HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-07-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CITRUS INDUSTRY (WINDING UP) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 June 2012.)

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (17:22): I rise on behalf of the opposition in support of this legislative reform. The Citrus Industry (Winding up) Amendment Bill 2012 will essentially wind up the current South Australian Citrus Industry Development Board. This will be achieved by the initial dilution and eventual repeal of the Citrus Industry Act 2005. This bill, through its dissolution of the South Australian Citrus Industry Development Board, will relieve the citrus industry of regulatory burdens that impose compliance costs in excess of $3 million per year on growers, packers, processors and wholesalers.

It is important to note that under these changes Citrus Growers of South Australia (which was primarily an organisation made up of member growers) will wind up voluntarily. This bill is the result of a recent independent review of the South Australian citrus industry by retired District Court judge Alan Moss. This review was brought about after decades of discord and disagreement between industry bodies over their effectiveness and operational arrangements. Although it is unfortunate that government intervention has become necessary, it is pleasing to see reform is finally underway in this critical horticultural industry.

The review highlighted the need for urgent government intervention to stop any further fracturing and division within the citrus industry. It resulted in the formation of the SA Citrus Industry Transition Working Party, chaired by the Hon. Neil Andrew, former federal member for Wakefield and also a former speaker of the House of Representatives, and someone for whom I once worked. The transition working party was charged with formulating a structure for a single, united industry representative body.

I have put on the record that I once worked for the Hon. Neil Andrew, and I did so in a part-time capacity from 1985 to 1994. From my earliest days working in that office, I remember the issues dealing with the citrus industry. At that stage, the Hon. Mr Andrew's electorate had lost most of the citrus industry in South Australia because of boundary changes. However, because of Neil's background as a citrus grower and his strong connection to the Riverland, and I suppose because his knowledge of matters citrus was probably greater than most of ours in this chamber would ever be, it was something that was watched and monitored from that electorate office in Gawler.

I remember a number of issues being raised over the years as the industry progressed, and there was the creation of the board, but I have always noted that there have been some significant variations in the views of a number of the practitioners in the industry. I have great respect for people who have been on both sides of that industry. It is time we got on and got the industry moving forward with a single voice.

Having said that, the Citrus Industry Transition Working Party has come forward with a recommendation that the new body, to be known as the South Australian regional advisory committee, as a subcommittee of Citrus Australia Limited, would represent the interests of the $350 million South Australian citrus industry. This new advisory body will be supported by a $1 per tonne levy collected through a primary industry funding scheme. While some people have described that levy as a voluntary levy, on my understanding it is like most PIF schemes, where the money is an automatic collection, but a grower can apply to have that levy returned if they wish, and most do not.

One of the issues raised in recent times in relation to the citrus industry has been some issues with Horticulture Australia Limited and Citrus Australia Limited. I indicate that members should note that a recent letter from the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, to minister Gago stated that his department was in the process of investigating both those bodies.

I appreciate the fact that, following the briefing given to members of the opposition, on the same day we were furnished with a copy of that letter from Senator Ludwig, and I would like to put it on the record, because it covers the issues that have been raised from a number of avenues. The letter is dated 2 July 2012 and addressed to the Hon. Gail Gago, as follows:

Dear minister

I write to inform you of progress in investigating Horticulture Australia Limited's (HAL) allocation of citrus industry research and development funds. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has worked with HAL to investigate complaints made about the composition and operation of HAL's citrus industry advisory committee (IAC) and has reported its findings to me. The department has advised me the HAL board and staff cooperated fully and openly during the investigation.

The investigation has confirmed claims the majority of the citrus IAC members are directors of Citrus Australia Limited (CAL) and, based on the advice of the citrus IAC, HAL allocated significant amounts of research and development funding in recent years to CAL.

HAL has confirmed it will implement a number of actions to strengthen to governance arrangements for the citrus IAC to address the issues raised. These are:

The citrus IAC will be reconstituted with the majority of its members not being directors, executive officers or employees of CAL.

Ms Pat Barkley will remain on the IAC as the technical advisor on the R&D program.

HAL will facilitate a meeting of key citrus industry stakeholders to ensure there is adequate transparency in the IAC's operations and its interaction with CAL.

There will be an increased level of reporting to levy payers at the next annual citrus industry levy payers meeting.

The letter concludes with an invitation to minister Gago to speak to the Assistant Secretary, Crops, Horticulture and Wine Branch, etc., in the department in Canberra, and it was signed by Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig. I thought it was useful to put that on the record because there have been a number of issues raised around that and I think that in some instances some people thought that issue was a reason to slow down this process. The opposition does not believe that is the case, but I watch, as will my Liberal colleagues, with keen interest to see how these new steps improve the advisory committee's governance.

I alluded earlier to the briefing provided to the opposition on this legislation, and I thank the minister for allowing her office and the department to do that. I commend my colleagues in the other place: the member for Hammond and shadow minister for agriculture, Mr Adrian Pederick, and the member for Chaffey, Mr Tim Whetstone, who has the vast majority of the citrus industry in his electorate, for their work on this issue. I also take this opportunity to thank the member for Chaffey for suggesting, at that briefing, that the expiry of the Citrus Industry Act 2005 be held off for at least one full citrus season to give the industry the best opportunity to see the new system in operation before the act expires.

As a result of these discussions, I will, on behalf of the opposition, introduce an amendment that will ensure the Citrus Industry Act 2005 cannot be repealed in its entirety until 1 January 2014. This will give the citrus industry the time it needs to experience and review the reformed system over a reasonable period. In conclusion, I indicate the opposition's support for this bill and commend it to the council.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:33): I rise today to speak on the Citrus Industry (Winding up) Amendment Bill. I understand a review of the citrus industry structure, conducted by Mr Alan Moss, a retired District Court judge, was the trigger for this bill. Whilst I support measures which will reduce duplication and increase resources, I have been made aware of problems which some growers, particularly small family-based growers, have with this bill. First and foremost is consultation. Many of the growers have questioned if the consultation has been adequate, in particular if it has involved small growers.

The bill will abolish the citrus board of South Australia and the Citrus Growers of South Australia have undertaken to dissolve once the new South Australian regional advisory committee is established under the national organisation Citrus Australia Limited. I understand that two or three years ago, the Citrus Growers of South Australia passed a motion at the annual general meeting calling for a vote from all citrus growers on whether the citrus board of South Australia should be abolished due to general dissatisfaction with the board. I am advised that this vote never occurred.

Now growers are being asked to join a committee which will include the body which they were seeking to abolish just a few short years ago. Growers have been fighting for a voice, particularly on major issues such as truth in labelling, antidumping laws and the use of carbendazim, which is banned in Australia, yet traces of it have been found in foreign imports of juice concentrate.

It seems the citrus board and Citrus Australia Limited have been unable to achieve any headway with regard to these issues. That is very disappointing. However, I am glad to see that there is a requirement for at least four citrus growers on the new South Australian regional advisory committee and I hope that these issues can be addressed under the new regime.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:35): I will be brief in speaking to this bill. Firstly, I advise the house that Family First will be supporting the government's bill. I just want to put a couple of things on the public record. As has already been highlighted by some members in the chamber, it has not been easy for the industry to come to a decision whereby we now have a winding up bill. The Liberal Party has put up an amendment providing for a sunset clause in 2014, which we will be supporting.

We support the bill because the citrus industry does need to move forward. I have spent a lot of time with members of the citrus industry over several years, going way back. The industry is not getting adequate pricing at the moment for its product. In fact, I think it is fair to say that right now is probably one of the toughest times that the citrus industry has had to endure. One would hope that we will see some opportunities for reinvigoration of the industry. In fact, there are some early signs of that with certain plantings, which is a good thing; some of the first plantings for some time. Whilst the media have focused on the withdrawal of trees, there are actually some bright lights there too. We just hope that they continue to grow and become brighter.

I acknowledge that not everybody in the citrus industry agrees with this winding up bill and the dissolving of the board. I was approached by some members to ask for some additional time before we debated this, and I did say to them that I would, but that was three to four weeks ago and it was expected that this bill would be debated in the last sitting week. It was not, so I was advised in my briefing that there had been enough time since then for them to raise further concerns with the government.

It was a fairly difficult piece of leadership by the minister in engaging Mr Moss to come up with a review and assessment of this. I think the Hon. John Dawkins has possibly already spoken about it, but Neil Andrew, someone who has a lot of experience in the industry, also had some input into it.

We need to export more when it comes to the citrus industry and we do need to grow opportunities for research and development into a product which generally speaking is accepted as a very healthy product and one which should have some opportunity for domestic growth also. What has happened in the past clearly has not been working. There has been a lot of good intent, a lot of hardworking people right across the industry sector, but unfortunately the rewards have not been there. The advisory committee, I trust, will be listened to by the national body. Certainly, as legislators, I am sure that we will be able to offer our support in watching on the side to ensure that the issues that have been challenging for some time will be addressed positively in the future and that we will see some proactive growth and opportunity.

When I was a young person, the citrus industry was much bigger than it is today. As has already been highlighted, it is still a $350 million industry. It would be great to see that industry double at least, and I think there is an opportunity for that if we can capitalise on the new and exciting markets coming up, particularly in Asia and other parts of the globe. With those few words, it has been difficult for all involved, but I think this is the right decision, and I would encourage all growers and all people who have an input and work in the industry to grasp positively this opportunity and take the industry forward so that they can start to get some good returns and general growth into the citrus industry in South Australia.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (17:40): By way of concluding remarks, I would like to thank honourable members for their second reading contribution. This bill is quite a simple and straightforward bill. It seeks to wind up the Citrus Industry Development Board and cause the act to expire. However, the situation underlying the need for this change is indeed very complex, as honourable members have alluded to, and has been the result of protracted disunity and discord in the industry for a long period of time, which left the industry with two different representative groups and two different industry fee structures and continuing discord.

I am very grateful for the assistance that was offered by Mr Alan Moss and also Neil Andrew. The former minister, Michael O'Brien, elicited the assistance of Alan Moss to conduct a review and Neil Andrew and I to follow up some of the work that Alan Moss had completed, and that was to look at the best way forward in terms of a single industry structure and the requirements around the act. Recommendations were made and they are on the record. The government has accepted the recommendations from those parties and has moved to wind up the board and the act and to set up a new single representative structure and a single fee structure, and that fee structure is at a considerably reduced cost to the current structure.

The citrus industry is very important to South Australia's economy. Although the Hon. Robert Brokenshire talks about its reduction in size, it is still a very important industry to us and it is certainly facing considerable challenges at this point in time. So, it is even more important that, at this challenging time, the industry have a single, cohesive representative structure and an industry fee structure that is very strongly linked to South Australian industry needs and that it services that industry well. I believe that the proposed new structure that this bill will enable will allow that to go forward.

I do not suggest for one minute that we have 100 per cent of the industry's support for this; however, I am absolutely confident that we have significant industry support for this way forward. I think it does offer a constructive future for the industry. I very much appreciate the efforts and hard work of particularly the opposition in working through and resolving a number of issues. I understand that the Hon. John Dawkins has an amendment. Just to help expedite things, I can let him know in advance that the government will be supporting that amendment. I look forward to the committee stage being dealt with expeditiously.

Bill read a second time.

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I move:

Page 4, after line 4 [clause 4, inserted section 30]—After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) The day fixed under subsection (1) must not be earlier than 1 January 2014.

As I mentioned in my second reading contribution, I think that some of the people who were not as keen on these changes (as the minister has indicated most are) and who have reservations were concerned about the act going and then, if these new changes did not work, where would they be. I suppose that at the briefing the minister provided, the member for Chaffey in another place did suggest that, perhaps, we could delay the expiry date of the act until after at least one full season had been completed under the new arrangements, and so to cover well beyond one season it was thought that it would be a good idea to take us to the end of 2013.

That is why my amendment will, in fact, mean that the abolition of the act will not actually come into effect any earlier than 1 January 2014. I understand that, in the period between the assent to this act and that time, there will be an administrator of the current arrangements, but perhaps the minister might clarify that on the record; that might be useful, if she would not mind, in her response.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I rise and indicate government support for this amendment. First, let me acknowledge the willingness of honourable members in this house and members from another place to meet and work with my staff from my office and from PIRSA in terms of briefings on the bill, the very protracted background to it and a number of significant issues that were identified along the way. Considerable dialogue took place.

That feedback and the development around that dialogue has been very valuable indeed, and I think that it has led to a very much better provision before us and provided a greater sense of reassurance to the industry. For the reasons outlined in my explanation of clause 30, it is not the government's intention to proclaim the expiration of the act prematurely. Nevertheless, an informed and objective assessment of Citrus Australia Limited's capacity to deliver the InfoCitrus project and related initiatives to the satisfaction of the industry in less than 12 months is an optimistic expectation.

The government considers the amendment moved by the Hon. John Dawkins to be prudent and a responsible risk management strategy, and therefore we will accept that. By way of clarification, the board will be constituted of an administrator that I will appoint, and the function of that administrator will be to wind up the affairs of the board.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (17:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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