Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Australia's rural industries are among the most innovative and productive in the world. Continued investment in rural research and development (R&D) is vital to ensure ongoing growth and improvement in the profitability and competitiveness of Australia's agriculture, fisheries, forestry and food sectors. In recognition of this, the Australian Government works with industry to co-invest in research through our world-leading rural R&D system.

Much of this work is delivered through the 15 rural research and development corporations (RDCs). RDCs provide a mechanism for industry to come together and invest collectively in R&D. The government assists by establishing and collecting a levy on behalf of an industry, if an industry requests this. The government also matches an RDC's eligible R&D spending up to a legislated cap. It is estimated that for every dollar that the government invests in rural R&D, farmers generate a $12 return over 10 years.

Feedback from primary producers is an integral part of how RDCs work. RDCs are required to consult with industry on their activities, to give those who fund the research, via levies, an opportunity to provide input into the strategic direction of the corporation.

Numerous reviews and inquiries, including the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's inquiry into Industry structures and systems governing levies on grass-fed cattle and Industry structures and systems governing the imposition of and disbursement of marketing and R&D levies in the agricultural sector, have identified improved consultation with levy payers as key to the ongoing strength of Australia's rural R&D system. Several of these inquiries recommended that the establishment of levy payer registers would offer a way for RDCs to consult more effectively with the primary producers who fund them.

The government agrees that levy payers should have more of a say in how their levy funds are spent. RDCs should know who their levy payers are. Levy payer registers would provide RDCs with the ability to identify and consult directly with levy payers on research priorities and levy expenditure, and to accurately and efficiently allocate voting entitlements for polls, where this is relevant.

This Bill makes possible the establishment of levy payer registers by RDCs by amending the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991. As it stands, the Act only permits the distribution of levy payer information to the wool and dairy RDCs. This Bill remedies this by allowing the government to provide levy payer information, for the purposes of a levy payer register, to the 13 other RDCs.

The Bill removes the legislative impediment to the development of levy payer registers. However, recognising that a 'one size fits all' approach would not be appropriate given the diversity of Australian agricultural industries, the Bill allows for the distribution of levy payer information to an RDC to occur only where an RDC, in consultation with industry, requests it, and that request is approved by the minister. The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources would then work with the RDC on the administrative design and development of a register. This is consistent with the government's approach to the broader R&D levy system, which is centred on industry support.

The Bill also allows the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to permit levy payer information to be provided to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is consistent with the Australian Government's Public Data Policy Statement, which commits to securely share data between Australian Government entities to improve efficiencies, and inform policy development and decision-making.

The Bill maintains current practices for distribution of the name and address of the person or body that lodges levy returns with the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, to RDCs, industry representative bodies and others. In limited situations, the person that lodges returns is also the levy payer (for example, in the turf industry).

The Bill does not permit disclosure of information included in a levy payer register by an RDC or the ABS to a third party, except in limited circumstances and where expressly permitted by the Secretary in writing. This aims to protect the integrity and security of levy and charge payers' personal information.

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.

Where levy payer contact details are to be provided to an industry representative body, the administrative arrangements will enable levy payers to choose to opt-out and not receive information.

The passage of this Bill is the first key step in allowing for the development of levy payer registers, making it possible for the RDCs to identify and connect directly with those who fund their work.

Through greater levy payer engagement in the R&D system, RDCs will be able to better align research investments to industry priorities—improving returns to primary producers and contributing to a more profitable, competitive and sustainable agricultural sector.

We will now work with the RDCs and industry to make this happen.

The government is committed to an Australian R&D system that remains transparent, consultative and delivers tangible benefits to Australia's agricultural industries into the future.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin my contribution by stating that the opposition will be supporting the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016. The bill removes the legislative impediment in the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 to develop levy payer registers. This will allow all 15 rural research and development corporations, RDCs, to better communicate with their levy payers. Currently, as the act stands, it only permits the distribution of levy payer information to the wool and dairy RDCs.

The opposition also agrees that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be appropriate given the diversity of Australian agricultural industries. The bill allows for the distribution of levy payer information to an RDC to occur only where an RDC, in consultation with industry, requests it, and that request is approved by the minister. The levy payer registers would provide the RDCs with the ability to identify and consult directly with levy payers on research priorities and levy expenditure, and to accurately and efficiently allocate voting entitlements for polls, where this is relevant.

The bill also allows levy payer information to be distributed to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the ABS, to perform any of its functions under the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975. As detailed in the explanatory memorandum, this is consistent with the Australian government's Public data policy statement, which commits to securely share data between Australian government entities to improve efficiencies and to inform policy development and decision making. It is important to note that this bill is enabling legislation and that, for a levy payer register to occur, the RDC, in consultation with industry, would need to agree to the development of the register, and then that request would need to be approved by the minister.

Both the shadow minister for agriculture and the Minister for Agriculture have acknowledged that there have been a number of Senate inquiries that have recommended that the RDCs should know who their levy payers are. In particular, the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee tabled its report in June 2015 recommending that the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 be amended to enable the collection and distribution of levy payer information which will allow the creation of levy payer databases for all agricultural industries that pay agricultural levies.

Further, it must also be acknowledged that the government actually introduced this bill in the dying days of the 44th Parliament on 3 March 2016, some eight months after the committee tabled its report. The bill was referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 17 March 2016, and the committee tabled its report in April 2016.

The Senate committee made three recommendations: (1) that the bill be passed; (2) that the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources continue to consult with RDCs and representatives of the agricultural industries as it implements the regulatory and administrative framework associated with the measures contained in the bill; and (3) that the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources tables a response to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's report, tabled in June 2015, of the inquiry into the industry structures and systems governing the imposition and distribution of marketing and research and development levies in the agriculture sector.

The report acknowledged concerns by various submitters about how the implementation of the regulatory and administrative framework associated with the measures contained in the bill would actually work, especially with regard to sharing information with third parties. More information was requested about how the information about levy payers might be shared by peak industry bodies and councils, the degree of consultation required by RDCs, and the method by which levy payer information would be collected. The department advised that it is working closely with RDCs and industry representative bodies to develop detailed guidance so that the agricultural industry would have explicit guidance on how the levy payer database can be used, how the data should be stored and the protections that should be in place. The opposition believes that the government should have put forward draft guidelines for the parliament to consider while debating this bill, as it is important that levy payers are confident that their private information will be securely stored and are provided with information about how the data will be used.

Further concerns were also raised about the ability for the secretary to authorise disclosure of levy payer information to third parties, particularly to peak industry bodies. The submitters feared that levy payer information may be used by peak industry bodies for the purpose of conducting political campaigns. For example, FLAGS Australia expressed concern that peak industry bodies could misuse the levy payer register for this purpose. United Stockowners of Australia expressed similar concerns, specifically about the Cattle Council of Australia.

The committee were told that the bill sets out the purposes for which an eligible recipient would be able to use the database, and this includes a clause that it cannot be used for political purposes. However, without draft guidelines or regulations, it is difficult to reassure concerned levy payers that their information will not be misused.

All of us in this place can provide examples of database information being misused, and, once this information is shared and possibly misused for political purposes, it will be just about impossible to undo the damage. Further, concerns were expressed about the absence of penalties if the information were misused.

Voice of Horticulture and others sought further information about the costs of establishing the levy payer register database. The department noted that each RDC would need to consider the potential benefits against the significant investment that would be required. There is no obligation for RDCs to create a database. The bill only offers the RDCs the opportunity to create a levy payer register. This of course raises the issue of conflict of interest if the RDC and industry bodies are at odds as to whether the database should be created. Further, there are no details as to whether the costs will be the responsibility of the RDC or whether industry could assist with the associated costs. Once again, had the government put forward draft framework guidelines these unanswered questions could have been addressed. I will acknowledge that the government finally responded to the June 2015 committee report in May 2016—almost one year on.

As I initially stated, the opposition do see value in allowing the RDCs to create a levy payer register database if they choose to do so and we are supportive of this legislation. However, we are critical of the government's lack of detail regarding the implementation of the regulatory and administrative framework associated with the measures contained in this bill.

Rather than further delaying this bill due to the go-slow nature of the government, the shadow minister for agriculture has written to the minister for agriculture asking him to ensure that draft guidelines are put forward for consideration by the opposition, minor parties, Independents, industry groups and individual levy payers, so that we can ensure confidence is maintained in our world class levy payer rural research and development system.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016. I am pleased to say that this is the first agriculture bill that I am speaking to in my new position as the Greens' spokesperson for agriculture and rural affairs. But I firstly want to thank my predecessor, Senator Rachel Siewert, the previous Greens' spokesperson, for the work that she has done on agriculture over her years in the Senate, not only in general, as a member of the regional and rural affairs and transport committee, but in particular as an advocate for a fairer and more sustainable agricultural sector in Australia.

The bill before us today deals with the transparency, accountability and responsibilities of our rural research and development corporations. The roles of the RDCs are only going to become more important over the coming years and, as the rural and regional affairs and transport committee investigation found last year, research and development investment from state and commonwealth bodies is contracting, right at the time when the agriculture sector is facing a whole new set of constraints. This leaves the rural research and development corporations to bear the majority of the responsibility in leading the Australian agriculture sector into the 21st century.

We are now seeing the impact that volatile globally connected markets are having on several of our agricultural industries, as the stories of our dairy and now our wheat farmers hit the front pages of the press. Critically, we are also seeing an increased realisation of the reality of our changing climate, and the consequences of these changes on our farming communities, as we need to both mitigate and adapt to these changes.

Both of these challenges coincide with what has been an extended slump in the sector's productivity growth, which, by world standards, is pretty unique to Australia. This productivity slump must be reversed if we hope to meet the growing demand for our limited food resources without irreparably harming our communities and ecosystems. I hope in my tenure as the Greens spokesperson for agriculture and rural affairs to continue to push for responses to these challenges from my fellow elected leaders and to stand up against a 'business as usual' complacency from those that benefit from the status quo.

The bill before us is the first legislative response to the committee inquiry into the collection and disbursement of research and development levies that was conducted last year. It was clear in last year's references inquiry into the levy system that the current processes are in need of reform—firstly, to better build on the transparency and accountability of the rural research and development corporations to levy payers; and, secondly, to better assist the RDCs in the performance of their responsibilities and effective dissemination of their work back to the community.

The legislation before us would amend the Primary Industry Levies and Charges Collections Act 1991 to allow the department to provide levy and charge payer information to additional rural research and development corporations and industry service bodies and to the ABS. Recipients, in turn, would be able to use the information for purposes including developing levy payer registers, publishing statistics and performing their functions. These shifts would increase the ability of RDCs to consult with their levy payers, helping shape research priorities, while enabling RDCs to better understand both the character and interests of their constituencies. Additionally, by empowering the Australian Bureau of Statistics to also access this information we open up the possibility of much more comprehensive agricultural statistical indicators, to inform our policy priorities both in this place and across departments.

When you are talking about data being accessible to a wider range of people, the Greens understand the privacy concerns associated with that and treat very seriously the concerns that were raised in some of the submissions to the committee. There are serious privacy implications for the handling of peoples data, especially when third parties are involved. And these need to be seriously addressed in further work that we do not believe has yet been completed. However, we do not believe the issues raised are enough for us to consider that this bill should not be supported. We also understand that the legislation does not explicitly empower industry representatives who have important roles to play in facilitating the relationship between the research and development corporations and levy payers.

We believe that collectively these concerns we have about this legislation do not amount to enough to give us grounds to reject the legislation before the chamber today. We believe that both the explanatory memorandum and the majority committee report do make a persuasive case for how privacy will be protected, potential misuses of information mitigated and the community consulted. However, there is clearly more work to be done to give certainty and to make sure that people's privacy is going to be protected.

We ask that the government take these reservations into consideration, and we echo the majority report of the committee in recommending that the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources consult with the research and development corporations, agricultural industry representatives and the wider community as it implements this new regulatory and administrative framework.

Following on from this, thcre is still a case for further reform in developing greater transparency and accountability processes between levy payers and RDCs, and there is a larger debate still to be had about the role of levy payers in voting on rates and setting research priorities. But we believe that is something we can continue to work on in the future. With regard to this bill, the Greens will support the legislation and we commend the bill to the Senate.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016 is a much needed reform that is fortuitously before the parliament now, and I congratulate the minister for his work in bringing this bill before the parliament.

The issue particularly arose—what is now some years ago—when the minister arranged for the Senate Standing Committee of Rural and Regional Affairs, I think it was, to look into the question of levies, particularly in relation to the grass-fed cattle industry. That inquiry by the committee revealed some very interesting issues and some very interesting facts. It also quite clearly established that there was need for change. This bill brings forward some of that change.

The Australian rural industries, as senators will know, are amongst the most innovative and productive in the world. It is important that we continue investment and rural research and development, and it is vital to ensure that the ongoing growth and improvement in profitability and competitiveness in Australia's broadly described agriculture sectors does continue. It is important that the government works with industry to co-invest in research through our world-leading rural research and development systems.

The inquiry to which I referred, which took quite a substantial amount of the committee's time when the inquiry was in the course of its operations, heard particularly from grass-fed beef cattle producers right across the nation, and it was clear that reform was needed. I am trying to find these passages as I speak but, as I recall, there were some real problems with the constitution of the R&D corporations in whatever form they were, and there were some real anomalies in how those R&D corporations were governed—what their rules of operation were and, most importantly, who was appointed to the board that decided what matters should be researched and what matters should be given priority and predominance by the R&D corporation.

There were some real anomalies in relation to the grass-fed beef cattle people, as I recall. I am going from memory here, because I have not quite been able to pick that up in the time I had to have a look at it. There was an instance, as I understand, where you got a vote for the board at the R&D corporation in accordance with the number of cattle transactions that you were involved in over a particular period of time, but there was no auditing, no careful consideration of how many votes you were entitled to. I recall one person giving evidence to say that they made up a number; they said they had 50,000 transactions with cattle at one particular time. They did not, though—they were quite open about it—but they put that number in, because the only way that they got a vote was by simply advising the authority that there had been this many transactions. Therefore they got that many votes even though they may well not have, in effect, had any cattle transactions at all. So it was quite clear that there needed to be reform, and the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee did look into that at some length.

This bill before the parliament makes it possible for the establishment of levy payer registers by the particular RDCs. I am talking about the grass-fed beef cattle industry, but it applies to a number of other levy payer registers where there is a research and development corporation. The bill remedies some of the problems by allowing the government to provide levy payer information for the purposes of the levy payer register to 13 other regional development corporations and, consistent with the application of the broader R&D levy system, the establishment of levy payer registers will occur only when the RDC actually requests it.

As I say, these RDCs go beyond just the beef cattle area—they include the Australian Egg Corporation Limited, Australian Grape and Wine Authority, Australian Meat Processor Corporation, Australian Pork Limited, Australian Wool Innovation, Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Dairy Australia, Forest and Wood Products Australia Limited, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, the Horticulture Innovation Australia, LiveCorp, Meat & Livestock Australia, the RIRDC and Sugar Research Australia.

This bill allows the distribution of levy payer information to the various regional development corporations for the development of levy payer registers, and the register will allow the RDCs to identify and consult directly with the levy payers who fund the R&D system and ensure accuracy in the allocation of voting entitlements. That was the issue that the Senate committee identified and looked into very, very carefully at the time because, as I mentioned and gave the example of, there were a lot of anomalies in that area. This required addressing in the grass-fed beef cattle area, and clearly in these other rural R&D corporations as well.

Through greater levy payer engagement, the RDCs will be better able to align research investments to industry priorities. That was one of the problems that came up in this inquiry. The grass-fed beef cattle industry players—those who actually grew the cattle—did not believe that the R&D corporation was investing the research and development moneys into the area which they thought was a priority. This new system will align research investments to industry priorities, which in turn will hopefully improve returns to farmers, fishermen and foresters, and will contribute to a more profitable, competitive and more sustainable agricultural sector.

It was clear in the Senate inquiry and it is clear when you discuss this matter and consult across rural industries that the one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate because within Australian agricultural industries there is a great deal of diversity. This bill allows for the distribution of levy-payer information to an RDC to occur only where the RDC in consultation with industry asks for it and that that request is approved by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources would then work with the RDCs to administer the design and development of a register.

What this bill does is try to regularise the levy-payer information—what can be distributed, what can go to the Australian Bureau of Statistics for their purposes. It is also consistent with the government's public data policy statement, which commits to securely shared data between government agencies to improve efficiencies and inform policy development and decision making. Secondary disclosure of levy-payer information by an RDC and the Australian Bureau of Statistics will be limited. The departmental secretary can approve its disclosure in some circumstances, including for example disclosure by an RDC to an industry representative body for the purposes of consulting on research and development activities that are to be conducted by the corporation.

In coming to this bill, the minister did consult widely and, to a fairly high degree, the minister's decision in relation to amending this bill came from the inquiry by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee into the industry structures and systems governing levies on grass fed cattle and industry structures.

This is an important bill. It has been a fair while in the making and I am pleased to see that it is here before the parliament at the moment. I suspect there are a few other things that need to be done and these were identified in that committee inquiry, but this is a very good start and I congratulate the minister for doing this and bringing this bill before the parliament. It will make things 'better'—a silly word—but it will make things better and more efficient for the industries that are able to access the innovations in this bill. Hopefully, that will lead to better research and development in our primary industries, our agricultural industries, which in turn will lead to better wealth for the farmers involved, and better export potential for those agricultural export products. All of that, of course, means a better Australia, a healthier and, hopefully, wealthier rural and regional Australia and continuing success for our agricultural industries. I support the bill and urge the Senate to do likewise.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Taxation without representation sucks. It is inherently unfair to be required to pay for a system but have no say in how the system works. This is currently the world of agricultural levies. A levy may sound more benign than a tax. But make no mistake, R&D levies, marketing levies and biosecurity levies are all taxes on production. In fact, compulsory levies paid by producers each year amount to about $500 million. At various times, the amount paid in levies can be more than the profit made by individual producers, and numerous producers pay hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in levies. By any measure, levy payments are a significant impost and should be fully justified. In many cases, farmers who pay the levies are happy to continue doing so. I suspect most believe, perhaps innocently, that the levies are put to good use and should be paid. The problem is very few levy payers are ever actually asked whether they are happy. If they are not happy, there is nothing whatsoever that most of them can do about it.

In the previous parliament, two Senate inquiries recommended that this should change. I was an active participant in the second inquiry which examined the levy system across all agricultural and horticultural sectors. By the end of the first hour of evidence at the first hearing, it was apparent the system is broken. What the committee heard is that a number of farmer groups have never been consulted as to whether they want to pay levies. They were not asked when the levy was first imposed and they have never been asked if they want to keep paying. Some had the opportunity to vote to impose a levy the first time, but decades later have not been able to vote on whether to keep paying it, not even when the money has been poorly spent. Some had the opportunity to vote for an increase in a levy but found the votes so rigged it was laughable. We saw this in the last parliament with mushrooms, mangoes and onions, based on ridiculous notions of what is a representative vote.

Until about four months ago, two sectors were standout exceptions to this antidemocratic, unrepresentative taxation. Tens of thousands of dairy farmers and wool producers were polled every few years to determine the rate of the levy. Quite appropriately, they were offered a zero option, which if adopted would mean levy payments would cease and various people in the RDCs—that is, the research and development corporations—would lose their jobs. So far, this has never been chosen, but the possibility that it might be the preferred option focused the minds of those who spent the money, the organisations and RDCs responsible for marketing, research and development. They knew they needed to continually demonstrate to levy payers the value they were getting for their money. It is called accountability.

Unfortunately, on the last sitting day before parliament rose, the government rammed through a bill that removed the requirement by the dairy industry to conduct regular votes. I was the only senator to oppose it. It would have been dealt with in the non-controversial session, but for my opposition. Dairy Australia, and the other dairy industry groups that promoted this, should be ashamed of themselves. It was a nakedly obvious move to reduce, indeed avoid, accountability. The cost argument they claimed was utter garbage. The supposedly high cost of the dairy poll was merely attributable to campaign costs.

With dairy prices currently at rock bottom, there are dairy farmers incurring huge losses, while at the same time paying tens of thousands of dollars in levies. As a result of the bill, a vote will only be held if there is a proposal by Dairy Australia to vary the dairy levy, or, in a catch 22 situation, if enough dairy farmers vote, to conduct a vote. So, now, only the wool industry has levy democracy. It is a disgrace. We all get to vote for a government every three years, and we can choose a party that promises higher or lower taxes. In agriculture, such a basic right does not exist. This bill will go some of the way towards rectifying that. What it will allow is for each industry body to establish a database of levy payers.

I support the bill, although clearly it does not go far enough. It will not oblige the industry bodies to establish databases of levy payers. It merely gives them the legal authority if they choose to do so. It will also not ensure the RDCs use their databases for any constructive purpose, such as a periodic vote on the payment of levies. Indeed, I believe there is a distinct possibility that some RDCs will not want levy payers to be asked whether they want to continue paying levies, especially if they suspect they might not like the answer. I can assure those RDCs that I will be watching with considerable interest whether they actually go ahead and establish a levy payer database. If they do not, I will assume the worst about them.

A database of levy payers is the first step in introducing accountability, and a semblance of democracy, to the levy system. I am quite sure most producers do not begrudge paying a levy if they see value in it. But they deserve to be asked. In fact, they deserve to be asked about how the money is spent, too, such as whether to fund marketing as well as R&D—but I do not expect to see that any time soon. As for giving levy payers a vote, in this age of the internet secure online polls can be undertaken at very low cost, and even a postal vote is not expensive. But to conduct a poll you obviously need a list of voters. It is time we gave primary producers some say over their hard-earned money. This bill is a step in the right direction.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to make a contribution to this debate on a bill that amends Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991. Like the previous speaker, Senator Leyonhjelm, I too was involved in one of the two inquiries into levies. I will start my contribution by talking specifically about the beef industry, given that, of the rural industries that are affected by this change, it is the area I know best. I imagine that much of what I have to say will be as applicable to other livestock research and development corporations, along with horticulture and some of the other industries in our rural sectors.

Despite some of the observations that have been made by previous speakers about more having to be done, I have taken the view that this bill is focusing directly on using technology and innovation to increase the level of communication between research and development corporations and their constituencies, for want of a better description. In the case of the cattle industry, it is true to say that there were millions of dollars, and in fact millions of transactions, that attracted a levy. Where that money was paid, agents and others in the saleyards and others had a responsibility to complete the returns. Information about the levy payer, information about the transaction itself—that is to say, what promoted the transaction in terms of the description that was involved, in this case, cattle—was of course not available in those circumstances to the meat and livestock authority. What we do know is there are between some 36,000 and 47,000 cattle producers. Hopefully, this bill and the establishment of this register—assuming that the MLA is one of the applicants, and from my discussions with them I suspect that they will be one of the first to make application for the register, as it is something that they have wanted for a long time—will allow us to more accurately determine just how many cattle producers there are, all the way down to small producers, where a small part-time operator might just be involved in 10, 20 or 30 transactions annually, right through to major corporations, including large family corporations, who of course trade in tens of thousands of head of cattle each year.

In my discussions with the Meat and Livestock Australia, one of the problems that they have had is engagement from these levy holders, or these cattle producers, in the life of the MLA. In fact, as alluded to by the previous speaker, Senator Leyonhjelm, there were issues presented that suggested that some of the system was being corrupted to a certain extent by big players who together were very organised in how they might exercise their powers, pursuant to them being a levy payer, with the elections within the Meat & Livestock Authority itself.

The Meat & Livestock Authority has been picked as an example for me because it covers a number of very significant industries in our country. The MLA, through peak industry bodies, is involved with the Cattle Council of Australia and the red meat authority. It deals with sheep, goats, feedlots and meat exporters. In fact, the peak industry bodies that are affiliated with the MLA cover just about the entire supply chain within the beef industry. This is a multi-multibillion dollar industry in this nation. The industry is currently enjoying somewhat of a price resurgence but, at the same time, we recognise that there are many thousands of families who have not yet recovered from the effects of the live cattle ban in 2011 and the terrible drought which, whilst now largely behind us, has left a legacy where there are operations that are yet to have sufficient pasture regeneration to restock their properties. Some of these producers have spent anywhere between three and five years without a productive income. In terms of recovery, these entities often rely very significantly on organisations like the MLA and the results of the research and development that is done.

The MLA have a budget of about $170 million annually, made up of levy payments from these various sectors, along of course with the matching grants provided by government—the dollar-for-dollar match on research grants. Over a number of decades now, a tremendous amount of work has been done—and continues to be done—on research and development. One of the challenges for the Meat & Livestock Authority has been how they disseminate that information back to interested parties. There are many ways to do that in a modern world, and the MLA do that as well as most and better than some.

In effect, this legislation will give them a direct link back to a levy payer. Not only will it allow them to communicate directly with the levy payers, but the information that will be lodged on the register will start to allow them to determine where the levy payer is. The beef industry is a very diverse industry. If you are growing cattle in northern Tasmania, northern Victoria, the highlands of New South Wales, the western desert country of my home state or up in the gulf, the only thing that those respective enterprises in those geographic zones may have in common will simply be that they produce cattle. There are so many other variables in terms of the markets that they are offer. Some areas specialise in the use of hormones and growth proponents with their cattle; whereas, others pursue markets, particularly the European market, where those things are banned.

This legislation will allow authorities like the Meat & Live Stock Authority to take the results of their research and development efforts and tailor them to go back to these levy payers—the people who have invested in the research and development, along with the government of the day—and provide them with feedback from the R&D that is quite specific to both the scale of their operation and the geography of where they are operating. In fact, as I understand, in this data there will be descriptions of the trade. So they will be able to indicate what markets some of these levy payers are pursuing, so that they can further refine the research and development outcomes with these producers.

My family is in cattle in a reasonably exposed way, and I know that members of my extended family have used the results of the research and development efforts of the MLA over a period of time. This research and development was to do with pasture management, genetic selection and breed plans. They received great benefit from this R&D. In one case in particular, they modernised their operations to the point where they took what was a marginal living block or family block and they turned it into quite a profitable enterprise. Most of that resulted from them having the benefit of research and development knowledge created by, in this case, the Meat & Livestock Authority.

Importantly, this legislation will now create a direct, unbroken nexus between the MLA and these levy payers. So they should receive updates of the results of this research and development work that is directly tailored to the enterprise that they are involved in. It almost defies modern techniques to think that that had not happened up to this point. This legislation is an important leap for rural industries. As we all know, information is power. If this information is collected and collated properly, I think this will provide a great lift to productivity for many of these producers and growers of grains and cereals—in horticulture in particular.

I heard my colleague speak about investment in marketing. I would have to disagree with Senator Leyonhjelm. His reference was to a couple of sectors, and I know in the case of beef that the Meat & Livestock Authority, for example, have invested tens of millions of dollars in marketing. The MLA have established offices all around the world where our major markets are, and we have seen the fruits of their labour. We have seen the fruits of labour in the lift of volumes that have gone into the markets—of course, aided by our recent free trade agreements with Korea, Japan and China. There is some exciting work going on in this field with India and now, of course, with Europe. With the Brexit affair there are markets that are going to open up in Europe that our people had not necessarily had a chance to compete in before. With this two-way structure where these Research and Development Corporations will now have firsthand knowledge of who their levy payers are and who their audience is, they will be able to work with the peak industry bodies in the respective fields to be able to communicate with these people, also, in relation to marketing issues and the dissemination of the information from the Research and Development Corporations.

I am inclined to agree with Senator Leyonhjelm. I have only heard his contribution since I came in here. He calls for these peak bodies and these RDCs to pay more attention to the issue of transparency. I do not think there would be anybody in this place—anybody in this Senate—that would argue against creating the most transparent environment one could with the performance of peak bodies and with how they spend their money. I do agree that, over a long period of time, there have been sectors which have, I think, with some right complained about how the investment of their money has occurred, the balance between research and development and marketing, and, of course, when you get down into some smaller sectors, allegations that some of the behaviour favoured some in the sector over others.

It is particularly important, at least as far as I am concerned, to ensure that we create an environment where small operations—for what I call 'small operations' we in the cattle industry call them 'living blocks'; I am sure that they have titles in horticulture and in farming, also—are able to function and flourish. Small operations, of course, do not have a personal capacity to conduct research and development on any scale. So it is very important that their peak bodies and these RDCs are, when they disseminate this information, able to tailor it, as I mentioned earlier, to the size, scope and geographic considerations of the operations of the recipients. Small operators could not, as you would appreciate, invest money in genetic research with livestock operations as one might expect would occur on the scale of the Meat & Livestock Authority. So if we do not have this two-way communication where the peak bodies and the RDCs can disseminate this information, these small operations will be at a complete disadvantage. The knock-on effect of that is: much more large-scale corporatisation in many of our rural industries. Whilst large-scale corporatisation is an important component, if we get to a point where smaller-scale, family-sized operations—extended family operations—cannot operate and compete, then the knock-on effect will be the impact it will have on so many hundreds of our small rural communities around the country.

The larger corporate operations receive equal benefit for the investment in R&D. In fact, some R&D can only be applied on scale. So you could argue that many of the large corporations get a better bang for their levy buck from research and development than the smaller-scale operators. With some R&D, as you know, the introduction of innovative technologies requires investment. So many of our small family farms and small family horticulture growers just do not have that sort of capital to invest. It is important that we pay attention to that fact and do whatever we can through our research and development investment as a government and within the industry to ensure that these smaller-scale operations can stay and compete in the industry, lest we will see, as I say, the corporatisation of the agriculture sector. Whilst that has a positive contribution on occasions, if we were to do everything on scale then so many of our small communities out west would disappear.

Many of these larger corporate operations operate very much like the resource sector—in that they fly-in fly-out with their staff. They are more inclined to buy 10 or 15 Toyotas at a time in Melbourne and import them onto Melbourne ports than they are to go into Charleville or Roma, or Cloncurry, in my state to make purchases. So it is so significantly important that, as the government, and as a nation, we continue to focus on whatever it is we can do to enhance the ability of small family operations—these family farms—to continue to prosper, to flourish and, indeed, to make it attractive enough for a generational investment from father to son, from mother to daughter, so that they can remain in rural areas and grow the economies of those small districts.

I think in the fullness of time, as we reflect upon this legislation that is before us today, we are going to see it make a significant contribution. In a modern world, communications are instantaneous. You can press a button, if you know how to—some of us who, sadly, were born in the fifties struggle a bit with which button to push, but, fortunately, we have people who can show us what to do there—and you can instantaneously pass on very large volumes of important and significant information between one and another. That is what this bill will be about. It is a two-way street. The information that these peak bodies will receive will allow them to engage with these levy payers. And I agree with Senator Leyonhjelm: it is a challenge for them now to engage with their base, with these individuals, and to put as many tests against themselves for transparency as one can. They no longer will have an excuse that they have not communicated back to the people who have invested in this research and development, and marketing. Up until now they have had a defence that they did not know, necessarily, who they were, except for their development of databases that they have done independently of this.

I think all the appropriate privacy considerations have been taken into account in this legislation. I know that the peak bodies and the RDCs whom I have had a chance to talk to since the inquiry will welcome this. There will be some, of course, who will be anxious because they know now that they may have to make sure that the investments done on behalf of their members are done in a proper, fair and equitable fashion, because they will have an obligation, in my view, to report back to them on the progress of their efforts on their behalf.

So I think this is a positive bill. I am sure it is one that is going to be supported. I cannot see any reason why it will not be supported by everybody across the chamber. For my part, I commend the bill to the Senate.

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

I rise to support the comments of my colleague Senator O'Sullivan in supporting the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016. I am absolutely delighted here in 2016 that agriculture and agribusiness have found their place in the Australian psyche. When I came here in 2008/09, you could not even get agriculture onto the agenda. Today, it is recognised that agriculture is not only so important domestically but that, from an export point of view, agriculture contributes about $50 billion to the Australian economy. It is one of those areas that is expanding astronomically as we embrace the free trade agreements with Korea, with Japan and with China. I hope we embrace the opportunities with the Trans-Pacific Partnership over time, because it is going to open up a whole new geographic area for us in the areas of Mexico, Chile and Peru—into Central and South America.

I want to make some comments more generally about agriculture and primary industry levies and charges, but I do want to focus for a few moments more particularly on the beef industry. With regard to agriculture more widely, it is important for people in the chamber and those listening to understand that the government support on a dollar for dollar basis the research activities of levy payers. For that reason, it is vitally important that we in this chamber and in the other place, on behalf of the Australian people, have an interest in, and an oversight of, how levy moneys are spent.

During the inquiry into this bill, we heard from pretty well every one of the agriculturally related companies or organisations, and we learnt from different sectors within the agribusiness and agricultural industries that there was frustration as to who the levy payers were, as to how much they were paying, as to whom they were making the payments and as to, most particularly, where their dollars went. Again, the government, on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia, do support that research component very, very actively. It is important, particularly in today's world with today's technology, that levy payers are identified, that the amount they pay is correctly recorded and reported, that those funds are made available through the responsible organisations and that, most importantly, we have the smallest amount of administrative burden between the payment of moneys by levy payers and the value of those levies paid by way of research, marketing, development or whatever purpose they are allocated.

In proposing this legislation, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Deputy Prime Minister made the point that there are 15 rural regional and development corporations, RDCs, and that one size does not suit all. The Senate inquiry we had into this legislation led to a report and recommendations which, I am pleased to say, were almost unanimous if not unanimous. In that inquiry there was a recognition from those who pay levies, to those who receive the levies and those who allocate the research and marketing funding: (a) that there be a separation between the two and that it be transparent, and (b) that on the research component we know where those dollars are being spent.

I want now to focus more centrally on the recommendations that came from the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report into grass-fed cattle. That is going to lead me also to make some observations on the first speech this evening of the newly elected Senator Derryn Hinch. I go back, initially, to the recommendations of the grass-fed beef levy report and its hearings. We held those hearings around Australia: in Canberra, in Broome, in Tennant Creek, in Rockhampton, back to Canberra and back to the Riverina area of New South Wales.

The recommendations of that inquiry are reflected widely in the bill which we are discussing this evening. The first recommendation was that there be established a producer owned body which would have the authority to receive and disburse the funds for research and development as well as marketing, in this case, of the cattle transaction levy funds. Why did that come about? Simply because there was a recognition that there was a wide gap in the knowledge of who paid levies, when they were paid, to whom they were paid and the source of that funding. That recommendation went on:

The producer-owned body should also be authorised to receive matching government research and development funds.

There was also mention made of reforming the Cattle Council of Australia to achieve these outcomes. So immediately this chamber and this parliament became involved in the oversight and husbanding, on behalf of the Australian taxpayer, of funds for research and development—not for marketing but for research and development. I am very pleased to see that the bill, as it has been presented to us for approval, does pick up those questions associated with the recommendation that was made.

The second recommendation was for the establishment of a cost-effective, automated cattle transaction levy system. That system, we said, should identify levy payers against levies paid. The scenario that we encountered as we went around Australia was that there was no immediacy with settlement. A levy payer would sell cattle into the market and funds would be taken out of that transaction for the purposes of the levy. But a long time gap existed between when the levy payer paid the funds to the person—often the agent who held the funds—and when those funds were eventually retired to the responsible authority. We said in 2015—bearing in mind the current electronic settlements that occur by their billions today in the credit card market et cetera—that there should be a more immediate settlement of levy fees paid and allocation of what are called voting entitlements.

I want to introduce that topic because, obviously, upon the payment of levies a levy payer—a producer—then has certain entitlements to vote on where research, development and marketing funds are allocated. We also said that this should be the subject of independent auditing and verification, which at that time it was not. We did recommend, and it was perhaps a bit unique to the grass-fed beef industry, that there should be an amendment to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act so that levies paid by beef processors—in other words, those who are involved in the processing of the product from the live animal through to the product available for retail—should be separated, and recognised as being separated, as slaughter levies and not as producer levies. This was somewhat unique to that industry but, nevertheless, vitally important. Why was it important? Because there was a concern that processors, as a result of the dollars involved in their component of levy collection, had an unfair benefit over producers in terms of how levies were allocated and the purposes for which research and development was undertaken.

During that inquiry we recommended—as I recall, it was again unanimous with the support of my own side and of my colleagues from the Labor Party Senators Sterle and Gallacher—that the Australian National Audit Office should conduct an audit of the cattle transaction levy scheme, tracing the levy from inception and focusing on revenue through to expenditure and the respective components—research, development and marketing.

The final recommendation that is relevant to our discussion this evening involves drawing on international experience. The fear was raised continually by producers that there was no transparency in the supply chain from the calf through to the retail plate, so our final recommendation was that the Department of Agriculture, in consultation with the cattle industry, should conduct an analysis of the benefits, costs and consequences of introducing American legislation akin to the US Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 and the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 1999. What does this legislation do in the USA? Basically, it allows a scenario in which those involved in production, processing, transportation, marketing and retailing have a greater degree of transparency on where the funds come from and what the fate of the funds is. I am pleased to see that my colleague Senator Reynolds is now in the chamber, because she was instrumental in the original Senate inquiry being undertaken, which has led to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016.

I now turn to the speech given this evening—or at least a small part of it, since it was so long—by Senator Hinch. Where is the relevance? The relevance involves the beef industry and the grass-fed levies. When we went around Australia—Senator Whish-Wilson, as I recall, was a participant in Broome and in Tennant Creek, but I do not recall if he was there in Rockhampton—it was the first time since 2011, when that shocking ban on the live export trade was visited upon the beef industry of this country, that the beef producers had their opportunity to be heard on the effect of that event on their industry. I want to reflect on it this evening because, while there are some elements of what Senator Hinch said tonight with which I agree, let me tell you this, and let me place it very firmly on record: it is obvious that Senator Hinch has no understanding of the live export trade in this country at all—whether it involves sheep or beef. He mentioned the names of people who I do not mention anymore, because I am under legal recourse to not mention their names anymore. But the time will come when I will speak to Senator Hinch, and I will explain to him the error of his thinking when it comes to this industry.

As Senator Whish-Wilson has heard and knows, there are 109 countries in this world that export live production animals for processing purposes. Senator Hinch, in his little cocoon, does not know this: there is only one country that has ever invested time or money or personnel or expertise in the wellbeing and the husbandry and the management and the transport and the nutrition and the welfare of animals in our target markets, and that country is Australia. I will not stand by and listen to the nonsense that was visited upon this parliament this evening by this man, who pretends to think, because he has been on the end of a radio microphone for some years, he is the voice of all knowledge in this industry. It was the worst piece of legislation that ever came down in this country. Not only did it affect cattle producers across the country but it affected transporters, it affected marketers, it affected transport companies and it affected helicopter companies.

As I have said in this place, does Senator Hinch, if he understands anything about this industry, think for one minute that the timing of that Four Corners program at the end of May in 2011 was in any way coincidental, that it coincided with the trough of the revenue side of that industry and the peak of the expenditure side? Does he not understand that it was a deliberate effort by a number of people, including the meat industry employees union, GetUp!, animal activists and others whose only interest was the destruction of an industry and to get a Prime Minister off the front page?

Let me tell you a little bit more. I know Senator Hinch will not be in the least bit interested but let me tell you a little bit of the history. In 2010, Dr Ivan Caple then, or prior to that, the senior honorary veterinarian for the RSPCA in this country, had been commissioned to go to Indonesia with a highly specialised group to look at issues associated with the processing of live cattle in Indonesia. He presented that report to the then agriculture minister, Mr Burke. An officer of Mr Burke's office had been an ABC journalist, a Ms Skye Laris. Ms Laris subsequently became the chief of staff to Mr Burke and subsequently his wife.

From the time that Dr Caple produced his report advising that there were some minor problems associated with the processing of Australian beef in Indonesia but by no means the nonsense that we saw in that Four Corners cooked up show. That show, incidentally, reminds me to tell you that the producer, Ms Sarah Ferguson, lied to me under oath six times in a subsequent Senate inquiry. Let me put that to one side. Ms Laris received the Caple report but never presented it to the then Minister for Agriculture, Mr Burke. We know that that 2010 election occurred, Former Minister Burke went on to other ministries and then Senator Joe Ludwig became the agriculture minister. Did Ms Laris ever report to new Minister Ludwig the events associated with the Caple report, reported to Ms Laris? No. Caple was never called upon to report to any minister of a Labor government. We know the sequel: late May 2011 we had the Four Corners report; early June the ban on the trade took place.

Some days later, on the steps of Martin Place in Sydney, we had a group of people including animal activists and GetUp!, who stood on those steps to say that they would see the end of the live export trade in this country. Do you know who the representative of GetUp! was on that occasion? It was Ms Skye Laris, the recent chief of staff to the Minister of Agriculture, who had withheld any information from the Caple report from 2010 upon which action could have been taken if they so minded but nothing—no action no nothing. And so we had a circumstance in which the then chief of staff, now a GetUp! aficionado, proudly telling us all that she had tens of thousands of email addresses to whom she could send this information.

Senator Hinch stands condemned for his lack of knowledge and for the presentation of that information.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak in support of the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016. I first became involved in the issue of levies shortly after I was sworn into this place. Not coming from a rural background, I first became aware of significant issues in relation to levies after visiting our horticulturalists in the south-west of Western Australia. It soon became very clear to me in talking to the horticulturalists that there were very significant and very profound flaws and issues with the current levy system as is stood and as it still stands today.

In conjunction with my colleague Senator Leyonhjelm and other senators, I co-sponsored an inquiry to investigate compulsory marketing and research levies faced by growers in Australia's $50 billion agricultural industry. Under the current research and development corporation model, primary producers are required to pay an annual fee to bodies which carry out research and development in their specific commodity industry. Research and development feeds into agricultural productivity and into our economy. Collective investment by producers into research absolutely makes sense, but I came to the belief very quickly and very early on in this place that a lot needed to be done to make the system more effective for growers and for the organisations themselves, and that there was very little transparency or accountability in the whole system.

The inquiry was designed to enable all sides to have their say on the operation of the levy system as it stood and to provide suggestions on how it could be improved. I was quite stunned by a lot of the evidence I heard through the inquiry over the course of 2014 and into 2015. One of the first observations that I had was around the overwhelming evidence from across commodities and growers and organisations: if somebody had tried to design a worse system I do not think they could have succeeded in making one any worse than the one that we found in this inquiry.

One of the things that particularly alarmed me throughout the inquiry and on reviewing the submissions, was that there was almost zero accountability across many of the commodity levies. You have the growers across the 60, 70 or 80 different commodities. They all have a completely different levy payment system which is calculated and paid differently. Sometimes there are intermediaries and brokers. There is very little accountability across all of those different commodity systems in terms of who has paid, how much they have paid, whether they have paid the right amount and whether the right amount has actually gone through to the department.

But it was actually a lot worse than that. What we found in this inquiry was that there was, in some commodities, almost no accountability whatsoever between the growers who paid the various levies and the people who spent the levies on marketing and research activities. These organisations were happily spending the money, sometimes on very laudable projects, and doing their annual reports—nice glossy reports that showed that they were doing a lot of things, sometimes over and over again—but a number of organisations had very little accountability to the growers who paid the levies. This was particularly so in a number of commodities in Western Australia. For example, with avocados and other commodities, we had a lot of evidence where they were paying the lion's share of the levies but little, if any, of the marketing and, particularly, the R&D money was actually going into the particular circumstances of growing avocados and other commodities in Western Australia.

One of the first things in the report was that this issue of accountability needed to be fixed. Hundreds of millions of dollars are paid every year by Western Australian farmers, by growers across all commodities, but few of them actually have any idea or any say into where their money is going and, across many commodities, many of them do not ever see any tangible benefit for the money they are paying. Indeed, many of them have had no confirmation that the money they pay actually goes to where it is supposed to go. We had many stories of money disappearing among intermediaries and elsewhere. It is clearly a system that is badly in need not only of accountability and transparency but also of reporting back to the growers whose money is being paid to those levies.

I am very happy to rise to speak tonight on this bill because, while it does not yet address all of the recommendations that the Senate inquiry made, it is certainly a fantastic first start. What does this bill actually do? The bill reintroduces a bill which was presented to the previous parliament and which passed the House with bipartisan support. This bill was supported by a Senate committee inquiry but, unfortunately, did not pass through this chamber before parliament was dissolved. The bill amends the Primary Industries Levy and Charges Collection Act 1991 and allows for the creation of levy payer registers and for the distribution of levy payer information to rural R&D corporations. Again, it is a great first step in the process of providing accountability and transparency between the growers who pay the levies and those who spend the money.

Currently, levy payer information is only distributed to the RDCs for two commodities: Australian Wool Innovation and Dairy Australia. This bill enables that information to go to all 13 RDCs. This bill is the first step. RDCs will then need to talk with industry and decide whether to fund the development of a register. They will need to apply to the minister for approval and they will need to work with the department on the design of the system so that it meets the department's requirements. The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources is already talking to those RDCs and to industry on what they need to do to collect the data efficiently. Once all of those details are settled, the government will amend the regulations to formally mandate the collection of the data.

This bill also enables the secretary of the department to agree to provide levy payer register information to industry representative bodies, such as the Cattle Council of Australia and Grain Producers Australia et cetera—for example, for the purposes of consulting with all levy payers on R&D priorities and levies. So these organisations, the RDCs spending the money, will be able to go back and consult the growers, the people whose interests they are there to look after and to do research behalf of. They will be able to ask growers: what do you actually want and what you actually need? It is quite astounding that this system has been in place for so long and we still do not have those basic accountability and transparency mechanisms, so this bill is a very good thing.

Why is the bill needed? The bill makes it possible for RDCs to identify and connect directly with primary producers, who, after all, fund their work, pay their bills and employ their staff. Numerous reviews and inquiries have identified improved consultation with levy payers as important, if not critical, for the ongoing strength of Australia's rural R&D system. Several of these inquiries recommended establishing levy payer registers as a way for RDCs to consult more effectively with the primary producers, who, as I said, pay their wages.

The government agrees that levy payers should have more of a say in how their levy funds are spent. In fact, personally, I think they should have more than just say; it should be up to them how their money is spent in their own commodity industries. Levy payer registers will provide RDCs with the ability to identify and consult directly with levy payers on research priorities and levy expenditure and to accurately and efficiently allocate voting entitlements where useful. Again, I think it is critically important for all of the RDCs to look at allocating voting entitlements so that their growers actually have a fair say in the operations of the RDCs. As it currently stands, the legislation does not allow for levy payer information to be distributed by the department to RDCs where they have collected it, as I said, with the exception of two industries—the wool and the dairy industries. This bill remedies this situation by making it possible to provide the information to the other 13 RDCs.

What more does this bill do? The bill amends the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 to allow the department to distribute levy and charge payer information to all RDCs. The information that will be provided includes the name, the address, the contact details and the ABN of levy and charge payers as well as the amounts of the levy or charges paid. The bill also allows levy payers' information to be used by the ABS in performing its functions. This is consistent with the Australian 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. The bill also allows the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to approve the disclosure of information by an RDC under limited circumstances also to a third party, such as to a ballot provider for a levy vote, for example.

The bill in and of itself does not create levy payer registers. The distribution of levy payer information to an RDC for a levy payer register will only occur where the RDC makes that decision in consultation with industry. As I said, the department has already started consulting with RDCs, which is a very welcome development. It is also consulting now with industry representative bodies and levy collection agents on their requirements, such as IT systems and other administrative matters. Once the department understands the system requirements there will be subsequent amendments to the regulations under the bill to formally mandate the collection of this data.

How is this of benefit to the RDCs? When we went through this inquiry it almost did my head in and bogged my brain to think that most RDCs did not have a list of their levy payers or any access at all to their contact details. Just think about that in any private company when you have shareholders or somebody who has invested their money and you do not even know who is paying the money, and you certainly have no accountability to get back to them to advise them how their money is being spent and to consult. The fact that most RDCs did not have a comprehensive list of their levy payers was a real surprise and not a very welcome one.

Access to levy payer information will provide RDCs with the ability to identify and consult directly with levy payers. Again, when we are talking about levy payers, we are talking about farmers; we are talking about those primary producers around the country who are spending a lot of money—some of it is quite significant margins—on these levies and who really have never had a say in how that money gets spent. Through greater levy payer engagement, RDCs will be able to better align research investments to industry priorities. As I said, the bill allows levy payer information to be used by the ABS, which again is also a welcome change.

In relation to privacy considerations, obviously the logical question is: who will have access to this information and how will the information be used? I can assure the Senate that the government is committed to upholding the highest possible standards of security and privacy for individual and commercial confidentiality. The bill provides for levy payer information to be disclosed to and used by the RDC and by the ABS. The use of personal information is of course subject to the relevant privacy legislation, including the Australian Privacy Principles.

The bill also limits the purpose to which levy payer information can be used: to maintain levy payer registrations, to maintain a register of eligible voters for polls that are conducted by the RDC, to publish statistical information, and to fulfil the RDC's functions under its funding agreement with the Commonwealth. Further protections include the fact that the bill does not allow for disclosure of levy payer information by an RDC or by the ABS to a third party, except where approved directly by the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in writing. This is to protect the integrity and security of levy and charge payers for personal information. This measure will allow RDCs to employ the services of an information technology company for data management and allow an industry representative body to consult with industry on a levy proposal, as one example.

Where an RDC is permitted to disclose levy payer information to a third party, that person or body may only use the information for activities relating to research and development, to marketing, to biosecurity and to the National Residue Survey or other activities of the RDC that directly benefit the producers, the farmers of this country. It will not be compulsory for the RDCs to set up these levy payer registers, although after going through the inquiry and hearing the overwhelming weight of evidence, it is my personal and very sincere hope that all the RDCs do set up these levy registers and do ensure they have contact with all growers who pay their levies—and not just have contact with those growers but also consult and engage and give them the voting rights in the organisation.

Levy payer registers will only be established when an RDC, in consultation with industry, chooses to fund the development of the register and puts a request to the minister and the request is approved. As I said, I hope that all RDCs embrace this process, not only because it is the right thing to do by the growers who pay the levies but also because it is simply good governance. It is not just grower money; it is also funded by the Australian taxpayer. Where this money is spent should be clearly transparent and be able to be seen by those who pay it, including the Commonwealth.

There are, however, a number of steps in the process, and it is expected to take some time for each levy payer register to be established. Levy payer data is not currently collected by the department, except, as I said, in the wool and dairy industries.

So, while it is a good thing that some RDCs have expressed an interest in establishing this register, the department's advice is that it might take them some time to build this register and also do it in a staggered approach, industry by industry. Developing a fit-for-purpose, cost-effective system to deliver levy payer information is, unquestionably, a complex process, simply because it is such a mess. Every single one of these commodities has different processes; they have different procedures, different methods of payment, different rates of payment—I think the colloquial way to put it is that it is a complete shemozzle. So it is not surprising that it will take the department some time to work through, commodity by commodity, with each of the RDCs. But they have to start somewhere, and I think this is a great start—developing a new, fit-for-purpose system.

The bill has no financial implications, and the bill does allow the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to provide this payment information. The bill does not alter existing arrangements currently in place for the collection and distribution of levy payment information to Dairy Australia and to Australian Wool Innovation.

The bill will also allow the secretary of the department to approve the disclosure of levy payer information by an RDC to a third party, such as an industry representative body. But the department is also developing guidelines under which that will be able to occur.

Again, inquiry after inquiry has made similar recommendations—that these reforms need to occur. Extensive consultation on the agricultural levy system was undertaken by the Senate rural and regional affairs committee in, as I said, the inquiry that I cosponsored in 2014 that reported in 2015. The committee itself received 151 submissions, and we held seven public hearings across Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. As I said, the evidence to these inquiries was consistent, and overwhelmingly damning of the current system. Few, if any, of the people who made submissions were saying that levies should not be paid for marketing and for R&D, but it all boiled down to making the system transparent, to making it sensible, and to making sure that the money spent by Australian taxpayers and the money spent by growers was actually going to give some benefit and that they had a say in the process.

In conclusion, the bill will help allow levy payers to have more of a say in how their levies are spent. That is an overwhelmingly good thing, because it is not just growers, as I have said, but also Australian taxpayers who put hundreds of millions of dollars into these organisations every year. If the bill is not passed, an opportunity to improve consultation between RDCs, levy payers and the department will be lost.

I am also very happy to see that the bill is compatible with human rights. The measures proposed in the bill are consistent with the right to protection against arbitrary and unlawful interference with privacy, and I commend this bill to the Senate.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016. Australia's rural industries are among the most innovative and productive in the world. Continued investment in rural research and development, or R&D, is vital to ensure the ongoing growth of and improvement in the profitability and competitiveness of Australia's agriculture, fisheries, forestry and food sectors. In recognition of this, the Australian government works with industry to coinvest in research through our world-leading rural R&D system. Much of this work is delivered through the 15 rural research and development corporations, the RDCs, of which we have heard much this evening. The RDCs provide a mechanism for industry to come together and invest collectively in research and development.

The government assists by establishing and collecting a levy on behalf of an industry, if an industry requests this. The government also matches an RDC's eligible R&D spending, up to a legislated cap. It is estimated that, for every dollar that the government invests in rural R&D, farmers generate a $12 return over 10 years. Feedback from primary producers is an integral part of how RDCs work. RDCs are required to consult with industry on their activities and to give those who fund the research via levies an opportunity to provide input into the strategic direction of the corporation. Agriculture levies and charges are imposed on primary producers by government, at the request of industry, to collectively fund R&D, marketing, biosecurity and residue testing programs. The levy system enables agricultural sectors to respond to industry needs and to help maintain and strengthen their position in highly competitive world markets through resource-sharing and cooperation.

This bill allows for the distribution of levy payer information to rural research and development corporations, or RDCs, for the development of levy payers' registers. As it stands, the legislation at the moment only permits the distribution of levy payer information to RDCs in the wool and dairy industries. This bill remedies this by allowing the government to provide levy payer information for the purpose of a levy payers register to the 13 other RDCs. Consistent with the application of the broader R&D levy system, the establishment of levy payer registers will occur, but only when an RDC requests it.

This bill also provides for levy payer information to be distributed to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the ABS, and to be used by it to perform any of its other functions, and this is consistent with the government's Public Data Policy Statement which commits to securely share data between Australian government entities, to improve efficiencies and inform policy development and decision making. Secondary disclosure of levy payer information by an RDC and the ABS will be limited. The secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources can approve its disclosure in some circumstances, including, for example, disclosure by an RDC to an industry representative or to an industry representative body for the purpose of consulting on R&D activities conducted by the RDC.

This bill makes it possible for the rural research and development corporations to identify with the primary producers who fund their work and connect directly to them. A number of reviews and inquiries have identified improved consultation with levy payers as vital to the ongoing strength of Australia's rural R&D system. Several of these inquiries have recommended the establishment of a levy payer register as a way for RDCs to consult more effectively with those primary producers that fund them.

The government agrees that the levy payers should have more of a say in how their levy funds are spent. RDCs should know exactly who their levy payers are. Levy payer registers will provide RDCs with the ability to identify and consult directly with those who pay those levies on research priorities and levy expenditure and, then, to accurately and efficiently allocate voting entitlements where useful. As it currently stands, the legislation does not allow for levy payer information to be distributed by the department to the RDCs where this information is collected, except in two industries: the wool and dairy industries.

The bill addresses this by making it possible for this information to be provided to the other 13 RDCs. The bill amends the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 to allow the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to distribute levy and charge payer information to all of the rural RDCs should they choose to fund the development of a levy payer register. This information includes the names, addresses and contact details as well as the ABN of levy and charge payers and the amount of levy or charge paid. The bill allows levy paid payer information to be used by the ABS in performing its functions. This is consistent, as I said, with the Australian 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.

The bill also allows the secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to approve the disclosure of information by an RDC, under limited circumstances, to a third party. The bill in and of itself does not create levy payer registers. That is up to the RDC itself. The distribution of levy payer information to an RDC for a levy payer register will only occur when the RDC makes that decision, in consultation with industry, to fund the development of a register and requests the minister to improve its development.

The department has already started consulting with RDCs as well as industry representative bodies and levy collection agents on their requirements. These might include IT systems that would allow the data to be appropriately collected and distributed. Once these systems are known there will be subsequent amendments to the regulations under this bill that will formally mandate the collection of data.

Most RDCs do not currently have a database of their levy payers or access to their contact details. A comprehensive list of levy payers will provide RDCs with the ability to identify and consult directly with those levy payers on the strategic direction of research activities and other elements of the RDC's functions. Through greater levy payer engagement, those RDCs will be able to better align the research investments they make to industry priorities. This bill allows levy payer information to be used by the ABS in performing its functions and to inform policy development in decision making.

The government is committed to upholding the highest standards of security and privacy for individual and commercial confidentiality. This bill provides for levy payer information to be disclosed and used not just by the RDC or the ABS. The use of personal information, however, is subject to the relevant privacy information, including Australian privacy principles. The bill also limits the purposes for which the levy payer information can be used to maintain levy payer registers, to maintain a register of eligible voters for polls conducted by an RDC, to publish statistical and de-identified information, to fulfil an RDC's function under its funding agreement with the Commonwealth or to fulfil functions of the ABS.

Further, the bill does not allow for disclosure of levy payer information by an RDC or the ABS to a third party, except where approved by the secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in writing. This is to protect the integrity and security of levy and charge payers' personal information. Where an RDC is permitted to disclose levy payer information to a third party, that person or body may only use the information for activities relating to R&D, marketing, biosecurity, the National Residue Survey or other activities of the RDC that benefit producers.

Levy payer registers will only be established where an RDC, in consultation with industry, chooses to fund the development of a levy payer register and puts a request to the minister and that request is then approved. There are a number of steps in the process and it is expected to take some time for each levy payer register to be established. Levy payer data is not currently collected by the department, except in the wool and dairy industries. A number of RDCs have expressed an interest in establishing a levy payer register already. It will not be possible for the department to build them all at the same time and, therefore, we will need a staggered approach.

The department has been and continues to liaise with RDCs, industry representative bodies and levy collection agents on the design and implementation of levy payer registers and the collection of data. The department welcomes early engagement and participating in the design. Developing a fit-for-purpose, cost-effective system to deliver levy payer information to RDCs is a complex process and work has commenced to capture relevant stakeholder requirements. Once the system requirements are known there will be subsequent amendments to the regulations under this bill that will formally mandate the collection of that data. Importantly, this bill has no financial implications at all.

The bill allows the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to provide levy payer information to an RDC to establish a levy payer register. This will only go ahead, as I have said, where the RDC, in consultation with industry, chooses to fund the development and requests a levy payer register itself and that request is approved by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Therefore, it is a matter for each RDC, in consultation with industry, to decide to fund the development of a levy payer register itself. In line with the department's existing approach to the administration, collection and disbursement of levies, this would include cost-recovery arrangements.

The wool and dairy industries, as I have said, already have levy payer registers. This bill does not alter existing arrangements for the collection and distribution of levy payer information to those two industries. The bill amends the Dairy Produce Act 1986 to remove repetition between it and this bill, but it will have no practicable effect on the industries. The department will consult with RDCs and industry representative bodies on the administrative arrangements through which third parties can access levy payer information and assure that any administrative burden is therefore minimised.

This bill also allows for the secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to approve the disclosure of levy payer information by an RDC to a third party such as an industry representative body. The department is developing the appropriate guidance that will allow for levy payer information to be made available to third parties in some situations. The department will consult with industry on these arrangements to ensure that they are not overly burdensome but, at the same time, provide for appropriate security, privacy and use of the information.

The government is committed to upholding the highest standards of security and privacy for individual and commercial confidentiality reasons. In some cases, levy payer information will be personal information and it will be governed by the relevant privacy legislation. Levy payer information may also include commercial information which would be subject to common law obligations. The appropriate guidance being developed by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources will also set out the expectations for the appropriate use of this data. The department will consult with industry on these arrangements to ensure that they are not overly burdensome but provide for the appropriate security, privacy and use of the information.

Extensive consultation on the agricultural levy system was undertaken by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in its inquiry into these levies. In conducting its inquiry, the committee received 151 submissions and held seven public hearings across the country—in Canberra, in Sydney, in Melbourne and in Perth. In addition, the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee received 35 public submissions on its inquiry into this bill when it was referred to the committee during the previous parliament. The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources has been liaising, and continues to liaise, with RDCs on the design and implementation of levy payer registers.

In conclusion, the passage of this bill is the first key step in allowing for the development of levy payer registers, making it possible for RDCs to identify and connect directly with those who fund their work. Through greater levy payer engagement with the R&D system, RDCs will be able to better align research investments to industry priorities, improving returns to primary producers and contributing to a more profitable, competitive and sustainable agricultural sector. We will now work with the RDCs and industry to make this happen. The government is committed to an Australian R&D system that remains transparent, consultative and delivers tangible benefits to Australia's agricultural industries in the future.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016 that makes legislative changes to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991, which will allow the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to provide levy and charge payers, which are commonly known as levy payers, information to the rural research and development corporations for the purposes of developing levy payer registers.

As it currently stands, the act only permits the distribution of levy payer information to the wool and dairy RDCs. This bill remedies this by allowing the government to provide levy payer information to the 13 other RDCs. Levy payer registers allow RDCs to identify and consult directly with levy payers who fund the research and development system in Australia, and ensure accuracy in the allocation of voting entitlements. Through greater levy payer engagement in their work, RDCs will be able to better align their research investments to industry priorities, improve returns to farmers, fishers and foresters, and contribute to a more profitable, competitive and sustainable agricultural sector.

The bill removes the legislative impediment to the development of levy payer registers. However, recognising that a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate given the diversity of Australia's agricultural sectors, the bill allows for the distribution of levy payer information to an RDC to occur only when an RDC, in consultation with the industry, requests it and that request is approved by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. The bill further allows an authorised person to provide levy payer contact information and details of the levy payer or the levy payable to an eligible recipient. The bill sets out the purposes for which the information provided to the eligible recipient can be used. The bill also allows the secretary of the department, via a legislative instrument, to provide further information relating to the production or processing of a commodity to be given to an eligible recipient, and this will allow additional industry-specific data which may be collected by the department to be distributed to the relevant RDCs or to the ABS—such information in relation to reduction, inputs or production or processing methods used in relation to a particular commodity.

The bill does not permit secondary disclosure of information included in levy payer registers by an eligible recipient to a third party, except where expressly permitted by the secretary in writing. The administrative arrangements will enable levy payers to opt out of receiving information from industry representative bodies, should they choose to do so.

The bill maintains current practices for the distribution of the name and address of the persons or body that lodges levy returns with the department to the RDC's industry representative bodies and others. The bill also makes consequential changes to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 and the Dairy Produce Act 1986. These amendments repeal similar limitations on the use of levy payers information by the dairy and meat and livestock RDCs, as these are now captured in section 27B of the bill.

The Australian government believes that the value of research and development to this nation's profitability is unparalleled anywhere in the world. Australia's position as a world leader in agricultural production is based on our high quality and world-leading R&D sector. The purpose of this bill is to deliver better farm gate profitability to our farmers but also our R&D sector. Because of the position R&D holds within industry, it is also a greater attractor of co-investment from other sectors to ensure that Australia's R&D sector provides a great service to our agricultural sector more generally.

As you would be well aware, Acting Deputy President O'Neill, Australia has a very high standard of living and consequentially the cost of doing business in Australia is a lot higher than many of the countries for which we compete with our agricultural produce. The cost of compliance in Australia is very high, our environmental standards are very high and our occupational health and safety standards are very high. It is for these reasons that we will never, ever be the cheapest producer in the world. But we can be the best and we are the best because we have such a highly advanced research and development industry in Australia.

This government invests massively in research and development alongside our industry sectors with matching dollar for dollar funding. The Abbott Turnbull governments of the last three years also provided additional research and development funding through the Rural Research and Development for Profit initiative to ensure that our research and development is particularly targeted at making sure profitability at the farm gate is its primary purpose.

It is also essential that we deliver what the industry wants. Therefore, the RDCs need to know what the levy payers want and the only way that they can do that is if they know who they are. This bill seeks to deliver the ability to directly connect the research and development corporations in Australia and the levy payers that pay those levies. In the process of doing this, we will ensure the privacy of that information so that it is only used for positive and beneficial outcomes.

A further possible benefit of this type of legislation is for use in the event of a biosecurity incursion. By knowing where our growers are through this levy-payer collection method, we will be able to better target our responses should we be unlucky enough to have a biosecurity incursion. The other thing that we need to remember is the importance of our clean, green and safe image in maintaining our very important international markets. It is through the constant and diligent use of research, development and innovation that we are able to maintain that image and our competitive advantage in international markets.

The development of the levy-payer register has been identified by a number of reviews and inquiries as being important to strengthening Australia's agricultural sector. The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into industry structures and systems governing the imposition of and disbursement of marketing and R&D levies in the agricultural sector recommended legislative amendments to allow for the development of levy-payer registers to improve consultation with levy payers and ensure accurate allocation of voting entitlements.

It was quite clear that submitters to the inquiry on this bill welcomed the bill and supported its key elements. A large number of submitters outlined to the committee the many benefits that they believed would arise from the creation of a levy-payer register. Support came from both research and development corporations and peak industry groups. For example, the Council for Rural Research and Development Corporations offered up that the council:

… fully supports the principles of open, transparent and accountable processes for informing and engaging with levy payers. This Bill enables the establishment and use of levy-payer registers which in turn will mean the RDCs can have accurate, up-to-date information about levy payers. The Council supports the Bill being passed.

New South Wales Canegrowers Council and Sunshine Sugar explained how the changes proposed in the bill would benefit the sugar industry. They said:

… the amendments as proposed would allow SRA to better achieve its overall objectives resulting in improved returns to our growers and contribute to a more profitable, competitive and sustainable sugar cane industry in NSW.

Grain Producers Australia described the proposed reforms as a 'key to providing grain producers with a strong link' with research and development. The Grains Research and Development Corporation also indicated its support for the bill.

The Cotton Research and Development Corporation explained that a levy-payer register would:

Strengthen CRDC's capacity to consult with cotton farmers on their R&D priorities, improve the distribution and extension of research results as well as receiving feedback on CRDC's performance.

The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association welcomed the bill, submitting that giving 'RDCs access to producer information will increase the ability of these bodies to distribute information in a more efficient and timely manner'.

The ABS welcomed the bill, observing that it 'has the potential to open up new opportunities for improving the quality and availability of agricultural statistical information for the benefit of both government and industry' and would support the government's public sector data agenda.

The Council for Rural Research and Development Corporations supported the proposal to share information with the ABS, observing that:

High quality statistical information about agricultural production in Australia and the number of active enterprises has also been an issue of concern for some time. Making information available as appropriate to support the functions of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, consistent with the government’s Public Data Policy Statement, is also expected to help improve this situation.

The committee's view was that the changes proposed in the bill would enable research and development corporations to better communicate with all levy payers in a particular industry not just those growers who are members of the RDC. The ABS would also have access to de-identified data. The bill is the first step towards improving the systems governing levies in the agricultural sector.

The committee went on to recommend that the Senate pass the bill and further made the recommendation that the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources continue to consult with research and development corporations and representatives of the agricultural industry as it implements the regulatory and administrative framework associated with measures contained in the bill.

So we stand here today with the unanimous support of the committee that undertook the inquiry into the bill. But this bill is but the first step. The RDCs will now need to talk with their respective industries and we also will be seeking for the RDCs, if they choose to go forward with development of these levy payer registers, to fund the development of those registers. Obviously, once they have made a decision that they see the benefit of being involved with the establishment of a register, they will need to seek the approval of the minister to establish that register. Then, obviously, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources stands ready to assist the RDCs in the design of a system so that it meets their particular individual requirements as well as achieving the broader agenda of transparency, efficiency and farm gate returns to our primary producers. The department is already out talking with the RDCs and industry about what they need to collect the data efficiently, and once all those details are settled we will amend the regulation to formally mandate the collection of data. The bill also enables the department secretary to agree to provide levy payer register information to industry representative bodies—for example, for the purposes of consulting with levy payers on R&D priorities and the levies themselves.

In addition to the wool and dairy RDCs, this bill will incorporate the following RDCs under the new legislation: the Australian Egg Corporation Limited, the Australian Grape and Wine Authority, the Australian Meat Processor Corporation, Australian Pork Limited, Australian Wool Innovation, the Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Dairy Australia—which currently is already under this particular legislation—Forest and Wood Products Australia, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Grains Research and Development Corporation, Horticulture Innovation Australia Limited, LiveCorp, Meat & Livestock Australia—which is already under this particular legislation—the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and Sugar Research Australia.

Before I close, I acknowledge the support that Senator Leyonhjelm has pledged for this bill. Senator Leyonhjelm has made his views very clear about his lack of support for compulsory levies, but his acknowledgement that if we have these levies in place it is absolutely essential that we are able to communicate with everybody who is paying the levy is noted and greatly appreciated. I also acknowledge the support of the Labor Party for this amendment bill, because they too see the importance of making sure that we ensure the greatest level of transparency that we can with the view that we achieve the greatest level of efficiency in our agricultural sector and the best possible returns for our R&D dollar.

The government is committed to an Australian R&D system that is transparent, consultative and delivers tangible benefits to Australian agriculture industries into the future. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.