Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great honour to have you in the chair, Mr Speaker, for this very important debate. The Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is an uncontroversial bill, but it is an important bill. Any matter in this place that goes to our biosecurity is of critical importance. In agriculture, of course, our greatest competitive advantage relies in our reputation as a provider of clean, green, safe food. The protection of that reputation means everything to our future success in the agriculture sector. Indeed, I think if you were aptly and properly naming the portfolio in title terms you would call it 'agriculture and biosecurity', or maybe 'food and fibre biosecurity'. But, certainly, a primary role for an agriculture minister in this country is to ensure that we have all the resources that the department and its sister departments need to ensure that our biosecurity is as strong as it possibly can be.

Every new minister to the portfolio's first act should be to seek reassurance from his or her department that the resources of government are sufficiently available to make sure that is the case. This is core business, unlike things like sugar disputes in Queensland, where the agriculture minister seems to be spending a disproportionate amount of his time engaging in a matter of commercial negotiation and, if there is a role for government, a matter for the Queensland government. Indeed, in that dispute the Queensland government has been very efficient in guiding the combatants, if you like, in that dispute to a successful resolution through arbitration, through mediation. Here we are at the 11th hour. We are almost there. I fully expect we will get a resolution in the next day or two.

What we do not need is the agriculture minister interfering and sending confused signals to parties to that negotiation. We particularly do not need a Minister for Agriculture now getting involved in the 11th hour in the hope of claiming some credit for the very good work of the Queensland government. We do not need a Minister for Agriculture talking about a code of conduct that does not exist. He says he has it in his drawer, up his sleeve—everywhere but on the table. It defines any rationale or logic to suggest that a code of conduct that cannot be implemented immediately in any case could somehow retrospectively deal with the behaviour of the parties to the commercial process in Queensland. It is a ridiculous suggestion. It does not help this situation for the Minister for Agriculture to be now threatening the parties with some sort of intervention we know will not come, but only sends the wrong signals to the parties in those negotiations.

Minister Joyce should understand that this dispute in Queensland has been dragging on for 18 months for one reason: because of the populist intervention of the LNP in Queensland and its minor party friends with the creation of that legislation 18 months ago—legislation that was always flawed and was always going to fail. The legislation has now been found to be unconstitutional. The Minister for Agriculture told us this morning that he has other advice that it is not unconstitutional. If the Minister for Agriculture has advice that the Queensland legislation is not unconstitutional, he should lay it on the table in this place. He should properly explain it to the growers and he should authenticate that claim. So he has three things in his draw now. He has a mythical code of conduct that would do nothing, he has advice that the Queensland legislation is not unconstitutional and he has one other thing—a report from the Productivity Commission on regulation in the farm sector and its impact on productivity, but he will not release it. I ask the minister at the table: why won't the agriculture minister release the Productivity Commission's report of the inquiry into farm regulation? I will give members of the House the reason: it disagrees with him. It disagrees with the Deputy Prime Minister—well, we cannot have that released! It is in specific disagreement with the Minister for Agriculture on the sugar dispute in Queensland and the status of that legislation passed by the Queensland Parliament with the opposition of the Queensland government. The Queensland Labor government understood the flaws in that bill and understood that the bill would only serve to drag that dispute out in Queensland.

So the Deputy Prime Minister has done enough damage with his LNP colleagues in Queensland. He should get out of the way. He should stop providing false hope to any parties involved in that dispute. He should leave his code of conduct—if it exists. I do not know whether it was the one written by the member for Dawson. Possibly, it was the one written by the member for Dawson at his desk in his office. But whoever wrote it, if it does exist—it does not matter because we know it will have no effect. We know it serves no purpose in bringing this dispute to a successful resolution.

Back to biosecurity: it was the former Labor government which initiated the Beale review of our biosecurity systems, the first serious review in about a century. I do not remember the date of the original quarantine bill, but it was more than 100 years old and it was certainly in need of review. The Labor government did review it. We embraced the Beale review's recommendations in legislation. Unfortunately, that legislation did not pass the parliament before it was prorogued for the purposes of the 2013 election. And, in around 2015, rightly, the then government picked up where the former Labor government had left off and reintroduced the legislation with some changes. My greatest disappointment was the very specific change that Minister Joyce inserted into the bill which basically gutted the Inspector-General for Biosecurity.

I began my contribution by talking about the priority of biosecurity. I am glad that the member for Paterson is with us—we were down visiting the new beehive in the grounds of Parliament House just this morning. The House agriculture committee—of which she is deputy chair and I congratulate all members of the committee, particularly her very innovative work on that committee—has just held an inquiry into the importance of biosecurity as it relates to our bee population. For the minister to gut or attempt to gut the Inspector-General of Biosecurity defies any rationale or logic. Thankfully we had the fight in this place and indeed in the Senate; and we were able to effectively counter the minister's attempts to water down, if not abolish, the role of the Inspector-General. When the government of the day finally revisited what the former Labor government had begun, I was very disappointed that he attempted to water down the independence and the role and the weight of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity, but that has been fixed.

This bill amends Biosecurity Act 2015—the one I just referred to—to make essential changes to the requirements for the management and control of ships ballast water to reduce the risk of invasive marine pests and pathogens entering Australian waters. Again, it does enjoy the support of the opposition. It is interesting to learn that each year around 200 million tonnes of ships ballast water is discharged into Australian ports by some 13,000 ships visiting from some 600 overseas ports. Of course, Australia is particularly vulnerable to biosecurity incursions, because many cargo ships arrive here without cargo, meaning that they require large quantities of ballast water to stabilise the vessel. I had not properly considered in the past the volume of ballast water which, by necessity, comes into our ports but it obviously is a very serious matter.

I did not like the way the minister made reference to the recent white spot outbreak in prawns. The minister cleverly attempted to say that this bill was partly about his genius solution or response to that outbreak—an outbreak which of course has been a debacle in its management under the watch of this minister. Something like the white spot outbreak in prawns is a solid reminder of some of the risk posed by things like ballast water. We are an island continent, and that is the reason we have been able to defend our clean, green image.

I need to say that the government has come to the opposition with some eleventh hour amendments to the bill. They look pretty benign and they do not cause me particular concern but I am disappointed that we still do not have full clarity from the minister's office about what the amendments do. We are assured that they are tidy-ups and not substantial in nature. We have been given a response by the minister's office, but let me give the House an example about the lack of clarity. They say that it 'provides certainty for foreign estates and vessels about their legal obligations when operating in Australian seas which will enable Australia to ratify the Ballast Water Convention'. I should say that this bill is all about bringing us into line with our international obligations. It is obvious to members of the House that this is a matter that is dealt with—rightly—on a global scale. It then goes on to say: 'Subsection 1 and 1(a) do not apply if'—does has been replaced by do—'the condition in section 271, 276, 277, 278(a), 279, 282 or subsection 283(1)(2)(3) is met in relation to the discharge of ballast water.' I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I do not know what that means—I am being very honest about that. I have had a quick look and I do not think that it means very much. It does look like a drafting error and a simple correction to the bill but to come to us at the eleventh hour and expect me to absorb that and interpret what it means for this bill on such an important matter is not appropriate and not acceptable. While restating the opposition's support for the bill, I do put that one caveat on that commitment and that is: before this matter is dealt with by the other place, I would like a fuller explanation and assurance that these complex-looking changes which may not be so complex in the end do not substantially change the purpose and the effect of the bill and certainly do not digress from the main intention of the bill. I thank the House.

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I speak to the bill and while the member for Hunter is still in the chamber, I owe him an explanation for comments made in relation to another issue in this House—the backpacker tax. During that debate I was very critical of the way in which the member for Hunter conducted himself in that debate. I made comments about people from my area ringing his office only to be hung up on. I have since worked through where those constituents came from and it turns out that no-one rang the member for Hunter's office and was hung up on. That scenario took place in Senator Hinch's office and whilst I have no love for the member for Hunter's behaviour during the backpacker tax debate—I will remain eternally critical of the member for Hunter's behaviour during the backpacker tax affair—I do owe him and his office an apology for the false accusation. However, that said, it is now time to move on to the biosecurity issues in this bill.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just say to the member for Murray that obviously the remarks you have just made are not on the subject of the bill, but out of indulgence and for the sake of efficiency I thought it better to let you proceed rather than you jump later on.

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is why you get the big dollars, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that indulgence. In relation to the amendments that have been put forward, it is also my understanding that these are mere technical and typographical errors. I have been given assurances that they have no substantive impact on the definition of the bill or the intent of the legislation.

As was also put forward, it is absolutely critical that everybody in Australia understands that biosecurity is at the epicentre of the agricultural industries. Everything we do with our agricultural produce is based around the fact that we have some of the highest quality agricultural produce in the world. Because of the high cost of productivity and the high cost of inputs in this country, we understand that we need this amazingly clean, green reputation to be preserved. It is something that is absolutely critical to everything we do in the agricultural sector. It was a little bit interesting to see the shadow minister for agriculture spend one minute on that and then spend five or 10 minutes talking about sugar. However, the shadow minister did in fact come back to the bill.

This bill is incredibly important when you think about the 200 million tonnes of ballast water that is discharged into our ports around Australia. The sheer quantity of this water makes everybody quite alarmed. We have 13,000 ships coming to our ports every year, many of them empty and ready to pick up cargo. Obviously the additional weight that they need to remain stable comes from increased quantities of ballast water. What is also interesting with the statistics is the high number of different ports from different areas around the world where these ships arrive from. The Zika virus is something that has caused enormous concern because of its effect on humans, and the vectors that incursions are able to derive from certainly create a real concern for us.

This bill will also position Australia and its need to comply with the ballast water management convention—the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments—to provide an internationally consistent approach to managing ballast water on vessels. Ballast water is now recognised as a major source in the spread of exotic marine pests around the world, and Australia has played a key role in developing the ballast water management convention. We signed that convention in 2005, but it is subject to ratification. Australia is now a global leader in biosecurity and has a positive international reputation in relation to biosecurity and environmental control measures. Failure to legislate to comply with the ballast water convention before it is enforced in September would risk further damage to Australia's reputation. Obviously in Australia we have an expanding international marine trade. It is considered in Australia's interest to implement more uniform and stringent requirements to make sure that we do in fact conform to the convention.

I would also like to spend a little bit of time talking about just how important agriculture and trade is to my local area around the Goulburn Valley. It is often referred to as the 'food bowl of Australia', and around 25 per cent of Victoria's agricultural produce, in a different range of areas, is produced in the Goulburn Valley. On horticulture alone, the Goulburn Valley produces over 82,000 tonnes of apples. Twenty-eight per cent of Australia's total apple production is in the Goulburn Valley. Eighty-six per cent of Australia's pear production takes place in the Goulburn Valley. It is over 105,000 tonnes. Over 70 per cent of Australia's peaches are produced in the Goulburn Valley. We all understand that about a quarter of Australia's total dairy produce is produced in the Goulburn Valley, with over 2,300 million litres of milk and milk products being produced. Tomatoes, again, are a huge commodity within the Goulburn Valley in relation to preserved tomatoes and tomato products. It is predominantly driven out of KAGOME in Echuca and SPC in Shepparton. Nearly all but 10,000 tonnes of tomatoes that are processed in Australia are processed in the Goulburn Valley.

As I have said many times in this House, it is not just the primary produce that we have to protect when we are doing free trade agreements. We have seen the impact of those free trade agreements. When we create these free trade agreements with countries like China, Japan and South Korea, once those tariffs and once those exporting costs are diminished, we see a direct increase in the amount of produce that leaves our shore for those destinations.

It is not just the primary produce that benefits from these free trade agreements, from this amazing biosecurity reputation that we have and from the quality that we have. Sitting on the back of some of these commodities which I have already mentioned is a whole range of other primary produce that is yet to receive the go-ahead to move into these other areas. Whilst apricots have just recently been given the protocol approval, we are also looking at kiwifruit. There has been some serious investment in kiwifruit from the Goulburn Valley, and it is trying to reach its way into some of those Asian countries.

On the back of this primary production industry is, in fact, a whole range of other industries. We have the processing plants and then, on the back of the processing plants, we have a whole range of packaging industries—whether that be Visy or a whole range of others. They employ literally hundreds and hundreds of people throughout the Goulburn Valley just in packaging. And then, outside of Melbourne and Sydney, the city that has the most amount of transports registered to it is the city of Shepparton. Again, that is because the transport industry is so critically important to moving so much of this primary produce that the area creates. Should anything ever happen to our primary industries, we have the packaging industry and the transport industry sitting on the edge, which are directly affected, either positively or negatively. When primary industry is going well we also have an increased boost in these associated areas, not to mention, obviously, retail in our major cities around regional Victoria. When the agricultural sector is going well retail is also going well. We know that when the farmers are doing well they spend their money. They reinvest back in their farms and businesses and they provide a real boost for our regional economies. That spills over into the professional sector. When the farming businesses are really humming along, they have an extensive need to create the highly tuned businesses that will provide all the professional services that they need.

So, whether it be in transport or packaging or retail or professional or all the other associated industries that hang off the back of primary production, we all need to realise how critical our biosecurity measures are to maintain this reputation that we have spent over a hundred years in building, aided by the fact that we are an island nation and have had many years in which we have been able to invest in biosecurity.

It is worth noting that when we came to government there had been reports about the fact that we had let our biosecurity protocols slip and that there had been a disinvestment in the biosecurity area. We have had to correct that and bring those investments back. We have invested over $200 million to improve biosecurity since we have been in government, with $50 million to boost Australia's emergency pest and disease eradication capability and $50 million to give farmers betters tools and control methods against pest animals and weeds. It is a very strong record that the coalition has put together to ensure the continued care and protection of Australian farmers and the community from pests and diseases. We need to ensure that this continues to rebuild and reinvest in the biosecurity system.

This bill will effectively come into force on 8 September this year. It is a very important bill. It goes to the very centre of our reputation, which is so highly regarded around the world. We understand how important this is to our fishing industry, in relation to our vulnerability to marine pests. The member for Hunter has already touched on the outbreak we have had with the prawns, which needs to be addressed. It is a very difficult area to address. We have had previous outbreaks which have effectively been able to be treated, but we have ongoing challenges now which are going to need more and more work on them all the time. In this bill we are also going to make these essential changes in the hope that we will be able to reduce the risk of invasive marine pests entering Australian waters. Certainly we would like to think that if we remain ever vigilant—this is where we need to acknowledge the work that Minister Barnaby Joyce is doing in this area. He is prepared to throw whatever it takes at biosecurity measures to insist that Australia adheres to the convention that we have worked so hard to design and helped design. We need to acknowledge that Barnaby Joyce will do whatever it takes to make sure that we protect our reputation and do whatever we can to ensure that biosecurity is at the forefront of everything we do in relation to agriculture.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the member for Murray to refer to members by their correct titles—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures} Bill 2017. The bill amends the Biosecurity Act 2015 to make essential changes to requirements for the control and management of ships' ballast water to reduce the risk of invasive marine pests and pathogens entering Australian waters. The bill will ensure that Australia will be legislatively compliant with the international convention on ballast water when it comes into force on 8 September 2017. The bill builds on the original intent of the act by providing additional powers designed to strengthen Australia's ability to manage risks to human health, firstly by broadening the existing power to destroy exotic vectors—that is, carriers—of human disease of concern on vessels and aircraft arriving in Australia; secondly, by reinstating a previous power from the superseded Quarantine Act 1908 for human health officials to direct private parties to undertake control activities if an exotic vector or carrier incursion, such as the mosquito-borne Zika virus, is detected.

I spoke earlier in the House on another issue of biosecurity—the Australian honey bee. As deputy chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, I spoke about the aptly named Safe Keeping report coming out of the inquiry into biosecurity of our honey bees in Australia. It was tabled just yesterday in this House. I am pleased to have worked with chair Rick Wilson on this. I told the House how important the honey bee is to Australia and that its value to our economy is in the order of $4 billion when its role as a pollinator is taken into account.

Our honey bees are healthy, due in part to our isolation, but also because of the vigilance of our biosecurity measures. But the risk of invasive pets and diseases is increasing because of world trade and international travel. There are risks to the honey bee from the Asian honey bee, but the main one is from the Varroa mite, which is present in every bee-keeping country across the world except Australia. That is something that we need to be proud of but also vigilant about. The committee made a number of recommendations, the main one being extending the National Bee Pest Surveillance Program to cover more ports and airports. The program, which involves a system of hives, lures and traps at the main points of entry, currently covers 32 ports.

The committee has recommended the program be expanded to cover 54 ports, or almost 100 per cent of our trade. The annual cost of this $1.9 million program is well worth it, given the annual $4 billion contribution of the honey bee to Australia. I am hoping the Turnbull government takes on board the recommendations of the committee regarding the honey bee to ensure its future contribution to our economy. The government is to be commended for this biosecurity amendment regarding ballast water, and Labor fully supports it. But it must be acknowledged that the Labor Party did the hard work in developing a modernised biosecurity framework, which included a large body of work to strengthen the management of ships' ballast water. We did that work. We set this framework up.

The issue of ships' ballast is a very important one for biosecurity in Australia. Each year around 200 million tonnes of ships' ballast is just discharged into Australian ports by around 13,000 ships from more than 600 overseas ports. Australia is particularly vulnerable to biosecurity incursions, as many cargo ships arrive here without cargo, meaning they come full of ballast water which must be discharged into our waters before the cargo can be loaded. The same can also be said for some arriving cruise ships. When ballast water is taken up in these far-flung ports, marine organisms can be picked up too, and they are released in our waters when the ballast is discharged. Pests such as bacteria, microbes, small invertebrates, eggs, cysts and larvae of various species can all find their way here into our waters. In fact it is estimated that 10,000 different species are moved around the world in ballast every single day.

Sometimes those pests do not cause too much of a problem. For example, we know there are introduced species in Port Jackson and Botany Bay in Sydney, Port Kembla, the Port of Eden, and the port of Newcastle, near my electorate of Paterson. These exotic species do not appear to have an ecological or economic impact. They include aquarium caulerpa, New Zealand screw shell, European fan worm, and European green shore crab. But introduced marine pests can cause serious environmental and economic damage. There has been an invasion in Australia of the Northern Pacific sea star, which was introduced to Tasmania through ballast water from Japan in the 1980s and into Victoria through ballast water in the 1990s.

It led to reduced shellfish production in Tasmania and damaged marine ecosystems in both Tasmania and Victoria. Of course, we now have the much maligned white spot disease. We are not certain how white spot came to Australia, but it shows the devastating effect of a virus on species such as prawns, and how vigilant we need to be. White spot was detected last year in prawn farms in the Logan River, south of Brisbane, and has now been found in wild prawns in Moreton Bay. Queensland authorities say that it is unstoppable and will have to die out naturally. White spot is highly contagious, is lethal to crustaceans and, overseas, has reduced prawn farm productivity by up to 40 per cent. The Logan River prawn farms have seen productivity losses of up to 80 per cent. We have had a bad experience before and we must do our best to ensure this does not happen again.

You have to wonder whether, if the government had acted sooner to bring in this amendment, we might not have the current outbreak of white spot disease in prawns. The government decided it was better to give business more flexibility to choose their own cost-effective option in meeting the requirements of the Ballast Water Management Convention, but this delay may have caused our prawn industry irreparable damage. This current legislation will ensure that Australia is fully legislatively compliant with the ballast water convention when it comes into force this September. That we, as part developers of that convention, are fully up to speed with the rest of the world is a good thing. Schedule 2 of the bill relates to additional vector management powers needed under the Biosecurity Act to ensure Australia is not left vulnerable to significant human health risks. The need for these powers is demonstrated by rising global detections of the mosquito-borne zika virus. The bill seeks to reduce the likelihood of incursions of carriers that could pose a real concern to human health and to provide powers to manage potential incursions when they are detected.

The Department of Health has worked with state and territory counterparts and communicable disease experts to ensure the amendments address contemporary public health concerns posed by exotic mosquitoes, like the zika virus. These amendments will be supported by nationally consistent arrangements to support collaboration across different levels of government, and that is critical as well. The states must be involved. Labor understands the importance of our biosecurity systems and that strong biosecurity will contribute to our economy. The strength of our biosecurity systems is absolutely paramount for Australia's reputation as clean, green and safe, particularly as a producer of food. We must ensure that we absolutely guard 'brand Australia' as being clean, green and safe. Getting rid of introduced marine pests once they have been established is extremely difficult, if not impossible, and we are seeing that borne out by white spot. However, we must be eternally vigilant about our biosecurity, because even though we are a great island nation, that mighty water out there cannot protect us and in fact can sometimes deliver us those vectors that we do not want in this country. I am pleased to say that we support this bill, but we need to continue to be vigilant, and biosecurity is one way that we can do that.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an absolute pleasure to follow the member for Paterson. As she mentioned yesterday, as the chair and vice-chair of the agriculture committee we handed down a report on biosecurity in the bee industry. I think we are at our best in this place when we work together cooperatively on committees, and it is a shame that the general public do not see that side of the work that we do here.

But the member for Paterson went above and beyond the call of duty yesterday, because the secretariat thought it would be a good idea to take the report down and present it to the bees in the hives here on the grounds of Parliament House. I am glad to see you got through that experience without getting stung, Member for Paterson. I am sure the bees are very happy with the outcome of our report.

But I am here today to talk about the Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017. This bill makes two key changes to the Biosecurity Act. It will strengthen powers relating to ballast water to reduce the risk of invasive marine pests entering Australian waters, and it will enable better targeting and control of vectors such as mosquitoes that are capable of carrying human diseases such as Zika virus into this country. Following these amendments, Australia will be in a position to ratify the ballast water convention. It will require ships to have ballast water management plans while in Australian waters and discharge ballast water in accordance with the convention. It will allow new ballast water treatment technologies to be used and will phase out ballast water exchange.

Each year around 200 million tonnes of ships' ballast water is discharged into Australian ports by 13,000 ship visits from some 600 overseas ports. Australia is vulnerable to marine pest incursions. Many cargo ships arrive here without cargo and have a large quantity of ballast water. In my electorate of O'Connor, many of the bulk vessels that enter the ports are empty, as they are chartered to export bulk grain and mineral products. As a matter of course, the vessels will carry ballast water to stabilise them during the journey. This ballast water can host vectors that are hazardous to human health or it can transport animal and vegetative pests that are alien to Australian waters. Our fishing industry is vulnerable to marine pests and it is important to protect our waters and resources from the possibility of such incursions.

The ports of Albany and Esperance are two vital export channels for industries across the electorate of O'Connor. In 2016, 158 vessels visited the port of Albany to import and export in excess of 4.5 million tonnes of bulk product. Grain and oil seeds are the chief export commodities from Albany, but there are also large volumes of woodchips and tonnages of logs and silica sands. In the same year, 209 vessels serviced the port of Esperance, with over 50 million tonnes of product moving across the wharves. Iron ore was the major bulk commodity, with over 11 million tonnes of ore from the Northern Goldfields being transported by rail and road to the Esperance port for export. Cereal grains and oil seeds were the next largest export by volume, and there are also nickel products, gold pyrite and even scrap metal passing the ships' rails in most years.

In the last year, we have seen the first shipment of woodchips leave the Esperance port. Last season the WA grain industry set a record for production, with approximately 16.8 million tonnes of grains delivered to the receival system. The recent rain events across the south of the state have delivered a full soil moisture profile, and the potential for another very large freight task to export this year's crop is looming.

One of the features of carrying out any business in Australia, of course, is managing the logistics supply chain that supplies your business inputs. The ports of Albany and Esperance play a vital role in supplying key inputs to the mining and agricultural industries in the south and south-east of Western Australia. The two main imports for the agricultural sector that enter via both Albany and Esperance are bulk fertilisers and petroleum products. Many farmers across the electorate will currently be planning their cropping programs, based on the timely delivery of those inputs from the ports. The Esperance port is also the entry point for some large tonnages of sulphur and magnesium oxide, both of which are important inputs for the resources sector in the Goldfields and Ravensthorpe.

I will just take the opportunity to mention the shire of Ravensthorpe, which is recovering from a severe flood event that happened about a month ago. I want to say to the people of Ravensthorpe I am monitoring the situation. I dropped in and saw the shire CEO the other day and will be back down there as soon as we have a break in April to see how that recovery effort is going.

The south coast of WA, which Ravensthorpe sits on, also includes Hopetoun—one of those beautiful spots—along with the Fitzgerald River National Park. Over a dozen cruise ships visit each of those ports every year. The tourism industry continues to expand on the south coast of the electorate, and many of the visitors enjoy fishing, boating, diving and sightseeing along the coast. This bill will assist in protecting marine species and the marine environment along the south coast of WA. It will provide the powers needed to manage a potential incursion, should it occur. Given the increasing importance to the Australian economy of exports through the two ports in my electorate of O'Connor, this legislation is vitally important to my constituents, and I commend the bill to the House.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to see that the government has finally fixed this little error that it made in the last parliament. As people on this side have already pointed out, this particular piece of legislation, the Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017, will be supported by Labor. We have said we were surprised it was not introduced in the 43rd Parliament. It is great that the government has caught up, realised its mistake and now brought this legislation to us.

Whilst we support the legislation that is before us, which talks about the safe management of ballast water, it allows me to talk more broadly about the importance of our shipping industry in this country. It allows me to highlight how we must have the world's best practices when it comes to shipping in this country. As you have already heard, and as others have pointed out, about two million tonnes of ships' ballast water is discharged into Australian ports by 13,000 ships visiting our ports from some 600 overseas ports. So this is something we want to get right.

We also know the risks with ballast water if it is not discharged properly. We know the risk to our biosecurity, which is the purpose of this bill being brought before the House. Marine organisms can be picked up and released when ballast water is discharged. We need to make sure, just like when you come in through customs, that we are not bringing in species that could cause a biosecurity risk in our maritime environment, whether they be bacteria, eggs or larvae of various species. We have a clean, green and safe image in this country and must do all we can to protect it—on shore, in the air and at sea.

There are a lot of ships that enter our waters and do business with Australia—13,000 ships from some 600 overseas ports. These laws and these particular rules would be so much easier to enforce if we knew that the people working on our ships were in fact Australian trained and qualified seafarers. There is a growing problem within our shipping industry in that there are very few Australians left to work in our shipping industry. Colleagues of mine have talked about 'Work Choices on water' and the fact that, by stealth, we are losing Australian jobs in our maritime industry time and time again as more and more ships are no longer Australian flagged ships; they are flags of convenience and flagged overseas.

Whilst this is very much an issue about Australian jobs, how does it relate to ballast water and the protection of our vital maritime industries? It is because we do not know if they have had the training. We do not know if they have the skills and qualifications required to ensure that they are meeting our tough laws on environmental safety when it comes to working on water. I have had the great opportunity to meet with many seafarers—people working on tugs in ports like Newcastle, people who used to work on fuel vessels and sea vessels and people still lucky enough to have a position in our shipping industry. They say that we should be concerned and that they know of people who have not had the opportunity of training in Australia—who do not have our MSIC, our maritime security identification card, and do not have Australian qualifications—who have a quite limited understanding of our rules. They tell me of cases where these people just dump their rubbish overboard into our Great Barrier Reef, due to their lack of knowledge, because they are not from Australia and are not Australian workers. In some cases they even struggle to have an Australian pilot because of the growth of 457 visas in this sector. So there are concerns about whether, when we do put rules in place, they will actually be enforced because of this issue that we have about who is working on our ships.

The legislation that is before us does bring us up to the Ballast Water Convention. We signed the Ballast Water Convention, subject to ratification, in May 2005. The convention entered into force and becomes mandatory 12 months after it has been adopted by 30 countries, representing 35 per cent of the world's merchant shipping tonnage. As of 9 January 2014, the convention had been adopted by 38 countries, representing just over 30 per cent of world's merchant shipping tonnage. During the 44th Parliament, the government claimed that the proposed biosecurity legislation implemented the majority of the Ballast Water Convention by introducing stricter ballast water management requirements than were currently in place under the old Quarantine Act. It also acknowledged that the proposed biosecurity legislation which is now enacted would need to be amended to fully implement the convention when ratified. So, whilst it is important that we step this way, we will need to do further work in relation to the convention.

I spoke briefly about what is happening on our shores. Ballast water is not the only issue that we should be concerned about. We have seen under this government a growth in incidents that did not previously occur in our waterways. Part of it is linked to the fact that we have lost of Australian seafarers—people who have the local knowledge, people who understand our waterways, people who have qualifications and skills being replaced by seafarers that do not. We have seen incidents off our coast where ships have run aground. Whilst one particular incident was a bit of a spectacular scene for local people, locals were also very concerned about what was spilling into their community. We have seen incidents of oil spills and problems with what has occurred in our Great Barrier Reef. We have seen time and time again issues related to who is employed to work on our ships. The fact that people working on our ships do not have Australian skills and qualifications continues to be a problem.

I do not understand why we would not want to encourage Australian jobs in Australian shipping. We need to look at industries in our country and how we can encourage future and new industries. We have lost the car manufacturing industry, with the loss of 40,000 jobs. We have lost shipping jobs, but we have not lost our shipping industry. There are other countries in the world, allies of ours, that have a pretty strong stance. The United States have the Jones Act, which says that every person who works in shipping around the United States coastal borders needs to be US trained and qualified. They even go as far as to say that, if you want to use port to port in America, it needs to be an American built vessel. There are other countries that have really led the way in how you not only ensure local jobs—for example, Australians being employed to work in Australian shipping—but also ensure a country's security going forward, whether it be their fuel security, their environmental security or their national security.

There is a need to have an Australian trained and skilled shipping workforce, and at the moment we are on the brink of losing that. We are on the brink of losing that because of this government's inaction in protecting Australian shipping jobs. We have heard from the union in this sector, the MUA, say that there is a problem with 457 visas, particularly in the pilot sector and the higher-skilled sector. We have also heard that there is a problem with people working on crews in horrible and appalling conditions. It has been reported in the media that they can be earning as little as $2 a day. We should condemn in the loudest possible terms any ship that arrives into an Australian port where the workers are being treated appallingly, are not being paid decent wages and do not have decent conditions.

I believe that as a country—and I encourage the government to look at how we can do it—we can rebuild employment in the shipping industry for Australian seafarers. I have met people for whom it was a family business: they are a seafarer, their grandfather was a seafarer and their father was a seafarer. In an island country, a country that relies on imports and exports, it is just ridiculous that we do not have—and are losing at a rapid pace—a skilled seafaring workforce. It is an opportunity to create good jobs in our country and, at the same time as securing and creating these good jobs with Australian skills, with MSIC passes, going through the training colleges that we have here in Australia—some of the world's best in terms of maritime security—also be able to secure our fuel and also our environment, the natural assets we have. These are our waterways, including the Great Barrier Reef. In relation to this issue of ballast water, we need to ensure that we are doing all we can to secure our environment and our borders by ensuring that we keep the nasties out and continue to maintain that clean, green image.

It is great to see that the government has brought this legislation forward. It is disappointing that it did not come up in the last parliament. It is one of those things that should not be largely debated, because it is agreed on both sides. But it has allowed us an opportunity to stand up and say that it is not the rosy, bright picture that the Deputy Prime Minister is painting. He is suggesting that he has been the person to provide the great solution when all he has done is what the previous government failed to do. He was a minister for a period and was to bring this legislation forward in the last parliament. In 2012 Labor introduced a new biosecurity bill to replace the century-old Quarantine Act. This new biosecurity bill included legislative changes in respect of international and domestic ballast water. It was already there. However, it lapsed because of the election and the dissolution of the 23rd parliament. It is disappointing that the 23rd parliament did not bring on that bill when we discussed the other biosecurity measures bill in the last parliament. But it is here, and it will ensure—if passed, and with us being a signatory to the convention on ballast water—that we are doing all we can to keep that clean, green image, which is so vital not just to our local domestic market but also to our export market.

When I was in Newcastle I had the opportunity to travel a little bit further south and meet with people involved in the fishing industry. They talked about the tuna they export. Some of the tuna stays here in Australia and some is exported. And they talked about the need to keep our marine ways, just like our land, as clean and green as possible. However, if, as a farmer, it is your land, it is a little bit easier to manage than waterways. These people spoke to me about the need for this legislation—how legislation like this does help. However, as I have said, we need to ensure that the people who are responsible for ensuring that the wrong thing is not done are doing that. If there is an Australian there who understands Australian laws then it is more likely that Australian laws will be followed. It is critical that as a country, as a parliament—a call to arms of the government—we do more to create and secure shipping jobs in the shipping industry, an industry that still exists, in our country. We have some very good seafarers out there, and at the moment they are unemployed. They want to work, and this government could do more to support them by looking at what other countries have done, looking at what a Jones Act could look like in Australia, ensuring that people who are working in Australian seas, just off our coasts, are Australians. It is an opportunity. It is a challenge to the government. But they should sit down and take seriously the need to employ more Australians on our seas.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise with great joy to speak about the Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017, which we know, as many have said before me, is going to help enormously to manage biosecurity risks in our country and further strengthen our whole biosecurity system. We know the importance of this, because a good biosecurity system is going to help keep our economy strong. Why do I say that? Our agricultural industries are forecast to earn over $60 billion in 2016-17. And to indulge the member for Reid, who I know will be interested in some of the information I am now going to go into before I come back to this, I have many, many examples from my own electorate of the contribution it is making to this $60 billion in exports. It is very crucial to the economic wealth of our country, the taxes that are paid, the economic activity.

Let me start at the northern end of my electorate, around places like Woodenbong and Kyogle—great beef cattle country up there. A lot of the beef from there goes down the valley and ends up in Casino. Now, Casino has the biggest private employer in the electorate: 1,100 people work at the local abattoir there. It is by far the biggest private sector employer for many, many hundreds of kilometres. Again, it is a great practical example of the contribution the agricultural sector is playing in our region.

Another exciting one is further west. If you are in Casino, head towards the tablelands and you will end up in a place called Tabulam. It is a great place. It is on the heads of the Clarence River. Around there is a new industry that is contributing to this $60 billion that I mentioned earlier, and that is the blueberry industry, a very exciting industry. They are employing hundreds of people out there at Tabulam—and Tabulam is not a big place. I was there just a few months ago. I go there regularly, but when I turned up there a few months ago I turned around the corner and down the end I saw, where the cafe is, near the pub, all these cars. I thought, 'That's a lot of people here in Tabulam!'

I went down, and it was full of backpackers, it was full of young people and it was full of all these blueberry pickers who, again, are part of this contribution that the blueberry industry is making to this $60 billion in exports.

Other industries in my community have contributed to this $60 billion—actually, let us stay with blueberries and go south to Woolgoolga. The banana industry had some tough times down there. There is a wonderful Sikh community in Woolgoolga too. A lot of people who were previously growing bananas have switched to blueberries. There is a very vibrant industry down there, employing a lot of people not only regularly throughout the whole season but also, obviously, peaking in picking season. Again, they almost cannot find enough workers to pick these things, which is why the backpacker tax that we changed late last year was very important: we wanted backpacker tax rates to be competitive. We needed the rates to be competitive with other countries, but we certainly did not want to give those backpackers a lower tax rate than what the equivalent Australian full-time workers were getting, so that level of around 15 per cent was a fair rate to not only keep attracting the backpackers but also make sure that all those wonderful blueberries get picked.

There is more in the rivers and the ocean in my electorate. We still have commercial fishing fleets—good, quality fish—and they are making a strong contribution to the economy. The sugar industry have had a good season; prices are pretty good, so they are making a strong contribution as well. There are forestry products. I nearly forgot macadamias—Page would almost be the centre of the macadamia industry in Australia, and the first commercial plantations are not far from where I live. Again, they are getting very good prices in the macadamia industry, and a lot of it is exported. I might have forgotten to tell you that 70 per cent of the product from the abattoir, the meatworks, is exported.

What has happened? I will just mention briefly the free trade agreements that we have done. The free trade agreements that we did with China, South Korea and Japan were integral to finding new markets for all these industries and, of course, when you find new markets for product obviously what that means is more buyers for your products. But is that as good for the people who are sellers? We are sellers of these products and we have found new buyers and, because we have found new buyers, that means the prices for all these products are going up. Not only has that provided great extra cash flow for the producers but, very importantly, it has also provided extra cash flow for our towns, because the producers come into town and buy extra equipment. They may not have made that capital purchase for their farm previously, but now they are. Besides the good agricultural prices we are getting, I know the $20,000 tax write-off that we give for one-off purchases for equipment has greatly assisted this. Our towns are more vibrant because of the free trade agreements and the $20,000 tax write-off, and the prices for a lot of these agricultural products are doing very well.

Let me return to the bill. We know today's threats to biosecurity can emerge faster than before. If we let any biosecurity risk get out of control, all those examples that I spoke to you about are at risk. That is why this measure is very important. We saw the recent global outbreak of the zika virus, which was spread by mosquitoes. It has shown us how important control of disease-carrying pests is. This bill will provide additional powers to control exotic mosquitoes and other disease carriers at Australia's airports and seaports—that is obviously where a lot of the risk is—including on incoming aircraft and vessels. This includes spraying insecticide to kill the mosquitoes and other disease-carrying vectors capable of carrying viruses so that they do not establish populations in Australia. This bill also gives us the ability to direct airports and seaports to control such incursions. The bill is also going to strengthen Australia's ability to manage ballast water in ships. It will provide additional protection for fisheries and coastal environments from the risk of marine pest incursions by fostering new, more effective ballast-water treatment technologies and phasing out ballast-water exchange.

The bill will position us to ratify the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments. This convention was adopted in 2004 and signed by the Howard government in 2005. It is a key international measure for protecting marine environments and it aims to stop the global spread of potentially invasive and harmful aquatic organisms that can cause havoc to marine ecosystems—especially diseases that are current. One that I know has been mentioned in this place a number of times recently is white spot in prawns. These outbreaks can do great damage to whole industries. These organisms can be transported in the ballast water of ships travelling around the world, can affect biodiversity and can lead to substantial economic loss for our maritime industries. The convention is an important global initiative involving over 50 countries. It will come into force internationally on 8 September 2017, and we hope to ratify it this year.

For Australians more broadly, these amendments mean that there is much less risk of infection from viruses such as zika. It also means we can continue to enjoy the sea and all the joys that it brings to us. Strengthening Australia's biosecurity system through these legislative amendments means we can continue to enjoy our unique environment and way of life. I think we have stressed why protecting biodiversity is important. I think it is obvious that the current Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has been very serious about these measures. One example that was quite famous was Pistol and Boo. We saw that just because you are a famous movie star does not mean you have the right to break our biodiversity laws. The minister made it quite clear that he would leave no stone unturned to make sure that Pistol and Boo did not damage the biosecurity of our country.

Earlier I was mentioning a few industries, and one that I was remiss of that I would also like to acknowledge—again, biodiversity is very important for this industry—is the dairy industry. I have the fortune to also have a very healthy dairy sector. The main processor is a co-op called Norco. I just happen to have in my region some of the most successful, largest and long-time operating co-ops in the country, and Norco is one of them. Very excitingly, they are exporting fresh milk into China. The volumes are quite small at the moment, but it is a market that they hope will grow over time. They have been maintaining good prices for our producers recently. The meatworks that I mentioned earlier is also a co-op, again one of the biggest in the country and one of the longest operating. The macadamia industry has a co-op, the fishing people have a co-op and blueberries have Oz Berries down near Woolgoolga, which is quite a new co-op. That has been very successful very quickly.

As a result of that, the agriculture minister was able to obtain close to $14 million to establish a national centre of excellence for cooperatives in this country. It was decided, I think quite wisely, to place that my electorate, in conjunction with Southern Cross University, a great regional university. That centre is operating now. The money for that is all about making more co-ops operate and be successful and about having more trained people for co-ops. If you are going to operate a co-op, you need specialist legal advice and specialist accounting advice. It is a very specialised operation in the way you raise capital and in the way you operate. This national centre of excellence for cooperatives is all about making sure that people who want to establish a co-op have the right technical expertise and the information and advice on hand to make it successful. We want this model to succeed. The agriculture minister is not necessarily about corporate farms—the big guys, the big corporations. He is about the co-op structure, which helps the little guys help each other. Especially in my region, that structure has been shown to be very successful. I am very excited about the national centre of excellence for cooperatives, based at Southern Cross University. There is a lot of expertise on hand with the wonderful co-ops in the region who already operate there. I know they are doing a lot of great work already to help this model thrive and prosper. These co-ops would not thrive and prosper if we did not have strong biosecurity laws, which brings me back to the bill.

As I have said, over a number of years, since September 2013, the agriculture minister has shown that he is not only committed to biosecurity—this bill is further proof of that, and I have given examples of that in this speech—but also committed to the success of co-ops in this space and to the success of agricultural industries in this country more broadly. We are seeing the fruits of that—no pun intended!—because we are seeing higher prices for a whole array of agricultural products. I commend this bill. I could go on, but I am going to seek leave from the member for Reid.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the member for Page, I own several pairs of RM Williams; however, that is really as close as I get to the rural sector in the seat I represent. The member for Page gave us a plethora of fine examples, the highlight of which was quite clearly the Deputy Prime Minister and how seriously he takes biosecurity. When it comes to taking head-on two of Hollywood's heavyweights, he did not flinch. Into battle he went—forgive the pun. Pistol and Boo originally came here unannounced and undetected, but the Deputy Prime Minister was not prepared to let this slide. That is the measure of how he became an instant overnight Hollywood success. And we laugh about that, and Hollywood made fun of that. What the member for Page knows better than most in this place, I would argue, given that he is the holder of a proud rural seat, is the importance of our agricultural sector to this great country.

I note the change in the deputy speaker, with Deputy Speaker Coulton now being in the chair. He holds an agricultural seat, in which my brother-in-law has a substantial landholding and is a farmer, up near Moree. Although I do not hold an agricultural seat, I have the honour of being the Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. One of the first growth centres coming out of the National Innovation and Science Agenda in December 2015 was the agricultural growth centre, the most developed of the six. Earlier today I met with the leader of that growth centre, listening to the success stories that are feeding into the $60 billion role that this industry, agriculture, will play in the next 12 months in this great country. I am married to a country girl. I remember being down in Coolac a few years ago, when cattle farmers were getting $1.75 or $1.80 per kilo. Today the same cattle is selling for $3.70 a kilo. The resultant change in business has come. Capital has flown into the sector. We hear a lot about foreign investment in our agricultural sector, but it pales into insignificance when you consider the capital that has been freed up, with increased commodity prices, for so-long depressed farmers to reinvest in their landholdings and their families' future. It is great see as I travel around.

I could list innovation after innovation that I have seen spawned not just from our agricultural growth centre but from great government institutions like CSIRO. Recently I was there talking to a great company that has cattle collars—it is a virtual fence concept. They use GPS technology, solar charged, around the neck of cattle. They program the fences on the software. It has an electrical charge and a noise. You can more efficiently chart how the cattle move around the paddocks and their proximity to water without building the traditional, capital-intensive fence. Because the cattle are walking far less distance, the profile of their weight gain is far more attractive, productive and profitable, and that feeds in.

This bill is a great bill because it makes that $60 billion safe. We take this seriously. This is an international treaty. It was started in 2004-05. We have signed up to it and it will be implemented later this year. The member for Page mentioned waterborne prawn viruses and the role that we have with our shipping—not often thought of. You know when you go overseas on a plane and you come back and you see them walking along with aerosols to get mosquitoes that could be travelling—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The assistant minister will get an opportunity at that time to return to his enlightened and relevant contribution to this debate.