Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Phylloxera PHYLLOXERA The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council PHYLLOXERA The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:06): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Primary Industries a question about phylloxera. Leave granted. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: South Australia is blessed with never having suffered a phylloxera outbreak, due to the diligence of the wine industry and the phylloxera board. Consequently, we have some of the oldest vines in the world still in production, alongside Chile and Argentina, whereas much of eastern Australia, Europe and the US suffered devastating vine losses in the past from phylloxera. South Australia's wine success worldwide is due in part to its phylloxera protections and is the reason why since 1899 the Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board has extracted a levy from grape growers. It has been put to me that, due to changes to the rules regarding phylloxera protection, grape harvesters can now come in from another wine region without having to wash the machinery; all that is required is a certification that the machine has come from an exclusion zone. A similar rule relaxation has allegedly occurred in relation to soil samples. The minister has reportedly put in writing that the requirement to disinfect machinery and equipment is now considered unnecessary when moving between exclusion zones. I am also informed that there have been seven outbreaks of phylloxera in other parts of Australia in the last 10 years—a rapid escalation after decades of relatively no outbreaks. I note that previous 2002 research commissioned by the board identified the Riverland as most vulnerable to the impact of phylloxera due to issues with low profit margins at that time and the financial burden of replanting and the high relative probability of infestation. My questions are: 1.	Did the minister or any representative of the state government protest at the relaxation of the phylloxera protection rules when the decision was made under the National Phylloxera Management Protocol? 2.	Will the minister reverse this decision as, for instance, her predecessor did in relation to the proposed overnight closures of fruit fly inspection stations in the Riverland? The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women 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) (15:08): I thank the honourable member for his important question. Indeed, South Australia is in a very privileged position in being phylloxera free. Our wine industry benefits significantly from that, so it is worth a considerable amount to our industry to ensure that protections remain in place. This decision was one which the industry has been involved in and which it has supported. However, by way of background, the South Australian government obviously takes very seriously any threat of phylloxera and is very proud to be working in a very close relationship with our phylloxera board. The charter of the phylloxera board is to prevent phylloxera from entering this state, to control outbreaks in this state and to develop plans for its eradication in the state's vineyards, if it were to happen. The phylloxera board members must be nominated from South Australia's major grape growing regions and all members must demonstrate proven experience, knowledge and commitment to the improvement of this state's grape growing and wine industries. The board is tasked with preventing phylloxera from entering this state, controlling any outbreaks and developing plans for its eradication. The board has an ongoing role in developing policies in relation to appropriate restrictions or conditions on the movement of machinery, equipment, vines and other vectors into and within SA to prevent the spread of this disease. The national set of phylloxera standards is known as the National Phylloxera Management Protocol (the Protocol) and was developed by the industry. A new management protocol has been recommended and approved for South Australia by the phylloxera board. The protocol is an industry standard to which state regulations can be aligned, creating a consistent set of phylloxera requirements across Australia. It does not replace, obviously, state government legislation. The movement of phylloxera risk vectors must still comply, obviously, with any other relevant state legislation. The protocol introduces the concept of national phylloxera management zones which classify wine regions according to their phylloxera risk status. South Australia is declared a phylloxera exclusion zone (PEZ) by reason that it has never been found in this state. The protocol defines phylloxera risk vectors such as vineyard machinery and establishes movement procedures for moving risk vectors out of and into phylloxera management zones. The protocol also establishes general criteria for confirming, maintaining and upgrading the status of phylloxera management zones. The plant quarantine standards, which are established under the Plant Health Act 2009, detail the approved conditions of entry into the state of plant and plant-related products, including fruit, vegetables, plants, plant products, machinery, equipment and certain related items from interstate. They form part of a broader network of state and commonwealth legislation to maintain the health and wellbeing of Australia's agricultural and horticultural sectors. Specific conditions of entry within the plant quarantine standard restrict and prohibit the entry of phylloxera risk vectors across the SA border, and these entry conditions are intended obviously to comply with the protocol. A person breaching a condition of movement faces a fine of $20,000 to $100,000. It is of vital importance that these conditions of entry are standardised on a national basis by agreement between Australia's winegrape growing jurisdictions and it is important that all Australia's winegrape growing regions and states work closely together to ensure security protection. The interstate movement of machinery drives efficiencies between wine regions by maximising use of vineyard equipment that has a specific use such as mechanical harvesters, cultivators, trenchers, tractors, mechanical pruners and suchlike. The new protocol will allow for a limited movement of machinery across our borders while still protecting our viticulture industry. Constant vigilance and preparedness obviously remain key strategies in maintaining our phylloxera exclusion zone, and it is for this reason that I encourage members of this state's grape and wine industry to actually engage with members of their phylloxera board on any phylloxera biosecurity matters. I can only reiterate that it was the phylloxera board that approved these protocols. They are significant leaders within the industry, so it is a protocol that is basically developed by the industry and endorsed by the industry. I think it would be incredibly foolish as a minister (even though my husband is a winemaker, I do not think that gives me the authority) to overturn an industry decision that has been considered as thoroughly as this decision has. I have had a number of people write to me and raise concerns with me about the changing protocol, and I have passed all those on to the phylloxera board for them to consider those comments. I am sure that it will take those on board and continue to make decisions in the interests of our wine industry. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Very thorough. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has a supplementary from a very comprehensive answer.