Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise in support of the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and related bills that give effect to a levy on the horse industry for response to emergency animal diseases that might occur in the industry. It was some 22 hours ago that the previous speaker, the member for Wide Bay, spoke in this debate, and I listened with some incredulity as he did so. From what he said, it seems to me that the opposition will be opposing this suite of legislation. I gather they will seek to block it in the Senate. This is a true case of opposing for the sake of opposing.

As I listened to the member for Wide Bay, two things occurred to me. The first was a story about Greg Chappell, a former Australian cricket captain, who was asked to comment on his own bowling prowess. His response was that he would love to bat against it for a living. I thought at the time that, for a living, I would love to follow the member for Wide Bay in any debate. He bowls such a slow left-arm, do-nothing ball. I also thought of the old political adage: where a man stands depends entirely upon where he sits. The member for Wide Bay is now sitting over there on the opposition benches, and his stance on this issue has changed markedly from just a few short months ago when he sat over here.

To give the member for Wide Bay his due, as agriculture minister in the Howard government from, I think, 1997 to 2005, he oversaw the introduction of what we now call EADRA, the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement. The legislation that he brought in, the Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Amendment Act 2002, set the groundwork for a new and, as it turns out, very efficient means for the government and the livestock industries to deal with animal diseases as they arise.

In 2002, all livestock industries signed up to this process, with the exception of the horse industries, because there was some difficulty in finding a taxable output in the horse industries in order to create a levy for them to be involved in EADRA. However, at the end of 2006, the Australian Horse Industry Council, the Australian Racing Board and Harness Racing Australia wrote to the government proposing that a levy of a certain nature be the vehicle by which the horse industries could participate in this arrangement. At the time, the then minister, Mr McGauran, was busy drafting regulations to give effect to that levy proposal that came to us from the horse industry. However, the Government Solicitor advised that it was not possible to do this by regulations to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 and there needed to be a principal act—in fact, this act that we have now. History will tell us that this act did not come to the parliament before the election in November 2007, but here it now is.

If it is true that the opposition is going to oppose this legislation and seek to block its passage in the Senate, as the member for Wide Bay has said, then its stance is reckless; it will leave the horse industry exposed to another outbreak of animal disease. In a press release, Senator Scullion, who has some role in these matters for the coalition, accused Minister Burke of being a bully and referred to a letter of 11 June that the minister sent to the horse industries. In that letter of 11 June—and you have to understand that, at that time, the equine influenza had been eradicated and the government had decided not to charge the horse industry for its containment and eradication portion—the minister said:

... I must emphasise that the circumstances surrounding this emergency response are unique and this decision should not be considered as setting a precedent of any kind—

that is, the decision not to charge the industry. He continued:

No future assistance for emergencies will be provided until the horse industry becomes a full signatory to the EADRA ...

The minister then said that he, the minister, would be ‘most concerned if a future response to an emergency horse disease was jeopardised because the industry had not signed EADRA’. I do not regard that as bullying the horse industry. The horse industry had just been given a quite substantial gift from the government. They had had an emergency animal disease contained and eradicated at no little cost—except at no cost to them—and they were being told that they could not expect that in the future. In fact, it is unfair that they got it in the first instance in that those other livestock industries would not have been able to have that containment and eradication provided free to them.

As I listened to the member for Wide Bay speak, I thought, ‘He’s talking about his belief that the horse industry should be part of EADRA, yet he says he doesn’t like this levy mechanism and so he is going to oppose it.’ By opposing this legislation, he will create the circumstances, as did his own legislation of some years ago, where the horse industry cannot participate in EADRA—because he does not like the levy format. I ask members opposite to allow this legislation to pass and to allow the horse industry to decide whether they should be part of EADRA; if they decide not to be, they stand exposed to a future emergency and incursion of a disease.

In his contribution, the member for Wide Bay indicated that he did not like the levy proposal that was put forward by the horse industry to this parliament, but he did not offer an alternative. For seven years, he was involved as primary industries minister overseeing this particular part of the industry and had plenty of time to see what might have been a better levy proposal. But he did not offer any better proposal to us, and he certainly was not offering it to the horse industry 12 to 18 months ago when it came to the then government with a proposal that we are giving legislative effect to through this legislation. His only plan is to leave the horse industry exposed.

We cannot talk about this legislation without referring to the equine influenza event of 2007, first detected on 25 August 2007 and with the last case being identified, coincidentally, on 25 December 2007. This was really the first test of the emergency response arrangements that were in place as a consequence of EADRA. I think it is to the credit of the former government and of the officers associated with it that this was an outstanding success. The eradication of equine influenza occurred with great speed; it was certainly much quicker than would have been anticipated.

Those sections of the horse industries that do not wish to be involved with EADRA need to take this on board: as part of that response, around 79,000 laboratory tests were conducted and at 10,196 properties across New South Wales and Queensland which had been affected the cases were resolved. As recently as 30 June, the minister declared Australia to be free of EI. As I have said, if nothing else, that proved that our system worked and that it worked better than expected—and I am happy to give credit to the people who put that process into place. But the cost of EI to the Australian taxpayer was $350 million. Of that, $108 million represents the control and eradication cost—that is, what would normally have been repaid to the government by any other livestock industry and by the horse industry, had it been part of EADRA. Racing Victoria has thrown around an estimate of $1 billion as the cost to Australian racing.

In the absence of EADRA, there was not really any obligation for the government to respond in the way it did to the EI outbreak, although the circumstances latterly have shown that there would have been quite an uproar if they had not. In any event, I understand that the reason that the government did treat the horse industry as though it had been a signatory to EADRA was the approach by the horse industry in December 2006 suggesting a levy format that could be adopted to put the horse industry into EADRA. The government had, as I mentioned earlier, sought to act on that by regulation but, having been told that it needed to be done by a principal act, had not got around to doing that yet. I understand that it also required the approval of other livestock industries who are party to EADRA to agree to proceed as though the horse industry were a party.

Honourable members might find it interesting that in June 2004 the Australian Horse Industry Council convened a forum in Melbourne to discuss emergency disease issues. Bear in mind that they had been working on this since about 1998. The report from that forum contains these wonderfully prophetic words: ‘Even world’s best quarantine practice cannot give total protection.’ In September 2004, Andrew Ramsden, Chairman of the Australian Racing Board, warned the then minister, the member for Wide Bay, of the dangers of replacing AQIS vets with cargo staff. He wrote:

Equine influenza disease is the exotic disease that the Australian horse industry most fears. If equine influenza gained entry into Australia, it would close down racing and other horse events for several months with catastrophic consequences.

Clearly, the ARB did not at that time believe that they were being protected by world’s best quarantine practice. In 2005, the then minister responded and he assured ARB that an outbreak of EI was extremely unlikely, given the AQIS protocols. It is no secret that the Callinan inquiry set up by the former government was scathing of that government, its minister and AQIS, in particular the Eastern Creek facility where the outbreak originated.

I do not want to dwell any further on that, other than to say that I believe the lessons have been learned—or ought to have been learned—by the horse industry. But the only hint of an apology came from Senator Scullion, and that was more of an admission than a real apology anyway—it was just a debating point made in a rather nasty media release. I have certainly not seen or heard anything from the member for Wide Bay, who ignored advice from the Australian Racing Board in the first instance and made changes that made this outbreak more likely. He could have offered them a simple, ‘I’m sorry, folks; I stuffed up.’ That would have been a good start. But at the end of the day, as I said, Minister Burke indicated that in respect of the 2007 outbreak the horse industry would not be required to meet EADRA repayments. That is $108 million that was absorbed by the government. If you add that to the budget bill vandalism being undertaken in the other place by the opposition, the Rudd government has had to take another $108 million hit because of the former government’s bungling.

The electorate of Longman, which I represent in this place, both proudly and I hope diligently, is located on the rural-urban interface, to all intents and purposes. I know many local people will not thank me for saying this, but it is where Brisbane meets the bush. As a consequence, there is a substantial amount of horse activity within the electorate and the adjoining areas—the electorate of Fisher, represented by Mr Slipper, and the electorate of Dickson, which is close by. This includes breeding, training and spelling activities associated with both thoroughbred and harness racing. There are stud operations in the area for a number of horse breeds. There are riding schools and training centres, pony clubs, facilities for trail riding and riding for the disabled and vibrant equestrian sections at the local agricultural shows. And let me say, if I may, that I was very pleased to see the strength of those equestrian sections at the shows in the middle of this year, so soon after the equine influenza incidents. There is an indoor arena at the Caboolture showgrounds, which has in recent weeks hosted the state championship of the Queensland Reining Horse Association and a round of World Cup Jumping. The adjacent Alexander Barr Sporting Complex in a few weeks time will host the 2008 Queensland dressage championships. And the Moreton Bay Regional Council is to proceed with an equestrian facility at the Barr complex and the showgrounds, at a cost of around $3½ million, in partnership with the Bligh government of Queensland. That will be nowhere near as impressive as the $30 million Australian Equine and Livestock Events Centre at Tamworth, but it is a great facility for the equestrian community from Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast nevertheless.

In Longman, horses matter. That is why I am supporting this suite of bills before the House today. We have reached this point after a decade-long campaign from the horse industry associations, who want their horses, their industry, to have the same protection as livestock in other industries against an outbreak of animal disease. Responsible horse industry players want, and have wanted for a long time, to be signatories to EADRA. They want what is already in place and the certainty that is provided to other livestock industries. The chicken meat, egg, dairy, beef cattle, pork, sheep, goat and honeybee industries all have this protection, and all of them have been signed up since 2002. Supporting this legislation are the Australian Horse Industry Council, Harness Racing Australia and the Australian Racing Board. Those are the three organisations that proposed the levy that this legislation puts into place.

That is not to say that all the affiliates of the Australian Horse Industry Council are happy about it. I note, for example, the press release from one, which I will not name, which holds the view that this is ‘total unfairness to the horse industry’. The tenor of its argument appears to be that the eradication of exotic diseases in horses benefits not only horse owners but people outside the horse industry as well and, as such, to ask horse owners to bear any portion of the cost is an obscenity. I note also that one group surveyed its membership, which overwhelmingly supported the horse industry signing up to EADRA, while overwhelmingly opposing the payment of any levy. You cannot have one without the other. You are either in and pay a levy or you are out. That is all there is to it. It is not a rational position that they are taking.

The Australian Horse Industry Council, as I said, are one of the responsible industry organisations, and they have been campaigning for a long time for inclusion in this. This suite of bills, if nothing else, is a testimony to their efforts, along with the efforts of other sensible industry sectors, and they can take some pride in the imminent enactment of it. Through their tenacity they have contributed to what, in their words, is the ‘future proofing’ of the Australian horse industry. Over a number of years they have produced logical, well-argued information for their members as to why they should be included in EADRA.

In the few moments that I have left, I will precis some of those views. Firstly, there needs to be an emergency response to any outbreak of exotic disease to minimise damage to the animals and the industry and permit a return to pre-emergency conditions. Secondly, no animal industry on its own can afford to accumulate the skills and resources necessary and maintain them in readiness for an outbreak. Thirdly, because exotic disease incursions are unpredictable and can be transmitted rapidly across great distances, it is impossible to plan adequately or to acquire the capacity to respond in a timely manner. Fourthly, without a contract—that is, EADRA—there is no obligation on government to become involved in the event of an exotic disease incursion. Fifthly, under EADRA the government is obliged to provide and maintain resources to assist animal industries affected by an exotic disease incursion through identification, containment, control and eradication of that outbreak. There are a range of skills, a range of people, a range of resources and a range of powers that are needed in that event. The government has these; the industry does not.

In conclusion, this legislation will give rise to the industry’s participation in EADRA. It will give effect to what the industry declared it wanted so overwhelmingly at that AHIC forum in 2004: government assistance to control an emergency— (Time expired)

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to address the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008, the Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Bill 2008 and the related bill, I want to begin with a simple proposition. The people of the peninsula, the people of Westernport and the people of Bass Coast who populate the electorate of Flinders are horse people. This is a sector, an industry, a passion and a pastime which is of extreme importance not just to the young and not just to families but to people of all ages across those sectors of the electorate of Flinders. So I want to proceed on three bases: firstly, to set out for the House the extent and scope of the horse industry within my electorate; secondly, to address the background to this particular legislation, which is the need to deal with and provide a framework for equine influenza, if there is a further outbreak, or other such similar exotic horse diseases; and, thirdly, to address the reasons why, whilst we are supportive of the general direction of taking further that which we had previously put in place, we believe that there is a fundamental unfairness in the allocation between the thoroughbred and racing industries and the heavy commercial sectors of the horse world and that sector, the 80 per cent, which is the domestic, casual, pleasure or not-for-profit part of the horse sector, the pony club end of the horse world.

Let me begin with the Mornington Peninsula, Westernport and Bass Coast and what the entire horse sector means to the Mornington Peninsula. It is a very important part not just of our local economy but of our sense of identity, of self, of the great majesty that is the Mornington Peninsula, Bass Coast and Westernport at their best. For example, the Freedman brothers have three major racing stables on the Mornington Peninsula. There is Markdel, at St Andrews Beach, which I have had the opportunity to visit. It is a world-class training facility with 85 boxes—the home of a triple Melbourne Cup winner during its training days, now moved on to retirement—and a 1,400-metre grass track. St Ives, at Merricks North, is the second of the Freedman brothers’ properties, with 40 stable boxes and a 1,600-metre training track. The third is Denistoun Park, at Tuerong, which has a 42-box complex and 1,650 metres of grass track.

There are many other major equestrian centres. These include Treehaven Equestrian Centre, in Somerville. That is a competition club. It is a venue for equestrian sports such as dressage, showjumping, showing and other activities within that world. We have Danbury Park, at Somerville, an indoor-outdoor equestrian centre. We have Carringbush Park, at Tyabb, which involves thoroughbred breaking, pretraining, float and barrier training, retraining and general assistance with horse needs. We have trail rides and trail-riding small businesses: Arthurs Seat Trail Rides; the Ace Hi riding ranch; Gunnamatta Trail Rides; Willow Lodge, Somerville; Spring Creek; and a host of other different small businesses. All up, there are at least 16 other horse-training businesses listed on the Mornington Peninsula alone in the online business directory. Horse business is big business on the Mornington Peninsula and, more importantly than that, it is something that goes to the heart of young people, of young families and of our sense of self and identity. That is why this issue is of genuine and deep personal concern for literally thousands of people in the electorate of Flinders.

This brings me to the second issue: the bill and the background to the bill. The background is that, in 2002, the Commonwealth put in place the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, EADRA. EADRA set in place a process for establishing a mechanism to facilitate rapid responses to and the control, eradication or containment of certain animal diseases. Most importantly, although that framework was never fully fleshed out, when there was an outbreak of equine influenza, what could have been a catastrophic disaster for the industry was managed, contained and dealt with. The original cause was a problem; we acknowledge that. But the containment and treatment as a result of what we had put in place was important and successful. It contained something which would otherwise have been far worse and would have done far more damage not just to the industry but also to the animals involved. It was a problem but it was dealt with, and now we look to the future, to the next phase. However, whilst we support very much the idea of moving forward to a more comprehensive arrangement, there is a fundamental unfairness in the arrangements set out in these two bills.

Let me turn to the three areas of concern we have with this bill. The first is that the bill fundamentally misallocates responsibility for the funding between the commercial sector and what you might call the non-commercial or the domestic, leisure or pleasure sector of the horse industry. On the figures available to me, 20 per cent of those in the horse industry are engaged in what you might call heavy commercial horse activities—the thoroughbred and racing sector. The other 80 per cent are in the domestic or pleasure sector of the horse industry—those associated with pony clubs, for instance, and private ownership. Yet this bill makes no differentiation between the burden to be borne by those who are simply owners of horses and those who are racers, trainers or breeders of horses.

There is a fundamental imbalance here, and it has two bases. Firstly, there is a higher risk which results from the importation of horses not for domestic use but for the heavy commercial sector. If disease is going to enter Australia, it is almost certainly going to be from activities within the 20 per cent of high-value horse activities. Secondly, there is a higher return for those in the 20 per cent of high-value horse activities, and they are the ones who will receive the benefits and rewards of a stable horse industry. And yet it is the 80 per cent who have a low level of risk and a low level of return who will bear a high burden of cost and responsibility.

That is why we have a fundamental problem with this bill. We have a problem not with the objective, not with the intention, but with the application and the levying of a heavy burden on the sector which neither risk bringing diseases into Australia nor enjoy returns from their horse activities. That is the problem. What it means is that mums and dads on the Mornington Peninsula, on the Bass Coast and across Westernport will bear the cost for high-profit, high-income areas. It is about a fair go for the horse sector on the peninsula. And this bill—and I say it with great sadness—does not achieve that outcome.

The second of the three areas of concern is that we have seen clear groups who distance themselves from this bill. The Queensland Horse Council, for example, the National Campdraft Council of Australia and the pleasure horse and hobby horse sectors have all been critical of what is in this bill. The reason why, at the end of the day, we have to reject it is that—and this is the third point—there is an unfair impact. It does not, as a result, address the threat properly, and there are also failings within the bill in terms of preparation for future outbreaks. The intention is good. The execution is bad. But the unfairness is utterly unacceptable to us.

I want to finish by paying tribute to and honouring those groups I outlined earlier who are involved in the equestrian, horse-racing and general horse sectors. I commend their work. Sadly, we are unable to support this bill because of the unfairness involved in its impact on mums and dads, on small businesses and others involved in the horse sector, who will bear a disproportionate load and a disproportionate burden. But they do play an important role in the life of the Mornington Peninsula, Westernport and Bass Coast, and I thank them for their work. I say with great sadness that I believe the minister needs to go back, rethink the bill and look at a fairer system. That would give us all a chance of moving forward together.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008, and the two cognate bills, the Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Bill 2008 and the Horse Disease Response Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. I would like to follow on from some of the comments made by the member for Longman and those of the member for Flinders, who has made some very important points. I will talk about the bills and their effect on the constituents of my electorate of Forde. I will give a bit of detail about the legislation and then lead in to some of the consequences of not proceeding with it.

The purpose of these bills is to ensure that the horse sector receives the same certainty that other livestock sectors have when responding with government to emergency disease outbreaks. These bills allow the horse sector to become part of the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, EADRA. The horse sector has sought to become part of this agreement for many years, and I know there have been many iterations and many discussions have taken place. But we are still in the position now where we need to move forward for the protection of the industry.

I do understand that the Queensland Horse Council are not happy with the levy mechanism, but to date I have not seen any proposed alternative position. So while it is clear that a debate needs to occur, in the absence of any clear understanding of their concerns, working with the wider horse industry on the positions makes logical sense, and I commend the government for proceeding in this way.

The purpose of these bills is to provide a method by which to generate funds for the Australian horse industry to repay Commonwealth payments in the event of an emergency horse disease outbreak. I note that, until these bills are passed, the horse industry will remain alone in not providing the levy funding that is provided by other livestock and plant industries around the country. It is also important to note that the peak horse industry bodies around the country support this legislation. They are the Australian Horse Industry Council, Harness Racing Australia and the Australian Racing Board. They have all confirmed with the government that they want to become signatories to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, thereby supporting the introduction of a levy system.

It was concerning to hear the contributions of members of the opposition, especially that of the National Party leader and member for Wide Bay. He intends to oppose these bills, even though he made several points that I and other speakers tonight have made. Politicising this issue at this time is very dangerous. Pushing a wedge into the industry, particularly into the support base in Queensland, is shear madness. Without this legislation, horse industries in this country will have no protection. We are debating a simple but substantive insurance policy for everyone involved with horses, not only those in the so-called commercial sector. I will speak further tonight about the concerns expressed in my electorate about that differentiation.

Let us look at some of the facts about equine influenza and the consequences of an outbreak. Queensland was particularly affected by this major outbreak. To date, the federal government has spent more than $342 million in eradicating the virus in Queensland and New South Wales in financial and other assistance to individuals, organisations and businesses. The estimated industry losses as a result of the outbreak were in the vicinity of $10 million a week. Containment and associated costs were much greater than that, as was the effect on families and others involved in the non-commercial or leisure sector of the horse industry.

The total cost, including the initial losses and federal and state assistance packages, is estimated to be in excess of $473 million. That is an enormous amount of money and an enormous burden on our community. We must all remember that only New South Wales and Queensland had confirmed equine influenza cases. The member for Flinders spoke about other regions where, had the outbreak spread further, the situation would have been absolutely devastating. We must see ourselves as very lucky that this outbreak was contained such that southern industries were not hit and that equine influenza is not fatal. If it had been a fatal disease it would have wreaked enormous damage on the wider horse industry; in fact, it would have brought it to a standstill—which it did during the influenza outbreak in Queensland. The equine influenza virus is highly contagious and it spread at an alarming rate. The impact on the horse industry was huge and the figures I have just provided demonstrate the enormity of the financial cost.

The outbreak also had an impact on non-commercial and leisure horse activities in my electorate, including the local gymkhanas, horse shows and every other horse activity. I said at the beginning of my contribution that my electorate of Forde has one of the largest equine leisure sectors in south-east Queensland, and possibly throughout Queensland. The Gold Coast hinterland has small acreage blocks that are suitable for horses, and the cost of keeping those animals and maintaining their health is very high. The protection of a levy like this and the support that it can offer in providing vaccinations for the harness and racing industries is imperative. Of course, maintaining a strict quarantine regime costs money. Requiring everyone in the industry to pay a levy will certainly make it easier for individuals and it will lessen any financial burden.

What does this mean for Queensland? The effect of the equine influenza on the commercial industry in Forde was measured, but the non-commercial and leisure sectors were also affected. Many families faced enormous problems, and they are still contacting my office seeking whatever support is available. The impact spread further than those people who own horses or use them for whatever purpose. There are many associated industries and businesses that provide feed or services. The transport industry is one example. People involved in transporting horses had no income for the nine months of the lockdown. That was devastating for them. Another issue was the lack of a direct link for financial support from any level of government, and people are still suffering as a result of that.

I will provide some background about the Queensland government’s response and in so doing illustrate the costs of this sort of outbreak. The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries reported a positive move towards eradication of the disease on 18 February. If there is a wonderful side to the equine influenza it is that it can be easily controlled once it is identified. The vaccinations provided to one sector of the industry certainly expedited its control. The last known case was reported in January and by February there were no infected premises or dangerous-contact premises.

Living in and moving around the electorate of Forde, I was amazed to see the complete shutdown of many small properties. There were signs on the gates forbidding entry and no movement of horses was allowed. It was eerie. In February, the Queensland Premier said that the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries would continue to monitor the situation and would ensure that if there were further outbreaks they would be controlled. The federal minister got involved and by February an approved emergency funding package was provided to assist those who were dealing with equine influenza. That included $97.2 million to reimburse the states and territories for funds spent fighting equine influenza and $255 million for financial aid to individuals and businesses in the horse industry.

I have heard no mention in the debate of the fact that although this is a one-off levy or registration fee it will not be applied retrospectively, nor will it recoup the costs of the equine influenza outbreak. I had several consultations with the minister at the time and I thank him for listening to those concerns.

I have had many representations from horse owners and from the pleasure horse industry in my electorate. These people have approached me for help, and they want to move forward and look at ways to ensure that something like this will never happen to them again. What were the previous government’s actions on all of this? The confusing thing for me is that everything pointed to a desire on the part of the previous government—now the opposition—to introduce this sort of program and yet there is a move not to support it, and I think that is concerning. It is certainly concerning for those in the leisure industry who are still hurting from the effects of the outbreak.

This legislation will establish a one-off levy, and that will be on the initial registration of horses. It will not be retrospective. The levy will be established at zero and the operative levy rate will be set in consultation with the horse industry. I think that is very important, and it is also important that we see the representative organisations working together to establish what the levy will be. It does concern me that we have one group in Queensland that is not yet sitting at the table. I hope that that group is not being used as a political wedge to slow down this process.

In my electorate of Forde there is a history of equine events, particularly non-commercial events. Some 12 years ago the area of Beaudesert, which is to the south-west of the electorate, established what is known as the Country and Horse Festival. It is a major event for the region, for all sorts of reasons. Certainly it brings in tourism dollars, but it also showcases the region to many visitors and makes us proud in terms of what we as a community can do.

The equine influenza outbreak was particularly devastating, and we need to remember the effect it had on not only individuals but also a whole community. I hark back to my statement earlier that this really is about an insurance policy. Without even attempting to determine what price that levy may be, I have been assured by many that it is not of the ridiculous nature of some of the scaremongering that went on earlier this year. The federal government is willing to provide this sort of assistance via a levy. We will have the industry groups sitting around the table and we will be able to talk through what might be the best option for all of us.

As I said earlier, the seat of Forde probably has one of the largest horse populations in south-east Queensland. That came about simply because 30-odd years ago much of the region was cut up into rural-residential areas and so it lent itself to five-, 10- and 20-acre small acreage blocks. Following that, people looked at what they could run on those properties, and horses seemed to be the obvious choice. We have some major commercial operations in Wadham Park, and we also have a very unique race club and a race industry in the area. The historic Beaudesert Race Club, which meets about six times a year, was severely affected by the outbreak. While it is part of the commercial industry, most of the people involved in the race club are people who have leisure interests as well. They certainly make a lot of their income from providing services to that leisure industry. So while there is a race industry that underpins those activities in the region, all of these people were affected by this outbreak.

I want to mention a number of people who made representations to me. There was a fellow by the name of Mark Freemantle, who was heavily involved in the pleasure horse industry. He had concerns about the cost of the levy and also wanted to ensure that the levy would not be brought in retrospectively. As I said earlier, this government has listened to those concerns and is presenting the bill in its current form. Mark Freemantle came to me with a concern about the industry being penalised for its situation, about retrospective payments and about how the registrations would occur. There was a lot of misinformation around at the time. The interesting thing for Mark is that he not only had an interest in horses himself but his business was very much dependant on the horse industry. Due to EI, he lost his business. He was also involved in pasture and stable services, so one can understand the effects the nine-month shutdown had on him

Likewise, Leonie Walsh, of the Riding Pony Stud Book Society, has a business providing insemination services. That business, of course, was restricted by EI, and, overall, the insemination rate was down by 10 per cent. That has carry-over effects for the future in terms of the progeny and other activities around that process. It is very much something that the community is suffering from and dealing with right now.

I often mention the fact that the electorate of Forde is in the Gold Coast hinterland. We sit in quite a large area within that region, albeit not as large as some of those northern and north-western electorates. But with 3,100 square kilometres in the Gold Coast hinterland, as you can imagine, we have lots and lots of acreage dedicated to horse breeding and the leisure horse industry. The nine months that people suffered through EI affected the community in so many ways. I will just give you a rundown on some of the social activities involved with pleasure riding within the electorate of Forde. There are 12 fairly large pony clubs in the electorate and I know that there are other smaller groups. Those 12 clubs are: Albert River, Beaudesert, Beenleigh, Canungra, Cedar Creek, Chambers Flat, Greenbank, Jimboomba, Kooralbyn, Mount Warren, Tamborine and Waterford. There is also a Riding for the Disabled organisation group at Greenbank. There are also trail riding groups and many, many other groups. As I explained earlier, the effect on these people has been devastating financially and the effect on their day-to-day lives has been considerable.

The Country and Horse Festival is a major event and has a 12-year history in this region. It is a major part of the horse industry and brings many people to congregate in this region. It was severely affected by EI. While people could not attend this major event during that period of time, it is certainly trying to get back on its feet. I commend the people who are involved with this event. Nancy Moss, who is the president of the association, has been able to weather the storm and work closely with the community to ensure that this event continues. I also pay tribute to the people who have worked in the background. The initiator of the program, Julie Moor, back in 1996 was very inventive in bringing this event to the region. Likewise, Vicki McAteer was the president for many years. All those people are certainly concerned about the future and ensuring that the effects of equine influenza are not lasting.

Getting back to the point of this whole debate—the importance of a levy and being able to respond to this sort of emergency when required—as I said, I am really concerned that the opposition dispute the levy and dispute these bills. They have declared that they are not going to support this legislation. I would urge them to consider the effect on the commercial industry. At this point there is no disease, but in the event of a disease striking families would be taken out. There are families who would be absolutely crushed and crucified by any further outbreak of disease. For that reason, as a small insurance policy, this levy is important to our community, the community of Forde, and communities that would feel the flow-on effects. I have had people in my office crying about the effects of the outbreak. No-one outside the commercial environment seems to understand just how devastating this has been to that community. These are people who have run small businesses—a lot of them not registered, for obvious reasons—simply to gain a little bit of financial support by supplying important services within that industry. Now, not only are the community deprived of services but their own families are deprived of support.

In conclusion, it is so important that we go forward with this levy. We are so lucky that the EI was not a fatal disease. If you look at some of the concerns in Queensland right now about the effect of the Hendra virus, people are very fearful that something like that breaking out could become a pandemic. Although I am confident that government will always be there, the immediate, emergency response is important to ensure that people can confidently go on with their business, whether that is in the non-commercial or commercial sector. For these reasons I commend the bills to the House.

Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008, the Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Bill 2008 and the Horse Disease Response Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. Whilst I understand the government was waiting on the outcome of the inquiry, it is unacceptable that an industry which has been crippled by equine influenza, and even today is still recovering, has had to wait over six months to know the costs to it. It was one year ago that the community I represent was impacted significantly by an outbreak of equine influenza. The Hawkesbury is home to a racecourse, studs, polo and pony clubs, and many that are involved in the leisure horse industry. It is also home to many small businesses that are dependent on the equine industry for their livelihood.

Equine influenza had an enormous impact on the industry. Andrew Harding, who is the Australian Racing Board chief, was quoted as saying that ‘EI had cost the industry $4.3 million a day, comprising $3 million for racing and $1.3 million for breeding’. It was the coalition government who realised the challenges being faced by the industry and on 30 August announced $4 million worth of grants and then, 10 days later, an additional $110 million package. Acknowledging this was not going to be a long-term solution for the industry, the coalition government announced an additional $117 million in assistance on top of the $114 million already delivered.

The fact that this government is forcing 80 per cent of the total cost back onto an industry still recovering is unacceptable. I have a list here of a number of businesses that reside, work and operate in my electorate. I will not list them all here but I will list some: Sydney Equestrian Supplies, Newmarket Saddlery, Rug-A-Horse Second Hand Saddlery, Benson Custom Saddlery, Charlton Horse Stud Saddlery and Charlton Horseland, to name a few. Having attended many community meetings immediately after EI hit—and I have to say that Hawkesbury was one of the first areas that was impacted—I met with stablehands, farriers and also restaurants. Clydesdale restaurant was actually two Clydesdales drawing a carriage where people enjoyed a meal. All of these businesses were stopped overnight, their source of income immediately cut off. Other businesses, including the local blanket maker and breeders, were seriously impacted. While there is recovery, many of those people are still being impacted, particularly the breeders, and I will talk about them in a few moments.

There are over 1.2 million horses in Australia and, of those, between 50,000 and 60,000 are registered. That is a small number. The legislation is heavily targeted at a small number of horse owners who register their horses, and it is quite evident that only a small proportion of horse owners would be subject to this levy. This means that around 20 per cent of horse owners will be included in this levy simply because the majority of horse owners do not register their horses. The majority of liability is going to fall on the owners of pleasure and performance horses who do not generate an income. In the event of a disease, they will receive minimal, if not nil, compensation through EADRA. This is a huge burden to put on a small number of horse owners.

Earlier this year I met with the Arabian Horse Society, who are located in Windsor, and I listened to the challenges being faced not just by the pleasure and performance industry but also by breeders. One of the issues raised was the long-term loss of income for breeders, largely due to brood mares not being able to foal until next season. This will mean a whole year without an income. Many of these breeders rely heavily or only on this as their source of income. These people still have to feed and maintain their brood mares for the following season. A levy placed on them now will only add more strain as they attempt to make ends meet, due to not only equine influenza but also the increased costs of living we are seeing with increased fuel and grocery prices, mortgage rates and so on. As highlighted by the associations, the levy will also have the potential impact of discouraging people from registering. As a result of that, some of the associations who are already struggling with registration and need to continue to relate to breeders may be completely removed from the scene.

I have spoken this week with representatives from the horse industry who do not support the levy. This clearly contradicts what Barry Smyth from the Australian Horse Industry Council is saying. While I have every respect for his right to have a view, it appears that not everybody in the industry agrees with him. He claims that the industry unanimously supports this. I would have to say, after speaking to a number of people involved very closely with the industry, that this is untrue. The horse industry does support EADRA in principle, but Mr Smyth knows a majority in the industry do not support the levy—and who can blame them? Their concern is who is going to pay and the potential inequity of how this levy will be implemented.

The government is yet to tell the horse industry and horse owners how the levy will be collected and what the levy will be. The majority of the industry do not support this levy, even after the minister wrote to horse owners on 11 June this year and threatened not to provide any further assistance for outbreaks such as equine influenza if they did not sign up to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement.

In February this year, the Australian Horse Industry Council released a follow-up equine influenza impact study. Of the 2,721 respondents, 33 per cent believe they will experience ongoing financial hardship beyond August this year. So we have an industry that are still recovering and now, when they are struggling to make ends meet, they are going to be slugged with a levy they know nothing about. We have a government that have no understanding of the complexities of the equine industry and yet they propose this unfair option. It is evident from the bills that have been introduced that the government are totally out of touch with this area. It is clearly evident that they do not understand the financial loss that people in this industry are still experiencing and will continue to experience over the coming year. The government believe that the levy should be placed on registered horse owners. What they have not considered is that if people know they have to pay a levy because their horse is registered they will not register their horse. If people do not register their horse then memberships of course will drop and, as I mentioned earlier, associations will be impacted.

These bills are another example of a government that look at a bandaid approach, rather than sitting down with a broad range of industry representatives to source real, practical solutions. This is just another example of the government’s desperation to increase the budget surplus they inherited so that they can look like they are good economic managers. I support the opposition’s stance to oppose the passage of these bills and call on the government to stop playing with people’s lives.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today, as a representative of many rural communities in South Australia, to support the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and the associated bills. As they were for most people who grew up in rural South Australia, horses were a very important part of my local community. I vividly remember my sister being part of the pony club and my mum cooking the barbecue for the Marrabel rodeo day which the pony club participated in. That is an organisation I am now proud to be the vice-patron of.

In South Australia we were fortunate enough to avoid the devastation caused by equine influenza, or EI, when it broke out in August last year in New South Wales and Queensland. Although we avoided the effects of the disease directly, we were certainly affected indirectly by the emergency response. The impact of the disease on horseracing and the ancillary industries was huge. Horseracing industries were basically closed down. Recreation and horse shows were postponed. The costs of maintaining the strict quarantine were severe. As many other speakers have said, the cost to the industry was hundreds of millions of dollars. The cost to the Commonwealth government was something like $342 million, so it was a very costly exercise indeed. It affected small businesses in my electorate. One lady who sold the ribbons for horse shows was terribly affected and received no compensation under the previous government’s guidelines. So it was obviously a costly exercise for both the community and the government.

That said, the emergency response was a good example of collaboration between government and industry. On 14 March the member for Watson, Minister Tony Burke, declared Australia provisionally free of the disease. I am sure that this House looks forward to that being recognised at the international level by the World Organisation for Animal Health in December this year.

I am proud to speak in support of these bills today, as they provide for an effective resolution of the crisis and frame our response for preparing for the future. The bills ensure that the horse industry is not saddled with the costs of the former government’s failure—if you will pardon the pun!

The government considered how to improve our response to a crisis such as EI by referring to the framework of the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, EADRA, which commenced in 2002. This agreement sets out the roles and responsibilities of government and industries in responding to emergency animal disease threats in Australia. Under EADRA, the costs of responding to emergency diseases are shared by the affected parties, with the government underwriting the industry’s costs, as it is recognised that many industries will not have the reserves available to respond to a crisis. This provides certainty for the industry and a rapid and effective response for the country. The previous outbreak of EI should have seen EADRA tested for the first time. However, unlike many of the major livestock industries, the horse industry is not a party to EADRA. This is despite interest on behalf of the industry in joining prior to the outbreak.

Under the former government there was no framework in place to allow for an emergency response to a disease outbreak in the horse industry. Instead we had an ad hoc approach that did not take into account and did not plan for the cost of such a response. Fortunately, the common sense of this government and peak industry bodies such as the Australian Horse Industry Council, Harness Racing Australia and the Australian Racing Board has seen to it that we will not be left in the lurch again.

These bills provide for the mechanism that will allow the horse industry to finally become a party to EADRA. This represents an excellent outcome for the horse industry, Australia’s emergency animal disease response framework and the Australian people. Many of my constituents work in industries that are party to EADRA, and I recognise the importance of this agreement. That is why it is so important that we pass these bills, as the legislation will help the horse industry develop the confidence to become a formal signatory to that agreement.

With the horse industry’s assent to the agreement, we strengthen Australia’s emergency disease preparedness and its response infrastructure and we will be able to respond even more effectively should we be unfortunate enough to confront a crisis such as EI again. Even the member for Wide Bay realises how important this is. In his speech he said:

I think it is beyond doubt that the horse industry should be in EADRA; I think the industry itself recognises that it should be there. The EI outbreak is a demonstration of how it is important for this sector to be a part of a disease eradication program.

Of course, the member for Wide Bay knows this all too well, having been advised of the industry’s wishes before when he was the minister responsible in the previous government. Despite this, the opposition is happy to oppose these bills and leave the industry exposed yet again. This is the same neglect, documented in the Callinan report, that led to the disaster in the first place. It is the same mob and the same attitude—not planning for the future. Instead we have proposals for a levy on horseshoes and all this hand wringing about levies. When you get right down to it, what the opposition will put its faith in is luck and hoping a crisis will not strike again. This is a familiar response from the previous government.

When the member for Wide Bay was the responsible minister, this issue was raised with the government. As it has been revealed by the Callinan inquiry, on 24 September 2004 Andrew Ramsden of the Australian Racing Board wrote to the member for Wide Bay, Mr Truss, in a letter titled ‘Inspection of recently imported horses during postarrival quarantine’. In that letter Mr Ramsden outlined the board’s concerns about the changes made to AQIS and the importation of horses. The letter said:

Equine influenza is the exotic disease that the Australian horse industry most fears. If equine influenza gained entry to Australia, it would close down racing and other horse events for several months with catastrophic economic consequences. A quarantine breakdown is the only way Australia will be exposed to this exotic disease.

He goes on to warn:

As recently as November 2003, private veterinarians attending recently imported horses during post arrival quarantine played a prominent role in a quarantine breakdown which led to a closedown of racing in the Republic of South Africa until mid-February 2004. In late 1986, the Republic of South Africa suffered a similar fate. At that time, racing, yearling sales and many other horse events were suspended for over 4 months. Veterinarians from the private sector played a prominent role in the 1986 outbreak as well.

There is further correspondence from Mr Ramsden. He wrote again to Mr Truss on 6 May 2005. That letter and the other letters were discovered in the course of the inquiry. His letter of 6 May 2005 reiterates the board’s concerns regarding quarantine procedures for imported horses, particularly veterinary inspections for postarrival horses. In his reply, the minister, the member for Wide Bay, on 31 May 2005, said in response to the industry’s concerns:

Horses imported into Australia from countries other than New Zealand are directed on arrival to an AQIS quarantine station or an AQIS approved private quarantine station by an AQIS quarantine officer. Horses are under AQIS control at all times during quarantine. There can be no contact with other horses, access is restricted and there are decontamination procedures in place for all those having direct contact. The horses are moved to the station by private transport companies and inspected by private veterinarians. The horses’ temperatures are taken twice daily for the 14 day quarantine period by grooms attending the horses. The inspection and temperature data is provided to AQIS veterinarians who monitor the health of the horses and decide what actions need to be taken if a horse shows signs of illness whilst in quarantine.

Then he concludes, and this is the extraordinary bit of the letter:

The circumstances that led to the outbreak of equine influenza in the Republic of South Africa in 2003 could not occur under the current AQIS postarrival protocol.

What this letter represents is the previous government’s indifferent, ‘she’ll be right’ attitude. It is an indictment of a minister who dismissed legitimate industry concerns and showed breathtaking arrogance, incompetence and culpability in the outbreak of equine influenza in Australia.

The opposition’s position on these bills, in this parliament, at this time only adds insult to the injury. These bills create a scheme to raise funds to pay for the costs associated with responding to such an emergency. These bills provide certainty; the Liberal Party’s position and the National Party’s position provide uncertainty. This scheme is recommended by the peak industry bodies that I discussed before. It involves a levy on the initial registration of horses, appropriated through the Australian Animal Health Council and through amendments to the Australian Animal Health Council (Live-Stock Industries) Funding Act 1996. Regulations will be drafted to provide for an appropriate levy rate, although at this stage the rate will be set at zero. The levy rate will be set in consultation with the industry and will be subject to the number of registrations per year and the total costs of any emergency response. The levy will not be retrospective.

I hope that the industry will continue to be proactive in preparing for threats such as EI and that it proposes an appropriate rate to the minister when they have consultations on this matter. These schemes are not unique. All the major livestock industries are signatories to EADRA and all have arrangements in place to meet their obligations. While the levies for other industries are collected at the point of transaction, it is inappropriate to have a transaction based levy for the horse industry. After extensive consultation, it has been agreed that the most equitable point of a levy is that of registration. Under these bills the levy will apply only to the first registration of a horse and will not affect subsequent transactions or registrations with different industry bodies.

This effective response is also one that looks to the future. EADRA is a world-first industry and government cost-sharing agreement. It improves immeasurably Australia’s ability to respond to animal disease outbreaks. We should also note that two of the three peak horse industry bodies have formally applied to become a party to EADRA, and it is expected that the third body will formally apply once the legislation is passed. It is important that the House realises that until this legislation is in place there is no mechanism to recover the costs of any future response to an EI outbreak. This scheme is effective and forward-looking but it is also necessary and economically responsible. If the levy scheme is not implemented there is a risk that the Commonwealth will bear the costs of being unprepared into the future, as we have done in the past due to the failures of the former government.

We can be proud of Australia’s response to EI and of the hard work done by the minister, but we need a forward-looking approach to emergency disease response management, which requires that we pass these bills before the House today. They are effective, they are supported by the industry, they ensure that the Commonwealth will not be left with a liability incurred by the industry in the future, they ensure that individual owners are not left with enormous costs and they reflect the world’s best practice of EADRA. In responding to emergency animal disease threats we need to continue to support flexible and dynamic emergency response structures and encourage the horse industry to formally participate in those structures. For those reasons I commend these bills to the House.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and consequential bills this evening. The equine industry is an industry for which I have a deep passion. I will set my bona fides at the beginning of this discussion. I have been around horses since I was a young boy. I was brought up in the country, made a natural progression through pony clubs, ended up riding in rodeos and semi-professionally trained racehorses for over seven years. I still maintain a strong interest in horses to the extent that I have been involved on the breeding side and I am currently the manager of a very good little Danetime filly called Chillisa that went back into work today. She won her first race at her first start as a two-year-old, and I am looking forward to better things with my racing colleagues in the near future. I understand that the whip actually had a nice punt on her when she won first up, so everyone was happy—everyone is happy when their horses win.

My bona fides go back even further than that. My grandfather, who was brought up in Angaston, used to break in remounts for the Light Horse Brigade. They would buy the horses from Tanunda and their horses would run them home to Angaston, where, during the First World War, they would break them in and ship them off to the Middle East. So we have a bit of history in the equine area, and I do have a deep passion for horses of all disciplines. It is on that basis that I wish to support whatever measure it takes to make sure that this industry is well and truly protected into the future.

Australia has a really proud history of quarantine and a disease-free environment. We know that there have been very few outbreaks of, for example, foot-and-mouth disease and mad cow disease. As we know, many other countries around the world are subject to these on a regular basis, but our biosecurity measures are such that these have very seldom been a problem for Australia. That is one of the reasons why we are a great exporter of animal products—beef, mutton et cetera—to the rest of the world, of live sheep to the Middle East and of live cattle to Indonesia. We are a very reliable supplier and we are essentially disease free. It was for this reason that Australia was so shocked a couple of years ago when this outbreak of equine virus hit the horse industry in general.

Who can forget that a country like Japan, with its proud racing history, was a country that had been crippled? The member for Wakefield talked about South Africa being crippled, and we never thought it would happen to us because we had such measures in place. But I do recall that great day a couple of years ago when two Japanese horses fought out the finish of the Melbourne Cup. Delta Blue beat Pop Rock, both Japanese imported horses for the race, which had gone through security. Damien Oliver, a great young Western Australian jockey whom I used to know when I was training down at the Ascot Racecourse, rode the second place horse and was so magnanimous in running second to the other Japanese horse. But Japan has had a problem with equine flu virus for many years. We know that there are going to be a number of horses coming from all over the world this year but not from Japan because there are still concerns about the Japanese racing industry and the equine flu virus.

We are getting horses from Europe and Ireland. In the past, we have had horses from Argentina. Lee Freedman trained a very good Argentinian horse called Savage Toss, which won a number of races in and around Melbourne. We have been very strong on quarantine security for horses for a long time, but the problem did manifest itself. I understand that the Callinan inquiry revealed that, even with all the security at the quarantine station, it appears that there were flaws. Some of the measures taken have now had to be addressed as a result of this outbreak. I believe there was an occasional track rider who used to work casually at the quarantine station who then left the facility, and that is one of the reasons they believe this virus spread from the quarantine station and throughout the horse industry. It had a devastating effect.

To date, the federal government has spent something like $365 million or $385 million on the industry to address this issue. Trainers, jockeys, reinsmen, grooms, farriers, horse transporters, vets and all of the people in the industry in my state took a severe knock from this because, even though it did not reach Western Australia, we had what was called a stand still order on all our horses. You could not transport a horse anywhere in Western Australia. There were people caught in the north-west, for example, at picnic race meetings who had to stay there with their horses because they could not move them around Western Australia, even though the disease was not there.

Unless you have been a horse trainer or involved in the industry, it is difficult to imagine the impact of this. You get a very expensive horse; let us say you paid $100,000 for the horse. You spend thousands on getting it to the racetrack. It is ready for a race; it is ready to win a race. The minimum stake in Perth at the moment is $50,000. Now imagine that you cannot race your horse. Not only would it take away a large opportunity to recoup some of your outlaid moneys but it also would not do the horse any good. The horse is absolutely trained to the minute. It is like a coiled spring—ready to get onto the racetrack and do its work. It cannot race, so you then have to let it down by taking away its high-performance food so that the horse cools and goes off the boil. By the time you are actually allowed to race again, it could take several more months to bring the horse, like an athlete, to its peak performance. Some of these horses only race as two-year-olds. Some horses come good at three and some horses come good at four or five, but you might have missed that window of opportunity for a young horse. For example, fillies quite often do not go past three years. What are you going to do with an expensive horse when you are out of the game for six months? I am sure your wife would tell you that you are never going to get involved in the racing industry again after having wasted so much money.

I also speak about these bills with a special interest because my electorate of Canning has probably the largest number of people training horses for the trotting industry in Western Australia. The Pinjarra Trotting Club has regular meetings. It is about an hour from Perth, so it is a central racing point for trotters—or pacers as they really should be called, because they do not trot anymore. They are in hopples and they pace, but they are affectionately called trotters. In my electorate, most of the rural properties of five or more acres have a track where the horses are jogged up. A lot of people shift out of town so that they can train their own trotter. They are called owner-trainers. Some of them only have one or two horses. They might breed one and jog it up themselves to get it into a position where they can then get a good reinsman to drive it in races.

I also have a very good thoroughbred racing industry in my area. The Pinjarra Race Club is one of the best country tracks in Western Australia. The Holmes a Court family’s stud, at Keysbrook, is located in my area, as are many other very good studs. It is not just thoroughbreds; it is the pleasure horses—the connemaras, the ponies, the polo horses, the campdrafting horses and all of the novelty horses, such as the paint horses. There are a whole range of horses in my electorate of Canning. There are many pony clubs and eventing venues where they do dressage and bring their horses to a very high level of discipline. It is with quite a vested interest that I speak on these bills because, as I said, even though Western Australia did not have the EI disease, we are very mindful of the fact that it is in Australia now and it is probably lying latently somewhere, like most of these diseases do, ready to be brought to the fore again under the right conditions and the right circumstances. We are aware that, for example, in Queensland, the problem does not just confine itself to the normal sorts of diseases we are talking about now. Who could forget that famous trainer Vic Rail and his horse Vo Rogue? Vic caught the horse’s disease, which had crossed species, and died. We are suddenly finding a similar cross-species disease in Queensland now and the industry is under threat again, so the measures in these bills are very important.

In turning to the substance of the bill, I will not trawl over too much of what many of the other speakers have already said so very eloquently. Also, I agree with much of what they have said. The bill introduces a levy for the initial registration of horses under the terms of the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, EADRA, to help repay the Commonwealth for financial assistance in the event of a disease outbreak. The bill provides for the collection of a levy by horse registration bodies, which will pay these levy payments to the Commonwealth. The bill imposes penalties for unpaid levies and provides for remissions of any penalties. It also provides for the gathering and collecting of information and documents, together with a strict liability offence for the failure to comply et cetera.

As I said, this is arguably the fourth largest industry in Australia. But one thing that the opposition have made clear today is that we are opposing this bill not because we do not believe that there should be a mechanism to deal with disease outbreaks but because we believe that the model is flawed. You only have to look clearly at the model to see that it is flawed. The largest number of horses in Australia are not the high-income earning horses—the thoroughbreds, the trotters and the stud horses—but the pleasure horses. There is going to be and is deemed to be an unfair levy on those involved in an industry where there is no financial return. Winning a ribbon or a cup at the local pony club does not do a lot to pay for the float, the petrol, the feed, the farrier’ work or the vet’s work. So there is an unfair and unequal burden on the pleasure horse industry. I do not think the government has thought this out very well. This is why the opposition are saying that this legislation should go to a Senate committee, which will think about a better and fairer mechanism by which to apply this levy.

I have contacted my racing industry people in the electorate of Canning—the Byford Trotting Complex, the secretary of the Pinjarra Race Club and turf club, as well as the Mundajong thoroughbred training association. They say that the collection mechanism and all the compliance work that will go with this legislation will be an additional burden on them. They believe that it is over and above what is fair in terms of its application. We are signing a blank cheque with this legislation. No specific figures have been mentioned. What is being said is that the cost of the levy will be based on the number of horses registered in a 10-year period as established by EADRA and divided by the cost of the measures. What an open-ended formula that is. We should be looking at a more specific and fairer mechanism to find out the real costs of this measure so that we can deal with the collection of a levy in a fair manner in the future.

Not all sectors of the industry have signed on to this idea, as we have already heard from the previous speaker, the member for Wakefield, although some are intending to. There is concern about a feral population of horses—300,000 brumbies—in Australia. There are probably brumbies in the ranges not too far from this place. I expect that there would be a huge population of brumbies roaming the outback and Kakadu. What if a disease got into the brumbies, donkeys and mules that live out there unchecked? Certainly no-one is paying for them. They would be the time bomb ticking away. The fact is that that has not been thought out very well at all. Who is responsible for them? Is it the Commonwealth? These animals are quite often on crown land. Is it the station owner who does not really know how many horses he has on his place? When shooters are brought in to get rid of these animals, that causes a lot of problems with animal rights groups, who suddenly say that this is a terrible thing. So there are a lot of open-ended questions that the Senate inquiry will flesh out—much to the disagreement of the government. You have to think these things out before you start charging people money and putting levies on them when you are not sure how they will work.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Shorten interjecting

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure that all the ex-union executives have the answer to everything, and we may well hear their response shortly. At the end of the day, what this legislation will do, which is what we are looking to support—

Mr Shorten interjecting—

I suppose there is a brumby in Victoria that you would want to put down very quickly, but that is not something that you could recommend here. The response levy will provide for the Commonwealth to transfer funds to the Australian Animal Health Council, the AAHC. This will be part of the horse disease response levy collection, which this bill does address. It replaces the existing subsection and provides that the AAHC has an obligation to apply a Commonwealth payment in accordance with priorities. The following are the priorities under the existing subsection: the first priority is to reimburse the AAHC for costs that the council incurs; the second priority is to discharge liabilities by non-government bodies to the Commonwealth under EADRA; and the third priority is the ability to make payments to research and development organisations or to promote and maintain the health of animals. That is very important because there has to be a strategy put in place so that, if a disease outbreak occurs again, we can deal with such a widespread emergency.

At the end of the day, unlike those on other side, we do not just sign blank cheques and go along with thin ideas. Even after having thought about it for some time, the government has come back with nothing better, sadly. As a result, we are going to put some flesh on this legislation and make sure that it can be recommended as fair and equitable. I am sure those on the other side will want things to be fair and equitable.

The proposed legislation enables funds to be raised directly from the horse industry in order to repay the Commonwealth for any future emergency. The idea is, in principle, good, but the collection mechanism is flawed. I commend this bill but not the collection method. We need to get on with making sure that there is a proper plan in place for the future. This is very important for the future of all the equine industries in Australia and for the biosecurity of Australia.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bills before the parliament today—the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008, the Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Bill 2008 and the Horse Disease Response Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008will enable the horse industry to be better prepared for exotic disease outbreaks, such as the equine influenza emergency which occurred last year. Australia’s fourth largest industry was knocked hard by equine influenza and it simply cannot remain vulnerable to another disaster or to the response which the previous government delivered last time. The legislation will give the industry certainty for resourcing and responding to emergency horse disease outbreaks, ensuring that it will enjoy the same arrangements as other leading livestock industries in responding to and eradicating disease. It will help the industry fund its obligations under the provisions of the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, the EADRA.

The peak horse industry representative bodies—the Australian Horse Industry Council, Harness Racing Australia and the Australian Racing Board—support the passage of these bills. These bodies are the only representative bodies of the horse industry that are eligible to become signatories to the EADRA. The EADRA, which commenced in 2002, is an important part of our national emergency animal disease preparedness and response infrastructure. The Australian government and all state and territory governments are signatories to this agreement, as are a number of the livestock industries, but not the horse industry. Similar arrangements apply to plant industries.

This legislation gives effect to a submission made to the former government in late 2006 by the Australian Horse Industry Council on behalf of the three peak industry bodies. The legislation will help the horse industry to have confidence in becoming a formal signatory to the EADRA and joining other major livestock industries that are parties to it. All have arrangements in place to meet their obligations under the EADRA in the event of an animal disease emergency. In most cases, this is a levy—if I can assist the member for Canning—set at a zero rate by regulation.

At the time of the outbreak of equine influenza, the horse sector and all those who depend upon it were left dangerously exposed because the sector was not a signatory to the agreement. One must ask: why did the previous government let this situation arise? But perhaps we should not be surprised, given its consistent neglect in many other areas that required the making of important decisions. Indeed, the minister responsible under the previous government certainly has had more success in his racing career and securing his post-parliamentary future than, indeed, in preventing the outbreak of equine influenza. Just over one year has elapsed and nothing seems to have changed in relation to those opposite. There is the same neglect, the same delay and the same ‘we don’t know enough about it’ attitude which gave us the equine influenza in the first place. Here we are trying to pass bills which offer certainty and protection to Australia’s arguably fourth largest industry, and yet again we get the same ‘wait-watchers’ diet of inaction by the opposition.

All sectors of an industry benefit from the eradication of an emergency pest or disease through lower ongoing disease management costs. A pony club horse is as susceptible to the disease as a thoroughbred is. A levy on horse registration is no different in principle to the wine industry’s levies where a grape is levied the same amount whether it is destined for the Penfolds Grange to grace the table of the Liberal Party or for the modest $10 bottle for the battler.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Ageing and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Coulton interjecting

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Party? I do not know what they drink; they probably drink Bundy. In other words, a disease does not discriminate between a pony club horse or a thoroughbred racing horse and neither does any proposed levy to help eradicate a disease.

The horseracing industry needs this. In particular, the horseracing industry and the people in it were severely affected by EI, and I wish to concentrate my remarks on this aspect of the industry. Horseracing is one of Australia’s oldest and most popular sports. In fact, the first organised thoroughbred meeting in this country was held in 1810 in Hyde Park, Sydney, with Governor Macquarie in attendance. Today, about two million Australians attend a thoroughbred meeting at least once per year and almost 500,000 attend at least one harness race meeting. In fact, I must add here that I fulfilled my attendance quota on Friday night at the Mooney Valley harness racing club, which is in the electorate of Maribyrnong. The Melbourne Cup is the race that stops the nation; it is viewed by 700 million people worldwide. There are many local annual cup days in many rural towns, which are huge events on the social calendar. There are 397 thoroughbred clubs. There are 116 harness racing clubs in Australia, which is more than in any other country in the world. These clubs are great organisations, many of whose committees and members work on a volunteer basis.

However, the Australian racing industry is also a major economic activity which makes a significant contribution to the national gross domestic product, employment and government revenue. The economic activity generated by thoroughbred racing and breeding alone contributes more than $5 billion to the national GDP. It is estimated that almost half of that amount—$2.2 billion—is generated in regional areas. Racing and breeding also help to sustain employment in many other areas of the economy. Let us not forget the feed merchants; the veterinarians; the farriers; the cleaners, who are members of the AWU; the hospitality workers; the transport companies; the caterers; the hoteliers; and, of course, the fashion industry. Australia’s thoroughbred-breeding sector is one of the largest and most successful in the world. Exports are an important part of the Australian industry, with Australian bloodstock highly regarded internationally. In 2006-07, some 2,378 thoroughbreds were exported from Australia on a temporary or permanent basis.

As I have said, horseracing is our fourth largest industry and many people earn their living from it. In fact, it provides full- or part-time employment for around 250,000 people—the equivalent of 77,000 full-time jobs. In 2006-07, we had 13,988 registered thoroughbreds. Whether it is a leading trainer with binoculars in hand monitoring the early morning fast work, a young country apprentice working for a thoroughbred breeder or the kitchen hand at the race club, so many individuals depend on Australian racing. We should never forget that, apart from the glamour of the Spring Racing Carnival in Victoria, the major cups, and the leading owners, trainers and jockeys, there are so many hardworking Australians involved in the industry trying to make ends meet.

Amongst others, I wish to acknowledge the workers who I organised in the racing industry for 14 years: the maintenance workers, the cleaners, the stewards, the barrier attendants and the stable hands. In my old job as Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, and as a director of the Victorian Jockeys Association for 10 years and patron of the Australian Jockeys Association, I was able to see firsthand the jockeys who do it tough. Throughout Australia, there are some 860 licensed jockeys who ride over 19,000 races at 2,690 race meetings at 370 racetracks across regional and metropolitan Australia. I am proud to have been heavily involved in improving the position of jockeys, such as by pursuing and delivering superannuation and retirement funds. But looking at the situation of the many jockeys that were affected by EI is very eye opening.

The Australian Jockeys Association is the representative body of jockeys across Australia. The objectives of the AJA are to raise the profile of jockeys as elite professional athletes; promote safety, industrial health and education; and negotiate and develop Australia-wide protection for riders, including insurance—particularly more favourable public liability rates—superannuation and a retirement fund such as we have already delivered in Victoria.

I think it is important when we talk about this legislation to mention the contributions of some of the individuals who work so hard for the advancement of the industry and the workers with whom I have worked—Neville Wilson, the father of Victorian jockeys, still riding and the president of the association; Des O’Keeffe, the highly capable chief executive officer; Ned Wallish, who has not been so well lately, the former executive officer of the VJA; Ross Inglis, who consistently makes a contribution to racing; John ‘Bluey’ McHugh, the chief barrier attendant at Moonee Valley, who has recently retired from his job at Australia Post; and John Paul Blandthorn, the organiser of the AWU in the industry. The AJA’s current goal is to get the racing industry better protection and support in place for its smashed riders. I am sure those people I just mentioned will be successful in their goal, because they have the best interests of the workers and the industry at heart.

When most of the Australian public think of jockeys they think of the big names—the Darren Beadmans, Shane Dyes, Damien Olivers and Craig Williams. They see disciplined athletes who work at their trade, but they also see the benefits—the glamour of winning the major races, the fame, the newspaper headlines and indeed the promise of financial security. But for the vast majority of Australian jockeys the reality of a riding career means an irregular income, regular injury, major insurance costs, equipment and travel expenses, pressure to remain fit and on their weight, and limited career prospects after an early retirement. Jockeys’ incomes derive from a riding fee per race of $130 to $160 and a five per cent share of prize money for stake earners. Although prize money can range from $4,000 for first place at a country race—$200 for the jockey—and up to more than $3 million for the Melbourne Cup, jockeys do not ride winners every day. Imagine a job where you are expected to be available to work 363 days a year and artificially keep your weight 20 per cent underweight. It is a job fraught with danger.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Ageing and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Coulton interjecting

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some in this place would find that very difficult, I suspect. Jockeys suffer at least one body fracture in their career. In fact, the AJA says that 89 per cent of jockeys have suffered at least one serious fall during their career. A study by the Victorian Institute of Sport, commissioned by Rob Hulls, the racing minister, found that jockeys typically have a bone density equivalent to that of an 80-year-old woman. Combine that with getting up at 4 am six days a week and travelling more than 160,000 kilometres a year. The average riding career of a jockey is only 10 years, with no job security beyond that. And the Australian Jockeys Association says that jockey numbers have declined by 43 per cent in the last nine years, with new starters declining by nine per cent. They anticipate a continuing trend of declining jockey numbers if industry does not take the chance to protect and improve conditions for jockeys.

In this regard, as I prepared for this legislation I noticed that the AJA last week launched a national campaign, ‘Racing for our Lives’, where Australian jockeys are taking a stand to improve protection in one of Australia’s most dangerous industries. The AJA has released a three-point plan to improve jockey protection by (1) ensuring that all jockeys have access to a personal accident scheme; (2) ensuring that all jockeys’ public liability insurance costs are covered; and (3) extending the National Jockeys Trust to ensure that jockeys and their families are supported in the event of injury, death and illness. Under the AJA’s plans these improvements would be funded by a modest one per cent increase in the percentage of prize money allocated to jockeys. An international analysis shows that Australia’s jockeys are amongst the lowest paid in the racing world. This would seem to warrant serious consideration by the racing authorities.

So, of course, the impact of the August 2007 equine influenza outbreak was a disaster for jockeys. It was a disaster for the Australian horseracing and horse-breeding industry. Its emergency financial assistance was modelled on natural disasters, in fact, such as Cyclone Larry. We should acknowledge the great help provided by public servants from the Commonwealth departments, in particular FaHCSIA, the department for which I am the parliamentary secretary. The direct costs incurred by the industry and by the Commonwealth in merely containing the outbreak totalled more than $130 million. The industry and its participants have lost many more millions of dollars of income due to the resulting cancellations and restrictions on racing and breeding activities.

I remember the day. By midday 26 August last year all weekend race meetings in Australia had been cancelled, and in the first week 50 thoroughbred race meetings were lost. In New South Wales and Queensland no metropolitan race meetings were held for three months. In New South Wales alone 193 thoroughbred race meetings were lost—30 metropolitan, 31 provincial and 132 country. This included the Sydney spring carnival, from which the industry traditionally derives a large portion of the annual wagering income that is used to fund all New South Wales racing clubs. In addition, 250 harness race meetings were lost in New South Wales and a further 81 race meetings were lost in Queensland. For the majority of participants, who live and work in New South Wales and Queensland, no race meetings meant no or significantly reduced incomes.

Whilst the owners and trainers struggled through the disaster that was equine influenza, it had a more devastating effect on the jockeys, the stablehands and the workers at the bottom of the tree in racing in Australia. The jockeys, for example, who earn a fee per race plus a percentage of the race money—that is of course if they are successful—were deprived of their earnings. Trainers’ incomes were substantially reduced, although of course their expenses were essentially unchanged. A report by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics estimated that the direct costs of the equine influenza outbreak during the initial response period, involving containment and eradication through restricted movement, reached $500,000 per day for the disease control alone plus $4.6 million per day in forgone income for businesses affected by equine influenza, including racing, farming and recreational businesses. The racing industry derives 70 per cent of its income from wagering. The outbreak substantially reduced wagering income not just in New South Wales and Queensland but throughout Australia, in particular in Victoria, as bets are taken on the national program.

In March 2008, the Rudd government announced that debate on the bills was postponed until after it had considered the findings of the commission of inquiry into the August 2007 outbreak of equine influenza in Australia, called the Callinan inquiry. Justice Ian Callinan was appointed by the previous government in September last year to investigate the outbreak of equine influenza. He was asked to report on the circumstances contributing to the outbreak of the disease and the need for any strengthened biosecurity procedures for the quarantine management of imported horses.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, the former minister has gone into the industry. The Callinan report into equine influenza found clear inadequacies in Australia’s quarantine system, best described in Commissioner Callinan’s own words. The opposition has not referred to this, but it is important that it is on the record. The former Justice Callinan said:

What I describe bespeaks an organisation that lacked clear lines of communication between those responsible for formulating procedures and work instructions and those responsible for implementing them …

This report is a scathing assessment of aspects of our quarantine and biosecurity arrangements, in particular for horse imports prior to August 2007. This does not reflect well on the previous government’s stewardship of the great Australian racing industry. Whilst there is no clear finding, Justice Callinan does make clear that the most likely way that equine influenza reached Australia was from horses imported from Japan.

The government’s response to the Callinan report was provided in a ministerial statement to this House by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the member for Watson, on 12 June 2008. The minister advised the House that the government had agreed to every single one of Commissioner Callinan’s 38 recommendations. The minister said that he would ensure that the government’s response was implemented in full and without delay. We appointed Professor Peter Shergold AC, former Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, to independently audit the implementation of the government’s response.

On 11 June, the Australian government, the Rudd government, announced that it would not levy the horse industry to repay its share of costs of dealing with the 2007 equine influenza outbreak. As the horse industry was not a signatory to Australia’s EADRA at the time of or during the outbreak, it would not have been proper to legislate retrospectively to recover the industry’s share of costs. In announcing this decision, the minister noted that a year earlier, in 2006, the horse industry had proposed to the Howard government a levy arrangement to protect the horse sector against the impacts of emergency animal disease outbreaks. Under the previous government, arrangements were not made to sign up the horse industry to EADRA and to establish the sector’s emergency disease preparedness. Whilst the intention at the time was that the horse industry and the government would share the costs for the response to and eradication of equine influenza, the Rudd government decided that it would not be fair to ask the industry to pay for those costs, given that they were not a signatory to the agreement—but we can have no more Pearl Harbours in the horse industry.

The response of the coalition is: ‘Let’s have another inquiry.’ In fact, another important part of the government’s response to the inquiry is already well underway. On 19 February this year, the minister announced a comprehensive, independent review of Australia’s quarantine and biosecurity systems, which is being led by Mr Roger Beale AO.

I congratulate the minister on his approach and his diligence in ensuring that the government’s response to the important issue of exotic disease outbreaks was comprehensive by ensuring that better arrangements exist into the future to protect the important horse industry. I commend not only the public heroes of racing but also the unsung heroes of racing, the jockeys, the stablehands, the cleaners, the barrier attendants and the members of the unions, who promote better conditions in the industry. I commend the thoroughbred owners, I commend the trainers, I commend the punters and I commend all of the people who have a share in a syndicate in a horse. And, to protect all of these great people, I commend the bills to the House.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Ageing and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to commend the member for Maribyrnong for his speech because he has undoubtedly, in the last 20 minutes, highlighted exactly what is wrong with the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008. In a 20-minute speech, he has allocated 100 per cent of his time to 20 per cent of the horses in Australia. He completely neglected to mention the pony clubs, campdrafters, cutting horses, pleasure horses and every kid that has a horse in the backyard. He very cleverly highlighted the money in racing, but he expects the poor parents that have a couple of kids at pony club to pay for the sins of the racing industry.

I welcome the opportunity to speak tonight on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill and the related bills, as the equine influenza outbreak and the subsequent issues in relation to EI have severely affected many constituents in my rural electorate of Parkes. Firstly, I would like to place on the record my opposition to these bills. This legislation proposes levy collection methods that are not accepted as fair and equitable by the overwhelming proportion of horse owners who would become liable to pay any future levy. I have had many, many of my constituents contact me in relation to this legislation, and all of them have been of the opinion that the leisure horse industry will be unfairly targeted under this system.

This legislation stems, of course, from the outbreak of equine influenza in Australia. The EI outbreak had disastrous effects for many horse owners, professional breeders, the racing industry and local communities in my electorate of Parkes. The timing of the outbreak had an adverse effect on many local show societies in my electorate, as many shows were scheduled at and around the time of the EI crisis. I know many of my constituents had real problems with their horses as showgrounds went into lockdown and many people were stuck.

One of my constituents, who lives in Dubbo, has told me of her particular experience, which I would like to relate to the House as it is a good example of how some residents were affected during the crisis. This woman had taken her two children to the Parkes Showground to compete in the equestrian events at the show. Her children are avid riders, and they often spend weekends travelling to events. On this particular occasion they arrived at Parkes Showground on Friday evening unaware of what was about to happen. One hour before they got to the showground, a Centennial Park resident riding school instructor arrived with horses that were suspect, so everyone had to sit tight and wait. On the Saturday, a decision was made by riders not to travel and to wait until Centennial Park veterinarians approved any movement. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries was also made aware of the situation. My constituent informs me that, although all of the DPI staff were pleasant, no-one seemed to have any idea of the impact of the disease or how contagious it really was. The local vet was contacted but was unable to assist with the treatment required for sick horses.

At the time, all of those stranded in the Parkes Showground felt that a lot of information given by the different bodies was contradictory. The horse owners had to fight to get the DPI vet to the grounds to confirm that the horses from Sydney were carrying EI. When it was finally determined that they were carrying EI, 50 days of quarantine began for those horses held at Parkes Showground. No real assistance was given in caring for the horses at this particular showground and no financial assistance was given to the horse owners. My constituent, who lives and works in Dubbo, had to make a 300-kilometre round trip every day in order to be at her office during work hours and with the horses at night. From her perspective, the whole thing was incredibly costly and time consuming. And she was not the only one affected in this way. Many other horse owners across the country were left in the same position.

The impact of the outbreak spread far further than just to mothers and their children at local shows. The rural racing industry was also hit hard, with many more race days in my electorate cancelled as the movement of horses had to stop given the highly contagious nature of EI. The Dubbo Turf Club certainly felt the effects of EI. They had to cancel their biggest annual event, Derby Day, and they lost two other major events, the Gold Cup and the Melbourne Cup, and had to go nine months without any income stream. The club’s staff numbers had to be cut by 50 per cent, much-needed renovations were put on hold and their function rooms were not able to be utilised due to the quarantine restrictions. And Dubbo was not alone. For some of the smaller local race clubs in my electorate, their only race meeting of the year had to be cancelled, which also led to huge financial losses. It was also a shame for residents of communities who had to cancel their races, as the local race day is often a highlight of the year’s social calendar for many of us in the bush.

It was also a very difficult time for horse trainers, who often rely solely on their racing horses for income. Another group of horse owners affected were those who compete in polocrosse competitions. Despite common stereotypes, polocrosse is not just a sport for the wealthy, and many country residents who play the game were left without their sport and the socialising that goes with it during the outbreak. Others affected include farriers, feed suppliers, vets, event operators and saddlery suppliers. And a horse dentist at Coonabarabran who I spoke to was severely impacted, as he was unable to treat horses in the area.

It is clear that the EI outbreak was a terrible occurrence for many people and caused significant social disruption as well as negative economic impacts. There were also huge issues after the outbreak with the management of the compensation payments. Some money was made available to assist those affected, yet the administration of this money was a nightmare, and many of those who were deserving of assistance failed to obtain any of the funding. One group that could apply for assistance was local show societies, yet many were knocked back, despite having credible grounds for needing assistance. Mr David Moor, President of the Agricultural Societies Council of New South Wales, has informed me that just some of the New South Wales shows to miss out on assistance included Pambula, Bulli, Bemboka, Temora, Dungog, Jerrawa, Bulahdelah, Casino, Ashford, Camden Haven, Lithgow, Leeton and Berrigan.

Earlier I mentioned the Parkes Showground, where my constituent was stuck with her horses for 50 days. The Secretary of the Parkes Show Society, Kaye Bird, contacted me because the results of their claims for financial assistance to recover costs incurred in the loss of the 2007 Parkes Show have been most disappointing. Parkes had to cancel their entire show due to the outbreak, with less than 12 hours notice. Some of the costs that they incurred included: radio and television promotion, $5,045; entertainment, $6,273; judges’ expenses, $1,578; printing of schedules and tickets, $6,570; security, $638; telephone, $150; prize money, $587; New South Wales ambulance, $2,921; showjumping, $3,225; ribbons, $948; and public liability insurance, $6,234—a total of $34,169. All of these were direct costs which would have been covered by their gate entry fee, and now they have no means of recovering this money. So clearly there was something not right in the administration of the financial assistance.

Another issue that has been raised with me by constituents in relation to the financial assistance made available after the EI outbreak concerns taxation. For those show societies who were able to secure assistance, a tax file number had to be given as part of the paperwork. Many local show society members had to give their personal or business tax file numbers, even though the money was going straight to the show society. Come tax time, this money is treated as income, and many of the individuals who were just trying to help out now need to sort this issue out with their accountants.

It is evident that the entire EI outbreak was a complete disaster from the time it got into Australia in the first place to the containment of the disease and with the financial and social impact it had on many communities. I agree that it is our responsibility as elected members of parliament to do all we can to ensure that something like this does not happen again and that if it does we learn from our mistakes and have a viable and sensible plan in place. I do not believe that this legislation is the answer, and I think we must carefully avoid implementing policy on the run.

If this legislation is passed, it will mean that every single horse owner in the country will have to pay that little bit extra to keep their animal. The many pleasure and hobby horse owners who live in my electorate would be liable for the greatest financial burden under the levy proposal. Under the proposed bills, if a similar EI outbreak were to occur then 80 per cent of the costs to industry would be passed to the pleasure, performance and hobby sector, with only 20 per cent of the costs passed to the racing sector.

Clearly, this is not a fair or equitable distribution, and it would appear that the legislation is taking a swipe at country families. Many of my horse-riding constituents have already been badly affected by drought and have found it that much more difficult to manage the costs of horse feed. Increased petrol prices have also made it that bit more expensive for a mother and father to take their kids and their horses to their local show, pony camp or polocrosse match. If things continue along this trajectory, there will be fewer and fewer children involved in horse riding and eventing, which will be a great shame.

I can speak from firsthand experience of how fantastic it is for kids to be involved with their local pony club or show. When I was young, I often attended these events in Warialda, and when I became a father all three of my children were members of the Warialda Pony Club. I believe that having your kids involved with horses gives them wonderful opportunities. I know that owning a horse taught my children about the responsibilities that go with having to look after a large animal, with all of the feeding, riding and grooming rituals that are part of the daily care that a horse requires.

Being involved with horses and pony camps also teaches children to work with others and gives them opportunities to represent their local area at competitions all across the state. Going to the pony club or riding at the show is an integral part of many country kids’ childhoods, and we should be doing all we can to encourage these activities. This legislation will make it harder for these great traditions to continue, because it will increase the costs for families who have horses. It may mean that some families will have to give up their horse-riding activities, and as a result pony club and showjumping events may no longer happen in country towns. That would be a great shame not only for the children who benefit from these activities but also for their families and the wider community. Horse-riding events often give parents the opportunity to come into town, to socialise with other families and to enjoy watching their children compete. At most of these events, there is usually a local service group, whether it is the Lions Club, Country Women’s Association, the Boy Scouts or the Apex club, who might run the canteen or the barbeque during the competitions or the pony camp. Quite often these horse events provide service groups with a solid opportunity to raise much-needed funds, and without them many volunteer groups may struggle.

This legislation has the ability to cause huge problems for many of my constituents. Whilst I recognise that we need to learn from what happened in the past, I do not believe that placing a levy on every new horse registered in this country is the answer. The Callinan report, which examined the EI outbreak, found that, while the cause of the outbreak could not be definitively determined, the most likely cause was a failing within quarantine processes. The logical response to this issue is to have a very serious look at our quarantine measures and to ensure that the proper systems are in place to lessen the chances of something like this occurring again.

The fact is that there is a much higher chance that equine influenza would be brought into this country as a result of horseracing, given the international nature of the industry; however, this legislation fails to address this issue, applying the levy to every new horse registered in Australia, regardless of its use. I do not believe that the members of pony clubs and owners of recreational horses in my electorate should carry the financial burden for any outbreak that may occur. That is why I am opposing these bills. I join with my colleagues on this side of the House in demanding that the government consult further with the industry to come up with a more equitable outcome.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and related bills. The disaster that occurred last year when equine influenza virtually stopped the movement of horses anywhere in Australia and trapped many outside their home states affected more people and animals than was documented. It caused hardship for thousands, including for those involved in horse shows, pony club events and gymkhanas, and it even interfered with our team’s preparation for the Beijing Olympics. When such a crisis nearly stopped the running of the nation’s icon event, the Melbourne Cup, suddenly it was big news! It certainly curtailed the Spring Carnival because many of the horses could not attend.

All horse and pony movements were stopped, and they had to be! But why? Because our quarantine system let us down. Although many of us might have thought it could never happen, it did. All the screening of airport luggage in the world for fruit and vegetables fell down because our frontline biosecurity measures away from the public eye failed when it came to horses entering Australia. The equine influenza inquiry, conducted by Hon. Ian Callinan AC after the industry had been shut down, came up with some shocking findings of our slackness as a nation in understanding the severity of the incident. The report found clear inadequacies in Australia’s quarantine system. They are best described in Commissioner Callinan’s own words, where he said:

What I describe bespeaks an organisation that lacked clear lines of communication between those responsible for formulating procedures and work instructions, and those responsible for implementing them.

The report found that systemic failures, understaffing, not being adequately funded and resourced, inadequacies and breakdowns, an impenetrable maze of bureaucratic confusion, ignorance and misunderstandings, misconceptions about fundamental matters, absence of clear communication and assumptions, inertia, inefficiency, lack of diligence, incompetence and distraction by unproductive bureaucratic processes all played a part. He concluded that the evidence did not enable him to make a precise finding as to how equine influenza escaped into the general horse population. However, it had enabled him to reach clear conclusions concerning inadequacies and breakdowns in the practices and procedures relating to the importation and quarantining of horses.

This failure must be sheeted home to the lax overview by the last federal minister. The National Party Leader, who spoke last night, must be hiding his and the National Party’s guilt by opposing these bills. I cannot think of any other reason for his opposition. By opposing these bills they are leaving the industry dangerously exposed again. He is being totally irresponsible, and I urge him to let these bills be passed and then assist in working out the best way to ensure that the levy is fairly collected when needed.

To prevent a similar incident occurring again, 38 recommendations were tabled, all of which I believe have been taken up by the government. The horse disease response levy legislation is necessary so that the horse industry can fund its share of obligations in response to a national disease outbreak emergency. Most industry bodies do not have the reserves or the required capital backing to arrange for commercial loans on which to draw in the event of an animal disease outbreak emergency. Without ready access to financial underwriting for affected industries, the commencement of an emergency response could be delayed and the overall response severely prejudiced. Under the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, the Commonwealth of Australia has agreed to underwrite an industry share of nationally agreed emergency response programs and for these costs to be recovered, with the industry’s agreement, through a statutory levy.

The Leader of the National Party, Mr Truss, said:

The Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement was negotiated with the goal of establishing a mechanism to facilitate rapid responses for the control and eradication of or the containment of certain animal diseases, with the costs for the response then shared between governments and industries according to a formula based on the economic and other benefits from the eradication.

So why on earth was he in here last night and why are his party members in here tonight opposing this measure? Until the legislation to raise this levy is in place, there is no mechanism to recover the horse industry’s share of the cost of any future horse disease outbreak. Yet he is now opposing this levy to be collected and not allowing the horse industry to be included in EADRA. This must be nit-picking of the worst kind. If another outbreak were to happen next month, no horse owner would be covered and all stock holders would be asked to cough up.

The horse industry is not a party to EADRA; however, this legislation will provide the framework to enable the industry to become a party. All other major livestock industries—cattle, sheep, wool, pigs, dairy, poultry, goat and honeybee—are signatories to EADRA. All have arrangements in place to meet their obligations under EADRA in the event of an animal disease emergency. In most cases this is a levy set at a zero rate by regulation. Other industries have accumulated reserves or have an existing positive levy in place. Where a levy mechanism is in place, collection is at a point of transaction, such as when cattle are sold at saleyards.

The move to include the horse industry in EADRA is a welcome one. It has been agreed by the majority of the industry, and they can decide whether they want to pay the levy on the outbreak of a disease or pay a small levy each year to build up a fund to draw upon if an incident occurs. It is up to the industry to work out what works best. Many owners of recreational horses and ponies might like to pay their levy upfront to prevent bigger costs being presented to them in the event of an outbreak. They can treat it like an insurance policy. It is important to be prepared. I think that a few groups in this country have the motto ‘be prepared’. This is a good opportunity to do that. We have to drive cultural change in our quarantine and biosecurity systems so that Australians can have confidence in them. We need to make sure that any future outbreak is not due to human error and pig-headedness.

Over my years in this place, I have been very aware of the difficulties facing our primary producers because of the past quarantine regime, backed up by arguments that we cannot offend the World Trade Organisation by citing quarantine issues as reasons for preventing some products from entering Australia. To state the obvious, as an island continent Australia was once naturally isolated from most exotic pests and diseases. Global trade and travel—while bringing great benefits—put Australia’s agricultural industries and unique natural environment at risk of devastation from a range of serious pests and diseases. Quarantine aims to protect Australia’s natural and economic assets while minimising disruption to the international movement of people and goods.

Tasmania, where I am from, is also an island, and it has the ability—and, I believe, the right—to isolate itself further from potentially disease-bearing products. We have fought the fight against importing goods on the basis that our industries will suffer destruction if hitherto absent diseases are introduced. First it was salmon, then it was apples and pears, then it was Newcastle disease in poultry from the mainland, then it was bird flu and, since then, there have been other questionable imports that have put our industries at risk. I think we have to be very careful about how we trade and how we relate to the World Trade Organisation and its guidelines. There should be some challenges to some of the WTO’s more inexplicable rulings.

During the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources inquiry into the honey bee industry, which was completed recently, I was made aware of the huge risk this fledgling industry is facing from the varroa mite. The varroa mite could wipe out that industry or bring it down to half its size. It could wipe out all the wild bees in Australia—no bees, no food. Fortunately, I think we have identified the risk and I am hoping the government will move quickly to address it—as well as address the many other sensible recommendations that were made in relation to quarantine and biosecurity. It is reports such as these committee reports that allow us to highlight problems faced by vulnerable primary industries and to deal with them before a catastrophe occurs of the nature of equine influenza.

These bills will allow the horse industry to start to help itself. They will also allow us to have an early warning system and they will put in place measures to deal with a possible disease outbreak quickly and efficiently. I think the time factor of a horse falling ill and anyone being made aware of the seriousness of it is quite alarming and, in the end, very expensive for all horse owners as well as for those in the racing industry.

We need to do more overall to ensure that our shores are protected from invading organisms and not just open doors simply because we want to sell some of our product elsewhere. The horse flu serves as a reminder now that every entry, every overseas product and every action that we take has a risk, and that therefore we should be properly prepared and be alert—as the previous PM was quite fond of saying—and we should keep the alarm ready to sound if need be.

I am very disappointed, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, that your party has decided to oppose the legislation. I am sure that you would have fought a good fight in the party room. I believe that the National Party, by leading a charge against these bills, has failed the horse industries of Australia. I support the bills, and I hope we never have to face a similar disaster again.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to join with my colleagues in opposing the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and related bills being debated cognately before the House tonight. I do not claim to be a great horse lover. In fact, I can confirm to the House that, although the saying is that when you get thrown off a horse you should just get back on, when I was young I got on a nag, got thrown off and did not get back on. I have never liked horses since, so I can confirm that that is quite an accurate and wise saying.

I rise on behalf of my constituency, including the suburbs of Box Hill, Nelson, Annangrove and Kenthurst. These are the semirural outskirts of Sydney, where there are high numbers of recreational horse owners and people who enjoy a rural lifestyle, on acreage of five to 10—sometimes 15—acres. These people are potentially impacted by these bills, and that is why I am here to speak on their behalf today.

It is the case that not one horse owner in Australia is responsible for the outbreak of EI. We do not know exactly where EI has come from, but we know that the horse owners themselves are not responsible. The reason that I rise to oppose the bills is that the measures proposed by the government seek to place the burden of cost and responsibility on the individual owners. I do not find that very satisfactory. Indeed, I would have expected that members opposite, being the party of the worker and the ordinary person, as they claim, would consider this quite a common-sense proposition: why burden every ordinary horse owner in Australia with a bill for something that they were not responsible for and had no control over? Intuitively, there is something missing from their arguments.

However, looking at the proposed legislation, there are some other concerns. Eighty per cent of the cost here is going to go to the pleasure and recreational horse industry and 20 per cent to the racing industry. From the representations I have received, I know it is the case that businesspeople with racehorses that were affected by EI were able to receive a rebate. Many registered horse associations—such as those for quarter horses, Arabs, Australian stock horses and Appaloosas—were not businesspeople and therefore were severely disadvantaged and without any form of compensation at all. Most people had to pay huge sums of money for expensive veterinary bills—I can confirm that from meetings with recreational owners all across my electorate—and agistment because of someone else’s mistakes.

These people have suffered enough. When you take into account all the costs that are associated with owning a horse—horses have been described to me as a form of black hole, and indeed they do sink money, just like a backyard pool—a horse can be a very expensive exercise for a family. Many people do this, and I think it is something that benefits a lot of families and children. I am not sure that imposing a hardship and a new tax on these families is very satisfactory at all.

I would like to note something for the House’s benefit that I think has not been considered, that I am aware of, in the contributions so far. I would make the simple point that the racehorse industry contributes about $150 million per year in revenue to the New South Wales state government. If you take into account all of the revenue that has been generated for all the other state and territory governments, perhaps we should not just be looking at owners and shifting the burden of costs onto the recreational owners and the recreational industries; we should be looking at the fact that state governments are making a lot of money out of the racing industry. They are receiving a large amount of money; perhaps they could make a contribution here. It might be something that the federal government could take up with them, with the high amounts of revenue they are receiving from the industry, particularly in New South Wales. Again, it does not seem fair or satisfactory that we place the overall burden on people who were not responsible for the outbreak and are not responsible for the problems. They already pay a lot to have horses and yet we are willing to slug them again in this way.

We do need to get our house in order in terms of quarantine. With respect to the Callinan report, there have been some very presumptive comments from members opposite about who is to blame for this. But there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other about where this came from, even though it is likely that it came from a quarantine failure.

There are a number of other objections that I would make to these bills. I have already stated that part of the unfairness of the bills is exposed by the figures that show that only a small proportion of the total number of horses are subject to levy collection. Eighty per cent of any liability would be recovered through the levy that would fall upon the pleasure and performance horse owners—and they do not derive any income from their horses. They are not businesses, they are not commercial activities, and they therefore would not be eligible for compensation in the event of a future disease outbreak. I note the contribution of the member for Lyons saying that this is a form of insurance for everyone in the country. But the reality is that the vast majority of people would not be eligible for any compensation, even though they had paid this particular levy. So there are real questions here of natural justice and why we should slug people who will not receive any particular benefit. There have been some claims about all the peak horse bodies in the country supporting this, but there are some concerns. We have seen that Thoroughbred Breeders Australia has some concerns about the way this levy is going to fall and are concerned that the burden does not fall on too few horse sectors.

I also have a concern about these kinds of measures coming from government. At this point in time, the levy is to be collected only as a one-off, but we know that governments have a tendency to continue to keep fiscal measures in place or extend them once they are in place. We have seen that before. Every time we pay income tax we are patently aware of that. I do accept the very real concerns of people who own horses and people in the horse industry in my electorate, in the rural suburbs, who say that they are worried that this will become an ongoing levy and that it will be seen as a form of revenue that the government is not prepared to give up over time.

Some other very valid points have been made to me about what may or may not happen. The fact is that there are estimated to be 1.2 million horses in Australia, and registrations are estimated at about 50,000 to 60,000. Only 20 per cent of the total number of horses that are registered nationally come from the largest commercial group, the Australian horse industry. Again I point out that the industry itself does generate a lot of revenue for state governments, and therefore there is a real issue to do with shifting the burden of cost onto this broad base but not seeking to reimburse the people in that broad base.

Another factor that has been raised with me is that the government has not really committed to what I would consider a consultative or collaborative approach in relation to this legislation. There are a number of very angry people out there who are concerned that this will be a factor in them deciding to no longer own horses or commit to owning horses in the future. As far as we are aware, the minister only wrote to horse owners on 11 June 2008. He basically said to horse owners that there would be no further assistance in the event of disease outbreaks if the industry failed to sign up to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement.

I tend to be uninspired by that kind of approach from government. They are saying to the people who are feeling the pain, paying the bills and suffering from what may well have been government failure: ‘The government will no longer look after you in the future and therefore we expect you to fend for yourselves but also pay a levy, and you may not receive any assistance back from that levy.’ It is very uninspiring of the minister to behave in that way. I think he really needs to think outside the square and think about the state government revenues that are raised by the racing industry. Essentially, if you are a member of the Labor Party, putting the onus on the ordinary person, the person who is a recreational owner and does not derive any form of income from horse ownership, does not seem to be a very satisfactory arrangement.

Pleasure horses and hobby horses are not the industry. Those in the sector that supports the industry, such as farriers, feed suppliers, vets, event operators, trainers, breeders, tack equipment suppliers and all those associated industries, are the ones who would end up being liable for the greatest financial burden. Some of those industries are in my electorate. Some of them certainly have suffered and some of them have been eligible for assistance. But the experience of the vast majority of horse owners in my electorate is that they are not really going to be eligible for any sort of assistance or any form of rebate on any disease that may well break out in the future.

I was approached at the time of the outbreak of EI by recreational owners in my electorate who have serious concerns. They pay large sums of money to own horses and they do enjoy the lifestyle. They love their horses greatly. They were slugged at the outbreak of EI with veterinary bills and all of the costs associated with the disease. Now the government is proposing to slug them again for something they were not responsible for. It does not seem to be a satisfactory arrangement. I am happy to oppose these bills and support the horse owners in my electorate. I support the great facilities like Tall Timbers, run by Riding for the Disabled, which operates out of my electorate. I was happy to open a new building for them recently. That facility operates many horses and provides a wonderful service for the disabled in my electorate.

In summary, the government seems to be putting pressure on us and saying, ‘Why aren’t you acting? Why aren’t you doing something?’ I think we do support sensible action in relation to this matter. We do support the idea that there must be some provision made for the future. I do not think it is reasonable to rule out state governments, who receive windfall revenues from the racing industry, in that equation. Why are we not considering asking them to make a contribution to subsidise the cost of future outbreaks of disease? If we are forming an insurance fund, like the member for Lyons said, we may well draw a levy from people who would potentially be the most affected commercially. We may seek the involvement of state governments, who would potentially be looking at black holes in their revenue. The New South Wales state government derive $150 million from the racing industry. I am happy to rise in support of the rural areas in my electorate—Box Hill, Nelson, Annangrove, Kenthurst—and all of the recreational owners. I stand up for them against what I see as a pretty unfair levy on them for something they are not responsible for.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and associated bills. I have heard a lot of terms bandied around by those on the other side and a lot of humbug in this debate. I have heard that there needs to be sensible action. I have heard that people were slugged. The reality is that a lot of people in the horse industry were slugged because they were not part of the scheme, because they were not in the framework. I had to also listen to members on the other side talk about how they were ready to do something, but they are not ready now. They were not ready 12 years ago; they were not ready 10 years ago. They are not ready today; they will not be ready tomorrow. They want to send the legislation over to the Senate for another review. It does not need to be reviewed; it needs to be passed so that the horse industry has certainty in this area. We all know what happened when equine influenza broke out.

Debate interrupted.