Question Time

Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (14:26): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development about tomato brown rugose fruit virus.

Leave granted.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Despite repeated questioning in this place yesterday, the minister was unable to clarify whether there was a desire in the government to provide compensation to the businesses and other related stakeholders who are impacted by her government's quarantine orders. Yesterday evening, the opposition heard from one of the affected businesses, who sent a message that they were having to go to their premises to tell 500 people they no longer have a job because of the significant financial losses that have come with the quarantine orders without any indication of compensation provided by her government.

In the Plant Health Act 2009, section 50 states:

(1) The Minister may pay compensation to any person who has suffered loss or damage as a direct consequence of a notice or an order made under Part 2.

Part 2 of the act includes orders related to pest-affected plants and plant-related products. My questions to the minister are:

1. Will the minister commit to the chamber that she will use her ministerial discretion as per section 50 of the Plant Health Act and ensure compensation is paid to the businesses and individuals who have suffered significant loss in order to save the 500 jobs that are at risk due to her government's quarantine orders?

2. Will she commit to an independent inquiry of her government's response to these outbreaks of rugose virus?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (14:28): I thank the honourable member for her question. I think it is important to emphasise the importance of the quarantine measures being implemented. We had more than two and a half thousand samples taken for tomato brown rugose disease. We have the majority of the samples returned.

At this stage, the only positive properties are three, and they are three that previously had detections of the disease. However, in one of those businesses, there were detections in additional parts of the property. As a result, quarantine measures have been put in place so that tomatoes cannot move from that property. I find it very interesting that the direction of the opposition leader's question seems to be suggesting that those quarantine measures were not necessary.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We know they are necessary because they need to protect market access for all the other South Australian growers.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Point of order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: Sit down, minister.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The minister is verbalising. Can she withdraw that comment?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister, conclude your answer, please.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you, Mr President.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Attorney-General, silence! The Hon. Ms Girolamo, no encouragement.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you, Mr President. The imposition of these quarantine measures is to protect South Australia's tomato industry and the horticulture industry more broadly. If these measures were not in place there is a high chance of two things. The first is that the other states and jurisdictions would potentially prevent all tomatoes from South Australia being moved across our borders. The impact of that on our industry would be absolutely huge and absolutely negative for growers across the state.

The second potential impact would be the spread of the disease. This is a disease that does not have impacts on human health. That is a positive and we want to encourage consumers in South Australia to continue to purchase and consume our excellent tomatoes from South Australia. But it does have an impact on yield, an up to 75 per cent decrease in yield if this disease was able to run rampant.

The significance of that should not be lost on anyone here. We have a thriving horticultural industry and a thriving tomato industry. Is the opposition seriously suggesting that we should risk having a 75 per cent reduction in yield for that industry if it can be eradicated? I would hope they would not be suggesting such a thing. At the moment we have the best chance of eradication. The evidence so far shows detections at three properties only. Therefore, the quarantine orders have been issued.

In terms of matters to do with financial losses, there are a number of different avenues. First of all, those who are signatories to the national Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed—

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti: You have ministerial discretion, Clare.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will repeat that since we are being rudely interrupted and people can't hear.

The PRESIDENT: Yes, I actually couldn't hear it.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: One of those is the national Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed. Signatories to that deed may apply for owner reimbursement costs. There are other measures. Under the Plant Health Act, people who have suffered loss or damage as a direct consequence of such an order may make application for compensation. Should such an application be received, that will be considered by the government.