HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-06-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

Biosecurity Management

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (11:31): I move:

That this house—

(a) acknowledges the Marshall Liberal government’s strong biosecurity stance to keep pests and diseases out of South Australia;

(b) highlights the success of zero tolerance in keeping the Riverland fruit fly free; and

(c) recognises the importance of keeping South Australia phylloxera free.

The Marshall Liberal government's strong stance on biosecurity is fundamental to ensuring the future of South Australia's horticultural industries. Prevention and keeping pests and disease at bay are essential for the delivery of our state's economic potential. The estimated $1.3 billion farmgate value of the horticulture industry is an important asset that requires protection. The sector also is dominated by 3½ thousand small to medium businesses employing around 13½ thousand permanent staff and an additional 24,000 seasonal staff. There is no question that the horticultural industry is an important one for our regions.

Our farming families, regional communities and economy rely on the horticultural sector as a stable and reliable income stream, an economic driver, that we must protect from pests and diseases. Fruit fly is a major biosecurity threat to South Australia and our horticultural industries. Protecting the $1.3 billion farmgate value of this sector from this pest is a matter the Marshall Liberal government is taking seriously. Our state is the nation's only mainland state which is free of fruit fly, and this comes with significant advantages:

the Riverland's fruit fly free status gives our exporters access to international markets without the need for expensive treatments. In a competitive market, citrus and stone fruit exports rely on their fruit fly free status. We know that outbreaks can destroy export opportunities, impacting businesses and employment;

the Riverland's fruit fly free status means that the industry there does not have to grapple with the productivity losses that come with damage from fruit fly. This includes savings to horticultural businesses who avoid having to implement cold and chemical treatments to treat affected produce; and

being fruit fly free in the Riverland also allows the public to grow their own fruit and vegetables in the knowledge they will not have a need for expensive chemical sprays or the unpleasant risk of biting into fruit fly larvae that may infest their homegrown fruit.

There are two species of fruit fly that have substantial economic impacts: the Mediterranean fruit fly, which is established in Western Australia, and the Queensland fruit fly, which is a native to Queensland but which in recent years has expanded its range south to become established in New South Wales and Victoria. We know the Queensland fruit fly inhabits areas far too close to our border, existing in the Mildura and Sunraysia areas.

South Australia is under increasing pest pressure because of its geographic position in the landscape, essentially wedged between the two fruit fly populations and ever-increasing movement of people and goods across the country. Susie Green from the Apple and Pear Growers Association recently highlighted the risk and implications for all South Australians and our horticultural industry. Susie said:

Just one piece of maggot infested fruit, carelessly discarded by a traveller, can devastate an industry and also the community. If fruit fly becomes established, home gardeners would have to get used to their fruit and vegetables being infested with maggots.

The Marshall Liberal government understands the importance of protecting this important horticultural sector. It is prohibited to bring into South Australia fruit fly host material. Our position provides sharp contrast to the approach of the former government, who no doubt appreciated the importance of being free of fruit fly, but did not take the serious steps needed to deter people from bringing fruit and vegetables across our border and into our state.

The former government previously had a policy of not imposing fines. It implemented a slap on the wrist approach. Staff issued warnings to people bringing in prohibited materials, except in the worst cases. Coming into government, there was a high level of noncompliance by drivers coming into this state. It only takes one infested piece of fruit to destroy an industry.

The Marshall Liberal government has taken the threat of fruit fly very seriously. We have introduced a zero tolerance approach to people bringing prohibited plant material in South Australia. This has been a challenging adjustment for some but I believe is resulting in an increased awareness among the travelling public and, importantly, a change in behaviour.

Today, the Yamba quarantine station is operating effectively. This tougher approach, together with publicity and education, has meant that travellers are now looking for the quarantine bins, and they are thinking about the risks of bringing fruit and vegetables into our state. Behaviour is changing.

Random roadblocks are doing their job in detecting noncomplying people who cross our borders with fruit, further protecting our horticultural industries. Zero tolerance is now bipartisan policy, as it should be. I note the strong support for the zero tolerance approach highlighted by the member for Giles in his recent remarks during debate on the Plant Health (Pest Affected Plants) Amendment Bill.

The devastating potential impacts of fruit fly have been recognised, and there is agreement that the risk of infestation needs to be managed closely and carefully. Our approach is necessary and is working. Horticultural industry support for this approach is unsurprisingly widespread. Fourteen state horticultural industry groups have supported the stance that the Marshall Liberal government is taking on this matter. It is pleasing to report to the house that the firm approach that is being implemented is working.

We have seen a significant decline in the volume of fruit seized at Yamba. In 2018, prior to the implementation of a zero tolerance approach, 27 tonnes fruit were seized at Yamba, while in 2019 we saw 19 tonnes of fruit seized at the same location. We are seeing an increased awareness of the need to dispose of fruit. As time goes by and public awareness increases, I have no doubt that the volume of seized fruit and vegetables will continue to decline.

Nobody wants a fine, and it can easily be avoided through people paying attention and taking care not to bring fruit and vegetables into the state. Our government has invested in more signage at key entry points into the Riverland, has ensured that there are more bins available for the disposal of fruit, and has been raising the profile of the need for fruit disposal for travellers and visitors into the region. People must take responsibility for their actions when they cross the border—there is too much at stake.

Complacency in the community is our enemy when it comes to fruit fly. The current outbreaks of Mediterranean fruit fly in metropolitan Adelaide are evidence of this. The government is currently fighting seven outbreaks in Adelaide, with a fruit and vegetable quarantine area that extends between Glenelg and Elizabeth. PIRSA has more than 100 staff on the ground working hard to get these outbreaks under control. The measures being taken include baiting, spraying and releasing sterile insect technology. These are significant costs associated with outbreaks. I am informed that the current incursion has cost over $6 million to date.

Other measures being considered to manage the risk of further outbreaks include the potential to extend the zero tolerance approach to our checking for fruit at Ceduna in order to protect against the introduction of the Mediterranean fruit fly from the west. Our government is continuing to examine more ways in which we can further bolster our capacity and efforts in keeping fruit fly out of South Australia.

While fruit fly is an imposing threat to our state's horticultural industry, we must remain vigilant in relation to other biosecurity threats. The threat of phylloxera is an ever-present one to our viticultural industry. Phylloxera is a serious pest of grapevines on a worldwide basis providing significant threat to commercial grapevines. Phylloxera is a small insect pest that feed on the roots of grapevines, causing a decline in vine health over a number of years, until the potential death of the vine between five and six years.

The Marshall Liberal government has been making good progress on initiatives to prevent the introduction of phylloxera to our state. Careful management is required to prevent the spread, in particular through the highly mobile viticulture and wine industries. The presence of phylloxera across the border in Victoria and New South Wales means our viticulture sector, associated transport and our vineyard workers who work across state borders must remain vigilant.

The wine industry is undoubtedly very important to our state. The figures speak for themselves. South Australia has 57 per cent of the national vineyard area planted with wine grapes, grown by more than 3,300 growers. The industry is worth $2.11 billion to the state's economy, with exports of 490 million litres of wine worth $1.3 billion. The state's reputation for high quality wine is also associated with its iconic old vines. Protecting these and the wider industry from phylloxera is vital.

The introduction of new plantings and alternative grapevine varieties, leading to the introduction of new and exciting wines, requires significant investment and time for establishment, growth and yield. These investments need to be protected to enable full advantage to be taken of the new opportunities. Phylloxera resistant rootstocks provide the only option for its management once it is here, providing a compelling reason for preventing infestation.

The government, through PIRSA, Biosecurity SA and Vinehealth Australia, are working hard on measures to keep our state phylloxera free. One of the measures that is used to prevent the spread of phylloxera is the use of specifically designed heat sheds, such as the one at Naracoorte saleyards in my electorate. Machinery and equipment are at high risk for spreading phylloxera. The insects can be left in residues of grapevine material and soil and carried on vehicles. Heat is used to clean up these residues to leave equipment pest free.

Practically, the heat shed is a size that can accommodate a grape harvester on the back of a semi or can fit several machines or pieces of equipment. The shed works by creating a heated environment at 45° and requires vehicles to be treated at this temperature for a period of two hours. Extra time is required for the heating of a shed to ensure it is the optimum temperature for sterilisation. The temperature in the shed is monitored during this period to ensure correct temperature is maintained for the sterilisation of equipment. The viticulture industry knows the importance of using heat sheds when equipment is brought across the border.

Since the Marshall Liberal government came to power, a number of measures have been initiated to prevent the spread of phylloxera to South Australia. One of these measures includes a review and update of the Plant Quarantine Standard to ensure controls are in place to govern the movement of grape materials and related equipment to the state. Other measures include the review and update of the phylloxera response plan, which, I am informed, is nearing completion, and the installation of new signage at strategic points near our borders.

It was a pleasure last year to meet the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, the Hon. Tim Whetstone, with representatives from the Coonawarra and Padthaway grape growing regions, to launch new signage on Casterton Road on our state's border not far from Penola. Raising the profile of this pest species is important. I will just take a couple of seconds to give more clarity about some of our community's concerns, perhaps even some of the complacency that was brought into our community over many years of the operation under the previous government. In my region, we have a lot of cross-border travellers. People are working both sides of the border for a number of reasons.

One of my constituents sent me a letter saying that she had collected her grocery shopping in a Victorian town and then drove into my electorate and got caught by a random station checking for fruit fly. She was caught unaware. She had to suffer the embarrassment and the pain of a fine. I have great sympathy for her because I do not like seeing citizens lose their funds and hard-earned money on perhaps just a lack of awareness. Obviously, we all have terms in government, and there is an end date for the Marshall government one day, and no doubt the opposition will be in government, hopefully in the long, distant future.

Members interjecting:

Mr McBRIDE: You will have a responsibility to the state to maintain the law and order and awareness of these diseases, and I hope you pick that up and do not become complacent like you did under the last 16 years of your government. It has impacted the residents. It was a new learning curve. There has certainly been a lot of pain for people who have been caught accidentally and through a lack of awareness of these fruit fly measures.

We are still getting on top of that complacency and it will take ages probably to do it, but hopefully we will get there. I hope that if the Labor Party ever see the day of government again, they will maintain these high standards so that we do not have to start this process again and incur these sorts of fines and that we actually keep the state free of these types of pests so that the agricultural sector of South Australia has a strong platform with the best quality fruit in the world without the chemical interference that has to be used with these diseases.

The horticultural and wine industries of our state are significant contributors to our economy. Our government is taking a firm and responsible approach to protecting these industries from pests. I commend the motion to the house.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (11:45): I move to amend the motion as follows:

In paragraph (a) delete the words 'strong biosecurity stance' and substitute the word 'efforts',

Delete paragraph (b); and

In paragraph (c) insert the words 'fruit fly and' after the words 'South Australia'.

This is a very important motion. I acknowledge to the house that I have had a great deal of interest in the fruit fly debate because everyone I know stands solidly with producers, fruit growers and everyone when they say that fruit fly is public enemy number one in South Australia at the moment.

We have never, ever seen as many outbreaks in South Australia as we have at the moment. There are now currently seven outbreaks in South Australia. While I want to amend this motion to say 'efforts', that is because I really cannot understand why the government has not adopted the same zealous zero tolerance at the Ceduna border.

I do not have my notes with me today, but I think the government has admitted that some of the education measures have not been taken up as readily as they might have been. In fact, the minister has put up a very big billboard on the border between South Australia and Victoria, which I still think is ambiguous. It should say, 'Last chance: put it in the bin,' not 'Zero Strikes'. 'Zero Strikes' does not mean very much to anybody as far as an instruction as you whip past the billboard at 110 km/h with your fruit, which is what has happened to several of my constituents, pensioners who have led blameless lives, grow their own fruit, share it willingly amongst the community and would never jeopardise South Australia's fruit fly free status.

I think there is a big difference between handing a tomato to the man at the Yamba station saying, 'I wanted to give you this because the bin was full. I didn't want to throw it on the ground,' (where I know the larvae can live for up to 12 months) doing 180 km/h in a 60 km/h area on the road. Okay, if you do the crime, you pay the fine, but I think there is a very big difference between handing in a tomato to a man and doing 180 km/h on a normal suburban road.

At the outset, let's be very unambiguous. I do not want to be misrepresented. I thoroughly and totally support the government's zero stand on fruit fly. What I cannot agree with—

Mr McBride: You're knocking out the clause.

Ms BEDFORD: Yes, I have.

Mr McBride: So you don't.

Ms BEDFORD: But you are not successful at zero tolerance because there are fruit fly in this state. You have not specified which sort of fruit fly is in the Riverland and I do not think you have done enough on your education process. You have ads in your papers at the moment, but I can tell you now that not everybody is aware of the areas here in South Australia where there are fruit fly. You have to do a lot more about it because it is not actually the people who live in the fruit fly affected areas that you are trying to get in touch with, it is the people who do not live there.

Dare I say that it is not complacency; it is COVID and everything else going on in people's lives that has actually taken the attention away. This is a very serious subject and we are with you 100 per cent, but we do not think that you have done enough to get the message through to people.

To say you are considering doing something at Ceduna is absolutely flabbergasting. If you are serious about removing fruit fly from this state, that is where you have to be putting in the work. Dare I say it, you have hit so many people—7½ thousand as far as I know—with your fines at Yamba. You now have the money, more than $5 million, to make sure your education process goes right ahead at Ceduna. We are 100 per cent behind you because it is fruit fly you are trying to eradicate.

I do not know what else I can say to you except that the motion is not being completely removed. We do support your moves, but we think you can be doing a lot more. No-one in this chamber, not one single person, wants to be soft on fruit fly. What they want to be sure of is that you are doing everything that possibly can be done.

In the period where people who seriously thought handing the fruit to you was the best thing to do, instead of coming out with an education process around that you have smacked them down. My pensioners in Pooraka are being hit twice: they have been hit at the border, handing in the fruit that they thought was the right thing to do, and they are now being hit by your approach to the fruit fly that is in their electorate now.

Mr McBride: Outrageous!

Ms BEDFORD: Well, it is. If you were serious about fruit fly, you would have moved at Ceduna when you moved at Yamba, but you did not, and I would like to know in your responses—I can see the minister is writing some notes—why you did not move at Ceduna as quickly as you did at Yamba.

My pensioners in Pooraka have been hit not only by fines when they thought they were doing the right thing, but now they are being hit by having their fruit in their electorate—in my electorate—under risk. Another thing you need to know is that a lot of people do not understand what measures you are trying to bring in. Trees should be stripped of fruit and fruit should be eaten or destroyed. Fruit is going in the green bin. We are being told the green bins are being treated in a different fashion.

I am not satisfied everything is being done, so I urge members to support the amended motion. It does not have any watering down of the fact that we are anti fruit fly and tough on fruit fly. We are 100 per cent behind our producers and want to make sure that they and everybody else in this state have the support they need to keep growing our fabulous fruit that is exported. We understand every aspect of the fact that all these crops are vitally important—we do. Nobody on this side is anti-country, anti-producer—no-one. To even suggest that would be a great disservice to every member in this house and a reflection, which I know you would not undertake.

It is very important for everybody in this house to know you are going to be tough at Ceduna. Only then will we see the measures you say you are taking are being taken, and that is when we are going to see, we hope, fruit fly eradicated. It is very important for members to understand that these measures are in place until December. You only understand that if you read the entire ad to the very end. It is not even in bold print.

If your education program is actually serious, you would be doing a lot more about it and be out there on the front foot a lot more—not just in the areas where fruit fly has been discovered but in the areas where it is not. I can assure you the average person in the street does not know anything about it. That is not because they do not care; it is because you have not done a good enough job. I urge members to support the amended motion.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:53): I also seek to amend this motion, so we will have two amendments to deal with. I move to amend the motion by the member for MacKillop to read as follows:

(a) acknowledges the importance of South Australia's strong biosecurity stance to keep pests and diseases out of South Australia;

(b) highlights the need for zero tolerance and keeping the Riverland and other areas fruit fly free;

(c) recognises the importance of keeping South Australia phylloxera free; and

(d) acknowledges the former Labor government's strong investment in biosecurity, including the $3 million sterile insect technology facility in Port Augusta.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond is warned.

Mr HUGHES: In relation to both the motion and the two amendments, with some minor differences on the periphery there is clearly strong support for the action that is taken in order to keep South Australia free of some of the damaging pests that could come over our border.

It has always been my view that when you are in government you should be willing to critique what it is you are doing. You should be looking to improve what you are doing. When you lose government, you should look back on what you have done, acknowledge the good things you have done, acknowledge the things that have made an improvement and acknowledge where it has not been as strong as it should have been. I think that is important.

When it comes to keeping South Australia fruit fly free, the previous government was very active. We allocated around $5 million a year to the effort to do the right thing by our horticultural sector. As I have indicated in the amendment, the sterile insect technology facility was set up in Port Augusta, and it was good to see for the jobs created and, more importantly, for the 50 million sterile flies produced every week in order to use those flies to help combat something that represents a real threat to South Australian horticulture and to those people who grow fruit in their backyards.

A lot may be said about zero tolerance and that the approach of the previous government was not strong enough. I come to this with fresh eyes. I indicated in a previous debate here, which was cut short before I could wax lyrical, that we supported zero tolerance while at the same time acknowledging that there were some transition issues, that there were people who were attempting to do the right thing but who were caught up in that process. A very valid point, assuming effective communication that goes beyond signage, is that over time we will see fewer fines handed out to those people who come across our border, some doing the right thing but some during this transition period attempting to do the wrong thing.

I know there are processes and a range of unfair infringements being addressed, but I still think that there needs to be more attention in that area. That said, the concept of zero tolerance is the right concept to pursue. Especially given the nature of this portfolio, I try to be as bipartisan as possible. With two of the bills that have come before this house, I have attempted on both occasions to see whether we can find common ground.

That is incredibly important because when we are talking about agriculture, when we are talking about horticulture, it is largely beyond party politics. There can be debate about priorities and the allocation of funding, but when it comes to some very basic principles we are talking about looking after the interests of South Australia, looking after the interests of our primary producers who are out there day after day calculating risk, making their investments clearly for their own benefit but also for the benefit of the state—and it is the sector that makes the largest financial contribution to exports in this state.

When you look at the current biosecurity plan and at the seven principles, if you go through them, I would have to say that I subscribe to all those principles—they make sense. There is nothing particularly contentious about it. I am a bit of a stickler for this, but when a previous government does some good things we should at least acknowledge that. At the same time, you can critique the things you think could have been done better. We on this side should do that as well.

I hope it is going to be a lot sooner than the member for MacKillop is hoping, but he indicated that when we come to government we will build on the decent initiatives that have been overtaken by this government. Positions evolve over time and, as a state, we strengthen some of our fundamental economic builders.

There are issues with biosecurity beyond Australian and South Australian borders. As a nation, we have issues with some of the potential threats beyond our national borders. In some respects, the intensity of things that happening globally in the agricultural sector and the feedstock sector, issues with habitat destruction, the wildlife trade and a whole range of factors are at play to increase the risks that are out there.

Australia needs to take an incredibly strong approach at both a national and state level. There needs to be an effective collaboration between governments and industry to ensure that we do the right thing and that we commit to resources for those areas in order to protect and enhance what we do in Australia when it comes to horticulture, the general agricultural sector and our marine sector, which is another important asset that we have.

The growth in trade and travel increases opportunities but also increases risks. Climate change is going to have a major impact as time goes by. A range of potential diseases are going to spread. Global population growth will have an impact as well. There is a whole range of issues that bear beyond our borders and are potentially going to have some impact.

We have mentioned fruit fly. We are totally on board when it comes to doing the right thing in relation to fruit flies and phylloxera. From the previous government and going back well over a century, the efforts that have been made in South Australia have been exemplary. We have had the contentious debate about GM; in future, there may well be genetically modified vines that are able to resist some of the diseases that represent the current threat. That said, vineyards that would not want to take up that option are totally at liberty to remain GM free and see what marketing advantage they can get out of that.

I know that at various times in my electorate, we have had aquaculture to the north of Whyalla with the kingfish industry. There are potential overseas threats when it comes to kingfish. The oyster industry was hit by POMS and that had a major impact. Once again, when we—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Giles, I am sorry about this, but your time has expired—

Mr HUGHES: I was only getting started.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —and you were just getting onto oysters as well. Member for Frome, I might come back to you; we should alternate sides and I am going to give the minister the opportunity to make a contribution.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (12:03): I will make a brief contribution on this very important motion. I just want to clarify a couple of things. I support the member for MacKillop's motion and I think it covers what it needed to cover. More importantly, the debate is raging in here—and I think that is healthy—but I will clarify a number of issues.

I want to commend the opposition for their support of a zero tolerance approach. I think it is important that we send a clear message to industry. It is also important that we send a very clear message to our markets, particularly our protocol markets, which rely on South Australia's fruit fly free status (or the area of freedom, as it is called). It gives surety to our markets. It reassures the industry that we are working with them and listening to them when it comes to dealing with biosecurity issues.

Currently, South Australia is under increasing pressure from both the east and the west. It has been very well documented that the Qfly that comes from the east has put significant strain on our borders over a number of years. Coming into government, we very quickly had to deal with the bitter pill. We had to deal with an outbreak in the Loxton area in the Riverland that did not just happen overnight; it was a build-up of flies that had probably been introduced in the previous season. Those flies had endured the colder winter and had gone to ground. As the ground warms up, those larvae hatch and out they come. It saw significant pressure on that area, and right across the Riverland we had continual detections.

An outbreak is declared when we find a gravid female: if that is detected in the traps, we have a declared outbreak. There have to be five male flies detected within an area to realise an outbreak. Since the Loxton outbreak we have seen a couple of further outbreaks, and it gave the Riverland a real jolt. They had to be more proactive, and it gave me the impetus to implement a zero tolerance approach and enforce it. I will say that the previous government had a zero tolerance approach but never enforced it. They took a very lax approach, and that was to have it declared at the border stations, but it still put the region under threat.

There were trucks coming into South Australia unchecked, with fruit rolling around in the bottom of those bins. There were people coming into South Australia who were not prepared to declare their fruit; they came in and South Australia paid the price. The growers actually paid the ultimate price, namely, that they lost their area freedom status in our markets. It comes at great price. It is over $3 for every carton that has to be treated. It comes not only at a cost but also with a reputation. It also degrades the capacity of the fruit to have a longer shelf life, and it degrades the fruit's quality of taste and appearance. Some of those measures, whether it is cold sterilisation or fumigation, really do take away what we have long fought for, for decades, in making sure that we are fruit fly free.

We have talked a little bit about the Medfly coming in from the west. Yes, we have a checking station at Ceduna, as we do at Oodla Wirra, and we ask all people to declare their fruit, but I can assure the members in this place that we are currently seeking a brief to implement a change in the policy at Ceduna. However, that does come with complexity and with a checking station that has a large amount of OH&S issues.

That station is not in the right place: as the Deputy Speaker would understand, the checking station has parts of Ceduna on both sides of it, which does add a level of complexity when inspecting cars that are coming out of Ceduna west into Ceduna east, if they can be called that. So we are working with all the states and with the commonwealth to look at building a greenfield site so that we can build a facility that is of an acceptable standard and that will also potentially have the capacity to implement the zero tolerance approach.

There is no point in members in this place saying that we are not doing enough at Ceduna. That member had 16 years as part of a Labor government to do something at Ceduna, and they did not do a thing.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: I am not throwing stones, but I am just putting the facts on the table. The member for Giles has said that they implemented a sterile insect technology (SIT) facility at Port Augusta. Yes, they did. They did that in conjunction with the commonwealth government, industry and Horticulture Innovation Australia. I think that was a sound investment.

But what I can say is that this government has doubled the capacity at Port Augusta and we have done that for good reason so that we can have a capacity there so that, when we do have outbreaks, we can release those sterile flies, and not only in South Australia. We are working with Victoria and New South Wales to have large-scale releases so that we can reduce the pressure on the borders and address the outbreaks as they present.

We have had a number of biosecurity issues in South Australia. Some of them were noticed; some of them went unnoticed. Some of those issues have been the giant pine scale, which has been a real threat to forestry; the cucumber mosaic virus; the potato psyllid. They have been significant issues, not only to the vegetable industry, cucurbits and seed potatoes. If we look right across the board, we are currently dealing with concerns with onion smut. We have American foulbrood in honey within apiary.

As the member for Giles has rightfully said, we are also dealing with the Pacific oyster mortality syndrome (POMS), which has been a scourge on the oyster industry in South Australia. We are working very hard every day to make sure we can get that industry back on track so that those oyster producers can have reliable spat, which is now being produced in South Australia, so that we can have a vibrant industry that is a contributor to our economy.

When the zero tolerance approach in South Australia was implemented, the Yamba roadblock took in 27 tonnes of fruit. That was an alarming amount of fruit. More than a semitrailer load of fruit was being left or picked up at Yamba. In the 2019 year, we were down to 13 tonnes. That means that the zero tolerance approach is working. The other thing that I can tell you is that there have only been two reoffenders at the Yamba roadblock, so that means that the message is getting out there. Those people are being caught and being issued with fines. It means that if they do it once, they should not do it again, and it is showing that that zero tolerance is working.

Since coming to government, we have put in a significant amount of investment and effort into working with Biosecurity SA, but a collaboration with the industry has shown us exactly what we need to be doing, and it is exactly that, listening and working with industry so that we can have good measures in place, putting in new bins on our arterial roads. We have all talked about the zero tolerance approach; I can talk about that until the cows come home. We have doubled the capacity of the SIT facility at Port Augusta. We have employed a liaison officer on the ground. The collaboration with industry has been an outstanding success and the industry has been prepared to take some ownership of fruit fly in South Australia with cash contributions.

We have put record numbers of random roadblocks on every entry point into South Australia, and they are paying dividends. The signage and the education are such as we have never seen. The signage on the highways, the signage on our trucks and our buses is something we have not seen before. It is an education program that is working. Again, I congratulate all members who support the zero tolerance approach and I look forward to keeping South Australia fruit fly free.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Frome) (12:14): First up, I will be supporting the member for Florey's amendment. I reassure everybody in this house that, irrespective of the political allegiance, I think everybody in this house here and the state agree with the state being fruit fly free. We can have the debate about the issues and all of that but, at times, we have this blame game going on about one side or the other side and things like that about the history and so forth.

I think we have to understand that South Australia's fruit fly free status is very important. My concern is that I have had quite a few people come to me—even in Port Pirie—who have come through the Yamba facility and, irrespective of the position, and that there is plenty of signage there, is it the best opportunity and is it in the best location? We have to ensure that we review whatever we are doing.

I am sure the minister is taking this whole issue on board. People are coming into South Australia and bypassing the Yamba inspection point. I have not been there, so I can only take what people are telling me. I understand it is inside the border. We need to look at getting it right on the border to make certain there is nothing coming in.

The minister has indicated he is investigating the policy about the Ceduna opportunity. I would hope that we can have checkpoints at all entry points into South Australia, whether they are coming in from the east, the west or the north. We have to, because fruit can come in via two or three states with people if they have a lot of stuff in their caravans, etc. They may go from New South Wales to Victoria to Queensland on a trip and have it in their fridges.

Whether the bins are in the right location is something that the minister, this government and everybody need to look at. If they are not in the best location with the best signage to make everybody aware to dispose of their fruit to ensure there are no opportunities for it to come in, then we have to change that wording. I appreciate everybody is trying to eliminate that, but my concern is: if the system is working, why do we have so many outbreaks in metropolitan Adelaide? That worries me because once a fruit fly infestation gets in, it is hard to eliminate.

People talk about the control points and things like that, but I will leave it there. The member for Florey has indicated there are no bins at Ceduna. I understand from a conversation some time ago, and I stand corrected, that the Mediterranean fruit fly could come in from Western Australia. If, for argument's sake, that is coming in, we need to not only have a policy and a task force to look at the opportunities; let's put something in place now.

I do not care if it is only temporary because while we are debating it, while we are arguing about the best location and going through policy, fruit is still coming in here. The minister has clarified that there is healthy debate in this chamber, and I welcome constant and healthy debate about any issues. He indicated that South Australia is getting pressure from the east and the west. He also indicated he is seeking a brief on a change of policy for Ceduna.

I know the minister is very dedicated to what he is doing and he will take it on board but, please, minister, accelerate that policy to make certain we get something at Ceduna because we have a lot of traffic coming in, and with the way COVID-19 is going, once the borders are open, I believe we are going to have lots more people travelling within Australia and travelling interstate instead of going overseas, so let's look at the long-term opportunity to eliminate whatever opportunities people have to bring fruit in.

As I said, in this chamber we have lots of blame games. Unfortunately, I know that is part of the hustle and bustle of politics here, but we are all here for one reason: we are here to make certain we get the best facilities and the best processes in place. Whether it is with fruit fly or any other opportunities, we need to continually review any processes done by the state government of the day. I keep saying to people, 'Everything that I do today, I will review tomorrow, and if I can do it better then I do that.' I know everybody here does that in their own lives.

When messages come from the non-government side, sometimes they are not taken on by the government. That works on both sides, so let's be honest about that. So let's take it on board and, if a suggestion comes from the non-government side, then say, 'That's a good idea. I will take that on board.' I am sure you will get more kudos from the community out there for taking something on board than for playing the political game.

The minister indicated that he has some legal advice initiating the zero tolerance. I will be interested if I can get a copy of that policy from the minister, but we have to be certain that we have the best opportunities. I travel a fair bit and I have been around a lot longer than a lot of people in this chamber, maybe not in politics, but I have travelled all over South Australia and all over Australia. I am very passionate about what we do there and I am very passionate about our industries.

In my position as a minister in the previous government, as with the current minister, I took on board the importance of keeping everything free of any diseases. We have to make certain that we look at those opportunities. I am only too happy to put my suggestions forward, along with others on this side, to the minister. I know the minister very well and I know he will take those suggestions on board and give them consideration.

We have these facilities, and the Port Augusta facility is absolutely brilliant, but my concern is that the minister has indicated that we started off with 27 tonne of fruit at Yamba and we are down to I think 13 tonne, but I stand to be corrected. So there is still a lot of fruit getting through, and that is the question that we have to understand: even though it is only 50 per cent of what it was originally, how can that 50 per cent still get through?

My concern is how much is getting through that we do not know about. It is getting into the community, whether that be metropolitan Adelaide or other regional communities. Remember that it is not only metropolitan Adelaide that can be affected by this. There are other fruit opportunities at Wirrabara and places like that. If they get fruit fly up there, again, that decimates their income, which affects their abilities.

I certainly support the discussion on this. I know the member for MacKillop has a very strong motion, but we can widen that out to include an opportunity to look at everything and congratulate everybody on the journey going forward, whether from this government or the previous government. As the member for Giles indicated, the fruit fly status policy has been in this state for many, many years, which has included opportunities from Liberal governments and Labor governments, so let's acknowledge everybody's work up until now.

Let's look at the opportunities to improve what we have, take it on board and try to eliminate that 13 tonnes that the minister has indicated is currently being collected at Yamba. It may be being disposed of illegally or unintentionally, but I am also concerned about the amount of fruit that gets through there undetected and gets back into not only metropolitan Adelaide but also regional South Australia. I commend the amendment from the member Florey.

Ms LUETHEN (King) (12:22): I thank the member for MacKillop, the member for Stuart and the Minister for Primary Industries for their commitment to biodiversity in South Australia so we can keep pests and diseases out of South Australia. I am supporting the member for MacKillop's motion:

That this house—

(a) acknowledges the Marshall Liberal government’s strong biosecurity stance to keep pests and diseases out of South Australia;

(b) highlights the success of zero tolerance in keeping the Riverland fruit fly free; and

(c) recognises the importance of keeping South Australia phylloxera free.

Zero tolerance at our borders is critical to keeping fruit fly out, and industry leaders agree. Industry leaders have called for continued zero tolerance at South Australia's borders in a plea to keep our state fruit fly free and safeguard the $1.2 billion horticultural industry. The threat of Queensland fruit fly incursion into South Australia has escalated over the past decade and it has spread through New South Wales and Victoria. This pest is now widely established throughout the Mildura Sunraysia region right on our doorstep.

Fruit fly is the world's most destructive and devastating pest for fruit and fruiting vegetable production. Tight border controls are essential in protecting South Australia's $1.2 billion industry and, as Angelo Demasi, the chair of our Horticultural Coalition in South Australia said, 'The pressure has never been greater.' The industry has called on us, the Marshall Liberal government, to bring in zero tolerance at all borders and checkpoints. This is critical because just one piece of maggot-infested fruit carelessly discarded by a traveller can devastate an industry and a community and cost thousands of jobs.

During the outbreak at Lindsay Point, it cost one grower nearly $1 million for special treatment just to get the fruit back on the market. South Australia's citrus and stone fruit exports are underpinned by the Riverland's prized fruit fly free status and one outbreak alone can destroy our export opportunities and cause major job losses. If fruit fly becomes endemic in South Australia, which could happen if border controls are relaxed, it would decimate many of our fruit industries. Home-grown fruit and vegetable gardens, which householders are increasingly embracing, would also be put at risk as gardens would become infested with maggots.

This state government is applying the law as it was originally written and intended several decades ago. The former Labor state government applied a slap on the wrist approach, which has failed to work. Industry bodies have asked for our support. They have asked us to make the message and the consequences loud and clear, so here is the message: bring fruit over the border into South Australia and a $370 fine will apply. There is too much at risk to take Labor's slap on the wrist approach. There is plenty of signage; it has been in place for years. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. We wish for people to be aware of the law and to heed it.

The Riverland region is the only Australian mainland area that has a pest-free status. This is critical for keeping our export markets and gives South Australia a huge competitive advantage. Opposition to the zero tolerance approach can only be explained by a lack of understanding of the seriousness of fruit fly risk and the massive devastation that it can cause to our industries. The minister has told us the zero tolerance approach is working. The amount of fruit seized at the Yamba quarantine station has dropped dramatically since its introduction just over a year ago. This will significantly reduce further as awareness campaigns continue to be rolled out across Australia.

I am supporting this motion because everybody who wants to be able to consume clean, green, healthy, ideally locally grown produce should have an interest in this issue and everyone who wants more jobs in South Australia should support this motion. Our government has been very firm and our minister has been very firm on a zero tolerance approach. The signage that we have out is more than we have ever seen before.

I accept that a zero tolerance approach may well have some unintended consequences, but I think the responsibility to avoid those unintended consequences is not with this parliament and it is not with the government. The responsibility for avoiding those unintended consequences is with people coming into South Australia and the people crossing between regions in South Australia. They need to inform themselves on how to do the right thing.

At the moment, we have a large number of areas in metropolitan Adelaide affected by outbreaks. This costs our taxpayers a lot of money to fix. No-one wants our fruit trees in our backyards ripped out, but this could happen. Not long ago, the Minister for Primary Industries showed me a map of areas in the metro area and then a massive exclusion area covering most of the metropolitan area, certainly most of the north and the west and a bit of the south and a bit of the east, which are all adjacent to each other, in which there was an issue with fruit fly.

This has a massive impact for people with fruit in their back gardens and this is very important to our commercial producers. We must protect our commercial producers. If we want to consume locally produced high-quality produce, if we want to export locally produced high-quality produce interstate and overseas, which we do, then we need to do everything we possibly can to protect our growers and our state's reputation. Our Liberal state government's focus right now is on health and jobs, and maggots in fruit can severely impact jobs in this state.

As a member, you get approached by constituents with some issues and some people feel as though they have been unfairly treated because they did not realise they had an orange in their caravan or in their bag or in their back seat. We need everyone to take this seriously, which is why I have chosen to speak on this motion.

As a government, we will do all that we can to create more awareness so that the South Australian community understand the role they can play to keep maggots out and what each person can do to help us get this right and ward off the threat to our industries and jobs. At the end of the day, we all have to do everything we can to protect this billion-dollar South Australian industry. That is why I am speaking on this motion today and supporting the Liberal state government's zero tolerance approach.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:30): I rise to support this excellent motion by the member for MacKillop:

That this house—

(a) acknowledges the Marshall Liberal government's strong biosecurity stance to keep pests and diseases out of South Australia;

(b) highlights the success of zero tolerance in keeping the Riverland fruit fly free; and

(c) recognises the importance of keeping South Australia phylloxera free.

Keeping South Australia phylloxera free is very important for our wine industries right across this state. I want to note that from information I received recently that in 2012 the former Labor government was going put the checkpoints at Yamba and Ceduna back to business hours. That is the historical context that I think is important in light of the debate.

In an electorate like Hammond, which borders Victoria, we have border control at Pinnaroo, which is currently very active with the police monitoring people to see if they are essential travellers or not. I have visited there twice and they are doing a great job alongside the people doing the excellent work making sure that fruit does not come through. We do have to have a zero tolerance approach.

I appreciate that the member for Florey has been lobbied by people who do not like the $370 fine, but the problem in this world is that if we do not hit people in the hip pocket, whether they are aware or not, they should be aware. This state prides itself on being fruit fly free. Currently, I think seven areas in Adelaide are under quarantine, with many thousands of dollars and many thousands of hours being put in to clean up outbreaks. We have to be vigilant; we absolutely have to be vigilant.

I am only human and I may or may not have invoked a speeding fine or two in my day. When you go through the process you think, 'Oh, hang on, you were right,' and you have to pay the fine. If you think $370 is expensive, wait until you see some of the speeding fines that you may or may not get. It is important to keep our $1.3 billion industry clean, and I want to reflect on the history of Murray Bridge, Mannum and the surrounding districts in years gone by.

When I was growing up, it was a massive area for growing apricots and other fruits. That has almost disappeared now, but it was a great production area. There is a little bit of horticulture production there now, including on a place belonging to the family of one my staff, Cheyanne. They grow a lot of apricots, and it is absolutely vital that we keep these places fruit fly free. I want to talk about the following horticultural organisations that support zero tolerance:

Women in Horticulture;

Adelaide Produce Markets Ltd;

the Almond Board of Australia Ltd;

Apple and Pear Growers Association Inc.;

AUSVEG SA;

Citrus Australia—SA Region;

Hortex Alliance Inc.;

the Australian Mushroom Growers Association;

Nursery and Garden Industry South Australia Inc.;

Olives South Australia Inc.;

Onions Australia;

Pistachio Growers' Association Inc.;

Summerfruit SA; and

the South Australian Chamber of Fruit and Vegetable Industries.

I must say that there has been some good work done in the past at the sterile fruit fly facility at Port Augusta, and I know it is mentioned in one of the amendments. I give acknowledgements where they are due: when that facility was opened, I think it was former minister Bignell, the member for Mawson who was the minister in charge. Several members from this place and other place, including me, went there to show bipartisan support because I think that is a good facility that has been ramped up, of course, in its use in more recent years under our government.

We must do all we can to keep our state fruit fly free. This has been not just an aim but what we want, and it has been an approach that has been there for many, many years. We note that zero tolerance was not invoked by the former government but we have, and it is noted by the decreased tonnage that has been picked up at the roadblocks. People just have to be aware because of the absolutely massive cost that must be invoked right as we speak in regard to these areas which are being cleaned up at the minute and which threatens this massive industry.

We cannot take our foot off the throttle in regard to zero tolerance, and we must keep up to it for the future of all our horticulture industries. I also want to make a brief comment about our huge wine industry in this state. I will say that, right across the state, to my mind we make probably the best wine in the world. We have many wine-growing areas. Langhorne Creek, I think, is premium, mainly because it is in my electorate, but they do make some very nice wine.

Sometimes wineries, like those in the Langhorne Creek area, are not brought up in the bigger scheme of things, but I will certainly back them to the hilt. To keep them free of phylloxera, which really knocks out vines, is a great thing as well. We must keep eternally vigilant, which is a term that has been used in a range of scenarios, but that is what we must do in regard to keeping South Australia fruit fly free.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (12:36): I thank all the speakers for their contributions on this important topic, and I note the bipartisan support for the ultimate aim of keeping and eradicating—

Ms Bedford: Multipartisan.

Mr McBRIDE: Thank you, member for Florey, for your assistance. Yes, we have multi-bipartisan support in keeping South Australia fruit fly free and phylloxera free. I thank the member for Florey, the member for Giles, the member for Frome, the member for King and the member for Hammond for their homegrown knowledge about what it actually means to make sure that South Australia stays this way.

I will just touch on the fact that there have been two amendments, which I cannot support and which I will not be supporting on top of this motion. I support the original motion. I also must praise the fact that the discussions we have just had have highlighted that over the last 16 years under the previous government perhaps the message has not been strong enough, that perhaps the message has not been wide enough by a number of speakers, that we do need great signage and that we need to make all our population aware.

I know that the member for Florey talked not only about the people close to the border but also the people who live in the cities and towns. They must all be aware of our fruit fly status so that we do not have these fines being hit on people as a result of a lack of awareness or surprise that actually causes them financial pain, which I know it does, and I do not have any joy in those sorts of outcomes.

I thank the member for Giles, as a shadow minister, very much for his input to this debate and recognising the fruit fly status. If you ever get the chance to be the minister, I hope you continue on in vain our strong stance in this way in following our current minister. One point I just make is that the member for Frome made a very valid point that he is well travelled around our state. He talked highly of the successful checking point up there at Port Augusta, but more importantly he recognised that during this COVID period Australians will not be going overseas but travelling all around our great land. So we must do all we can, which comes back to signage and awareness to make sure that people are not travelling around with fruit and vegetable matter that can spread the fruit fly. I really do thank him for his input there.

I must give strong praise to our Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, the Hon. Tim Whetstone. He is the member for Chaffey in the area of the Riverland, a highly prized area for horticulture. I thank him for his strong stance in picking up this and probably taking a bit of heat sometimes by changing the culture of people travelling across the border. There has been some resistance and there has been some pain—I think pain by those who have been caught out.

There has been pain felt not only by those people who have been caught out but also by those people who have been operating this. They have had to be sort of the nasty police on this border and imposing these fines on people who have been innocently unaware. We have had to take a strong stance because the culture was not there, and I really do praise and thank him for his efforts in this area.

One of the things we will have to note is the tonnages caught: 27 tonnes in 2018, down to 13 tonnes collected in 2019. It tells us there is still more work to be done. There is no glory at all in fines going out and this fruit being collected, because we know that not every checkpoint can be manned, and it may not be being found and so it still could be coming in.

We need to make sure that all South Australians and all those tourists who are coming into our regions, perhaps even businesspeople, are aware of our fruit fly free status, and we need to try to maintain it to the highest degree. I also thank everyone for supporting the wine industry. The member for Hammond talked about phylloxera in regard to his region down at Langhorne Creek, but there are a number of wine regions right across this state. They are all very, very valuable. The oldest, most premium vines are the most susceptible to phylloxera, and we must keep South Australia free of phylloxera. I thank those members for all their input into this debate and I close the debate.

Mr Hughes' amendment negatived.

Ayes 22

Noes 23

Majority 1

AYES
Bedford, F.E. (teller) Bell, T.S. Bettison, Z.L.
Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I. Brock, G.G.
Brown, M.E. Close, S.E. Cook, N.F.
Duluk, S. Gee, J.P. Hildyard, K.A.
Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P.
Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K.
Picton, C.J. Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K.
Wortley, D.
NOES
Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Cregan, D. Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W.
Harvey, R.M. (teller) Knoll, S.K. Luethen, P.
Marshall, S.S. McBride, N. Murray, S.
Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G.
Power, C. Sanderson, R. Speirs, D.J.
Teague, J.B. Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.
PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT