HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PLANT HEALTH BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 October 2008. Page 665.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:21): I rise as lead speaker for the opposition to speak to this bill. I note that it is a bill for an act to provide for the protection of plants from pests, the regulation of the movement of plants into, within and out of the state, and the controlled destruction and suppression of pests, to repeal the Fruit and Plant Protection Act 1992 and the Noxious Insects Act 1934, and to make related amendments to other acts and for other purposes.

I acknowledge that this bill is a strengthening of the other acts. It upgrades our protections for our fruit, grain and winegrape growing industries worth over $1.5 billion and, from my reading of the bill, it provides the protections required to keep South Australian industry alive and well. Industry, as we know, especially in areas reliant on irrigation, is suffering a fairly tough time at the moment, so we do not need anything to get in the way to upset that situation.

I will refer to the bill in the way it relates to taking over the Noxious Insects Act 1934. This relates to locust plagues or gregarious grasshoppers and, as a former practising farmer, locust plagues were at the forefront of my mind, and I believe the Hon. Rob Kerin, who has only just left this place, had to move quickly one year and push his department along when he was the minister to make sure that the appropriate actions were taken with the local councils up north around Orroroo, working with all the agencies to get the spraying done to get ahead of the locusts. Certainly, I am well aware that in the last five years I have had to spray for locusts as far south as Tintinara. They can just tear crops apart, so we do not want to see any dilution of this protection.

I want to make some comments on locusts. I looked up the 2008 forecast for locusts, and this relates to some of the things they have seen in New South Wales. They found a widespread nymphal infestation with many small bands developed in the Riverina and central west of New South Wales during October. They had some spring hatching in September, and over 1,500 reports were confirmed by the Rural Lands Protection Board in that state. Bands of high density nymphs developed in many areas. While the majority of bands have been less than 200 metres long, some have been up to a kilometre in length. They have had hatchings since early October in the Hume, Riverina and southern parts of the Murray and Wagga, where there have been over 200 reports. In northern Victoria there have also been reports of hatchings.

The APLC has carried out aerial control over 2,600 hectares of high density bands in eastern Narrandera and southern Condobolin during late October. The overall scale of their control operations is approaching 25,000 hectares. This is very similar to what happens here if work needs to be carried out against locusts, primarily through the efforts of landholders with the assistance and coordination from rural land protection boards, the New South Wales version, and the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. It is also noted that fledging of residual nymphs will continue in early November, and adult population density will continue to increase during that month. There is a potential for numerous swarms to develop during November with the risk of crop damage.

I now move on to Victoria, where there have been over 200 reports of hatchings recorded through the areas of Wodonga, Wangaratta, Rushworth, Echuca and the River Murray. Most of these reports have been to the north and north-east of Shepparton. Landholders and local government authorities are carrying out controls in some of these locations.

I note that there have been some September surveys in northern South Australia, and, thankfully, they have identified a very low density adult population in the Far North and around the southern Flinders Ranges. Conditions are unsuitable for locust breeding, and populations are therefore unlikely to have increased. That is very good in the first instance, but I do commend everyone—all the volunteers, landholders, councils, government departments, and ministers who have been involved—because locusts can cause multi millions of dollars damage to our cropping areas.

To get back to the main thrust of the Plant Health Bill, having read the many submissions that came in (I think there were about 26) there was general agreement that responsibility to report was widened by this bill, and that was well supported. I do note (and I should have made this comment at the start of my remarks) that the Liberal Party will support this bill. I hope the minister can address any questions I may bring up in my remarks, as it may save us going into committee; if I do need some more investigation we may go into committee, but it may not be necessary.

Inspection powers are strengthened. Control and prevention powers give the state better management of pests, and there is some discretion for the minister to pay compensation. Most commentators express concern about how fees will be calculated and kept to a reasonable level so as not to add to producers' costs.

The bill states that a horticultural industry charges panel is being established to provide recommendations to the minister on the future level of fees. I am very pleased that they have already had two or three meetings, and I hope that the minister takes heed of their recommendations. There is certainly a concern about any increase in costs to anyone in the sector.

Matters of concern include those from apple and pear growers and the Horticultural Plant Health Consultative Committee, and the Virginia Horticulture Centre and Adelaide Produce Market Ltd had similar concerns in their submissions. Issues were raised about malicious reporting, prevention, penalties and the suitable training of inspectors and others to facilitate the pursuit of alleged breaches. Concern has also been expressed that action has rarely been taken and that success is unlikely.

I note that the bill certainly institutes quite a wide range of packaging and labelling issues that will be taken up, such as controls on identification. There needs to be enforceability against interstate consignors, with the return or destruction of noncompliant goods. Another issue about packaging and labelling, which was brought to me through the submissions, was how accurate those could be at farmers markets.

There is concern about whether there will be sufficiently trained auditors, whether unannounced audits will be sprung on people involved in the industry, how the reporting mechanisms will work for the auditors and what the process will be for appointing third-party auditors. The issue was raised about whether the audits could be coordinated and aligned with other required audits in order to increase efficiency and minimise cost.

The submissions also expressed concern about whether the 24-hour notice inspection was too long and involved; however, we believe that this has been overcome by clause 10(1) and 10(2). It seems as though the penalties are sufficient and will act as a deterrent, and I note that they have been increased significantly, especially for body corporates (up to $100,000). There will be on-the-spot fines, but we wonder about the department's willingness to impose fines. It has been noted that it has been extremely difficult in the past to achieve convictions.

It is believed that all producers and importers should be registered and that appropriate resources should be allocated to manage compliance. There is certainly a firm belief throughout industry that fines collected in this way should go back to bio security and quarantine activities and not into general revenue. There certainly needs to be a clearly defined communication strategy to raise awareness of the bill, especially when it becomes an act, and diagnostic tools and guidelines should be provided in relation to potential risks. It is believed that the new labelling laws will work as long as existing labelling procedures are used to minimise the additional cost.

There is certainly an issue for growers who have properties or industries, especially the horticultural industry I represent in the Southern Mallee, around Pinnaroo, Parilla, up towards Peebinga and working in with the Victorian Mallee. There will obviously be a lot of cross movement of goods across the border, and there are certainly issues surrounding how much manifest paperwork will need to be involved. I recognise that manifest will need to be completed in this legislation for those either sending produce into or through the state. The point has been made to me that we should perhaps consider the regional status of the Mallee to counter this, but I know that the state border gets in the way and that that could cause some issues.

In relation to integration and minimisation of costs, we can integrate the different required accreditation and audits to minimise duplication and cost, and perhaps that may mean single audit visits. I am certainly interested in the clear policy guidelines regarding emergency situations. A lot of the emergency situation sections of the bill are mirrored in the former act, where people can use powers under a warrant process to access properties or information.

I am also interested in what modelling has been done by the department to demonstrate that the penalties will encourage compliance. I am certainly heartened that the penalties, especially for body corporate, have risen significantly. We need compliance to make sure that we have plant health to protect the horticulture and permanent plantings in this state, apart from the grains industry. The money should be used throughout the industry.

There is another concern about the on-cost to purchase to producers. As I mentioned, I hope that that money will go back to the industry. It is more of a sideline, but it works in conjunction with the bill, but I would like to see greater control and inspection of produce imported from outside of Australia, although I know that goes outside our jurisdiction.

I have talked about the effect on Mallee potato growers. Obviously, there is a concern that any extra costs for packaging and labelling are likely to be borne by growers and packers. There are also concerns about quarantine signage and whether that becomes a too high business cost for industry. There is also the issue about corrective assistance being provided before any changes are made. This focuses on the ultimate objective of the legislation, which is to keep South Australia pest free, rather than spend time and money pursuing errant producers and importers.

One submission mentioned the possibility of phasing in changes to allow industry to manage the increased costs over time, rather than imposing all changes and fees at once. The minister may be able to ease that pain in his reply and let the industry know how much the extra costs may be as we move forward.

Another submission queried whether there was an opportunity to promote a diagnostic service so that people could identify something that is not familiar to them that could be a risk to plant health in this state; and, as far as the manifests are concerned with carting produce into or through the state, whether there could be electronic lodgement, which obviously would be searchable for quick and easy access to the information.

There have been questions raised with me about whether the bill covers all the ornamental nursery stock and grapevine cuttings that are currently not labelled. I know that we had an issue not long ago with a certain business in South Australia which had the wrong gear on board and was put out in the marketplace. Certainly, as far as a major issue—

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, that's it. The issue of branched broomrape in the Murraylands is an issue that is near and dear to me. Concerns have been raised around that. People may be aware that there are a lot of requirements for visitors to paddocks that are quarantined to wash their boots in a tray filled with a liquid, as well as cleaning down equipment as you move from property to property. There are some concerns that the legislation is either a feather or a big stick. It was put to me that we must maintain long-term working relationships with people and businesses. I have been given an example of persistent non-compliance with transport paperwork—such as movement of stock to sale—with respect to branch broomrape, and this can be from an infested or non-infested property within the whole quarantine area. Some of these people are not complying with the administration of the quarantine area as opposed to non-compliance that places the integrity of the quarantine at risk. It is almost another stage in the whole quarantine story.

It was put to me that if these people do not fit the definition of 'minor offence' they must be put through the penalty process. It has been put to me that this is too severe and difficult to police and manage, because, obviously, as I indicated, stock will be coming off infested or non-infested property within the quarantine area, and there may be a minor offence enabling application of an expiation fee in that regard. In regard to warrants being issued, there was a concern on Kangaroo Island about the requirement of a magistrate to approve warrants to give inspectors the power of entry rather than a JP.

Evidently, no magistrates are resident on Kangaroo Island. It appears to me that that concern has been fixed up in the bill; and, under clause 47, it can be done by phone or fax. The local NRM/APC officer over there does not see this as a problem. The transport industry, which is one of the main bodies that carries a lot of produce through and into this state, believes that checking stations on main arterial roads should be manned 24 hours a day to police the laws fully if we really want to be serious about our plant health (this happens in Western Australia). It is suggested that consigners can easily avoid detection by falsely or incorrectly describing goods.

If a pallet is stretch wrapped for safety and security, there is no examination of goods to confirm the description because it is hidden under the stretch wrapping. This industry believes that freight personnel are not trained to inspect goods: they consider only temperature and loading requirements. As I mentioned earlier, there was concern about manifests and whether that would put undue time controls on freight companies and incur cost to these companies. As far as codes relevant to the bill are concerned, some people believe there should be an annual review of the codes to ensure currency and ongoing appropriateness.

Questions have been asked (and, I guess, the minister can address this later) about how consistent this will be with the other state and federal government legislation. Some people from interstate have commented on the bill, and they indicate that they do not see any major problems. It would seem that they are generally compatible. With respect to phylloxera—and I note the member for Schubert in the chamber—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I do not know that he has got a dose of phylloxera. He might have had a grape! As far as phylloxera control in the grape industry is concerned, the changes are certainly supported. However, people are keen to see additional resourcing to facilitate the program, a specific education and awareness program and sufficient and appropriately trained plant health operation staff to meet increased workload and annual audit reports for the South Australian Plant Health Consultative Committee. They want to ensure that there are additional resources to ensure inspectors are adequately trained and equipped to collect evidence and take statements regarding any reporting of any problems.

They recommend a system of enforceable undertakings be established to provide an avenue for those breaching the act to make immediate changes to comply. They believe that further breaches will result in court action. The benefit is that there will be less cost and less risk of failed court action. Earlier I mentioned the alleged import into South Australia of affected vines. That could have been resolved in weeks by an enforceable undertaking, instead of moving forward through the courts.

The Citrus Growers of South Australia are keen to see reporting of breaches to include all parties to improve surveillance and control of the outbreak, and again they mention the concern about farmers markets, roadside stalls and backyard produce. I do understand why people go into these arrangements, especially on almost a semi commercial basis, with the tough times in horticulture at the moment.

Plant Health Australia believes that this bill is compatible with Plant Health Australia's emergency plant pest response deed, but they certainly have a question about the definition of 'supply' and how gifts come in under the legislation. There are several references to supply and control, and prevention and prohibition on sale where this may become important. They raise the issue of the status and liability of an individual who has been given or gives affected plant material. The word 'supply' needs to be defined and the meaning clarified.

A submission from the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries indicated that there was no particular conflict with Queensland legislation. One interesting comparison is that Queensland has the ability to take action in relation to some pest infestations before a confirmed diagnosis is obtained. It has been an important feature of their act and was utilised to take quick action on the citrus canker outbreak at Emerald in 2004. I wonder whether we have the facility to do this. It may come under the emergency response part of the legislation. My question is: does an inspector have the legal right to take assistance, vehicles, equipment, etc., to assist the investigation? That may have been addressed under the general powers.

One of the supermarket groups which has discussed this issue with me is concerned that it might result in increased cost of imported product, so becoming an impost on non-South Australian product. I mean, we certainly have plenty of good produce here and I believe that, in the Mallee, we probably produce about 80 per cent of the country's washed potatoes at the minute, especially with the stress on the river. I am also interested in traceability. Obviously with manifest there should be plenty of traceability through the bill.

I am very keen to see that consistency with packaging and labelling meets the requirements in other states and that, when this legislation is enacted, the fees should be nationally consistent across the board. I refer to the second reading of the bill which states:

Stakeholders also forwarded their own proposals, including the establishment of a register of importers, which has been strongly supported by the Horticulture Plant Health Consultative Committee, representing key South Australian horticulture industry groups and the Adelaide Produce Market Limited. This proposal and a number of other minor proposed changes have been incorporated into the bill.

We on this side certainly do support the bill. It is quite broad. It will protect growers in this state. I believe it does strengthen how we manage the transport into and through this state of goods from interstate.

We are certainly concerned about increased costs—not just money-wise, but time is money with transport—and that they do not put an onerous burden on transport companies. I know that now in the modern world most would have very up-to-date manifests and it is just a part of business, but that can be clarified in the reply. We on this side of the house support the bill and I commend the bill to the house.


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. R.J. McEwen]


Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (16:51): I rise to support this bill. The horticultural, viticultural and the wider agricultural sectors are vitally important to this state, not just in terms of providing food and nourishment to the people of South Australia but also in terms of the valuable dollars earned from the exports interstate and overseas of our fine fresh South Australian produce that is valued right across this country, and by many foreign countries as well.

In the McLaren Vale area, which is in the seat of Mawson, the threat of phylloxera is something that is treated quite seriously. I congratulate the grape growers and the McLaren Vale Winemakers Association for the tremendous work and vigilance that they apply to this threat to the wine region of McLaren Vale and other wine regions within South Australia.

I think we have done a good job to this point, over the past 160 years, to have kept phylloxera out of South Australia, but we can never take our eye off the ball. We need to be forever vigilant, because it is a devastating pest that can get into vineyards and decimate entire regions. It is for that reason that this bill is very important to strengthen the powers that we have to protect our horticultural and viticultural sectors.

The member for Hammond alluded to an incident—I think it was earlier this year or last year—where one of the big chain stores of hardware and nursery products was selling ornamental vines which had come from a region interstate where phylloxera had occurred. That was a huge threat. It was quite an idiotic thing for this store to do and totally irresponsible. If they had brought phylloxera into this state there is no telling the damage that would have been done to this state's wine industry. The cost would have gone into many millions of dollars. This bill goes a long way to help bolster the powers and the penalties.

The member for Hammond also mentioned branched broomrape. I think that, perhaps, if we had had this sort of legislation in place earlier, things like branched broomrape may have been handled in a different way. Under this new legislation, if someone finds a disease or pest on their property, they notify the authorities and they can claim compensation. If there is a quarantine barrier thrown up around their property, and even perhaps their neighbour's property, then they can be compensated for the loss of livelihood because of the fact that their crops have been quarantined and they cannot get their produce to market.

So, I think the compensation is a very important part of it. I think it will make people more willing to put up their hand, or if someone spots a disease outbreak on someone else's property then they will not feel quite so bad. You can imagine that if someone spotted something they would think, 'If I dob Fred in then Fred is going to be in trouble and lose his whole season's crop and livelihood', but I think that if compensation is there and payable to people who have a quarantine thrown up around their property then it is a much fairer system, and the small price that would then have to be paid out in compensation to a grower would be a lot less than the millions of dollars that we are spending on trying to repair the damage done by such outbreaks as branched broomrape.

I think we have done a good job of protecting South Australia over the years. I guess we are lucky to be an island nation, because it has been a little easier to keep pests and other exotic diseases out of the country. Also, we have faced threats from across the borders—in Western Australia, the burrowing snail and, up in Queensland, the fire ant—which are causing major problems in both of those jurisdictions. So, we need as much power as possible to keep those sorts of pests out of our state.

I think that this bill also gives a lot of power to the industry itself, and the industry should be congratulated on being a mature industry. As I have said, the grape growers down in McLaren Vale do a fantastic job by having workshops and educating people about phylloxera. There are signs up on every block of grapes down in the McLaren Vale area, warning people not to drive from one block into another. We just want to do everything we possibly can to prevent phylloxera from getting into our state and spreading throughout our vineyards.

In terms of viticulture and horticulture, the industry here is mature, and I think this bill actually goes some way in giving power to the industry itself to regulate and give its own certificates for things coming in from interstate. So, once again, I commend this bill.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:56): I will not go on at length, because the member for Hammond has put it very well. I want to commend the member for Hammond for the bit of history he has made here today, because this is the first time that he, in his role as shadow minister, has handled a bill for the house. I think he will remember this day, because I believe he will have a long history in this place. I commend him on the great detail in his presentation here today.

My previous life was, of course, involved with this area of animal plant control. That is already on the record ad nauseam, so I will not go on at length about that. I certainly welcome this bill, which tightens things up. It has been some time in coming. As the member for Hammond has said, particularly in relation to the locusts—and I have been involved with that—when we get a bad plague, it is great that we can mobilise the forces that we have. I am always pleased that governments, of either persuasion, fully back it financially because, with the right equipment, if you get there on time, you can certainly avoid the devastating effects of a locust plague. In recent years, it has been pretty successful. I also pay tribute to the recently retired member for Frome. His activities in this area certainly go back; he was on the spot, too.

The bill provides better protection for business and community against the introduction of new pests and diseases. I am always vigilant about this because we are so mobile nowadays with the borders the way they are. We have to be very careful. Compliance is most important. As a chairman of a board, it was often difficult to get everyone to comply. You had to use the powers of the laws that you were given through legislation. You did not use them unless you had to, and sometimes you had to because not everyone would do the right thing. Unless everyone complies, the whole system can break down, whether it is branched broomrape, phylloxera, or whatever.

I think the member for Hammond hinted at compliance with bodies corporate. It is great that they have been brought to heel because they have certainly been riding roughshod in many areas about their responsibilities, but they have now been brought into line with this.

The state and federal governments seem to have a happy knack of forgetting its responsibility about this. We are seeing issues of various weeds—especially onion weed—on railway lines, main roads, publicly owned parks and bushland. Just because the government owns these sites does not mean that it does not have to control the weeds, because they come out and infest the adjacent farmland.

I particularly want to dwell on phylloxera, as did the members for Hammond and Mawson. People have to see this first-hand to see how debilitating this destructive little mite is. You have to realise that it is over the border in Victoria and New South Wales. I went to the Yarra Valley with Leo Pech to one of the finest vineyards in the Yarra Valley and I saw the devastation that the phylloxera bug can cause. It is only a little bug and you can have it for five or six years and you do not know you have it, because it works underground and attacks the roots. It can be there and, suddenly, you see your vine production drop in half, but it is too late because it has been there for five or six years and you can take out almost all of your vineyard.

It is a destructive thing. Nothing could do more harm to our wineries than this destructive, ravenous little mite. I am often asked the question why we have not had it here because it is all over the world. We have some of the oldest vines in the world here now of the old, original stocks. Why? Because we have never had phylloxera. Why is that? Is it good luck, good management?

The Hon. R.J. McEwen: Phylloxera Board.

Mr VENNING: We have had a phylloxera board. Thank you, minister, because you have reminded me about something. I refer to a previous minister, Dale Baker, and something about playing parliamentary bowls, and I know you are thinking this is a long bow. I was playing parliamentary bowls in Victoria with the Hon. Bill McGrath who just happened to be the Victorian minister for agriculture. I asked Bill whether he was aware of material in the south-east coming over the South Australian border. He said, 'No. It wouldn't happen.' I said he had better ring this person here and find out. The next morning he told me I was right. I will not tell you who one of the key culprits was. It is quite ironic when you know who was bringing some of the material over the border.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I can lip read; I think the minister got it right. Instantly, to the minister's credit, up went the red flag and we revitalised the Phylloxera Board which had been in existence for years and was doing nothing. We re-funded it and, within about three or four months, we were fully into it. We implemented the phylloxera areas and no go zones, and no materials were to be brought across the border unless they had been processed. It was coming across in sealed containers as in a tank. Whether it is luck or whatever, we do not have it.

Consider other regions around the world. California has had several outbreaks and they have had to come to Australia to get some of the parent stock. Some of the original shiraz is here in our parent rootstocks. I pay credit to the many people who have given me advice over the years, particularly Mr Leo Pech, who has all his vineyard on rootstock, incidentally, as a protection against a phylloxera outbreak. Leo has given me good advice. I know that many people find him a bit strong and he will be coming in again shortly to help me with that policy area.

I want to mention branched broomrape. The member for Hammond has been very helpful to me with that because it is an area that I have a lot of difficulty with. It would appear that not everyone is complying, and I think that in some areas it is over-compliance. Of course, now with the branched broomrape we are looking at, some would argue that it is not the one they say it is. So, all this is up in the air.

It is very difficult for those who are under quarantine to be able to farm properly, particularly with the hay and everything else. This area happens to be the area that is most affected by the drought and dry conditions. If you are unable to move hay off your property, the value of your hay is therefore much diminished. How do you make a living in conditions like this? We have to be careful because we are putting a huge impost in the way of these people. Between the member for Hammond and me, and others with the minister's help, I think we can allay these fears. Some people say that we ought to lift these restrictions because they do not think it is working.

In relation to fruit fly inspection points, I think they need to extend the operations because it is crazy to see them shut at night. I often turn the two-way radio on in my car listening to the trucks and I know that they will often go through these points after they have shut because it will be no hassle. If you get caught, the penalties are pretty heavy. I think it would be great to train up the beagles because these dogs are very effective. If people knew there were dogs on these points, they may act differently. If you were to see a dog crawling over your truck, you would not take the risk.

Finally, I believe that moving stock from state to state is an area where we need to increase our activity. I know that at the moment a lot of sheep are coming across the border from Western Australia, and I must declare that one is heading our way to our own property. I asked my son about these sheep coming in from the west and whether they go into quarantine because who knows what sort of area they are coming from. They are probably a mixed lot. When they come on the property, I told my son that he had better keep them in the yard for three or four days. They could spit out anything!

So I keep questioning whether the quarantine we have is adequate in that area. Whether it is Ovine Johne's or all those funny burr weeds they have in Western Australia, we do not want them here. I support this bill, and I also support amending the bill to change that one word—

An honourable member: It's in there.

Mr VENNING: They have changed it; the word 'transport' is in there. I thank the minister for his cooperation. I support the bill.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:06): I will be brief in my comments on the Plant Health Bill, but I also congratulate the shadow minister on his first time handling a bill in the parliament. I read his briefing paper with interest and, while we all diligently try to ensure that every briefing paper is read, one word in particular tweaked my interest, and that was the word 'locust'. That was what I spoke to the honourable member about.

As a member of parliament who had the great pleasure of living in Orroroo from 1993 to 1999, and with the infestations that occurred there, I thought it appropriate that I use this opportunity to make a few brief comments. There is no doubt at all that it is absolutely devastating if you are in that area and it looks as if you are about to suffer from an infestation of grasshoppers and locusts. It is hard to actually describe, but it galvanises a community into making sure that it does all it can to prevent it.

In the mid-1990s it took a lot of effort to ensure that the level of resources required were put in place but, once the decision was made by the Hon. Rob Kerin as the then minister for agriculture, the action was immediate. Forward sites were set up, aerial spraying was undertaken, it was ensured that spray units were available for use by farmers on the back of their utes, I even saw people walking around with packs on their back spraying this stuff, trying to ensure that the grasshoppers and locusts in the area were controlled, that the opportunity to ensure the preservation of their crops existed and, importantly, that the pasture was also there for the sheep.

It is marginal country; you have to live there for a while to understand what it is like, but every blade of grass is important to the future viability of these people. So, when it looks as if grasshoppers and locusts are going to come down, when there are forward sitings up to the east and further out through the dry country and the trough country, when they look like coming, every action has to be taken to ensure that something is done as quickly as possible. It is not something you muck around with.

A lot of work has occurred since then. From the people I speak to who still live in that area, when they talk about when an infestation looks like it is about to occur, and from reading media comments about it, the response is immediate. So, it is pleasing to see that the attitude created within the department for agriculture by a Liberal minister has continued to flow on with Labor now in charge, and that every possible effort of support takes place.

Plant health is also a key to the economic future of the state. No matter what we do, no matter the diversity of the industry that we have in South Australia, it is important to ensure plant health. So, any measure that improves the long-term viability of our agricultural areas is a good one. I do not wish to repeat things and go over what the member for Hammond has said, because he has certainly dealt with every concern of the opposition and with comments the opposition has received on this issue. I recognise that the bill is a step forward, and I commend it to the house.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (17:09): I, too, will be reasonably brief in my contribution in relation to the Plant Health Bill. I want to join with members on both side of the house in support of the bill and raise just a couple of issues that I believe are important to the primary industries that play a big part in the electorate that I represent.

In relation to the wine industry, we have a significant viticultural industry in the Adelaide Hills—dating back to the 19th century, in fact. My family owned a property that previously had vineyards on it. The previous owners had removed those vineyards and turned it into grazing country, but even today, if you look at part of our old family property, at a certain time of the day you can actually see where the rows of vines ran across the paddock. There is also the ruin of an old winery down in the bottom of a valley. It was used for farm sheds and so on, but with fires going through the place over the years it is now just a derelict ruin; however, initially it had been constructed as a winery for the local area.

There are still vineyards in the district where the Shiraz grapes have been used in the making of Penfold's Grange. We have seen the further development of the wine industry in the Adelaide Hills as a number of dairy properties have been developed into vineyards for one reason or other, but obviously for the viability and economy of the operation. I join with other members in saying that the wine industry is very important in South Australia and that we should do everything we can to protect it in terms of keeping out diseases and the like.

I also want to speak about the very important apple and pear industry, focusing particularly on the apple industry and a disease which, thankfully, is not in this country—fire blight. That disease is in North America, Europe and New Zealand, and there is an ongoing and quite heated debate in relation to New Zealand's wanting to export its apples into Australia. There is a significant risk of the introduction of fire blight into this country if we allow New Zealand apples to be brought in.

I represent some of the best apple growing regions in this country—Lenswood Valley, Basket Range, Forest Range, Uraidla and Summertown, which is in the member for Heysen's electorate. It is extremely good apple growing country. Next Tuesday morning at 8 o'clock, I will join the minister at Uraidla for a function in relation to the cherry industry.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen: The start of the cherry season.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: That's right, minister—the start of the cherry season. The cherry industry is also a very important primary industry in the Adelaide Hills. The apple industry, in particular, has fought this long and hard battle in relation to the import of New Zealand apples for many years, and I think it will go on long into the future. Reports have been done, and AQIS has been involved in this issue for many years. If my memory is correct, it issued a report about four years ago—quite a voluminous report—putting forward some recommendations in relation to protocols and procedures that could well deal with the fire blight issue in relation to the importation of New Zealand apples.

There was a lot of debate on and further research carried out in relation to that report produced by AQIS and, if I am correct, it was found that its science was flawed and that the protocols and procedures it recommended could not ensure or guarantee that fire blight would not be brought into the country. A Senate inquiry was held, and the late Senator Jeannie Ferris was a prime mover in establishing that inquiry. I believe that the immediate past member of the Mayo, Alexander Downer, also had a significant role in ensuring that the Senate undertook that inquiry.

I understand that the issue still exists and that New Zealand is pushing as hard as ever to export its apples to Australia. In relation to the arrangements between New Zealand and Australia, it is not necessarily a trade issue. It has to do with the protection of our industry by not bringing in disease. It is debated and argued on the basis that we cannot put an important industry at risk; that is, the apple growing industry in this country, not just in the Adelaide Hills, but in South Australia. They also grow apples in Shepparton in Victoria and other areas that are significant apple growing regions.

We cannot put at risk that vitally important primary industry by importing New Zealand apples. As long as I am the member in this place representing the Adelaide Hills I will be backing my industry—the apple and pear growers association. They call it the fruit growers association because cherries are involved now, which I think is good. I will support my constituents and that important industry as long as I represent them in this place.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (17:16): I would like to contribute to the debate and expand upon how the benefits of legislation such as this come into play in the metropolitan area. Those who follow politics will understand that Unley is geographically the smallest of the electorates in the House of Assembly. We have only 2 per cent open space, but that open space is used very effectively and usefully.

I would like to speak about protecting our state. The act, which provides for the protection of plants from pests, the regulation of movement of plants into, within and out of the state, and the control, destruction and suppression of pests, and so forth, is very important for the Fern Avenue Community Garden in Fullarton, which was established many years ago on a former jam factory site. Some of the original fruit trees that were grown to produce the jam are still there and fruit is collected every year.

There are basically 30 plot gardens, and they are bursting with organically grown fruit and vegetables. It is important to keep pests out. It makes it much easier for those who want to grow and eat organically produced fruit and vegetables. It gives them less to worry about. Obviously, if we had the same sorts of diseases in South Australia as we see elsewhere in the world it would make it much more difficult to keep chemicals out of food production.

At the garden we see members of the local community who enjoy growing their own chemical-free food and getting fresh air. Many of them live in apartments or flats that do not have their own gardens, but they do have an allocated block. They even have a raised garden for members of the community who are too old or frail to bend over to operate a ground level garden, or for those who may be in a wheelchair, who may wish to have a potter in the garden. Retired people grow their own produce there. They take their grandchildren there to talk about, for example, how the cabbage started and how long it has taken to get to this stage. It is a great experience for those who use it.

Then, of course, there is also a wider community benefit, with the Unley harvest volunteers, who come along on Thursday mornings to pick organic food for the older residents of Unley. They then go out and deliver that food. It is a little bit like a raw meals on wheels. They do not deliver cooked meals ready to eat; they deliver freshly picked fruit and vegetables for people who are too old to go out and select their own from the market, for example.

It is only 35 metres by 65 metres, so it is quite a compact area. It also includes a community vegie patch, as well as a herb garden and a flower garden. One other innovative program that has been put in place is plant rescue, which is quite well publicised through the Unley council. People might want to change the look of their gardens. They might have agapanthus, fruit trees or other smaller plants which they no longer require but which they do not want to throw out. They can ring the people at Unley's plant rescue and they will dig them out, repot them and then sell them at regular events that happen around Unley, and, of course, at regular sale events that happen at the Fern Avenue Community Garden.

The beauty of that, of course, is that people can buy semi-mature plants at a discount rate and the community garden gets the benefit of the proceeds that are raised. Again, it helps build that great community we have in Unley, and that community I am very proud to be a part of and very proud to represent in this place. It is interesting, because we are seeing community gardens and other community organisations in Unley that will benefit from the protection of our agriculture from pests and other diseases, but there is the Ridley Grove Community Garden. I am reading here from the South Australian Community and School Garden Network newsletter. We have got the Ridley Grove Community Garden and we have got Molly's Community Garden at Henley High School. We have got the garden at the Lobethal Primary School, and I know that the member for Kavel is very interested in that project. We have another one on Hillcrest Road.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mr PISONI: The member for Kavel is boasting about how good the Lobethal Primary School is. Of course, it goes further to other community projects, such as the Urban Orchard, which involves a network of households across the inner suburbs of Adelaide. Those households meet on a monthly basis to swap and share their produce from their backyards or their front yards—obviously it depends on the space they have in which to grow things. They conduct workshops on preserving their harvest for people who want to make their own jam or who want to preserve apricots, pears or plums. They meet regularly on the first Saturday of each month to discuss how those projects work.

They also talk about how there should be a push for community gardens in the Adelaide Parklands. That is an interesting concept that may be worthy of investigation. On 26 October we saw a gathering of the community gardens network in my own electorate at the Fern Avenue Community Garden, and that was a great success. People spoke about water-wise gardening— obviously a very topical subject at the moment. The point I want to make is that many people would see this bill as protecting only our agriculture and the big income that brings into Australia—Australia being one of the few net exporters of food in the world, of course, it is very important.

However, it is also very important to those people who want more control over their own lives and want to move away from going to the supermarket—or even the greengrocer or the market—to buy their fruit and vegetables. They want to have an input into producing their vegetables, whether that is in their own homes, their own gardens or in their community gardens. I am very pleased to see that we are continuing to protect the standard and quality of our fruit and vegetable in South Australia, not only, of course, those that have a commercial value but also those that have broader community value.

We are really a society that believes in choice and people living their lives in the way they like to live them. I endorse the sentiment of the community gardens network and, of course, support those who have an interest in the Fern Avenue Community Garden.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN (Mount Gambier—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development) (17:25): Before I spend a little time on the response from the shadow minister and the lead speaker, I thank the members for Unley, Kavel, Goyder, Schubert and Mawson for their comments. In relation to the lead speaker (the shadow minister), I point out that, in terms of his first presentation in this place, he has shown how this parliament should work. There was not one political quip or one single attempt to pointscore through the whole presentation. The shadow minister demonstrated why this place, when it is working properly, works so well.

What happens is an agency works in terms of what we believe best practice to be. That agency then asks those people who draft the laws of the day (parliamentary counsel) to put that in a form that is enforceable by law. Then we have to see whether that truly reflects what we want because, from time to time in trying to capture what we want in a form that is legally enforceable, we sometimes miss some of the nuances etc.

The shadow minister went through the bill in some detail and, equally, I compliment him in terms of going through all the responses we made available to him. It was good to see that he said, 'You called for responses, can I also have a look at them?' Again, we gave them to him because we knew he was doing nothing more than wanting to convince himself and be satisfied that we had properly addressed all the issues which were raised. There is quite a list of them.

From this point on, we can do one of two things. I seek through you, Mr Speaker, the guidance of the shadow minister in terms of how we might proceed. One opportunity is that, before the close of business on Monday, I ask our senior officers to go through his second reading contribution and respond to each of the issues in writing. As a consequence of that, the shadow minister may wish us to put some things on the record or give further guarantees before proceeding with the bill. We would then do that in the second reading response in the other house. However, as a consequence of now reflecting on the issues raised by the shadow minister and having had another look at the bill, although it is unlikely, it may transpire that the bill could be amended to better reflect the intent or be better balanced in terms of addressing those issues.

Again, I would then be happy to work through that with the shadow minister, and if as a consequence of that the bill can be refined, either we will do that by volunteering an amendment or negotiating an amendment with the shadow minister. Noticing the late hour, the alternative would be to go into committee and work through each of the issues to the best of our ability. I feel, quite frankly, that some of them require a little more reflection and some more work. I think that, if I gave a commitment on the record that every one of those issues in the honourable member's second reading contribution will be responded to in writing by close of business on Monday, we would have time to deal with that and then obviously be prepared to deal with the bill in the other place.

That again would be a very good example of best practice in terms of how the two houses of parliament can work to ensure that, when we turn bills into law, they are the best possible bills, because once they are law, they have serious impacts on individuals who breach them in any way, shape or form. We can move from this point in my closing remarks now. Based on those remarks, obviously it is then the shadow minister's call whether we go into committee today or whether we deal with it between the houses, which, I might add, is consistent with what we have done on other occasions. I am not putting to the shadow minister something that we would not otherwise do.

In closing, I thank David Cartwright, John Hannay and Sally Fearn, who I understand have worked very well over the years not only putting this together but also ensuring that all the comments we received were adequately addressed and all briefings that were required were made available. With those remarks, obviously I will close the second reading speech and seek through you, Mr Speaker, the guidance of the shadow minister in terms of how he wishes to proceed.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN (Mount Gambier—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development) (17:30): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:30): I appreciate the frankness of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and I think I will go down the path he advocates of bringing a detailed response back to me by the end of business Monday, and, if there is anything that needs to be sorted out before we move to the other place, we can do it between the houses.

It was remiss of me earlier not to acknowledge the work of the department and the minister's officers in supplying me with briefings and any other information I required. It was certainly very helpful in putting together my response to the bill that we have debated today.

I believe the bill will certainly keep South Australia's disease status right up there, and I believe that it does strengthen our plant health status. I also acknowledge that it is the instrument with which we will combat future locust plagues. I commend the bill.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT