House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Question Time Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus The Hon. V.A. TARZIA House of Assembly Hartley Leader of the Opposition Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus The Hon. V.A. TARZIA (Hartley—Leader of the Opposition) (14:17): My question again is to the Premier. Will the Premier provide compensation to growers and workers affected by the government's handling of the tomato brown rugose fruit virus? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain. Leave granted. The Hon. V.A. TARZIA House of Assembly Hartley Leader of the Opposition The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: This week, the government announced $18 million in relief for drought-affected farmers but has not yet paid any compensation to affected tomato, chilli and capsicum growers. The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS House of Assembly Croydon Premier The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (14:17): The Plant Health Act of 2009 establishes the capacity for governments to impose quarantine arrangements on growers or producers in the event of outbreaks of various viruses. In this particular instance, PIRSA executed their capacity to be able to do that. Within those provisions within the act it is specifically contemplated that there is a capacity for compensation to be provided for, although that is not an absolute requirement within the act. What we have said as a government is that we are willing to engage on the subject of compensation. We haven't made an absolute commitment to compensate but we are open to engagement on these matters. I think the focus of the government— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Members on my left will listen to the Premier in silence. There are many people in this chamber, both here on the floor and in the gallery, who are keen to hear the answer. The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS House of Assembly Croydon Premier The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The focus of the government in the first and most immediate instances has been to establish the science around this regime. I acknowledge that there are those who might have differing opinions around the science. You would expect and anticipate that the responsible thing for any government to do is to act on the advice of the appropriate authorities, in this instance being PIRSA. I accept that there will be some people who don't agree with the determinations of PIRSA. We have adopted the same approach on this side of the chamber as we did throughout the COVID pandemic. A lot of people were criticising the science; we did not do that during the COVID pandemic. We put our faith in the science and the regulators who adjudicate around that. People in a robust liberal democracy are entitled to take a different approach. They then, of course, need to prove the merit of their arguments on a scientific basis. We have accepted the basis of the science. We have acted in accordance with that. We have advocated to other jurisdictions accordingly. We do think it is perverse that Queensland and Western Australia maintain these restrictions while other jurisdictions don't. We think that there is an inequity in that arrangement that is worthy of consideration, and we continue to work with those other jurisdictions. There is no doubt about the fact that the decision taken by PIRSA, in our view, to act decisively, in an environment where there is an obligation to all tomato producers throughout the state, is a prudent one. I can imagine a set of circumstances where PIRSA took a different course of action, let the virus run free and then there would be questions from those opposite scrutinising that decision, if not actively criticising it. I guess we acknowledge that there is difficulty here. I am satisfied that everybody in PIRSA is currently working as hard and as quickly as they can to deliver change.