Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Fruit Fly FRUIT FLY The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council FRUIT FLY The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:40): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Agriculture a question regarding fruit fly protection for our horticulture industry. Leave granted. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Family First has obtained information revealing that the noncompliance rate for passenger vehicles travelling through permanent fruit fly detection road blocks at Ceduna, Oodla Wirra, Pinnaroo and Yamba is constant at 13.69 per cent—just over one in seven vehicles carrying food with fruit fly potential. At Yamba, arguably the most active roadblock closest to the horticultural food bowl of the Riverland, noncompliance has risen from 15.8 per cent in 2010-11 to 17 per cent in 2011-12 and now 17.28 per cent in 2012-13. Most concerning is that the fruit fly and larvae detection rates at those four roadblocks has risen from 17 in 2010-11 for fruit fly itself and larvae to 21 in 2011-12 to now 35 in 2012-13. That comes despite the number of vehicles inspected by permanent road blocks dropping from 410,000 approximately to 315,000 approximately in that same period. Random roadblocks conducted at Blanchetown are finding increasing rates of noncompliance, with 14.45 per cent in 2010-11 and rising to 16.5 per cent in 2012-13. However, over 2012-13 the noncompliance rates at random roadblocks at Bordertown and Port Augusta revealed a noncompliance rate of 23.57 per cent—that is almost one in four vehicles. Our information also reveals that audits of commercial imports to South Australia have dropped from 545 in 2009-10 to just 190 in 2012-13, and despite that reduced rate of audit of the four inspections conducted, seven larvae were found in 2012-13 after a record nine detections in the previous 2011-12 year. It appears from long-term data that in recent times Mediterranean fruit fly is the more regularly detected, with Queensland fruit fly less regularly featuring in declared fruit fly outbreaks and in traps outside of outbreaks than their Mediterranean fly counterparts. Therefore, my questions to the minister are: 1.	Have there been shifts in the budget of the biosecurity section of PIRSA to explain the huge variances in audits of commercial imports and 10 random roadblocks conducted this year compared with just six in the five years before that? 2.	Is the noncompliance rate of motorists stopped at random roadblocks at Bordertown acceptable to the minister and the government? 3.	Does the government believe it is acceptable for there to be an average rate of PIRSA inspection of commercial consignments at 3.75 per cent? 4.	Why is the government insisting on $1 million of appropriated extra fruit fly funding being conditional on industry contribution when the industry tells Family First that it cannot afford that contribution and, given all the stats I have just put to the house, if the minister is not in a position to get money dollar for dollar from the industry, can she ensure that the $1 million appropriated by Treasury to her portfolio for this important matter be provided irrespective? The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council 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 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) (14:44): I thank the honourable member for his most important questions. He has raised a number of issues. In relation to the number of audits undertaken by Biosecurity SA, it is dependent on the number of importers and also on the frequency of audit of each importer. The frequency of audit is dependent upon the level of confidence and rigour around each importer's system and previous history. With the introduction of a new Plant Health Act in 2009, the number of audits rose from 306 to 545 in 2010, and in subsequent years the audits have reduced, to 273 in 2011, 202 in 2012, and to just below 200 midway through 2013. The reduction in the number of audits of importers of biosecurity is due to satisfactory levels of compliance. Also, fewer businesses are requiring audits because they do not import products which are the host of a regulated pest. The requirement for importers of plant products to be registered commenced in 2009, so the need for the audits has declined due to fewer businesses importing those products that are potential hosts. If that increases again, no doubt so too will the number of audits. I think that once the system was put in place people had to get used to it. Obviously they are used to it now, and there are systems in place, so the level of compliance has generally increased overall. That is great, and I think it is a real credit to the industry. In terms of compliance, obviously PIRSA utilises things like quarantine stations, roadblocks, signed packages, disposal bins, community awareness programs, trapping grids, etc. There is a wide range of things we do to mitigate the threat and assist in the early detection of fruit fly. The noncompliance rate at random roadblocks in the Riverland rose between 2010-11 and 2011-12, and in order to address that slight increase in the noncompliance rate over the past three seasons Biosecurity SA has purchased variable message signs, mobile electric signs, and suchlike, which will be deployed at various entry points to the Riverland. In relation to noncompliance at other border entry points—Port Augusta and Bordertown—higher noncompliance by travellers from outside the state was to be expected, and Biosecurity SA is investigating aspects of fruit fly community awareness campaigns that will help address that interstate audience as well as help reduce the level of noncompliance. So, work is being done around that area. As I said, we do have a number of fruit fly trap sites to address those things. In terms of outbreaks, there were four Mediterranean fruit fly outbreaks declared in Adelaide in 2013. Eradication programs have been implemented by Biosecurity SA in accordance with the national protocols and in response to that detection. Obviously, work continues in regard to managing the eradication of fruit fly from those areas. As we know, Mediterranean fruit fly comes from the west, and we are working on a number of strategies to assist in improving compliance. Mediterranean fruit flies typically become dormant during the winter months, so it is likely that the current baiting activity will cease later this month. At the same time, Biosecurity SA is already making plans for a pre-emptive spring campaign to prevent any of the current outbreaks from re-emerging, and at this stage quarantine provisions will remain in place until the end of the year. That follows three separate Mediterranean fruit fly outbreaks in metropolitan Adelaide in 2012. Prior to 2002-03, there was an average of 4.6 fruit fly outbreaks per year in South Australia over the previous 20 years. Since 2002-03, there has been an average of 1.5 outbreaks per year. Fruit fly eradication programs are obviously very labour intensive. Activities are funded from PIRSA's biosecurity fund, and that is an annual commitment. Obviously, successful eradication is critical to our fruit fly free status, so we continue to commit funding to assist in those programs. Some of the other responses include: to help improve compliance and reduce risk we have increased the number of random roadblocks at Bordertown and the entrance to the Riverland at Blanchetown; the Riverland Fruit Fly Committee has been reinvigorated, and they have conducted a scenario planning day to help prepare for and consider the impact of fruit fly outbreak; a fruit fly community awareness program is being renewed and a new public education program has been put in place; advertising and poster placement; and a number of other initiatives to assist in that public awareness and education campaign. Finally, in relation to the commitment of up to $1 million in additional funding for fruit fly activities, as I have said in this place before, those funds are contingent on coinvestment of the industry, and our officers are currently in discussions and negotiations with the industry generally to consider the sorts of contributions they may be able to make towards that, and those negotiations are progressing.