Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've been made aware of an administrative error that occurred when tabling the order for production of documents No. 144 earlier this month that led to certain documents not being produced. As a result, I will now table a number of additional documents, including correspondence to and from organics industry organisations and myself or my office regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I rise to take note of this explanation by the minister and thank him for tabling some documents, which I'm yet to actually see. I was hoping to table the letter. I hope one of these documents tabled is the actual letter from Australian Organic Ltd around standards et cetera.

I want to walk the Senate through some of the issues. This minister has form on being called over and over back to the Senate to explain to the Senate either his own behaviour or that of his department or on behalf of the Minister for Northern Australia, Ms M King, the minister he represents. On 8 February, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents, No. 144, requiring Minister Watt to table documents relating to a domestic organics standard or regulation for Australia. The order was responded to on 5 March—nearly a month later—with 20 documents.

On 8 March, Australian Organic Ltd put out a statement and published a letter sent by the minister on 14 December last year. This letter to the industry body should have been tabled by the minister as set out in paragraph (h) of the order passed by the Senate. The minister failed on 5 March, in those 20 different documents tabled in this place, to table a letter he had had in his department—in his hand—since the previous December. It begs the question of what else hasn't been tabled and undermines confidence in this process.

The majority of senators in this chamber joined together to order the government to produce documents. The casual disregard that this government's ministry has towards this chamber beggars belief—after barely 10 months in office. It's an absolute contempt of the Senate from this particular minister to not comply with an order. In 10 short months they have shown a complete disregard for the orders of the Senate, and ministers have frequently failed to comply. A pattern is emerging from this government and this ministry—this executive—whether it's on the Voice, and tabling advice about it from the Solicitor-General, as previous Labor governments have, when the public is asked to determine a referendum question, so that people can have confidence in the process, or whether it is complying with orders of the Senate around transparency and accountability.

From Minister Watt and this government, a pattern is emerging and a set of standards and behaviour is being set. This particular minister has been called to provide explanations for not responding to questions on notice and for failing to comply with orders of the Senate no fewer than six times. This will be the seventh in just 10 months. In just 10 months, ministers across this government have been called to give explanations nine times. Is this the standard the government wants to set? Senator Roberts pointed out that the last time Labor was in government they complied with just 35 per cent of orders. This should be a red flag because it shows that colleagues on the crossbench are equally dissatisfied with ministers in this place for the wilful disregard that they've shown for the standing orders and for more than a century of procedure and convention.

Ministers will do well to remember that not complying with an order of the Senate may lead to censure, contempt or other penalties under the Parliamentary Privileges Act. Standing order 206 outlines the penalty for wilfully disobeying the orders of the Senate as 'a senator may be ordered to attend the Senate and may be taken into custody.'

Further resolutions on parliamentary privilege, agreed to by the Senate on 25 February 1988, that deal with matters constituting contempt are at section 6:

Without derogating from its power to determine that particular acts constitute contempts, the Senate declares, as a matter of general guidance, that breaches of the following prohibitions, and attempts or conspiracies to do the prohibited acts, may be treated by the Senate as contempts.

Ministers must establish that the public disclosure of documents in question would be prejudicial to the public interest. This minister did not do that. In fact, he forgot to put a document pertinent to the order, essential to the order, that he'd had in his possession for in excess of 2½ months, with the 20 other documents. And, now, he casually stands up and says, 'Oh, I forgot one.' Well, what else have you forgotten? The Senate is left questioning what other orders has this minister and others wilfully not complied with. The government is now on notice. This minister is now on notice. The Senate is not a game, some casual sandpit where you can toss around toys and sand in each other's eyes and walk off unscathed. This is a serious chamber. It is here to hold the executive government to account. It is something we all, whether you have had the privilege to serve in executive government or not, take seriously. The first 10 months of this government and this executive shows that the Anthony Albanese government has a casual disregard for the orders of the Senate, for the role of the Senate, in our democracy. We ask them to do better on behalf of all Australians.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

r DAVEY (—Deputy Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (): I too rise to take note of the failure of the minister to comply with an order of the Senate and the absolutely pathetic explanation that he has provided as to why and how this happened without a skerrick of contrition on his part.

It is a serious and damning reflection on Australia's minister for agriculture when he fails to support a very important agricultural industry which is keen to grow their markets both domestically and internationally. But, then, when the industry is trying to work with the government and the Senate is trying to work with the government, we are hampered because of the minister's carelessness, disinterest or worse, because the motion today and the reason for calling the minister revolved around a legal technicality of what has or hasn't been tabled. But, when something as glaringly obvious as a letter to industry from the minister, which I hope he's tabled—like my colleague Senator McKenzie, I haven't yet had a chance to see what was just tabled—but I am aware that this letter exists because the industry has told us this letter exists. The industry has now published this letter on their website. When something as glaringly obvious as that didn't make it into the original pack of tabled documents, it begs the question what else is being hidden and it begs the question about the minister's commitment.

I also want to raise the minister's apparent oversight as an assessment of where this industry sits in the minister's order of priorities and the importance that his department places on it, be it by the minister's instruction or just his omission. We're not talking about a little niche industry here; we're talking about an industry that in 2021 contributed over $2 billion to the Australian economy. We're talking about the opportunity for that industry to grow and for that industry to have easier access to overseas markets. To do so they need regulation and accreditation, and this is what the industry has been calling for and working towards.

The global market size of organics is estimated to be worth over US$208 billion, and it is estimated to grow to around US$654 billion by the year 2030. Our lack of domestic regulation in Australia is undermining efforts by that industry to improve market access for organic exporters. Our target markets quite rightly question the equivalence of our organic production systems when there is no domestic organic regulation in place to provide them with some assurance of our market integrity. Only domestic legislation will provide the regulation required to adequately protect organic consumers and producers and provide the assurance needed for improved export market access. Australia will miss out if this Labor government doesn't get off its proverbial and realise it has made a serious error of judgement in putting this important industry on the backburner.

I've been chasing answers for the organics industry through Senate estimates and through my advocacy since I was elected. I was pleased in 2020 when the then minister for agriculture, David Littleproud—someone who didn't ignore the industry—commenced investigating whether the regulatory framework for our organics industry was fit for purpose. Minister Littleproud established an industry working group and, through the process, had the department commission a consultation paper and cost-benefit analysis to be conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The coalition commitment at the time—and it was ongoing, right up until the last election—was that we were working towards implementing a domestic standard through the industry working group. I asked the industry whether that working group had been reconvened since the election and I was told by them, 'No.' I followed this up with questions to the department in November last year, when I asked questions about the PwC report, and the minister's department advised they were considering the findings and would engage across the Public Service and maybe with industry, as needed, in providing advice to government.

Fast forward to March, and I followed up again at estimates and was told, 'We're still waiting.' It was also confirmed to me by the department that the industry working group had not met since the election and had not seen the PricewaterhouseCoopers report or the consultation reports that had been bandied around other bureaucratic agencies. When I asked when something might be coming, I was advised: 'The policy consideration is ongoing. I don't have a time frame I am able to provide to the committee at this point.' That shows to me that Minister Watt does not support an organic standard, which he announced in the media in March this year. Minister Watt's reason relates to the cost-benefit analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers. I'm not sure how much of it we've seen, but I'm advised it is flawed; it was a cost-benefit analysis of only the domestic industry and didn't consider the export potential of the industry.

Minister Watt, I don't understand the lack of conviction or interest in an industry that has the potential for such growth. The industry doesn't understand the disrespect you have shown them. The organics industry has been calling for the implementation of a domestic organic standard for years. I know we're a party that likes to have light-touch regulation, but this is something the industry has been calling for because, with a domestic organic standard, the industry can actually compete in export markets with a regulated and accredited product.

I urge the government to work with industry and sort out issues about cost benefit and other concerns that may have been raised in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report so that industry can grow and prosper. There is an existing industry working group that you can consult with to make sure that you smooth over all of those issues that were, apparently, raised. When we see organics producers not being able to access markets like South Korea because we don't have an equivalent standard that other governments can compare their domestic regimes to to make sure that there's balance, shame on us, particularly when we've got an industry that is so willing to work with the government to ensure that we can do so.

The disrespect the minister has shown by his laissez faire attitude to producing the documents is reflective of his treatment of the industry. I implore him to change his attitude towards the organics industry, change his attitude towards orders of the Senate and start commencing the real work.

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the explanation given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. From the outset, let me say that our government is keen to work with the organics industry to open new trade pathways for organic products.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've had nine months.

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and you had 10 years. I want to put a few facts on the table about this issue, given some of the hyperventilating that we've seen from the senators opposite. Between 2020 and 2022, the former government commissioned a number of reports into a potential domestic standard for organics. These reports were not released publicly by the minister at the time, and no changes to domestic regulation were ever made by those opposite. Are we surprised? No. However, on 6 March, Minister Watt released the two cost-benefit analysis reports that the organics industry had been seeking access to. These reports examined the costs and benefits of a regulatory scheme and are now posted on the department's website for all to see. The most recent cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the former coalition government found there is no option for regulating the domestic organics industry that is supported by industry and that shows a net positive impact over 10 years. It also indicated that the costs of extra regulation, as requested by the industry, may be too big a burden for smaller players in the industry to withstand and may end up being passed on to consumers at the check-out. An additional report commissioned by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has found that 53 per cent of consumers do not search for the phrase 'organic' when purchasing a product and 48 per cent of participants stated that the government certification would not change their buying habits.

We acknowledge that the organics industry has done a lot of work on this issue and that those involved are keen to see progress, but we must be methodical in our approach, as the introduction of an economy-wide domestic regulatory scheme would be a significant change to our regulatory landscape. This would no doubt come with a range of potential benefits and opportunities for the sector, but it would also come with costs to business, which would then be passed on to consumers. At a time when consumers and businesses are facing cost-of-living pressures, we're conscious of our responsibility to not add to that burden. I really am surprised that the Nationals are so keen to add to household budget pressures. I note that, given the opportunity to release this information under the previous minister, they chose not to.

The Albanese government has been in constant contact with the industry throughout the whole process. The minister was pleased to attend the industry's inaugural conference last year and has met with producers and industry bodies. We will continue to engage meaningfully with the organics industry going forward. In the meantime, the Albanese government is working hard to increase export opportunities for the organics industry and non-organic agricultural products. The Australian government is committed to expanding and diversifying access to export markets in support of industry's ambition to grow the agriculture sector to $100 billion in farmgate value by 2030. Australia exports around 72 per cent of agricultural production each year. This is expected to be worth $74.8 billion in 2022-23.

We are committed to supporting our exporters to pursue opportunities in new markets through our Trade Diversification Plan. This plan has four main pillars: (1) delivering an export market and product diversification strategy; (2) building economic ties with India, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister's recent trip to India, where we agreed on two-way agriculture trade to provide new market access for Australian Hass avocados to India and access for Indian okra to Australia; (3) revitalising our trade with Indonesia; and (4) supporting greater regional trade cooperation. This is a good plan that acknowledges our place in the world and brings amazing agricultural products and industry to the world stage, where they belong.

This is something Minister Watt has consulted on and brought the industry along with us on, because that is how Minister Watt runs his portfolio. He's consultative, he listens and he is extremely hardworking. I think it was Senator Sterle who was in this place yesterday talking about the feedback he had been getting from the agricultural industry in Western Australia about how Minister Watt has conducted himself in this role, and that feedback is entirely positive. I can say the same from a Victorian point of view.

Not so long ago, as I mentioned in question time last week, I was up at Tatura in northern Victoria, near Shepparton, at the International Dairy Week conference. The overwhelming message I got from that industry conference was how glad the dairy industry is that there is someone in the agricultural portfolio who listens to them and asks them what they think. They recognise how hard Minister Watt has worked from the minute he was sworn in, particularly when, most recently, Australia's biosecurity was threatened, particularly for industries who deal with livestock, where there were many concerns about incursions of foot-and-mouth disease in Australia. This happened literally as soon as we got elected, and Minister Watt immediately got to work. Now we have a biosecurity strategy that is going to set up Australia for the long term.

I might say that this occurred despite a decade of multiple National Party agricultural ministers dropping the ball on biosecurity. I was shocked to learn in the last round of Senate estimates how the Nationals had cut the detector dogs program at Australian airports, with fewer and fewer dogs picking up fewer and fewer threats. I was even more shocked to learn that, under the National Party's watch, the detector dog program wasn't training dogs to detect queen bees, and that has been the case since 2015. As the minister mentioned in question time, and as was recorded on Landline this week, queen bees that are brought into the country are not detected by dogs, and they're at serious risk of carrying varroa mite, a nasty parasite which devastates honey bee populations and destroys hives. And guess what: after the Nationals cut the detector dog program and the detection of honey bees at Australian ports of entry, we've had an incursion of varroa mite—cause and effect, one might say.

At the end of 2022, after Senator Watt became minister, the detection of queen bees was added back to the list of things that dogs smell for. But of course, because of how irresponsible the coalition was, it was too late. We now have varroa mite incursions that we are still dealing with in New South Wales. As we have talked about in many question times, often this is a case of cleaning up the coalition's mess after the last decade, and this varroa mite incursion is a huge mess. It costs money, it costs livelihoods and it costs industry productivity. Minister Watt is cleaning this up and fixing it, and for that he needs to be congratulated.

We have also heard revelations about the coalition basically bankrupting the entire department of agriculture. The department's been forced to cut staff, limit programs and cut travel because the former National ministers refused to do anything about the fact that the costs of delivering the department's essential services and policy responsibilities outstripped the revenue coming into the department. Imagine that, letting the very department that symbolises your reason to be in politics go bankrupt because you haven't got the time—or can't be bothered—to do anything about it for a decade. It's completely shameful coming from the party that claims to be there for rural and regional Australia, as we've heard yet again today.

But someone who is not lazy, who does the job, who works hard, who addresses the issues when they come to him is Minister Watt. I back Senator Watt's explanation here today and, for all the reasons I have mentioned, I believe him to be entirely responsible and effective as a minister. And he will continue to be more effective than the sum total of the coalition ministers who preceded him. The motion moved today is nothing more than a silly attack on Senator Watt for the very reason he's doing so well in his job and the Nationals can't handle it.

Finally, on the matter of organic standards, we acknowledge the organics industry has done a lot of work on this issue, and those involved are keen to see progress. We are being methodical in our approach, and I have full confidence in Senator Watt as the minister who will make sure there's a good outcome and it is achieved.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator White referred to the need to consider the feedback with respect to the minister for agriculture's performance. Well, I have some feedback. This feedback isn't from a senator in this place; this feedback is from the industry. This is what the organics industry is saying about Minister Watt: 'Minister Watt ignores evidence, experts and industry with captain's call on domestic regulation'. That's what the industry's saying. There's some feedback for Senator Watt. 'Minister Watt ignores evidence, experts and industry with captain's call on domestic regulation'. There's some feedback in relation to this very issue which we're debating today in relation to the minister's failure to promptly comply with an order for the production of documents that was issued with the order of this Senate—an important check and balance in our Australian democracy.

After Australian Organic Ltd actually referred to a document which the minister had not tabled in compliance with the order for the production of documents, after that had been disclosed and brought to this chamber's attention by the industry, we said: 'Hang on, they're referring to a document from the minister and the minister didn't include it in the order for the production of documents. What's going on?' We called the minister in to provide an explanation. And then? The minister came into this place and said: 'Oh, an administrative oversight. I forgot a few documents.' They just happened to be some of the most relevant documents in relation to the subject for the order for the production of documents. 'I forgot a few documents. Sorry about that.' It doesn't exactly instil confidence in relation to this minister and his ability or desire to comply with orders for the production of documents.

We've seen it here before, in this term. Six times before this occasion, the minister has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this place to explain why he hasn't provided documents which the Senate has requested and ordered. The process should not work that way. The minister and his department, the minister's responsible for the department, should comply with the orders of this Senate. The minister should comply.

These documents being tabled today—this is where they are; we got them half an hour or so ago—are the most important documents in relation to this particular order for the production of documents. They're not collateral documents; they go to the very heart of the issue. These are the documents. 'Administrative oversight.' 'We forgot to give you the most important documents.' They're the most important documents identified in that order for the production of documents. Give us a break. Goodness me! It's absolutely astounding.

And this is about opportunity. As Senator Davey said, the organics food industry is worth hundreds of billions of dollars and has the potential to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars. If Australia does not have an appropriate standard to give our own Australian consumers confidence with respect to whether or not a food is truly organic to an appropriate standard, that is going to hurt our ability to export, to take advantage of the opportunities overseas with respect to organic food. That's what we're talking about here. This is an opportunity worth hundreds of billions of dollars. It is not good enough, in relation to an issue this important, for Minister Watt to ignore evidence, experts and industry with a captain's call on domestic regulation. Those are the words of the industry itself, not my words.

With respect to the reports that Senator White referred to, the biggest omission in those reports is that they don't actually consider the export opportunity itself. They're only looking in a very limited way with respect to the internal regulation of the industry, without taking into account the great opportunities for organic food on the world stage. I'm proud that, in the previous term, I served in a government which set a target of $100 billion of agricultural production and exports. Australia is leading the way in terms of agricultural production and exports. We need to do better on this. The minister needs to lift his game and listen to the industry in relation to the opportunities in this space.

Question agreed to.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, President. Can I seek some clarity as to why we aren't resuming the debate to take note of questions from question time. Standing order 72 provides for 30 minutes of debate following questions without notice, for a motion to take note. I know we have just dealt with the motion that provided for Senator Watt to attend at 3.30. That motion indicated that Senator Watt's attendance and a subsequent take note debate shall have precedence over other business until determined, but it did not extinguish any other business. President, I would have interpreted that motion to provide for an interruption to the take note of questions and not for an early closure of that debate.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take some advice. I'm reliably informed that we have consistently applied the term 'hard marker', that all business then ceases and moves on to the next part of the business day. The only time that we don't do that is when we use the form of words 'the debate is interrupted for a first speech'. Other than that, it's always the hard marker that applies. Taking note ended at its usual time.