Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (14:27): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Primary Industries in relation to the tomato brown rugose fruit virus.

Leave granted.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: During a Budget and Finance hearing, the Chief Executive of PIRSA stated, when asked about whether PIRSA can guarantee a 10-day turnaround time for testing results, that—and I quote:

As I said, within the 10-day period we have we make sure we get the samples result to them [the growers], so somehow they can still transport their goods to the destinations.

However, the opposition has heard, as recently as this morning, from growers who have passed the 10-day period and have not received test results. Because WA will not allow movement of fruit into the state without the negative test result and corresponding certificates, it means that these growers are now stuck with their fruit without a home. My questions to the minister are:

1. Has the minister been briefed on this incredibly important issue? If so, when and by whom?

2. Given the words of the CE about how critical this testing turnaround time is, will the minister concede that she continues to fail the tomato growers in this state?

3. What is the minister doing to ensure her department is delivering test results on time?

4. Will the government be compensating growers for their loss of income from the fruit they now can no longer send to WA because of their inability to deliver timely test results?

5. Given the minister continues to fail in her government's response, will she resign as Minister for Primary Industries?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Order, the Hon. Mr Hunter, the honourable Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Ms Girolamo!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (14:29): I thank the honourable member for her question, in spite of the parts of it that are rather ridiculous. The majority of it I am happy to answer. In late October I announced the first South Australian-based testing laboratory for tomato brown rugose fruit virus at the Waite campus of the University of Adelaide, and I can advise that it has now commenced a significant next step in the ongoing response to this highly contagious plant disease. It is being managed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) at its Molecular Diagnostics Centre, and samples therefore on the whole will no longer need to go interstate to be tested. That will assist in terms of the timeliness of being able to get results back.

Members may recall that previously there were only two labs in Australia that were accredited to test for this tomato brown rugose fruit virus. That meant that our testing, our samples, had to go to New South Wales or to Victoria and be processed there, so there was the time for travel of those samples, as well as obviously those labs dealing not only with samples coming from South Australia but their other usual workload as well.

Being able to test for the virus at SARDI will further support the growers who are seeking to meet the confirmed Western Australian and Queensland certification protocols, allowing the continuation of trade from South Australian businesses that have tested negative for the virus. I remind members that the state government is absorbing the costs of any required sampling and testing that producers may need to undertake as part of this certification process, contrary to some of the mischievous remarks made by those opposite.

The development, in terms of the lab, follows biosecurity accreditation from the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for the laboratory that is conducting the testing. As soon as it became clear that there was something of a bottleneck that was having significant impact on South Australian growers, we moved to start the process to get that national accreditation.

Response measures are continuing, with a strong focus on sampling crops to delimit and contain the extent of the spread and commencing measures to remove affected crops so that glasshouses can be decontaminated. The diagnostic process is very thorough, with two separate PCR tests, one for each sample submitted and, as I have mentioned previously, the decontamination between the testing of the samples is also quite time consuming.

From the latest situation report the response has received results of almost 4,000 samples. The quality assurance process has now been completed at the laboratory, so the laboratory is fully operational. The lab throughputs are starting at approximately 160 samples a day. There will be avenues to provide surge capacity that will increase the operating hours of the lab as necessary to work with the number of samples that may come in, and PIRSA is continuing to work with industry in regard to those outcomes. Growers, as I mentioned, will not and have not been charged for these tests. Further testing requirements to meet market access needs is something that normally growers would pay for, but in this circumstance the government is absorbing that.

In terms of compensation, as we know, quarantine orders have been issued under the provisions of the Plant Health Act 2009. Under the same act, people who have suffered loss or damage as a direct consequence of such an order may make application for compensation. Whilst I acknowledge that the minister, myself, is not compelled to make payment of compensation under that provision, we have been liaising throughout this with the commonwealth government and the other jurisdictions.

The detection is currently subject to consideration under the national Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed, which also considers how compensation should be managed for deed signatories. Quarantine orders have been issued under provisions of the Plant Health Act, and under that act people who have suffered loss or damage as a direct consequence of such an order may make application for compensation, and the government is currently considering that and will be in a position to brief me further soon.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do note how those opposite ask a question and then are not sufficiently interested in the answer to listen.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Instead of actually wanting to have a deep understanding of the issue, clearly they want to make political points. I am advised that the national Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed includes guidance for industry bodies, states and territories that have signed up to the deed. This guidance includes how owner reimbursement costs, sometimes called compensation, should be managed. Because the fresh tomato industry has not signed up for the deed, further discussion is needed, and has been and is happening at a national level before a decision can be made as to how that may apply in this response. Through PIRSA, we are continuing to explore these and continuing to have those discussions at a federal and other state and territory jurisdiction level.