HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-11-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

BIOSECURITY COST RECOVERY

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (15:58): I move:

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

1. A comparison of the services to be provided by the proposed biosecurity fee with those of the commonwealth government's biosecurity program;

2. A review of the proposed cost-share formula as it affects different species;

3. Consideration of the appropriateness of the exemptions criteria (species types and number of animals kept); and

4. Any other matters the committee considers relevant.

The government is seeking to allow the levying of a biosecurity fee as part of its cost recovery policy. The proposal is to recover a total of $4.1 million by 2014-15 to cover the cost of the property identification code (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 proposed fee structure per property by 2014-15 is tiered across species types and ranges from $72 for a sheep property to $900 for a poultry enterprise.

The property identification code gained the qualified acceptance of major industry groups when it was introduced on 1 January this year. 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. Industry's cautious acceptance of the PIC was qualified by its making known its opposition to any further fee impost related to monitoring livestock locations and managing animal biosecurity.

The government contracted ACIL Tasman to examine, among other things, what benefit the animal health policy provides, what cost component governments should bear and weighted cost-sharing across industry sectors. Fourteen livestock industries, including sheep, cattle, dairy, pigs, horses, goats, chickens and the apiary industry, each contribute to the federal government's Animal Health Australia Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement (EADRA) program. I quote from Animal Health Australia's website, as follows:

[This]...is a contractual arrangement that brings together the commonwealth, state and territory governments and livestock industry groups to collectively and significantly increase Australia's capacity to prepare for and respond to emergency animal disease...incursion.

Understandably, those industry groups feel that they are already contributing to national and state biosecurity. Furthermore, each industry is required to contribute to the cost of an emergency response needed to combat a threat to that particular industry.

The state government insists that the new fee will not be double dipping as the funds do not contribute to exotic disease surveillance and emergency preparedness, but I must say that my strong understanding is that industry groups remain unconvinced. Indeed, the policy transition group, which comprises chairs of the cattle, sheep, horse, pig, deer, goat and alpaca groups, as well as a representative from the South Australian Farmers Federation, continues in its advisory role, although it opposes the biosecurity fee.

Throughout this year, I think that there have been attempts by PIRSA to consult on this fee and perhaps to persuade members of the various animal industry groups that they should support it. That consultation, I understand, concluded in October and, since that time, a number of us have been awaiting the legislation that we expected to see as a result of that.

The minister's response in this house to my question yesterday (and further to that, the question from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire today) would indicate that, as the new minister, she is not comfortable with the current status of the legislation. It sounds as if she may have sent the PIRSA drafters back to the drafting board.

I think that it is an ideal opportunity for a parliamentary committee to have a look at this proposed fee and the impact it will have on the animal husbandry industries in this state. As the motion is comprised, the terms of reference would be along the lines of conducting a comparison of the services provided by this proposed fee with what is currently provided by the commonwealth government's biosecurity program and also looking at the cost-share formula as it affects different species.

I think it would also be of strong importance to include a consideration of the appropriateness of the exemptions criteria relating to the species type and the number of animals kept within that species. I think those matters could well be looked at by a committee, and I have moved that the Environment, Resources and Development Committee look at this proposed fee.

The animal industry in this state is an important resource. It is very important that, in contemplating the future development of South Australia, we enhance our animal industries and also ensure that, in doing so, we preserve the environment in which they are kept. Those of us who have been involved in primary industries know that, with some exceptions, many of the best environmentalists and conservationists are actually people involved in agriculture, particularly those involved in animal husbandry.

With those words, I commend the motion to the council. It is likely that I will alert members to the fact that I will bring this to a vote probably in the optional sitting week.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo.

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