BIOSECURITY COST RECOVERY

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:13): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister for primary industries a question regarding the proposed biosecurity tax.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Over the past 10 years, nothing has been so offensive to livestock producers in South Australia than the misguided attempt to raise extra revenue without justification by way of a biosecurity levy. Livestock producers already pay—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: That is opinion. That is definitely opinion.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member should leave the opinion out.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, sir. Livestock producers already pay a levy to Animal Health Australia, the MLA (Meat and Livestock Australia) and Dairy Australia for a national biosecurity program, and money from these funds comes back to PIRSA here in South Australia. It is all the more heartless in that it was industry that went along with the NLIS and the PICs to give Australian livestock producers the very best biosecurity program in the world and it was through the PIC that the new tax was to be imposed.

PIRSA has given the impression that it is continually blaming the Rann cabinet for supporting the recommendation of the Sustainable Budget Commission to establish cost recovery targets for the state's animal health program for the decision to raise the additional revenue without engaging with industry and working through the issues. My questions to the minister are:

1. Does the minister support full cost recovery for biosecurity and, if so, why?

2. Is the minister able, given yesterday's questions, to advise the chamber whether there has been a budget cost shift to PIC, NLIS and PIRSA administration costs in an attempt to reduce the projected budget of around, I think, $4 million for biosecurity fees and, therefore, to falsely suggest now that it will be about $1.5 million revenue from biosecurity fees?

3. How does the minister explain her government's pledge that there would be no new taxes?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (15:15): I thank the member for his important questions. Indeed, animal health services primarily benefit livestock and horse producers by protecting their animals from harm, protecting industry from economic loss and supporting access to markets. They are the significant beneficiaries from concerns in this area and the wish to develop a different model. Therefore, the government has determined that producers should cover the costs of these animal health services.

Increased cost recovery will primarily support the disease surveillance and emergency response preparedness subprograms focused on protecting industries from emerging or exotic diseases such as foot and mouth, equine influenza and other diseases where industry must demonstrate disease freedom to be able to access export markets.

Endemic disease control activities in Biosecurity SA are currently funded through contributions collected under the Primary Industry Funding Schemes Act 1998 for cattle, sheep and apiary industries. These voluntary programs for industry's benefit are expected to move to be more fully cost-recoverable over the next three to four years.

Many industry sectors already pay for these types of government services in the primary industry sector including the commercial fishing industry, the aquaculture industry, meat processing businesses, horticultural importers and exporters, and sheep and cattle producers for endemic disease control programs. Many of these industry sectors are asking, 'Why should we pay and livestock be heavily subsidised?' So similar arrangements are now proposed for the remaining animal health services.

Biosecurity SA recently publicly consulted with livestock industries on a bill to amend the Livestock Act 1997 to create a framework for recovering some of the costs of the exotic disease surveillance and emergency response preparedness programs. As I indicated yesterday, and as members would be aware, the government is looking to introduce a bill and I made clear in this place yesterday that no final decision has been made about that bill.

As the new minister, I feel that it is important that I have an opportunity to look at the proposed funding model very carefully and then have an opportunity to consider all relevant matters related to it. I am in the process of doing that. I am certainly listening to what the industry concerns are and also, obviously, balancing that up with the overall industry benefits in terms of improving health security throughout the nation and making sure that we have long-term viable markets that do not end up crashing because of some disease outbreak.