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 (14:59): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries a question regarding phylloxera protection. Leave granted. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: One of the distinctive attributes of the South Australian wine industry is its phylloxera-free status, which sees in places wine grapes grown on very old root stock because that root stock has not been wiped out by phylloxera, as it has in other states and competing wine regions overseas, famously the European (particularly French) vineyards in the 19^th century. A phylloxera outbreak has the potential to devastate our wine industry, costing many millions in lost production, replanting costs and reduced prestige in our standing in a very competitive wine market. Information provided to me indicates that there may have been shortcomings in the consultation process with the regional committees and industry stakeholders on the board's decision to relax phylloxera protections—a decision that the minister has advised the council has been reversed on an interim basis while consultation is reinvigorated. The information I have received indicates that the Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of South Australia did consult approximately two years ago on industry views generally on phylloxera protection, but then more recently, when it had resolved to relax those restrictions, did not indicate to stakeholder groups that it was of a mind to so before proceeding to formally do so. I place on record my respect for the members of the board, their genuine interest in keeping our wine industry healthy and strong, and the important work the board and its staff do in monitoring phylloxera issues and in tracking grape harvests and trends. My questions to the minister are: 1.	At what stages, and in what ways, did the board consult with its statutory regional committees and industry stakeholders on relaxing phylloxera restrictions? 2.	Does the minister have full confidence in the voracity of the phylloxera exclusion zone regime in place in Victoria? 3.	Have all of the regional committees required under section 15 of the act been property constituted? 4.	Does the minister still have full confidence in the presiding member of the board? 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) (15:01): I thank the honourable member for his important questions. As I have said in this place before, I certainly agree with the honourable member that South Australia is unique: it is the only Australian state which has an independent statutory authority, the Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of South Australia, which has actually been established to deal with the issue of phylloxera. Obviously, this government takes very seriously the threat of phylloxera and is very proud of its close working relationship with the phylloxera board. As I have said in this place before, 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 in the state's vineyards. The board members must be nominated from South Australia's major grape growing regions, and all members must be able to demonstrate proven experience, knowledge and commitment to the improvement of this state's grape growing and wine industries. Indeed, the current board has a breadth of highly valuable skills, a great deal of experience through a number of different aspects of the industry, and a high level of technical and scientific expertise. I not only have confidence in them, but I also continue to have confidence in the presiding member. The board has an ongoing role in developing policies in relation to appropriate restrictions or conditions for the movement of machinery and equipment, vines and other vectors, into and within South Australia to ensure that the introduction and spread of the disease is prevented. As I have talked about in this place before, a national set of phylloxera standards is in place. That is where some of the contention lay recently, where South Australia had a plan, which I think went back to 2004; it might have been 2006, but it was a long time ago that it was first mooted that a national standard would be developed and applied to all jurisdictions. South Australia has had a longstanding policy position of adopting and implementing that national standard. Nevertheless, it was done over, I accept, a very long period of time and those people who may have been involved in industry discussions at the time might not be around today; it is a different set of individuals. We had an issue recently where these national standards were adopted. It changed the way we manage the movement of equipment and generated a great deal of local concern. Those concerns were raised with me and I passed on those concerns to the board, which responded very quickly to those concerns and issued a statement whereby they recommended to reinstate the previous standards until such time as the industry has had a chance to be fully consulted and consider the best way forward. In relation to what went on in the past, it was a long, protracted, drawn-out process that took place over many years. There is not much to be gained going back over that old ground. The board has responded to the concerns about changing standards and put in place a process to ensure they engage, consult and devise the best way forward. I am absolutely confident in the capacity and capability of the board and the presiding member. They have shown how responsive they have been and have put in place what I think is a reasonable process to respond to local concerns.