FRUIT FLY

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:55): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Agriculture a question regarding protection from fruit fly.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: There have been a number of questions in this place this year about fruit fly outbreaks in metropolitan Adelaide, compliance rates at random roadblocks and the frequency of roadblocks over holiday periods. Many colleagues in this place will remember that the government proposed shutting down fruit fly inspection at our borders overnight under a former minister, which was thankfully overturned. We know the Liberal New South Wales and Victorian governments are now going for self-regulation and moving away from their fruit fly inspection regimes and instead providing money or in-kind, one-off support to farmers to self-manage the problem.

The Weekly Times reported on 12 June that there have been 19 detections in the last two weeks in River Murray fruit growing areas across the border in Victoria, and I understand that beyond the fruit fly exclusion zones spanning three borders, including ours, some 300 or more detections of fruit fly have occurred throughout Australia. My questions to the minister are:

1. Why is the government only committing to its $1 million budget measure over four years for extra fruit fly protections if the industry is required to contribute its own $1 million?

2. Will the minister certify that, if industry cannot afford that contribution, the government will still provide the additional $1 million funding?

3. Is it true that, if we lose our fruit fly free status with fenthion banned from October and irradiation a difficult option, fumigation of the fruit after picking will be the only option to ensure that fruit fly is not in the fruit, and that that would then put an end to a clean green image for our fruit industry? What is the minister's knowledge of this?

4. The budget papers mention nothing about industry co-contribution: was that the Treasurer's demand or what was the reason for that not being in the budget papers?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (14:57): I thank the honourable member for his most important questions. South Australia's ongoing fruit fly free status is critical to our horticulture industry, which is worth a great deal to the economy of this state. One of this government's key strategic priorities is premium food and wine from a clean environment, so maintaining our very important food quality control and biosecurity systems is critical to ensuring that South Australia is able to differentiate itself in the marketplace and have access to premium markets and premium prices, hopefully.

The added advantage of things like being fruit fly free is that, not only because it has that status it has access to markets that other fruits produced in areas that do not have fruit fly-free status do not have (so it increases our market access), but also it reduces significantly the amount of chemicals to which the fruit is exposed, which is good for everybody. I have outlined in this place on numerous occasions the extensive program this government undertakes to ensure our ongoing successful fruit fly-free status. All of those things continue and our officers continue to monitor what needs to occur and they adjust programs accordingly to make sure we are meeting all our priority needs.

In relation to the recent outbreaks here in South Australia, I have clearly put on the record here before that it is the Mediterranean fruit fly from WA that has been exposed in that outbreak and not the fruit fly from the Eastern States or Queensland. So, it is coming from WA and there is no indication that the changes to the Eastern States' programs is impacting on our biosecurity. We are absolutely confident that our current biosecurity measures are keeping our horticulture industry protected and fruit fly free. As I said, our officers continue to monitor and evaluate the situation in an ongoing way, and if their assessment differs from that, if I receive different advice to that, then the government will obviously take action.

However, in response to the industry calling for more activity, I have said time and time again in this place that the government does not believe it is necessary to increase the level of activity; we believe the current programs are protecting us. Nevertheless the industry has called on us to produce more programs, so as a new budget initiative the government has said that it will assist in strengthening the management of our fruit fly-free status by contributing additional funding of up to $1 million over four years on top of our existing commitment.

That commitment was always set up as a coinvestment strategy. Right from the outset it was a $1 million coinvestment, which means that the industry needs to consider its contribution. In terms of the particular strategies and programs that it might fund, obviously we need to talk to industry to see what its priorities are and where it is thinking of investing. We will work in partnership with industry to develop additional programs and look forward to advancing those new initiatives.

Just to clarify it, because the honourable member did ask, it is basically a coinvestment model, dollar for dollar. The industry will need to match that; if it does not then the government will not be contributing its share.