Cobb, John, MP

Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (11:47): My colleague the member for Hunter should save a bit of his voice for later on! I rise to speak on the Export Charges (Imposition-General) Bill 2015 and related bills. It is a bill which, in itself, is not the most important bill that we will ever act on in this place. But it is part of a bigger situation which is totally one of the most important facets of agriculture, and that is export. I come back to the issue of reputation. The member for Hunter mentioned it, and we all agree that we agree, that the greatest thing Australian agriculture has going for it is its reputation and the fact that we do not deliver dodgy products. I totally agree that we will never feed Asia, but we will feed those who can afford us. We put out a quality product; probably with the exception of wheat there is not much that we export that a totalitarian state wants to buy to feed its people with. But wheat, yes. Whether it is broadacre, whether it is agriculture or whether it is intensive agriculture, exports are the most important thing for agriculture. I often say that the problems that producers and processors have with, shall we say, the position Australia finds itself in with the domination of the supermarkets can best be dealt with by not needing them—by having an export outlet for every product that we put out. That is what I would like to think is the best way to handle it. This bill deals with that reputation. It deals with the need to have AQIS—and there is a need to have them, I am not stepping away from that for one second. It is their job to ensure that various things happen. Firstly, in the case of agriculture, that the product that leaves Australia is of quality and also that it is sent in the way in which the country which it is going to demands that process happen. That is AQIS's job and that should happen. I will talk a little later about the ways in which that can happen, but what this bill is about is trying to have equalisation and more efficiencies in the way in which AQIS charges. It is cost recovery. I think two predecessors to the member for Hunter as agriculture minister wiped out the subsidy which we used to give to export industries for the costs of AQIS. However, I guess that is in the past and that we have moved on. Now we have cost recovery. However, it has to be as low a cost as is possible. Whether it is the Department of Agriculture, of which AQIS is part, or whatever bureaucracy it is, as far as trade and production goes its job is to help not to hinder. Its job is to cost as little as possible. Agriculture should not have to bear the cost of running a department. This bill attempts to equalise this. I do not think it changes the actual amount that is gathered. It may equalise it and perhaps be kinder to those who do not use AQIS a lot. An example is the individual horticulturalist who might send something out of Australia as against those who make a lot of use of the services of AQIS, which it does on behalf of agriculture and the Australian community in general. The reason AQIS is so important is because they do play a role in ensuring that our reputation, which I repeat is the greatest selling point that Australian agriculture has, is maintained and that the country or the importer from whichever country it is knows that it will be produced and marketed in the way in which they have agreed they want it done. It needs to know that we will meet the particular protocols that country has; that we do not circumvent them but that we do them. And different countries have different requirements, so it can be quite complicated. I go back to the point I mentioned regarding how these costs are done. Broadacre agriculture farmers are very rarely exporters themselves. Normally the processor is—the buyer of the grain, the processor of the meat and the buyer and the processor of the wool. The processor normally buys the wool and takes it—unfortunately not in Australia—to where that is done. It is awfully important that those costs are kept down. I would like to see them lowered, not just equalised. I would really like to see those costs lowered, and without doubt they can be. I know and I accept that the department has people who are authorised to act on its behalf. One example—and it has happened for quite some time now—is the inspectors in export abattoirs where arrangements are in place with the countries concerned. Not every country will accept somebody who is not employed by a government department to do those inspections. But where that can be arranged it is very important that we have authorised people with a far lower cost scale than government departments are able to deal with. I have always felt that we need to go further. We need to make it contestable so that somebody out at Orange, for example, could do the course, become certified and, instead of someone having to come from Sydney or wherever, be certified to look at apples or whatever it might be to ensure that they met the requirements that we demand—and so we should—to keep the quality and the reputation of our products at the top. I am not suggesting for one second that we at any way put at risk the quality and the reputation that we have developed over one heck of a long time. We are awfully fortunate. If we are isolated from the world there are certain good things that come with that. We are less prone to disease. We have some natural quarantine barriers. Plus the fact is that we are very good at growing agricultural commodities, and our processing is good too. There are people who are more efficient; we have to deal with that. But as far as quality goes not many can equal us, let alone beat us. So we have to protect that. We have to make sure it is there. I support what is being done in this legislation: equalising it so the small exporters do not get whacked so hard. It is also about the registration of premises. What a lot of people do not realise is that the premises where horticulture or processed goods are put together have to be, where exports are concerned—it is not just meat—quite often registered and paid for as well. To equalise the costs so the little guys do not get broken is a good thing. However, we do need to look beyond this. We do need to ensure that we have a way in which locals can be certified to do this. Yes, I know we have authorised people but I think we should go further. Make it contestable so that people can do a course, become certified and be one heck of a lot cheaper and, I dare say, probably more efficient than a department can be. Think about how far Sunraysia is from Melbourne. Think about the member for Murray's electorate, where by and large they still have to come from Melbourne to do inspections. It is a big deal for all of us. It does not matter where you are in Australia, whether you are up in Mackay—there is a lot of travel. Giving people the opportunity to be an earner locally gives them another chance to do something. Make the course as tough as you like but make sure we have people who can act on behalf, with the knowledge—not just to keep the costs but to get them down, because I have no doubt that that can happen. I support the legislation and I see it as an early step in lowering the costs of certification, of inspection and of audits as well. There are probably always going to be government audits but I have never seen why adding up should be so expensive. I support the bills and I hope this is the start of even better things in the time to come.