HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-11-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

BIOSECURITY COST RECOVERY

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:29): I move:

That this house instruct the Environment, Resources and Development Committee to fully investigate and report on the cost recovery policy in the form of a proposed biosecurity fee as it affects livestock owners, and in particular—

(a) a comparison of the services to be provided by the proposed biosecurity fee with those of the commonwealth government's biosecurity program;

(b) a review of the proposed cost share formula as it affects different species;

(c) the consideration of the appropriateness of the exemptions criteria (species types and number of animals kept); and

(d) any other relevant matter.

I rise to speak on this proposed introduction of this amendment to the Livestock Act with regard to the animal health and biosecurity fee which has been flagged by the Labor government and Primary Industries and Resources of South Australia—perhaps I should be calling it Primary Industries in the Regions, South Australia. I wonder how much forestry was pulped to change the letterhead, but that is another story. The proposal to place another fee on farming communities has caused great concern amongst industry groups. As I have said many times in this house, and in many places since last year's budget, primary industries has been hit by an $80 million cut to its budget, the loss of around 300 staff, the loss of research programs and the loss of research facilities. It is just disgusting the way this government treats primary industries in this state. As I have said before, it is an industry that has provided $4.7 billion to this state's economy in the last year.

I would like to talk about some of the issues that may happen if this fee is introduced. I want to go back to the industry groups which are part of the industry advisory taskforce to the government. They hesitantly accepted the property identification code fees. They believed that getting people to register their properties for a cost of $38 a year was a way to help with biosecurity. I do not think that the way in which it was introduced was a smart move, knowing that there was another fee and proposal coming over the top, which will not be as easy for the government to introduce because it means that there will need to be a change of legislation for the government to get it up.

For example, the dairy industry already provides fees to Animal Health Australia, Meat and Livestock Australia, Dairy Australia, and the dairy authority levy, so there are multiple levies already paid just from that group. We look at cattle levies that are supported through primary industries funding schemes—and these are across multiple sectors in primary industries—including a 65¢ cattle levy on the national livestock identification system tags. Primary industries wants to push that cost to $2. We are already well aware that major station and stock owners want to exit that scheme. That is a voluntary scheme: you pay the levy and you can ask for your levy fees back. That will create a major risk to a budgetary line, because those funds that have been going in as part of biosecurity will not be there.

As I indicated, before this fee is introduced, $860,000 is being raised through property identification codes, and $3.14 million to be recovered by 2014-15 under this proposed biosecurity fee. Through different cattle and sheep industry funds, $2.34 million has already been raised.

In a briefing that PIRSA presented to the Liberal Party, this proposal put up by the government looks at the controlled notifiable conditions, the offence categories, the advisory groups, the expiation fees, and the role of artificial breeding procedures. Initiatives include term of registration and renewal, identification codes, expanding movement restrictions, control or eradication of disease procedures, recovery of costs for inspectors, and the Exotic Diseases Eradication Fund.

The combined budget target of the PIC fee and the proposed biosecurity fee is $4.1 million by 2014-15, and the revenue from PIC was just under $1 million. Under this program, primary industries is looking at full cost recovery for endemic disease programs under the primary industry funding schemes of $1.7 million. It is looking at recovery of $1.41 million for the exotic diseases program by 2014-15. As part of that, that is what the biosecurity fee will collect.

In the proposal, properties with fewer than 10 animals, 100 chickens or 10 beehives will not be required to pay a biosecurity fee, and there is a sector allocation of how much each sector will provide. If this is introduced, the average cost per property and its impact on our primary producers in this state by 2014-15 will be: for sheep owners, $72; cattle, $98; pigs, $695; poultry, $900 (so you are damned if you grow chooks and eggs); horses, $125; deer, alpacas and goats, $144; and bees, $154. This is just another levy that this government wants to bleed out of primary producers.

I want to talk about an issue brought to me by one of my constituents on how Primary Industries and Resources South Australia is failing in regard to its biosecurity activity. An email I received in September states:

I wish to communicate my concerns over the proposed Animal Health Biosecurity Fee, which is being proposed as a means of partially recovering the cost of providing services such as disease surveillance. The fee will be imposed on livestock producers in SA who benefit from Biosecurity SA's Animal Health programme. As the owners of more than 10 horses, we will be required to pay the fee, but I do not believe that horse owners do, or will, benefit.

I recently had cause to deal with PIRSA after six of our horses developed severe neurological symptoms. The eventual outcome was, of eight horses on the property, one was found dead without warning, subsequently five developed neurological symptoms, two recovered and three more died.

I am in Adelaide, but our horses live...on the Eyre Peninsula with my daughter and son-in-law. I only became involved with PIRSA when my daughter, rang me in tears of desperation. She was at the stables with the horses, one of whom was clearly not going to survive for much longer, trying unsuccessfully to contact PIRSA using her mobile phone. The reason for her doing so was in order to comply with Section 27 of the Livestock Act 1997 which requires any owner to report, among other things, any incidence of unusual nervous signs in their livestock. She had spoken to PIRSA a few days earlier when the first symptoms were observed, and her call was transferred to the Animal Health Inspector at Port Augusta, who advised that he would arrange for sample pots and formaldehyde to be sent to her in the event of the death of another horse. Vacutainers for blood samples were also dispatched.

I advised that I would do what I could from Adelaide and first rang the 24/7 emergency hotline. This rang out. I then rang PIRSA Head Office, after explaining to the person (possibly the Receptionist) who answered my call why I was ringing, my call was forwarded through three people and eventually back to the person who answered my call, who cut me off. Unfortunately I did not take note of the names of any of the people I spoke to.

I then telephoned the office of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. After explaining the situation I was advised that someone from the office would contact PIRSA and ensure that an appropriate person contacted my daughter. This they did, but first demanded to know why she had contacted the office of the minister.

A Horse Industry Update from Biosecurity SA dated 30/05/2011 states:

Horse owners should contact their local veterinarian if their horse is unwell. The vet can then work with Biosecurity SA to undertake a disease investigation on cases with neurological signs.

A further document (The Animal Health Biosecurity Feed, Some Frequently Asked Questions and answers) states that the animal health program run by Biosecurity SA 'maintains a regional network of highly trained veterinarians and animal health officers, providing support for producers and private veterinarians and investigation of unusual livestock diseases.'

None of this support was offered to us. In fact, a request from the animal health inspector at Port Augusta for post mortem brain and major organ samples for analysis was fulfilled by the local butcher, who is not experienced in equine autopsy.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Good butchers in Port Augusta.

Mr PEDERICK: Absolutely; they will cut up anything.

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: That's no offence to the butchers; they are good butchers. The letter continued:

These samples were required for viral analysis, and despite the fact that our horses could, possibly, have been suffering from a disease that could have been infectious to humans, and that brain and spinal fluid pose high risk of cross-infection, no advice was given on personal protective equipment, safety procedures to follow, or decontamination protocols. PIRSA were later quoted in the media as stating that they did not fear a biosecurity risk or advise quarantine. I believe this to have been an entirely irresponsible statement since, at the time, all they knew for certain was that five horses on one property had developed serious neurological symptoms of unknown cause within the space of one week, and that four horses were dead.

After finally making contact with PIRSA, my daughter felt that she and the situation were not being taken seriously, and that PIRSA were demonstrating no intention of sending anyone qualified to investigate. As a final effort, [my daughter] asked whether the government vet she was speaking to had a mobile number to which [she] could forward video footage and photographs of the horses. Previously that day it had taken numerous attempts to even gain a response, but within three minutes—

three minutes, Madam Speaker—

of the footage being sent [my daughter] had a return call from the vet and assurances that a vet would be in attendance either that night, or the following day, to perform the second autopsy. While in attendance the vet performed medical checks on two of the three affected horses who were still alive, and collected blood samples from four of the five remaining horses on the property. Samples were not collected from the fifth horse because the vet did not feel safe taking samples from her due to behavioural issues.

The fourth horse died a week later, and the stock inspector from Port Augusta travelled to Minnipa that night after extensive persuasion from [my daughter] to the PIRSA employee who answered her call. [My daughter] was advised that 'employees did not have to answer their phones on the weekend' and that there may not be anyone available to perform the post-mortem. Hardly a 24/7 service.

[My daughter] was also advised by PIRSA employees that:

'You fell through the gaps,' 'PIRSA is not set up to deal with horses,' 'PIRSA relies on private vets to perform investigations,' 'If you were located in the South-East it would be different, as there would be private vets close by to attend.'

I believe that, before imposing a fee on horse owners to recoup some of the cost of a program that is already established, PIRSA should look closely at how the program is being run. My experience was that the only PIRSA employees I could reach by telephone were unprofessional, totally lacking in a sense of accountability, and demonstrated no understanding at all of the possible outcome of the fatal condition our horses suffered, which could have been a highly contagious, exotic, zoonotic disease.

When [my daughter] was able to speak to a PIRSA vet she clearly described the symptoms and conditions of the horses, yet was dismissed until the vet observed the horses via video footage, at which point the seriousness of the situation was finally perceived and action taken. Hardly an active approach to disease surveillance, and certainly a contradiction to the statement below, made in the document 'The Animal Health Biosecurity Feed, Some Frequently Asked Questions and answers':

Knowing that there is this team available to advise, analyse, investigate and respond to specific threat to South Australian livestock and producers' profitability.

That is the end of the letter from that constituent. I think that sums up the regard of a lot of primary producers and horse owners in this state who are absolutely appalled about how they are treated, how they are being slugged for more and more fees and getting not no service but far less than acceptable service, especially with regard to what could have been an outbreak of a notifiable disease.

I commend this motion to the house. I want the house to have a good look at this, because all we have here is Primary Industries trying to hit farmers and animal growers for fees without providing any service. It is just a budgetary measure and another hit that a citycentric Labor government places on rural South Australia.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:45): I will not speak at length because I know that several of my colleagues want to speak as well. I commend the member for Hammond for bringing this matter to the house and urge members to support it. The Livestock (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2011 seeks to allow the levying of a biosecurity fee as part of the government's cost recovering policy. The proposal is to recover a total of $4.1 million by 2014-15 to cover the cost of the property identification code, known as the PIC, and the biosecurity programs.

Given the suggested fees for the first year, it is reasonable to expect that subsequent annual fees will increase substantially to meet the government's stated target. The PIC eventually gained qualified acceptance of major industry groups when it was introduced on 1 January 2011. Commercial animal keepers and producers saw the need for keeping track of where animals are kept, identifying problem sites and sites at risk, notifying property owners of relevant issues and controlling disease outbreaks. We all agree with that.

I can remember years ago, when I used to keep pigs, that we used to have to brand them with a mark, which was good because they could then be traced back. Also, over many years there has been debate going on about strip branding of lambs.

The Hon. S.W. Key: What about Bertha?

Mr VENNING: Bertha was one of them. It is amazing what people remember in this place. She was mother of many of these young piglets. Over the years there has been a bit of debate, but eventually we got strip branding in, which is essential because it is marked what the meat is and when people buy it they have some guarantee. I have no problem with the trace-back system, and the PIC is the same. I agree and the growers also agree.

So, 14 livestock industries, including sheep, have been identified. These are the costs per property: sheep $72; cattle $98; pigs $695; poultry $900; horses $125; deer, alpacas, goats $144; and bees $154. It just says 'per property', so if you have only half a dozen sheep or something, I expect you pay that fee. I think the minimum was 10, but it is not very many. I understand there will be a lot of resistance to this—huge. Hopefully the government will see that it is not sensible to do this.

Understandably the industry groups feel they are already contributing to national and state biosecurity. Furthermore, each industry is required to contribute to the cost of the emergency response needed to combat a threat to the particular industry. One wonders about what the member for Hammond just said, and also industry groups remain unconvinced.

Finally, the PIC has been accepted reluctantly by farmers and graziers, especially by the poultry industry. They will not accept further government imposts like a biosecurity levy or fee. Surely these activities should be met by Treasury as these matters affect the general public.

The livestock industry has been going through tough times, but going okay at the moment. If you keep adding these imposts, you are encouraging non-compliance and backyard butcher shops. Our farm animals are not cash cows for a cash-strapped government. You can be sure that when you introduce a levy like this it will go up every year thereafter. I certainly commend the member for Hammond's motion and I hope the house will support it.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:49): I speak in very strong support of the member for Hammond's motion. As a veterinarian, I have been at the front line of biosecurity in South Australia and Australia, and the profession itself is at the front line all the time, with the secondary help of stock inspectors and other allied veterinary health workers.

Biosecurity is so important, and you cannot underestimate the need for extreme vigilance, but it should not be at the cost of the poor animal owner, the property owner or the farmer because they are already paying. I put on the record that my wife has a property at Meadows, where we run cattle. We are quite happy to have the PIC (Property Identification Code) because you do need to have that. We have it with the National Livestock Identification Scheme with the cattle, and you need to have it.

As a veterinarian, you want to have trace-back, that is, you want to know exactly where those animals have come from. You want to know detail such as the epidemiology and the pathology because the whole trace-back issue is so important. That is why we need to have a real force to enforce biosecurity, but not this way; this is not the way to do it. We are already paying fees through the ear tags and animal levies across the board. Farmers and producers are paying taxes to employ people, to keep their properties going and to keep their economies going. They already paying, and this is just another impost.

I do not mind cost recovery in many areas, but farmers are already paying, paying, paying—and other property owners are already paying, paying, paying—where this area of biosecurity is involved. They are paying in similar areas where money should be going into PIRSA and has not been; it has been diverted off into other areas. I am not going to say any more because my colleagues want to speak, but this is so important, and this is not the way to do it. As a veterinarian, I strongly support the member for Hammond's motion on this issue.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:51): I support the motion, and I thank the member for bringing this recommendation to the house. It is an important area that needs to be considered. This is yet another cost budget item that the government had introduced via the Sustainable Budget Commission, identified to us through the leaked Sustainable Budget Commission report, and another way to raise revenue.

People in primary industry have been used to having to pay for their services. Fishing, mining, and primary production from agriculture have historically had a number of fees attached. Two months ago, I helped my brother mark 100 calves of the most recent born. They had so many holes in their ears that I am surprised the RSPCA is not out there raising the issue about how offensive that is. We have to have the electronic livestock identification tag, we have to have the local property tag. The poor old sheep, every time you change a property you have to add another tag to them. We are going to have to change the body modification and tattooing laws soon because if sheep and cattle are ever introduced to it clearly we are going to have a problem.

The reality is there are enormous levels of procedure to protect the biosecurity in relation to stock, and of course when we go across to bees, chooks and the other things that are to be captured by this fee it is unacceptable. I would like to give evidence to the committee. I hope this committee is successful, that the members accept the important aspect that needs to be considered here, and that I will be invited as a member of parliament to give evidence to it. I look forward to the opportunity to do that and thank the member for bringing it to the parliament.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:53): Very, very briefly I also wish to support the motion. I think it can be a particularly good bit of work for the ERD Committee. As has been said by number of other speakers, this is just stupid stuff; they do not need it. I have only just left a meeting with a group of five farmers, and one of the issues they wanted to raise was the biosecurity levy—and justifiably so.

What we are seeing with the continuous stripping away of dollars from PIRSA are desperate attempts by those in positions inside PIRSA to justify their own existence and raise additional money. We do not need it; the farming community does not need it. You just keep strangling, strangling, and strangling the farming community until they will not exist, and then you wonder why all your food comes in from China and Vietnam and other places. It is just crazy. The member for Hammond has put up a good proposition, and I urge the house to support it.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:54): Biosecurity policy is currently undergoing review in many states around the country, and South Australia is the first to declare its intention to charge fees. It is assumed that these fees are intended to aid in meeting the obligations under the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement (EADRA). This agreement, made between the federal government, state and territory governments and the livestock industry, was introduced to manage the cost and responsibility for an emergency response to an animal disease outbreak. There are currently 10 livestock industries which are party to this EADRA and the costs are shared amongst these industries.

In effect, this means that many livestock organisations are already committed to paying towards the cost of managing a biosecurity risk, and any additional fee could be considered double dipping. Importantly, it is not only livestock producers who benefit from biosecurity, so it is not fair that only livestock producers incur all the costs associated with it.

I acknowledge the great importance of biosecurity but also recognise that the issues that the member for Hammond raises are very important. The government should have no fear of the member for Hammond's motion because it asks the committee to fully investigate and report on the cost recovery model. Unless the government actually has something to fear, it should support this motion.

We have levies upon levies upon levies hitting all manner of people, whether or not they be biosecurity levies. The regular person walking in a street in a regional centre like Port Augusta is getting hit with more and more levies all the time. This government's cost recovery model is turning into a bit of a business model.

It is a very different situation to cost recovery in private enterprise where it is passed on to the consumer versus cost recovery in the public arena where public agencies can just say, 'Look, this is what it costs us to provide the service and so people in the industry have to pay it and it will be your issue to just pass it on, recover it, absorb it somehow or other,' because there is a disconnect between that and the marketplace, the way there is in private enterprise.

I strongly support the member for Hammond's motion. I state again that the government should support it unless it has something to fear with its cost recovery model.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (11:56): I too rise to support the motion by the member for Hammond. This is just a blatant cost recovery measure, and looking at it across the board, I have been in this place for about 18 months and in that time I have witnessed the blatant abandonment of primary industries.

I watch bureaucrats striving for cost-cutting measures rather than underpinning the state's wealth, and when I talk about the state's wealth, I talk about agriculture as a whole. I talk about what agriculture does to this state's economy: it underpins the state's economy by far. Today we look at mining as the shining light, but when is that going to underpin the state's economy and outstrip agriculture?

We are getting a lot of talk but we are not getting the action, and that will come in time. One of the risks is alienating farmers who will pull out of the funding and then pose a risk to the industry, so I expect the government to support this motion and I commend the motion to the house.

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (11:58): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The SPEAKER: Is that seconded?

Mr Pederick: No, ma'am; let's bring it to a vote.

The SPEAKER: Was the motion seconded?

An honourable member: Yes, ma'am.

The house divided on the motion:

AYES (22)
Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.
Caica, P. Conlon, P.F. Foley, K.O.
Fox, C.C. Geraghty, R.K. (teller) Hill, J.D.
Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, A. O'Brien, M.F.
Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, T. Portolesi, G.
Rau, J.R. Sibbons, A.L. Snelling, J.J.
Thompson, M.G. Vlahos, L.A. Weatherill, J.W.
Wright, M.J.
NOES (16)
Chapman, V.A. Evans, I.F. Goldsworthy, M.R.
Griffiths, S.P. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. McFetridge, D.
Pederick, A.S. (teller) Pegler, D.W. Pengilly, M.
Redmond, I.M. Such, R.B. Treloar, P.A.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Venning, I.H. Whetstone, T.J.
Williams, M.R.
PAIRS (6)
Rankine, J.M. Sanderson, R.
Rann, M.D. Gardner, J.A.W.
Kenyon, T.R. Marshall, S.S.

Majority of 6 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

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