and processing works. No-one knows what those costs will be. They could be a huge amount. They could be huge on smaller facilities such as processing works, refrigeration works, fish processing works and so forth. I have thought about this. I was even reluctant to get up to speak because the more I listen to this the more I understand it. Listening to the people from all industries coming to give evidence to the Senate committee, we were told: ‘We are happy for reforms. We want reforms. We are prepared to pay for reforms, but we are not going to take this huge leap in faith and pay on the never-never for something which we do not have.’

We want to see AQIS actually perform. We want to see AQIS say to some of these people who are redundant: ‘Here’s your redundancy. You can leave.’ Some AQIS inspectors do not even live in towns where there are abattoirs. I have one in mind who has to drive probably a couple of hundred miles from one town to another town. By the time he gets there, he has to drive back. Those are the inefficiencies that need to be cleaned up.

Twenty million dollars is a considerable sum—I do not deny that—but I do not think it will meet the needs of the industries that came before us. The cherry industry, for example—and Senator Milne would know these people because they come from Tasmania—virtually said that to get these efficiencies through, in terms where the government will accept other verifications, could take five years. If we abandon AQIS, it might take another eight to 14 years to get back in the Japanese market. Twenty million dollars is not going to solve the problems of the beef industry or the cherry industry. It is a short-term fix.

I am not churlish enough to say to Senator Milne that she has not tried, but I do not think that $20 million will take us across the line. I do not think it will fix the problems that the industries told us about in the Senate inquiry.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well what’s your proposal?

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My proposal is that we take the $40 million that was put up, try to implement the reforms and, as the reforms become available, go to the exporters and say: ‘We can reduce your fees by this; you pay this. Pay as you go.’

This is a giant leap of faith. We will pay for something that we have not got, on the assumption that AQIS will deliver. AQIS then have to say to their employees: ‘Sorry, Fred. We have to sack you. We want reforms.’ It is understandable that they will not want to do that. They will be reluctant to do it, and you can understand that. Senator Milne, I think you have tried, but you have not gone far enough. You cannot buy some of these things. You are trying to buy your way out of this, and I do not think you can.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was Senator Colbeck who said $20 million would do it.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Twenty million dollars is a considerable amount of money, but it is not going to solve the problems of the cherry industry, which cannot get AQIS to sign off on its verifications. We are not playing around here with tiny industries; these are the biggest industries in Australia. They support and sustain the regional and rural communities. Goodness knows after Senator Wong has tried to garrotte them they are going to need all the support they can get.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I think Senator Boswell’s comment was completely out of order and disrespectful to the minister. I think it should be withdrawn.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: the minister is not a shrinking violet. She gives plenty. I am sure she can take a bit back. If she asks me to withdraw, I will withdraw in deference to her. I think she can play the game. She is pretty tough and robust. I do not think she would take offence at that.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: I thank Senator Boswell for what I think was a compliment, but ‘garrotting’ is a form of murder, so it is probably not the sort of thing that we say in this place, even when we are in a robust debate, which, as Senator Boswell says, I do not mind a bit of when appropriate and necessary. Perhaps you could use a better form of words.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you withdrawing, Senator Boswell?

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it offends the minister, of course I withdraw, but I cannot think of a better description.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Boswell, I think an unqualified withdrawal does not allow you to say what you have just said. Do you withdraw on an unqualified basis?

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If that is what the minister requires, I will withdraw.

The Acting Deputy President:

Thank you. Please proceed.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a bit of advice from my friend from Western Australia, who is a vet and does understand these things. He suggested the word ‘emasculate’, and that is what is going to happen to rural Australia with the ETS. This industry and all the industries that run fridges and electric motors and provide jobs in rural Australia do not need at this time another 40 per cent tax put on them. For that reason I support this disallowance motion—and I have thought this through. The $20 million only buys 12 months, and those reforms are impossible to implement in 12 months. You cannot do it. The industry has told us that we cannot do it. Senator Milne, if she is honest with herself, will say it cannot be done. I support the disallowance motion and I hope it is carried in the Senate.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will only take a couple of minutes to add my support to my colleagues on this side. Adding costs to export industries does nothing but harm. Of course I have an interest in this. We are fortunate to have Bindaree Beef at Inverell, a magnificent abattoir employing around 600 people. It means an extra $350,000 a year for that abattoir. They are going to face enough if the emissions trading scheme is brought in. It is going to cost the abattoir about an extra $1million a year in electricity alone. So I have just put $1.35 million extra cost onto that industry.

Those costs are not being borne in America. Under the Waxman-Markey bill, when they get the ETS they are not going to have that cost put on them. So this is just another cost put onto export industries, another nail in the coffin of these vital, value-adding industries that are so essential for jobs in our rural communities. That is why I support the disallowance.

The government must get serious about not putting extra costs on or removing benefits from export industries, but instead get behind those very industries. Times are tough in the bush and we know very well that as soon as abattoirs face extra cost they will pass it onto the farmers, the beef producers. Then it will flow right through the whole community and regional communities will lose that money. We know who is going to pay for it. It is wrong. The analogy that some have made about the car industry and our meat industry says it all. The government is putting billions behind the car industry, which exports $2 billion a year. But they want to add some costs to our meat industry, which exports around $8 billion a year. I think that it is unfair and I gladly support the disallowance.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess we have had a contribution from every member of the National Party present, the Liberal Party spokesman on agriculture, and a Liberal Party senator from Western Australia, all talking about why they are going to vote for this motion and disallow this particular regulation. There is a lot that could be said in this debate, but we have limited time in which to conclude it and if it is not concluded by 6.50 pm the regulation is automatically disallowed. That is a point of contention as far as I am concerned. So much time has been taken up in this debate by those speakers that it will limit the way that the debate can be concluded, because we now have 18 minutes to conclude the debate. So I really take exception to the use of that time by senators opposite given that their spokesman is here to speak to it. I do not object to the National Party making a contribution, but when every member of the National Party makes a contribution, and Senator Back makes a contribution as well, that really does put pressure on the way that this matter can be dealt with and, with respect, we have had plenty of opportunities to address this, and here we are going to have more time taken.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I waited until either Senator O’Brien or Senator Sterle wished to speak before I stood. Neither did.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Another waste of time, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Back sought to make a point in his contribution about the fact that he had not been contacted by the minister—he had not got a copy of a letter. I had a message passed to me from the minister’s office just after he made his contribution. The minister’s office said that they rang Senator Back’s office before question time, or left a message for him to get back, to talk to him about the issue, and he did not return the call. I do not know what is happening in his office if he did not get the message, but that is the bona fides of the minister. He did contact Senator Back and something has either gone wrong or the senator has been unable or unwilling to return the call.

But let us get back to tintacks on this. We have a proposition for reform of the import inspection charges regime, which has been put on the table after many years of complaints by the industry. This was not done by the coalition, who were in government up until the end of 2007. The coalition were content to put a bit of money into the pot and say: ‘We will pay you off. We are not going to actually do anything about the system. We will let the system roll on because it is too hard for us to do something about it.’

So what happened? As usual, Labor came into government and we said that we wanted to do something about it. But we want to do it in such a way that there is not going to be a double-dip, that when we make the reforms we do not come here and see that the Liberal Party and the National Party say: ‘Yes, but we are going to disallow your regulation anyway. We want to keep the charges lower so that we keep the subsidy, because they should be subsidised.’ This is the proposition which is effectively being put: ‘You, as government, go and put the money in and do the reform and then we will tell you whether we will pass your regulation for an appropriate charging regime.’

For years the coalition talked about full-cost recovery. But they avoided dealing with all of the issues by putting a subsidy into the budget and keeping it going, all the while saying, ‘We really want achieve efficiency; we really want to see that these charges are paid for by industry,’ but they were never prepared to bite the bullet. They were never prepared to go down the road and say, ‘Here is a way that we can achieve it, where you the industry make a contribution towards it and we all accept that at the end of the day there is cost recovery and you get the greatest benefits that we can achieve.’

We established in our inquiry that many of the charges that are imposed on the exporters are imposed because the importing country requires them. The biggest charges, which are costs imposed on our system, are because there is respect for our system. We have a system of quarantine inspection which is respected overseas, and that costs money.

In the evidence before the committee in the hearings we were told that if this regulation were disallowed there would be a $103 million black hole in the Quarantine Biosecurity budget. Those opposite are saying that the government should just put that up, but at the same time we should be funding all of the work that is necessary to achieve efficiencies in the system. At the end of the day, what is a promise from them? Have I heard an ironclad, believable commitment that then they will agree to full cost recovery? No. I know that a reasonable minister would be saying, ‘How could you depend on that?’ What we are again going to see are opportunistic approaches saying that, because someone overseas does not have to pay for their quarantine inspection charges, Australians should not have to pay. Yet that was basically the underpinning of the coalition policy for years: all they did was avoid it with a subsidy that they put into the budget.

As for the shadow minister, Mr Cobb, speaking to the minister yesterday, the suggestion was that he put something concrete forward. What he put forward was: ‘Yes, we will disallow the regulations; we’ll go back to the old fees, and you do the work.’ That is all he put forward. The only person in this debate who has put something to the government to try and take things forward is Senator Milne, who put forward a proposal for an additional $20 million towards effectively subsidising the fees while the work was done.

What we do have from evidence before the committee is that most industry participants want the work done. Most industry participants were keen for the work to be done and indeed had signed up for the work to be done. Frankly, I would have to say that they are in a position now where someone is saying, ‘We can disallow it for you; are you really going to say you don’t want it disallowed?’ And they are saying, ‘Well, we’re happy to have it disallowed as long as we get the work done.’

I do not think a reasonable minister would accept that. I do not think a reasonable minister would accept having a gun held to the head of the Australian government by someone saying, ‘Blow $100 million on your biosecurity budget and put all the work in to put the reforms into the system, but I’m not going to guarantee that you’re going to get full cost recovery then.’ How would the minister be able to convince his cabinet colleagues that it was worth while putting $103 million and more towards this reform when he could not guarantee that at the end of the day there would not be a further drag on the budget for these services—even though there has been a longstanding agreement within both parties that, underpinning it all, there should ultimately be cost recovery? We are dealing here with political opportunism which really does tell the government that it cannot trust those opposite to deliver full cost recovery, even if it puts the work in, even if it spends $100 million, $150 million or $200 million towards achieving that.

I did think that the comments made by Senator Fielding with regard to Senator Milne and the Greens were unfortunate. I have a lot of disputes with the Greens on a range of issues—we do not agree on a lot of things—but I thought that he had, frankly, quite a cheek to suggest that the Greens had come to this issue with some ulterior motive. It demonstrated that Senator Fielding came to the debate not understanding—of course, if you had heard Senator Milne’s contribution you would understand—where Senator Milne was coming from in terms of her rearing, her family background and the interests she has. I fully accept that Senator Milne and Senator Siewert in particular in the Greens have close contacts with rural industry, and the last thing I would suggest is that somehow they would come to a debate such as this or any rural debate without some regard, whatever their other views, for rural industry. I do think that Senator Fielding should reflect carefully on what he said. I thought it was very unfair, I thought it was very unreasonable and I thought he lowered the tenor of the debate as a result. I think if you reflected on what you said you would say something quite different.

What Senator Milne did in seeking a resolution of this matter was to make a proposal to take this matter forward so we would actually make progress. What those opposite are now doing is leaving us with a proposition where it is clear that this regulation will be disallowed. The minister will then be faced with having to convince his ministerial colleagues that it is worth putting more money into this area to achieve the reforms that everyone wants, but he cannot guarantee that that will result in the aim which he started out to achieve—that is, that the costs incurred in the provision of export inspection services be paid by the beneficiaries of those services and not the taxpayer. That puts him in a difficult position. I do not know what decision he will ultimately come to.

I do hope that, when this matter is dealt with, those opposite, the minor parties, whoever, decide that they can come to a resolution of this matter which gives certainty to the government that enables us to pursue these reforms in a way that is equitable to the taxpayer as well as to the industry. I would urge senators not to support the disallowance. It is pretty clear that the coalition are committed to it. It is clear that Senator Fielding is committed to it. I understand Senator Xenophon, who cannot be here because he is not well, is not prepared to oppose the disallowance, and that is unfortunate, but I am not going to comment on that; I do not fully understand why. That is what we have to live with and, at the end of the day, it may be that the reforms this industry wants just get left sitting on the shelf because it is too hard for those opposite.

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

I just want to quickly sum up this debate and I thank those who have made a contribution to it. At the end of the day, it is Australia’s farmers who are going to pay the bill for this. It is Australia’s farmers who will pay the bill. We have seen from what is happening in the dairy industry at the moment that, when there is a shift in costs in the industry, the farmers pay. The Grain Council said the farmers would pay. The beef processors said the farmers would pay. It depends on what savings would be achieved, but the farmers are going to pay the bill for this.

What we would like to see is a genuine reform process. That is what we are asking for. We are happy to talk; we have said that in our contributions. What we do not want to see is farmers paying for government to reform itself. That is what they believe is going to happen and that is what we believe is going to happen. So let us have a genuine process, let us deal with it properly, and make sure that Australia’s farmers, who are contributing so much to the economy this country, who are exporting up to $30 billion worth of product on an annual basis, do not end up footing the bill for the process that the government has put in place which can only be described as flawed.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motions of disallowance moved by Senator Colbeck, and Senator Colbeck and Senator Fielding, be agreed to.