PHYLLOXERA

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:18): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries a question regarding phylloxera.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: On Wednesday 16 May, during the last sitting week, I asked the minister questions about phylloxera protection for South Australia. I had spoken with constituents about their concerns that the protections were being relaxed without sufficient evidence. The minister stated that the industry had been involved in the decision to relax restrictions. The minister also referred to the national phylloxera management protocol. I understand that this national protocol forced the change upon South Australia and, whilst the board may have technically endorsed it, as the minister claimed in her answer on the 16^th, I have some questions about whether they felt that they had much choice.

The relaxed protocol meant that machinery from possibly phylloxera infected regions interstate could come into South Australia with a certificate indicating that they were free of the insect, rather than their being required to be washed down under the current standard. Every wine grape grower pays a levy to the board to ensure South Australia remains phylloxera free. If we were infested with phylloxera, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to rectify the issue.

The ABC national PM program and the ABC Country Hour recently reported that the phylloxera board has now reviewed the protocol and decided to revert to the previous conditions. I ask the minister, based on the above information:

1. Did the board tell the minister that it was completely happy with the relaxation of the restrictions?

2. Was any pressure applied to the board by any state, interstate or federal government agency to accept the protocol condition?

3. What was the reason the board seemingly reversed its position and now accepts the tougher protocol that I was asking the minister about only a week ago?

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) (15:19): I thank the honourable member for his most important questions. As I have said in this place before, South Australia is incredibly unique as it is the only state in Australia which has an independent statutory authority, the Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of South Australia, which was established to deal solely with the threat of phylloxera. The board is made up of key industry leaders. I think to suggest in any way that the board did not independently come to its own decision and its own recommendations is quite insulting to those industry leaders.

The South Australian government takes the threat of phylloxera very seriously and is very proud of its close relationship with the board. The charter of the board is to prevent phylloxera from entering the state, to control outbreaks of phylloxera in this state and to develop plans for the eradication of phylloxera if it were ever to occur. The 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.

I can absolutely say in this place that every one of those board members is incredibly knowledgeable, incredibly experienced and absolutely and totally dedicated to fulfilling the reference and responsibilities they are required to under this act. The board has an ongoing role in developing policies in relation to the appropriate restrictions or conditions on the movement of machinery and equipment.

As we know, the national set of phylloxera standards has been developed and considered for many years. Those standards have been around for a long time, and the board has indicated for a considerable amount of time that its objective was to harmonise that standard, and that has been in the public domain for many years. My understanding is that discussions and negotiations around that have occurred over a period of many years.

However, we know that the recent implementation of those standards in South Australia met with some concern. There were many sections of the industry that were supportive and have written letters of support and made submissions to the board, so there was very broad industry support. However, there were also sectors of the industry that raised a range of concerns.

Those concerns were passed to me and I then passed them on to the board and asked the board to consider them, which it did. There was a board meeting yesterday evening, and an announcement was made this morning stating that the board has recommended to Minister Gago to reinstate the previous plant quarantine standards until such time as the industry has fully considered the most appropriate way forward. They write:

In response to recent stakeholder concerns received by Minister Gago regarding these changes, advice was sought from the [board], a body charged with the responsibility to develop programs and policies for the prevention of phylloxera [under the act].

The [board] is preparing a discussion paper to present to its stakeholders over the coming months, and will undertake a consultation process including regional meetings and written submissions.

The South Australian Plant Quarantine Standards were changed in October 2011, to align South Australia to the National Phylloxera Management Protocols. These protocols had been endorsed by the [board] in 2000 and were subject to further development over the next four years in response to industry feedback and research.

So the notion of harmonisation of this national standard is not new. It has been around in the industry for many years. It started a long time before my time. However, I will continue the rest of the statement. It says:

The [board] will be inviting all industry stakeholders to take this opportunity to comment on this important industry matter.

And it has a contact there. Obviously, I look forward to the outcome of these consultations. However, as I said, the board is quite an independent body; it is vastly experienced and knowledgeable, and it is most important that the industry takes carriage of this. It requires a high degree of industry understanding, science and technical expertise. That is why a board has been appointed—to ensure that they have those range of skills on the board and to ensure that all the policy matters are considered with that particular lens. These are industry matters, and it is important that the industry be engaged and that the industry forge the direction that it believes is in its best interests.

I think the board has done a good thing. It has listened to the concerns that I have put forward, it has listened to the concerns of the industry and it is being extra thorough in going back and doing another round of consultation. I think that is a good thing and, as I said, I look forward to seeing the result of that process.