House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Beekeeping Industry Beekeeping Industry Ms BEDFORD House of Assembly Florey Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (15:29): Recently, I asked a question of the Minister for Agriculture. The question involved the importance of beekeeping and pollination services to the South Australian economy. In that question, I asked the minister if he would consider an advisory body for himself and the department to get the best possible advice on pollination in South Australia. Through my question, I made the case that such a body needed to bring together, under one umbrella, beekeepers and those people who require pollination services. Currently in South Australia, annual honey production is worth up to an average of $11 million to the South Australian economy. However, the importance of almond and lucerne production, which also requires pollination, is estimated to be worth around $650 million to the South Australian economy. While in his answer the minister did not give an outright no to the suggestion of an advisory committee made up of beekeepers and farmers, he gave a less than emphatic response to this proposition, and I quote: There is a capacity for PIRSA to look at a potential advisory group on how we can further support the apiary industry. He further suggested that the department was working closely with beekeepers in South Australia. As I understand it, the reality is a little bit different from this. Only a fraction of the beekeepers involved in this vital South Australian industry are represented by the South Australian Apiarists' Association (SAAA). Unfortunately, many beekeepers do not seem to have a lot of faith in this organisation. I am sad to say that some have been actively shunned by this organisation, an organisation that must, as should any organisation that wants to be effective and inclusive, act democratically and always with the best interests of its industry success and wellbeing as its focus. Whilst it is not an issue in this place, but perhaps should be elsewhere, I am told that some members of the association were expelled for going to a member of parliament with evidence that could point towards what could be described as loose or unethical practices. That is why the position of the department is so important in being seen to be at arm's length from any one group or individual. It needs to be seen as totally impartial, willing to be consultative, acting only on all the evidence and guided by best practice. The relationship with the department must include more than a handful of SAAA members and ensure that as many voices as possible from the whole beekeeping fraternity are involved in decision-making. Apart from the expulsion of a couple of beekeepers from this association—an action that could in itself raise questions—there are other beekeepers who are raising serious concerns. This is too important a situation, where any adverse impact on the vulnerable biosecurity of bees could threaten the livelihoods of so many people and so much production. Could this be a case where a number of individuals have a lot to lose without due consideration of the common good? South Australia would have much to gain from a broader, more inclusive and essentially voluntary body to give advice to the minister and his department. It might well be suggested that, through the Farmers' Federation and other organisations, farmers requiring pollination services have access to the department. There is no doubt that this is true, but what I am putting to the house here today, for the urgent consideration of the minister, is the necessity for him and his department to have access to an overarching organisation that brings in a broad cross-section—not a narrow one—of participants from within the beekeeping fraternity, together with those farmers requiring their services. The minister has, I hope, given active consideration to this proposition since I brought it up in the house in a recent question and supplementary question without notice. I ask the minister and, though the minister, his department to put in place the necessary arrangements on which I have elaborated today. There is room for improvement. There needs to be an open and inclusive process that challenges the current status quo between a few beekeepers, rather than a broad number, and the department. A more widespread representative body, giving full and proper advice to the minister and his department, is the way to go—and sooner rather than later. I look forward to seeing this body brought together, and I will be watching the implementation of better, democratic and more consultative dealings between the department, the beekeepers and the farmers of this state.