Zappia, Tony, MP

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (11:57): As the member for Hunter, responding on behalf of the opposition, has made clear, Labor supports the Export Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2015, Export Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2015, Export Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2015 and Export Charges (Collection) Bill 2015. We do so because we consider that the whole system of recovering fees in respect of the primary producers of this country is a system that needs to be sorted out. My understanding is that right now there are one or two hundred different fees that apply. In fact the whole primary production area is one where there is a lot of inconsistency when it comes to charging of fees. Indeed, as the member for Calare has quite rightly pointed out, in some cases those who pay the fees are unfairly burdened with the level of fees that they have to pay. This legislation is about reforming that whole system. It is about cost recovery, particularly when it relates to food exports—and, in subsequent legislation that will be debated today, also the importing of food into this country. It revolves around the responsibilities of government with regard to the certification, inspection and auditing processes that are applied by the Department of Agriculture and AQIS. As other speakers have quite properly pointed out, primary producers in this country make a significant contribution to the economic prosperity of Australia. They have done so for many years, they do so right now and we acknowledge that they will do so in the future as well. Indeed, as has also been pointed out, they contribute something like $40 billion to our exports every year. In round figures it is a $50 billion industry to our nation. It should not be taken for granted. It should also be managed in a way that is responsible and fair to all of those who are in some way involved in that industry sector. We also acknowledge the growth potential for food producers in this country. In less than 10 years time the population of the world will be some eight billion people and there is a rising middle class, particularly in the nearby countries of Asia, where the demand for Australian food has been rising in recent years. The demand for Australian food has been rising not only because a rising number of people can afford to buy it but also because it is widely accepted that Australian food is produced to a much better standard. The 'clean, green' image that we often talk about is absolutely true with respect to Australian foods, and overseas markets are prepared to pay a higher price for Australian food because of its quality. It is important, therefore, that that quality continues and that we do not in any way jeopardise the quality of the food that is produced here. It is also important that we do not put the Australian population in jeopardy by allowing poor quality food to come into the country. It is not only about ensuring we can compete with other countries going into those overseas markets. If we can maintain the quality of our food, it also means we can get a better price for our growers, which in turn means they can remain viable. That is a critical consideration. Many members of the House have from time to time pointed out—and the member for Murray, who is in the chamber right now, has made this point—that many of our food producers in recent years have been struggling. It is, therefore, important that we do whatever we can to help those food producers remain in the business. The truth is that not only do they have a lot of money invested; they also have a lot of experience and expertise in what they do. It would be a shame to see them walk away from their properties; we as a nation would lose years and years of valuable expertise. The member for Calare has quite rightly pointed out that the fees and charges that are imposed by this legislation—and I understand that it is a process that is going to operate in parallel with the current fee arrangement that is in place with respect to exporters and importers—should never become a barrier to the export or import of food to or from this country. Already, food processors and food growers have considerable obligations placed upon them in respect of the food they grow, how they process it and, if they want to export it, the export processes they have to go through. And having those processes overseen by the department comes at a cost. While we accept the term 'cost recovery', I hope it is indeed cost recovery and not more than that. If it is more than that, it will ultimately become a barrier to many of the food producers and food exporters of Australia. I have spoken on other occasions about the burden that these fees impose on growers. Having spoken with the exporters, I know the difference it makes. The member for Calare quite rightly referred to the Sunraysia district, which exports a lot of grapes. My understanding is that the fees for some of those exporters went from a few hundred dollars a week to several thousand dollars a week as a result of some changes to the fee structures that were imposed in recent years. It is a significant difference and for many of those exporters it makes a difference to their livelihood and their viability. I have also spoken to food processors in Adelaide. Equally, they have to go through a very exhaustive process just to comply with state requirements on food health standards; and then they have to duplicate a lot of that if they decide that they want to export that same product overseas. It seems that that duplication or overlap could be avoided. Right now, it is a significant penalty to the exporters because they have pay costs to two separate governments with respect to the same activity. If we could avoid that, that would be a good thing. The exporters I have spoken to have to compete with other global players, and anything they can do to reduce their overheads when it comes to exporting their foods would certainly assist their businesses. It is true that we need to change the framework. Again, I support this legislation in that respect. I have very strongly made a point about the fairness of the fees that are ultimately going to be brought in. I understand that the minister proposes to go through a consultation process in that respect. I would hope that it is a very wide consultation process that not only has the input of all the different sectors but also takes note of what is being presented to the government. There are a couple of other points I want to say about this whole issue. This issue goes hand in glove with the next set of legislation we will be debating, and that is about the importation of food into this country. Indeed, my view is that the real focus should be on food imports rather than food exports. Having spoken to industry sectors across the country, my view is that food that is produced in Australia is generally produced to a much higher standard than food that is produced in many other parts of the world. There are chemicals that we do not use in this country that are still being used elsewhere. We comply with health standards in this country to a much higher level than what I understand is the case in many other places. I have been to some of the packaging and processing facilities overseas, and the standards here in Australia give me enormous confidence that we are doing things better. I do not share that confidence when it comes to food imports, and yet it appears that we apply a much more robust inspection system on the exporters than we do on the importers. I think that we have got our priorities back to front in that respect. We saw that earlier this year with respect to the hepatitis break-out from contaminated berries. And that led to two other matters—how we oversee the biosecurity system in this country and also the question of food labelling. Both of those matters have become topical issues among the community that I represent—and, I suspect, across Australia—in recent months, and quite rightly so. These are important matters and the government should be dealing with them. I think we can do better to protect Australian consumers, particularly by stepping up or improving the biosecurity measures for food that is imported into this country. Indeed, it is not just about protecting the consumers, as important as that is. It is also because, if we get any form of disease in this country, it could effectively wipe out an entire industry and therefore, once again, have a long-lasting, damaging effect on the primary producers of Australia. So we need to do it both from a health point of view and from an economic point of view. I am aware of farmers who, as a result of an infection in their crops, have lost their whole crop and their whole business. They were not able to continue, because the very product they were growing and the soil in which they were growing it were effectively put a stop to because of the infection or disease that came into their crop. So it is a critical issue and it needs to be managed well. In respect of that, I am pleased to see that the minister is here in the chamber. I am concerned about the number of cuts to staff within his department. I do not know the extent of those cuts, but I understand that there have been substantial staff cuts made within the Department of Agriculture. If that is the case then I can only assume that the level of oversight that is provided by the various departments, including those that work on biosecurity matters, would have been diminished if we have fewer staff working within those departments. I see very little point in increasing fees if we are not going to simultaneously ensure that we have the processes in place and that the processes are properly resourced to ensure that compliance with them is actually met. The last point I want to make is with respect to my own state of South Australia. Again, it ties in very closely with all of this legislation, because South Australia, as we know, has been hit pretty hard with the impending closure of car making in the state. Already we are feeling the effects of the job losses that arise from Holden's impending closure, and we now have the additional uncertainty and job losses being caused by the government's unpreparedness to commit to the construction of the replacement submarines in South Australia. One of the industries that we are looking at in South Australia—and I am pleased to see that the South Australian government made comments about this only recently—is the opportunities that are available through improving and increasing food growing, food processing and food exporting from South Australia, particularly in the northern areas of Adelaide, which for years and years have been a food-growing region. It seems now not only that we have the ability to grow food there predominantly for the Australian market, as we have done in the past, but that there is some real opportunity to expand that to the international market. The state government has clearly flagged this as one of the economic opportunities for the state, and it is a direction that I totally support. I have been advocating the same for years myself, because I believe that the future is there. I have also spoken with many of the food producers in that region, and there are already quite a few of them there. They are all very keen to see their businesses grow by working in collaboration with each other, with the state and with the federal government and creating what we might call a food park or a food hub so that they can, in different ways, support one another. There is real opportunity to do that. I support the local councils and the state government for doing so and for putting that economic development opportunity on the agenda. It is now, I believe, time for the federal government to do the same. I believe the federal government has a role to play in supporting what is proposed and what is possible out there, and that includes skilling up the workforce out there to the levels required. Years ago, I guess people on the land learned from their parents and their grandparents about what they had to do, but the truth of the matter is that there are some real skills required in being a food producer in this country, whether it is growing the food or processing the food. We take it for granted that those skills just automatically appear. They do not, and sometimes it would be helpful if there were opportunities to assist and train producers through some of the organisations that currently exist but that perhaps could do with additional funding. With those comments, I reiterate that we will be supporting this legislation.