Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise 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. Broadly, the intention of these bills is to create a mechanism for the imposition of a levy on Australia's horse industry. The funds collected would ensure the industry is able to reimburse the Commonwealth for any expense associated with future outbreaks of horse diseases.

The horse industry will become a signatory to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, EADRA, which began in 2002 and has since gone on to devise other levy arrangements with other sectors of primary industries. The progression of the EADRA to include the horse industry is certainly welcomed by the coalition, but we are very much aware of some differences between the method of operation of the other primary industries, such as cattle, sheep or pigs, and that of the horse industry, which could also very easily be described as a community as well as an industry.

Through the bills before us today, the proposed levy would be imposed at the first registration of a horse with a horse registration body only. It would not be imposed on any subsequent registrations during a horse’s lifespan. It would not be imposed retrospectively on horses that had been registered prior to the commencement of the act.

I would like to speak briefly on our recent experience with equine influenza, the event which was the precursor to these bills. There is no doubt that the outbreak of equine influenza in Australia in August 2007 was a devastating, costly and crippling event for horse businesses, horse clubs and horse owners. More than 8,000 properties in Queensland and New South Wales were infected and the rest of the country was forced to take fast and extreme action in order to halt the geographic spread. According to the report of the Hon. Ian Callinan, ABARE estimated that the costs of the EI outbreak during the initial containment and eradication response reached $560,000 a day for disease control and $3.35 million a day in forgone income in equine business, including racing, farming and recreational enterprises. The Callinan report noted also the Commonwealth’s allocation of $227.9 million through various assistance packages for those whose primary source of income was affected by the EI outbreak and the subsequent horse movement restrictions.

As I have said, the coalition is no stranger to the nightmare that became reality when EI hit our shores. We fully appreciate the costs involved and the need to set up a mechanism for cost recovery in the event of future outbreaks. But, in their current form, these bills will not ensure that equal contributions are made from all sectors of Australia’s horse industry. While the experience and expense of responding to and mopping up after an exotic horse disease is still very much fresh in the coalition’s mind, it will be no surprise for you to hear today that the coalition will not be supporting these bills. We did not support the legislation when it was debated in the other place in September 2008. We did not support the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, following a Senate inquiry, that the legislation pass without amendment. And, as I have just said, we will not vote in favour of this legislation in its current form now.

The reason for this is that these three bills represent some of the poorest legislation I have ever been required to assess. This legislation, if passed, will do the exact opposite of what it says it intends to do. Quite simply, the legislation professes to levy equally when in reality it most unfairly levies a small minority of Australia’s horse industry, being those who complete the initial registration of a horse. If this legislation were to become law, in some instances horse owners who are exposing Australia to the greatest risk of exotic horse disease will make no levy payment at all. That, quite frankly, is simply outrageous. I am referring, of course, to the owners of the highly valuable commodities, thoroughbred shuttle stallions. These are the horses who move back and forth between Australia and the United States, Europe, Asia and the United Kingdom to take the financial advantage of dual-hemisphere breeding programs. The shuttled stallions currently engaged in this practice are the very horses that brought EI to our shores, yet the owners of these horses will never pay an EI levy despite the high disease risk these practices create.

Should this legislation be passed, future shuttle stallions will make a contribution to the levy when they are first registered, which is usually completed by the breeders. If ownership changes—a very common occurrence in the thoroughbred racing industry—the new owners will not make a levy contribution, even if they decide later to shuttle their horse in and out of Australia. How is it fair that one person is paying while another is creating the potential for infection?

Despite being the sector which felt most severely in 2007 the effects of EI, a significant majority of the thoroughbred racing industry will make no contribution to the levy. It should also be noted that this sector also received the greater share of income assistance, due to the number of associated businesses and individuals dependent on income from horse racing. It is obvious to many who oppose this bill that this sector would again require a great deal of assistance in the event of a future outbreak, yet the legislation before us facilitates a very minimal input from this sector. The burden of this levy will be borne by the horse breeders—professional and amateur alike. In the case of the amateur, the narrow collection base will be a strong disincentive to continue registering foals. Why should they pay when the great majority of the horse industry will not?

Under this legislation, the backyard hobby breeder will be chipping in more than their fair share while the great proportion of people who own horses, either for pleasure or business, will make no contribution at all. Under this legislation, those engaged in the horse industry through business or employment would not pay the levy, even though these groups would no doubt be calling for assistance in the event of a disease outbreak, as we saw with EI in 2007. It is little wonder that the majority of submissions to the Senate inquiry into these bills came from the hobby and pleasure horse community. It is these groups who are the obvious losers here, to the gain of the commercial sector, and as a result they are vehemently opposed to the levy’s introduction.

The government claims that all of the three peak national horse representative bodies support these bills. This is not totally correct. The President of the Thoroughbred Breeders Association, in a letter to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Burke, on 13 August 2008, said:

The TBA supports passage of the Bills through the Parliament in the spring session on the understanding that the Government will consult with industry to establish a fair and equitable registration scheme to ensure the burden of the levy does not fall on too few horse sectors.

This is a conditional support and relies on the government to review the collection method for fairness and equity. The Australian Horse Industry Council has written in support of these bills, even though many of their member organisations strongly oppose the bills. An AHIC survey of their member organisations reported in July 2008 that, while the majority of respondents support the industry becoming a signatory to the EADRA, the proposed collection method based on horse registrations was not supported.

Individual Australian Horse Industry Council member groups have also expressed staunch opposition to these bills. At its general meeting on 15 July 2008, the Queensland Horse Council passed the following motion:

That the members of the Qld Horse Council Inc are not in favour of signing the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement or committing to any associated levy at this time.

The National Campdraft Council of Australia also opposed the signing of the EADRA due to the financial impost that would be placed upon its members.

In her submission to the inquiry, Ms Kelly Gannon—a representative of CBG Consultants and author of an online petition that gathered the opinions of 6,743 people opposed to the implementation of the bills before us—very adequately and very succinctly summed up the predominant concerns of recreational horse owners when she wrote:

The current legislation continues to place the majority of the financial burden of any future disease response on the non commercial and recreational sectors of the equine community when they are likely to not be the recipients of any financial assistance in the light of past outbreaks.

Ms Gannon and the 6,743 people she spoke for see the weakness of what is before us, but the government does not. The coalition cannot support these bills.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and the cognate bills. This legislation is intended to protect the horse industry from future disease outbreaks by bringing the industry into the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, which is otherwise known as the EADRA. It is intended to ensure that the horse industry funds its obligations under the agreement.

From the outset I have to say that I am disappointed that the opposition has decided to oppose this legislation on the grounds that it fails to completely satisfy every single stakeholder in the horse industry. This legislation is long overdue. The coalition has known for years that the horse industry should be covered by the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, but it has procrastinated on this issue for far too long.

The catalyst for the changes in this legislation was of course the equine influenza epidemic that devastated the horse industry in 2007. The equine influenza outbreak exposed serious deficiencies with Australia’s quarantine system and a lack of preparation and foresight as to how the Australian government would fund its disease response in the event that it would one day have to deal with an emergency animal response.

This highly contagious horse virus was first detected in August 2007 and it spread rapidly throughout New South Wales and Queensland. Fortunately, it did not affect my home state of South Australia. Nevertheless, South Australia did feel the ramifications from the disease. I consider South Australia to have been very fortunate to have escaped being directly affected by the outbreak. We were lucky that the quarantine procedures that were introduced once the virus was detected did in fact work very well. However, South Australian horse owners still had to abide by the quarantine restrictions that were introduced in the eastern states, which meant that many horses were stranded at whatever location they happened to be in when the restrictions came into effect.

Many horse owners were extremely inconvenienced by having to care for their horses that were stranded great distances away from their home stables. Racing horses especially have very particular routines and special requirements, which were disrupted by these restrictions. South Australia has, of course, a great reputation in the horse racing industry, with many great champions having been trained in the state.

The inconvenience caused by the quarantine placed incredible stress on horse owners. I believe that the final estimate of the cost to the horse industry will not adequately describe the enormous indirect costs of the outbreak. We do know, however, that the cost to the Australian government—to the taxpayers—was more than $350 million. This is a very significant expenditure and a costly reminder of the importance of quarantine in Australia. The independent report into the causes of the equine influenza outbreak, authored by the Hon. Ian Callinan AC, was presented in June of last year. It found:

Fundamental biosecurity measures were not being implemented in the largest government-operated animal quarantine station in Australia. This constituted a serious failure by those within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and AQIS who were and had been responsible for the management of quarantine risks and, in particular, the management of post-entry quarantine arrangements. Among the people who ultimately must take responsibility for that failure were the Secretary of the department as the Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine and the person who, under the Minister, is charged with execution of the Quarantine Act 1908, the Executive Director of AQIS and the Executive Manager of Quarantine within AQIS. Various people have held those positions in recent years.

However, the disaster that was the equine influenza outbreak was further compounded by the absence of any cost-sharing structure to deal with such a crisis. The Australian taxpayer was ultimately left with the clean-up bill, whereas for many other livestock industries the costs are shared between government and industry. In the event of a future emergency disease outbreak, the legislation seeks to establish a mechanism to put a one-off levy on new horse registrations to recover upfront costs after agreement has been reached on appropriate cost-sharing arrangements.

In the event of any future emergency animal diseases within the horse industry, the government will initially underwrite the cost of the response. This is essentially because the horse industry may not have the cash reserves to deal with the crisis when it strikes. Initially, as there is presently no emergency outbreak, the levy will be set at zero. It is important to note that the legislation is not retrospective. There will be no recovery of past moneys spent by the government to eradicate equine influenza or any of the other assistance measures paid out. Surely the opposition would agree that, after spending millions of dollars to deal with eradicating equine influenza, the government does have a responsibility to ensure that a proper system is put in place to deal with the crisis should it happen again—but apparently not. The opposition is prepared to oppose these bills because they are not 100 per cent to their liking. I think that is a very poor reason to oppose the legislation, as this legislation is so essential.

As I mentioned earlier, this legislation is effective because it will finally bring the horse industry into the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement. Livestock industries that are already party to the EADRA include the cattle, sheep, pig, dairy, poultry, goat and honeybee industries.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Honey bees?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Honey bees, yes, and pigs—you would know something about them. In his closing remarks to the House of Representatives, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry made the excellent observation that, if the horse industry were allowed to avoid paying their share in an emergency quarantine response, then other livestock industries would have little incentive to remain in the EADRA. There is the risk that other livestock industries would conclude that there is no need to pay a levy, because the government will bail them out in the event of a crisis. The alternative would be for the Australian government to let the entire industry collapse—obviously a completely unacceptable alternative.

I remind senators opposite that the government consulted extensively before drafting this policy. It has the support of the three peak horse industry bodies, including the Australian Horse Industry Council, the Australian Harness Racing Council and the Australian Racing Board. It also has the support of many other  smaller horse industry bodies such as Riding for the Disabled, Australian Horse Riding Centres and the Equestrian Federation of Australia. After much consultation it was agreed that the fairest way to impose a levy was at the point of registration of a new horse. The coalition has expressed a view that the sporting and hobby clubs will bear too much of the cost of the levy while the racing industry will get off lightly. Any future levy established is going to be negotiated between the government and the horse industry. I am confident that any future increase in the levy will be fairly negotiated. The current government has already acted fairly and reasonably by not pursuing the costs of the equine influenza outbreak and has wisely chosen to set the current rate at zero.

If the coalition votes down this legislation, it is in effect condemning the horse industry to future uncertainty and the whim of future governments who may not be inclined or in a position to act so reasonably. These bills at the very least put down a framework which will move the horse industry forward and provide certainty to the industry, in the event of a future emergency disease outbreak, that their horses will be protected. In the absence of any real alternatives being offered by the alternative government, the most sensible and responsible course of action is to support this legislation. As I have said before, all the other major livestock industries are party to the EADRA agreement. If this legislation fails to pass the Senate, I fear that the horse industry will be left in a state of limbo for a significant period of time, so the time to pass this legislation is now. There is consensus among the peak horse industry bodies that this needs to happen. They are willing to sign up to the EADRA and to be a party to this agreement. They were asking to be party to the EADRA even before the horse flu outbreak because they understood that they were in a vulnerable position, being, as they are, outside of this agreement. This was a request that the previous government failed to action.

I seek to summarise the current situation. I think it is important that we cover all of the circumstances. The first point that is worth noting is that both sides of politics have known for some time that the horse industry should be a party to the EADRA. The second point to note is that the horse industry as a whole wants to be a party to the EADRA. The third point to note is that in 2007 the quarantine system broke down and emergency control measures were rapidly implemented, but at a huge cost and distress to the racing community. In the aftermath, the Australian government was left with the clean-up bill—as I indicated earlier, at a very significant cost of $350 million to the Australian taxpayers. After the disaster of the equine influenza outbreak, we have the opportunity to pass legislation that will fix this problem. The legislation will provide certainty for the future, yet the opposition has decided to oppose the legislation because it is not entirely to its liking. I believe this to be an irresponsible position for it to take, and I sincerely hope the legislation passes the Senate. (Time expired)

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many Australian families own a horse which brings great joy and fulfilment to their lives. Family First believes that those who own a horse for their private enjoyment, leisure or sporting activities should not be financially burdened in the event of any outbreak of equine influenza as they will be under the proposed Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and cognate bills.

Equine influenza, or EI as it is known, is an exotic disease imported by those who own horses for commercial or business reasons. Those mums, dads and kids who belong to the local pony club and who privately own a horse as a valued and loved family pet are not responsible for the importation and subsequent outbreak of EI. Therefore they should not have to pay the levy proposed by the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 to fund the recovery effort in the event of a future outbreak. Also, those who own a horse as a pet are not making any profit as a result of that ownership and are less financially able to pay a levy, unlike those with commercial interests in the horse industry. The bill as proposed seeks to introduce a levy paid by the horse owner when registering a horse for the first time. Those already signed up to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, the EADRA, such as the poultry, beef and dairy industries, have agreed to help pay for any emergency response to an outbreak of animal diseases. Currently, the horse industry has not signed the agreement.

The aim of the bills before us is to bring the horse industry into the agreement and to impose the levy on all horses registered with a horse industry body. This raises the issue of what exactly is meant by the term ‘horse industry body’. Does this include the local pony club? Pony Club Australia, in its submission to the recent Senate inquiry on this bill and the cognate bills, was greatly concerned about the effect the levy will have on private horse owners, horse associations and clubs. The pony club, a not-for-profit amateur youth organisation established in Australia in 1934 and consisting of over 55,000 members nationwide, depends upon the goodwill of those thousands of volunteers to run the club’s events each weekend. The club’s submission states:

The associations are not equipped and do not have the capacity financially, administratively or in human resources to manage the collection of levies.

Their submission also points out the differences between the horse industry and the produce industries such as those for beef, dairy and poultry. It states:

In the Performance, Recreation and Hobby sector there is no end product other than the companionship and pleasure, or performance, enjoyed by the rider.

As the submission points out about participants in the sector:

Some are single parents, some are minors, others from some of the rural industries which are suffering adverse conditions and all are struggling to meet the increased cost of fuel, feed and general living expenses. For many it involves substantial personal sacrifice so their children can continue their involvement.

In her submission to the committee, Ms Kelly Gannon from Victoria wrote extensively about the inequality of a flat fee levy imposed across the horse industry affecting individual horse owners who are not involved in the commercial or business aspects of the industry. Ms Gannon stated:

It is my belief that the majority of intended ‘potential levy payers’ do not create the need for these regulations, do not create the risk of disease and do not run commercial profitable businesses, and are, in actual fact, the unfortunate recipients of other peoples commercial risk taking behavior.

So it begs the question: why should these horse lovers, who have not created this risk, be required to pay for it? Ms Gannon created an online petition against the proposed levy and over 6,000 people have signed up in opposition to it. Angela Yeend, the Executive Officer of the Equestrian Federation of Australia, in her submission to the committee argues that applying the same levy fee to all horse owners across the industry is grossly unfair as most horse owners are:

… not responsible and have no control over, or accountability from, those who import horses.

She also expressed concern that the levy would prevent many people from being able to ‘start at grassroots level’ in equestrian sports. Family First believes that, while it is important to have strategies in place to deal effectively with a future outbreak of EI, it should be recognised that there are significant differences between other livestock industries and the horse industry. Not all horses can be defined as ‘cattle’ as they are often privately owned and loved family pets and are used for leisure and sporting activities.

Private horse owners are usually not involved in commercial activities which are associated with the risk of importing an exotic disease. For many families owning a horse is already an expensive hobby, giving great enjoyment, physical exercise and learning experiences to children and adults alike. Adding a levy to the costs of looking after a horse may cause some families to give up their pets. It may also stop many from registering their horses, thus preventing them from participating in sporting competitions. Individuals or families who own a horse for their own pleasure or for sporting activities are not making a profit from their horse and therefore are less able financially to fund the emergency response to an outbreak of EI.

Those who are involved in importing horses and those responsible for implementing secure quarantine practices to protect Australia from exotic diseases are the ones primarily responsible for any future outbreak of EI, not families and kids participating in equestrian or pony club activities each weekend. Families should not have to foot the bill when those who import horses fail to prevent the disease from coming into Australia. Family First will be looking to the committee stage to see whether this issue is addressed adequately and we will reserve our vote on the third reading.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fielding, are you indicating to me that you would like to have a committee stage, which, as I understand it, is not intended at the moment?

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and associated bills before the chamber today. It is a pleasure to speak following the contribution of Senator Fielding, who has accurately canvassed many of the issues and concerns that I also have with this legislation. These bills, as previous speakers have outlined, relate to the government’s response to the equine influenza outbreak that crippled Australia’s horse industry and horse sector over a long period of time. It is of grave concern to us that the government’s response, as they are attempting to implement it through this legislation, has so clearly been botched. Responding to the risk of disease in the equine sector is quite important. Getting it right is quite important. It is a big industry. There are big dollars at stake. There are many jobs at stake. There are many factors at stake in this sector.

The horse industry is more than just an industry. I try to avoid calling it ‘just the horse industry’ because, for so many people, it is not just an industry. It is a hobby; it is a lifestyle; it is a part of the family. That is what owning a horse is about for so many Australians. This is a very different sector to some of those that Senator Farrell mentioned in his contribution and that others have focused on. It is not like all of the other commercial animal sectors, because so much of it is in the hobbyist area. This is a fundamentally different area. It is not like cattle, sheep, goats or honey bees, as we heard before from Senator Farrell. This is a sector which is in fact overwhelmingly dominated by people who have horses as pets, who have them for their children and who have them as part of their day-to-day lifestyle. It is these people who will be most affected and most impacted by this legislation proposed by the government.

I have received, as have other senators, strong community opposition to this proposal. I have been in touch with many of the equine associations in my home state. I have been in touch with many of the grassroots organisations, like the Pony Club, scattered throughout South Australia, with many of the other bodies representing various breed groups and with others involved in the not-for-profit horse sector. They have continuously expressed to me concerns that this is unfair on their members, on the people who own the horses and, indeed, on those associations and bodies who will potentially be caught up in the whole levy collection process.

At the end of last year, I had the pleasure of attending the National Mounted Games held in Adelaide’s parklands and hosted by the Pony Club Association of Australia. It is an annual gathering of Pony Club riders from around the country where, it is noteworthy, they ride borrowed horses. We are not talking about the transportation of horses across the country. These are people who cannot necessarily afford to transport their horses across the country, because it is such a small volunteer sector. These are people who turn up to compete on their own time at their own expense in a not-for-profit environment. Of course, they are also young people. They are young people and families who are involved in a healthy outdoor pastime, one that is so integral to Australia’s history and culture. We can all reflect with pride on the opening of the Sydney Olympics when we saw the horses storm into the Olympic stadium. It shows just how integral the horse industry has been to Australia’s culture and should continue to be, not just as an industry but also as a sector that all Australians can and should be able to afford to embrace.

As I indicated, there is strong opposition to this piece of legislation and to the proposed introduction of these levies on the equine sector. I have met with and spoken to the Pony Club Association on numerous occasions. They provided to the inquiry that was undertaken by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs a very detailed submission, which I have referred to and which I am sure other senators will also refer to in their contributions to this debate. There is opposition not just from the Pony Club Association but also from other organisations, including HorseSA, the peak horse industry body in South Australia, which made it quite clear that they believed that the bill could not be supported. I have also heard opposition from the Equestrian Federation of South Australia, which also made a submission to the Senate inquiry into these bills. Their submission made it equally clear that they believe that the levy as currently proposed would be unfair to the majority of horse owners who are not responsible for, have no control over and have no accountability for those who import horses. In doing so, it is these people who pose in many ways the greatest risk to the security and safety of the equine sector in Australia.

There are an estimated 1.2 million horses around Australia. Many of these are retired in paddocks, not actually used by anybody but still loved and cared for by their owners. There are many more that are used on a recreational basis. There are some that are still used on a pastoral basis. A very small number out of that 1.2 million are actually used as part of the horse industry, particularly the racing sector and the profitable horse sector, where we see the money and the jobs generated in the main. The government’s proposal, it is understood, will capture some 50-odd thousand registered horses. It captures just a very small proportion of the total number of horses in Australia. But, still, that small number of registered horses in Australia that is captured will overwhelmingly be dominated by those of the not-for-profit sector. In its submission, Pony Club Australia says that it represents in excess of 55,000 horse owners. It states that this legislation is ‘fundamentally flawed and grossly unfair to horse owners in the Performance, Recreation and Hobby sector’ and goes on to say that, if passed into law, it would:

... inflict great hardship on our Association and our members resulting in a huge reduction of the numbers of young people participating and have an equally dramatic impact on the number of clubs, facilities available and opportunities to take part in horse sport and recreation.

That is a very clear statement of belief from Pony Club Australia—that, if passed, this legislation would mean fewer families, fewer young people and fewer children would be able to afford to participate in a great recreational activity which is so iconic in Australia’s pastime. Why the government would want to proceed with something that would hurt so many families who are simply trying to do the right thing by their kids is beyond me. That is what the outcome will be. It will hurt everyday, hardworking Australians, the so-called ‘working families’ that the government liked to talk about so much before the election, about whom we do not hear terribly much now. I have not heard the phrase ‘working families’ for some time from the other side of the chamber.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because they are probably not working.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Johnston rightly points out, that is probably because they are not working as we see greater and greater unemployment forecast by this government. But I stray from the importance of this issue to everyday Australians and families right around Australia, important because to them this is about social activities and pastimes, healthy, outdoor activities which government should be encouraging more of, not putting greater burdens in the way of. That is the fundamental issue that really needs to be looked at here: why a government would want to make it harder for young people to engage in a healthy, outdoor recreation activity that is so iconic to Australia’s history.

As well as the inequalities in the spread and collection of the levy, Pony Club Australia and others making submissions to the Senate inquiry, and representations to me and to other senators, have indicated concerns about their capacity to collect these levies and the capacity of organisations to be the filtering point to collect the levies for registered horses. Why? Because most of them are volunteer organisations. Most of the pony clubs around Australia are so small that, indeed, they would not be registered for GST purposes. All of their office bearers would be volunteers. Their state organisations might employ a part-time staff member. These are not organisations that are funded or equipped to collect government taxes or levies—far from it. These are organisations run by either mums and dads who are giving up their time to make sure that they can help run the organisation for the benefit of their children or indeed people like my mother, who works as an instructor on a voluntary basis on weekends.

There are so many examples and instances of Australians volunteering in these organisations. In effect, we are going to ask volunteers working in pony clubs to become tax collectors if this legislation is passed. That is utter madness and shows the selfishness of the government in wanting to pursue this type of proposal. Pony clubs are not in a position to be able to collect it.

With such a high proportion of horses in this recreation sector to be captured by the levy, the government needs to reconsider this. It is unfair, as Senator Colbeck made clear in his earlier comments, to burden the not-for-profit sector with the same type of levy system as will be applied to the for-profit sector, to the horse industry where breeders, racing owners and others seek to derive an income and make money out of the industry. That is where a comparison can be made with other types of animals that are covered by similar levies. That is where you can make a valuable example and comparison—not with the overwhelming majority of people who are in the recreation sector.

On behalf of all of those who have made such an effort to lobby me and my fellow Liberal and National senators, who have acknowledged from the very introduction of this proposal that it would hurt too many Australians and would cause pain and angst, I urge the Senate to defeat these bills, not to take the government at trust that somehow or other the regulations will tighten things up and make it fairer, because that is not the way we should deal with legislation here. We should know the outcome of legislation passed in this place before we allow it to be passed. We should not pass it based on the trust that the government will get the regulations right because, given the lack of consideration for those in the recreational horse sector shown in these bills to date, I struggle to trust that the government would get the regulations right.

These bills should be defeated today. I note that the Australian Greens issued a minority report opposing the passage of these bills. I welcome that and trust that they will stick to their guns. I welcome the comments that Senator Fielding, who preceded me, made outlining his concerns in this area. I encourage Senator Xenophon, on behalf of the fellow South Australian constituents we share, to think long and hard before he gives a vote in favour of these bills, because these bills will hurt ordinary South Australians, whom I know regard Senator Xenophon very highly. They would hope that he would regard their concerns about a new levy and a new fee as something he should be listening to and I am sure and hope that he will be.

As I read through the submissions made by the various contributors to the Senate inquiry, I was taken, in the Pony Club Australia submission, by an extract of a poem by Banjo Paterson called In the Droving Days. It is a poem that I think highlights the iconic nature of the Australian equine sector. I think it highlights just why we need to recognise that this is a sector that holds a special place in Australians’ hearts. It holds a special place in the hearts of thousands upon thousands of Australians who voluntarily give their time to love their animals, to help their children love their animals and to participate in these healthy recreations in so many different equine sectors. The poem finishes with the words:

And now he’s wandering, fat and sleek,

On the lucerne flats by the Homestead Creek;

I dare not ride him for fear he’d fall,

But he does a journey to beat them all,

For though he scarcely a trot can raise,

He can take me back to the droving days.

Let us not forget the history of those droving days in this country. Let us not forget the mums, dads and children who get so much pleasure out of the equine sector and let us toss these unreasonable bills out.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and associated bills. The purpose of the bills is to impose a levy on the initial registration of horses and to allow for its collection by persons or bodies that, in their administration, register horses, so that the horse industry can repay any amount paid by the Commonwealth on behalf of the horse industry in the event of a disease outbreak. To allow the repayment arrangements via a levy to come into law, it is also necessary to provide for legislation to collect and administer the levy. This is provided for through the Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Bill 2008 and through the Horse Disease Response Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. The Rudd Labor government is protecting Australia’s horse industry and looking ahead to the future.

The Australian Horse Industry Council, the Australian Harness Racing Council and the Australian Racing Board support the imposition of a horse disease response levy, and the levy rate will be set by regulations under the new Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008. The arrangements provide for Animal Health Australia, known as AHA, to manage the levy received on behalf of the industry, where the main priority is to repay any amount paid by the Commonwealth on behalf of the horse industry in the event of an outbreak of an emergency horse disease. There are no direct financial implications for the Commonwealth as the intention of the new bill is to facilitate the imposition of a horse disease response levy on the registration of horses, payable by owners.

I would like now to spend some time discussing the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, commonly known as the EADRA, which is at the core of this issue. The EADRA was launched in March 2002, following a number of concerns about the scope and effectiveness of the then Commonwealth-state cost-sharing agreement in place since 1955, which covered only 12 diseases. As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, when there is an outbreak of an exotic disease in any of the animal industries there needs to be an emergency response to minimise damage to the affected animals and the industry involved. The preferable outcome is the eradication of the disease and the return of the affected industry to its state prior to the outbreak.

The EADRA is a contractual agreement between animal industries and governments and is the only way that industries at risk of disease outbreaks can be certain of a timely and appropriate response from government to their needs. As with all contractual arrangements, there are financial implications and obligations for all parties. The EADRA provides a mechanism for an affected animal industry to call for assistance from governments to provide vital skills and resources to identify, contain, control and eradicate an exotic disease incursion. Under the EADRA governments are obliged to provide and maintain sufficient resources to assist animal industries in their times of need. Without the EADRA no legally-binding obligation exists.

The outbreak of equine influenza, EI, in August 2007 was absolutely devastating and, despite the coordinated efforts of government and industry bodies and horse and animal health specialists, the Australian horse industry was completely tipped on its ear. The epidemic made its way to Australia via Japan and lasted some 130 days from August 2007 until the last case was reported in December 2008.

We all remember that. What a catastrophe that could have been! It was bad enough. If we cast our minds back, we would remember that for the first time in our history we were faced with the possibility of not having a Melbourne Cup campaign—not to mention, more importantly, the fiscal damage that was done to those employed in the industry. When we talk about the effects of EI, everyone seems to think, for some strange reason, that horse racing is the sport of kings and that it is therefore only the rich and the privileged that suffered through the EI period. I do not pretend to know a great heap of people employed in the horse industry but I am sure there are strappers, trainers, owners, suppliers of veterinary products, and the like—those who are employed on Saturdays or mid-week, whether they be from your great state of Victoria, Mr Acting Deputy President, or my even greater state of Western Australia—who are certainly not in the league of kings. So it was absolutely disgraceful that we ever got to that stage, and I just cannot believe that someone has not been chucked in jail and had the key thrown away, over that episode.

I will get back to the bills. The passage of these bills will enable the horse industry to become a party to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, something the industry has wanted for many years. By establishing a levy arrangement through these bills, the horse industry would become a signatory to the EADRA and would have certainty of resources in responding to emergency horse disease outbreaks. As mentioned earlier, the bills establish a mechanism to apply a levy on the initial registration of horses and provide arrangements for the collection and administration of that levy so that the horse industry could repay the Commonwealth of Australia for underwriting the horse industry’s share of costs. Such a levy would be payable once on the initial registration of a horse with a recognised breed society or performance organisation. For horses already registered prior to any emergency response people would not be liable to pay a levy. I want to reiterate that: they would not have to pay the levy. It will only apply to new horse registrations.

As the horse industry does not need to repay its share of the costs of the 2007 equine influenza emergency response, these bills establish a zero rate levy. No rate can be set unless the industry is consulted; however, regulations would prescribe a future levy rate. Regulations will be developed in consultation with industry to help ensure that they are fair and equitable. Regulations cannot go beyond the scope of the bills and will be disallowable in parliament. I think it is very important that we get that message out, that they will be disallowable. Nevertheless, drafting instructions and principles underlying the intended operation of the proposed regulations have been provided to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport.

As you know, the bills were sent off to the committee and the committee did have a number of hearings here in Canberra. There were quite a few groups that presented to the committee. While I am on that, there were difficulties that we experienced through the committee stage. When we were first talking about this, and this goes back to the previous government, the Howard government started the conversation with the horse industry through those three major groups—thoroughbreds and racing and harness racing—and at all stages I believe that the previous government had only the best interests of Australia and the horse industry foremost in its mind. I acknowledge that. But it was absolutely frustrating to have conversations going on between the representative body—I think this went on for eight to 12 months, but I will stand corrected if I have those figures wrong—and the government, which believed the body was speaking for the majority of the industry, only to discover in the committee hearings that there were a number of other associations, such as camp drafting and pony clubs, that came out diametrically opposed to what was being said and saying the horseracing industry did not represent them. The frustration I had as the chair of the committee was: why did it take that long for someone to come out and say that they were not being represented? In all fairness to the previous government—I take my hat off to them—I honestly believe they thought, as did we, that they were dealing with the industry. It was very frustrating when a couple of groups turned up to tip a bucket of bile on the representatives of that industry and to tell us at the committee stage that their voice was not being heard and that the horseracing industry did not speak for them.

As I was saying, at present we are at the stage where the peak bodies involved in the horse industry have a levy system that is at least acceptable and agreeable to all involved to help protect against any of the potentially devastating effects of a future exotic disease incursion. We must create these protections now so that the sector is protected into the future. The worst option for Australia and for the horse industry would be for there to be no levy put in place. It would be devastating and neglectful if this parliament were to end up leaving the horse industry in the same position it was in at the beginning of EI. I want to stress that to senators opposite: it would be devastating and neglectful.

This package of bills will give the horse sector the certainty that other livestock sectors have when responding, with government, to emergency animal disease incursions. The levy is currently set at zero dollars, as I said, and will only be raised upon an incident or break-out of an epidemic. In 2006 the horse industry had proposed to the Howard government a levy arrangement to protect the horse industry against the impacts of emergency disease outbreaks. Of course, under the previous government arrangements were not put in place to sign up the horse industry to the EADRA and establish the industry’s emergency disease preparedness. As a result, at the time of the outbreak of the equine influenza in August 2007, the horse industry was not a signatory to the agreement and was left dangerously exposed. The horse sector remains the only major livestock group not included in the EADRA.

Without cost-sharing arrangements in place in the event of another disease outbreak, the sector could be liable for considerable cost to contain and eradicate any disease which would normally be shared with governments under the EADRA framework. I ask senators opposite: is that what you really want to see? Let us keep our fingers crossed that we are not ever faced with such a situation, but what a shocking situation it would be if this package of bills were knocked back with the assistance of senators opposite and others. It is worth noting that the former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Peter McGauran, is now the CEO of Thoroughbred Breeders Australia, which supports the passage of the bills. I find that absolutely incredible, that a former senior minister is on side.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGauran interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we are talking about the good old days, Senator McGauran, you should have taken your brother out the back and sorted it out, but unfortunately it has not worked. The opposition opposed these bills in the House and incorporated dissenting reports within the Senate committee report. However, the Independent member for New England, Tony Windsor MP, supported the passage of the bills in the House. There needs to be some system to cope with the consequences of an outbreak, and these bills provide for this. It seems reasonable that the Australian taxpayer will expect to be reimbursed for at least part of the cost of an emergency response—not all, but at least part. The financial security of many thousands of Australians relies on a strong and secure horse industry, as I said earlier on.

In my home state of Western Australia the industry employs an estimated 12,000 people and the Rudd government will not sit back and wait for the outbreak of disease in the horse population. The government will implement the recommendations of the Callinan report and will act to strengthen our quarantine and biosecurity services. The government will give those people working in the horse industry a solid footing so that they know that if there is another outbreak they will have governmental protection and not an industry catastrophe. The measures in the main bill are appropriate and they are necessary. There is ample capacity within the legislation for the levy schedule to take into account different sectors of the industry and, as I have mentioned, the bill sets the proposed rate of horse disease response levy at zero. I cannot stress that enough.

As senators are aware, the bill did go to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport for further examination. It was evident to the committee that the general principle on which this legislation is based is soundly consistent with measures applying to all livestock. This legislation represents an insurance measure to ensure that horse owners will have funds to deal with any future outbreak of equine diseases. The committee resolved to support compulsory registration for all horses and believes that this, together with the establishment of a national register, would greatly enhance the ability of animal health agencies to respond in the case of emergency. The establishment of such a register would of course require further consultation and agreement between the states and territories. We have not backed away from that through this whole process.

A number of submissions and testimonies were made by interested and affected parties over the course of the hearings, and the committee heard a number of concerns of community recreational owners and riders. It is important for all senators to remember that the policy detail of the horse disease response levy are not yet available and should not be condemned or discarded at this time. The bills before us are enabling legislation. That detail will be provided and, as I said before, we will be open for comment and consultation.

It is also important that all senators be aware that these bills have the support—I must stress this again—of a number of industry groups, such as the Australian Racing Board Ltd, Harness Racing Australia and the Australian Horse Industry Council, as well as Thoroughbred Breeders Australia, Riding for the Disabled and the WA Horse Council, to name a few.

I am confident, as is the committee, that the regulations can be framed so as to take account of a wide diversity of horse ownership and riding activity in the community and that they will also be equitable. Equity issues are important to consider when discussing these bills. Whilst all parties agree with the principle of a broadly based levy, it may be appropriate to exempt some classes of owners, riders and community groups.

In summing up and without sounding like a broken record, I do wish to stress once more that, in regard to performance organisations, the intent is to cover organisations that hold regular events or competitions, such as polo matches, endurance events, campdrafting, equestrian rodeos and dressage. However, small community organisations and groups, such as some pony clubs and Riding for the Disabled, will likely be excluded from the levy arrangements where these organisations do not conduct regular competitions. As I have said previously, and I reiterate this, the regulations have not been prepared, as detailed consultation with industry has to take place, needs to take place and will take place. This will be done following the passage of the bills. The regulations cannot, as I said before, go beyond the scope of the bills and will be disallowable in the parliament.

So, for fellow senators and senators opposite, this bill has been debated in both houses and has been reviewed by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee—a wonderfully hardworking committee, if I can say so myself, and that is all members of that committee. Upon review of the submissions made, comments and testimony received, and extensive consultation, it was the committee’s recommendation to the Senate that these bills be passed without amendment. I commend these bills to the Senate.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate my support for the second reading of the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and associated bills. I also express my gratitude for the information that has been provided by the minister’s office, as recently as this afternoon, which I will refer to shortly. I will not outline what the purposes of these bills are. I think fellow senators have adequately done that and I will not waste the Senate’s time by reiterating that other than to say that, to me, the nub of this issue is not that something ought to be done to protect Australians and to protect the industry from equine influenza. We know, from the report of the inquiry conducted by a former High Court Justice, the Hon. Mr Callinan QC, that there were some serious flaws that needed to be addressed as a result of what happened in the EI outbreak that was the subject of his inquiry. But it seems to me that the key issue here is whether it is appropriate to give the executive arm of government what some may see as a blank cheque in being able to raise this levy without sufficient guidelines or safeguards. That is why I would like to formally request that there be a committee stage in relation to these bills so that further questions can be asked in addition to any response the minister makes with respect to the second reading contributions.

I am mindful of the comments made by Senator Birmingham that recreational horseriding is a very significant activity in my home state of South Australia. Indeed, I think that would apply to all states.

If I may I will refer to an email I received from the minister’s office this afternoon. I am grateful for that information. A number of matters were raised and I think it would be appropriate for me to put on the record my concerns—or rather, questions—arising out of those communications. I note that the drafting instructions and principles underlying the intended operation of the proposed regulations have been provided to the Senate committee that inquired into this legislation and, further, that these drafting instructions for the regulations specify that those horse groups which do not hold regular competitions and do not meet the description of a performance organisation or breeding society will be exempt from paying any future levy. My question to the minister is: what does the government consider to be ‘a regular competition’? What is the definition of that? What are the guidelines to provide some comfort for those who do have horse clubs for recreational horse users as to what the parameters of that will be both in terms of what ‘regular’ means and the definition of ‘competition’? Does a few people getting together around a paddock occasionally, where there is a barbecue after the event and a couple of bottles of wine, constitute a ‘competition’? I think it is important that we define, in the context of this debate, in the context of the committee stage, what a ‘competition’ is and what is meant by ‘regular’.

I note that the minister’s office says that if horse owners do not hold competitions then they will not have to pay a levy. I also note that the government’s position, however, is that, in accordance with the legislation and the government’s principles for levies, they must consult with industry on these finer details and that this is the government’s intention. The whole concept around the regulations is that it is intended that there will be consultation—I accept that. If the minister can provide details as to the time frame for the consultation, the extent of the consultation, the nature of that consultation and, in broad terms, the organisations that will be consulted, that would be quite useful.

There is also the issue, in the context of this consultation, of the regulations that will arise. Is it intended that the regulations will be provided to the Senate and that the Senate will have the opportunity to disallow those regulations before they come into force? I refer to the debate late last year on Minister Albanese’s Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008, which dealt with levies and road user charges. I may be wrong on this, but my recollection is that there was an opportunity to disallow the regulations associated with the legislation before they came into force—so there was that additional safeguard.

The information provided by the minister’s office indicates that it is also intended to exclude small groups from paying a levy where it would not be efficient to do so. If the minister could provide details as to what defines a small group and what is meant by efficiency, that would be appreciated. The information goes on to say: ‘In other words, if they are so small then it is not worth the administrative cost to actually collect this levy. We are intending these to be organisations with less than 10 registrations in a period of three months.’ That means that an organisation that has fewer than 40 new members in the year will be most likely not to pay a levy, but the advice says further: ‘We are obliged to consult with industry about this before making a final decision.’ To what extent will the government stray from that consultation in the context of formulating the regulations?

I note that the minister has committed himself to detailed consultation with industry on the regulations, and I accept that. Can I take it from that that industry includes the various recreational horse groups? There is a well-articulated argument in the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry report, particularly the dissenting reports—there were three dissenting reports—in relation to equity issues and the fairest collection mechanism and whether some groups of horse owners are in a better position to pay, as I believe there would be in the case of racehorse owners as compared to recreational users.

They are my concerns. It is my intention to support the bill in its second reading. I do have concerns about the lack of precision around how the legislation will actually operate. It has been left to the regulations, but, in the absence of it being spelt out explicitly, if the government undertakes to outline how the matters raised by the minister’s office will be specifically dealt with, that degree of particularity would assist me in determining my position at the end of the committee stage.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, consistent with my return of interests to the Senate, I declare that I own horses. They are thoroughbred mares and, potentially at least, I would be impacted by the outcome of this legislation through the operation of any levy mechanism.

It is important to put this debate into context. The Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and related legislation follow upon the worst disease outbreak that the Australian horse industry has ever seen. That outbreak occurred, as has been established by a commission of inquiry, by totally inadequate quarantine arrangements administered by the previous government and by a quarantine facility that took what can only be described as totally inadequate—indeed, laughable—precautions to prevent the spread of disease in what was supposedly a high-security quarantine facility. It is remarkable that we did not experience an outbreak prior to the one that occurred in 2007. It was a matter of coincidence and coincidence only that it occurred because of a thoroughbred introduction of the disease. What needs to be understood is that at that time there were instances drawn to the attention of some people of questionable procedures operating in relation to horses of other breeds, particularly Arab breeds, introduced into Australia for show and display purposes in earlier years. So it is not accurate to say that the only risk that Australia faced, or continues to face, from the introduction of disease comes from the shuttle stallion arrangements, which was the argument put by opposition senators in a dissenting report of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry as a part justification for the position that they take.

The reality of course is that the shuttling of thoroughbred stallions is a significant part of the risk factor but only part of it in relation to the introduction of disease. With any import procedure that involves live animals there is a risk, and therefore it is incumbent upon a country like Australia, which has a very good record of controlling and excluding animal diseases, to operate a set of quarantine arrangements which are rigorously observed and which take into account risk factors which can make the introduction of those diseases extremely unlikely.

In relation to horse flu, the evidence is well and truly in that the risk was known—that the previous government had been alerted to the prospect of a great impact on the Australian racing, breeding and other horse industries in this country by the introduction of the disease, but in fact it presided over a system which saw us move away from a rigorous quarantine system to one which was haphazard and indeed doomed to failure. The evidence of the royal commission, as contained in the royal commissioner’s report, is a damning indictment of the way that our quarantine system, in relation to those particular animals and indeed others, was run. The Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport saw consistent criticism of the quarantine arrangements that existed under the previous government. We saw criticisms which related to the introduction of plant disease as well as animal disease. It is certainly timely that our quarantine system is under review and it is certainly timely that the government has received a report, as indicated, and it will give effect to the recommendations of that report to strengthen the quarantine system so Australia can be best served by the arrangements that the government put in place to protect Australian industries from the predations of disease from other countries.

In relation to the measures in this piece of legislation, the position taken by the opposition and the Greens is, frankly, not one which is consistent with positions taken in relation to legislation that came before this chamber under the previous government, and certainly not from the opposition when in government, because on a regular basis—and certainly during the last three years of that government—this chamber was faced with legislation without seeing the content of regulations which would have a substantial effect on the industry that was the subject of the legislation. So here we have the opposition’s hypocrisy being revealed: in government they said, ‘You should trust the government, you should accept the undertakings of a minister as to consultation and you should accept that there is the ability to disallow legislation’—even when they had the numbers in the chamber—but in this case, where this government will not have the numbers in this chamber and will have to put regulations before the chamber, they are saying, ‘We shouldn’t pass this legislation until we see the regulations.’ What kind of hypocrisy is that? The fact of the matter is that if this government cannot justify the regulations then clearly, with the position taken by opposition senators and the Greens in relation to adequate regulatory mechanisms underpinning the legislation, any regulation put before this chamber would be in grave danger if the minister had not conducted himself in a way that complied with the undertakings that were given to all parties and the industry in relation to how his role in the regulatory process would be carried out—indeed, even if the process were carried out, if the form of the regulation had some flaw in it that was identifiable and which both the Greens and the opposition were unhappy with.

So all of those fail-safes now exist in relation to this legislation and all the government is saying is, ‘Let’s put in place a piece of legislation which will allow the matter to go forward, will allow the industry to have the benefit of the protections that the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement will have and will allow for the industry in a broad sense to make provision to pay for the cost of these incursions in the future’—because it is unfair to taxpayers if we do not do that. The fact that the previous government did that is not an exoneration for this government to not take on the responsibility of taxpayers and say, ‘Let the other animal industry that wants the benefit of the government be prepared to contribute to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, but in this case we’re going to let the horse industry off.’ I do not think that is equitable to taxpayers and I do not think it is equitable to the industries that make the contribution.

As I said, there is an adequate fail-safe for both the opposition and the Greens in relation to the regulatory process which would follow this legislation. So what is the problem? Are there groups out there who think they will be done over, or is it the case that there is a secret agenda that somehow all of the costs should be shifted to the thoroughbred industry because there is a perception that only the thoroughbred industry brings a risk? That proposition is demonstrably false. An examination of the records of importation of horses into this country will show it and an examination of horses that have been through quarantine facilities will show it.

Let’s look at the proposition that all newly registered animals should be the subject of levy raising and let’s look at some numbers. It was suggested in the report of opposition senators that the racing sector would be exempt from the levy. The racing sector is not the breeding sector, but they buy from the breeding sector—in some cases they pay a lot of money to the breeding sector for the animals that they race—and the breeding sector is the sector that registers thoroughbreds. Recently I had a look at the numbers of animals registered with the Australian Stud Book. That is where all thoroughbreds are registered. On their registration figures, somewhere between 17,700 and 18,700 thoroughbreds have been registered for each of the last five years. On the statistics, which are imprecise, in the opposition’s dissenting report a very significant proportion—I suggest well over a third in all likelihood—of the animals which would be registered would be thoroughbreds, and so well over a third of the cost would be borne by the thoroughbred industry.

It is a distraction from reality to talk about whether the racing industry pays or not, because the industry is actually divided into a breeding sector. It is in the breeding sector and through the Australian Stud Book that registration takes place. I am not sure what the basis of the opposition’s concern is, given the very significant number of animals that are registered there. I am not familiar with other sectors such as the standard breed sector as to how many foals are registered, but I believe they have similar registration arrangements. There are also other breeds that have registration arrangements which would equally benefit from these arrangements and, in terms of equity, ought to make a contribution.

There are many owners of animals of a variety of breeds who use animals for pleasure—possibly members of the Equestrian Federation of Australia and various pony clubs. With an equitable sharing of cost, I suggest that they would have an equal right to be considered in any future cases of disease outbreak as to disease mitigation, cost-sharing and the like. If a disease were to break out, for example, in pony clubs rather than in the thoroughbred sector, they would be beneficiaries of these sorts of arrangements, as it might be said that parts of the thoroughbred sector were recently.

But some of the benefits which were given to the thoroughbred sector by the then government, now opposition, and which were supported by the now government, then opposition, were based upon economic impact. I am not sure that anyone is suggesting that those arrangements should not have been put in place. It may be that there are suggestions that others should have received benefits who were not eligible for benefits under those arrangements, but this legislation cannot correct that and nor should it. This is a piece of legislation which is about creating a mechanism for the horse industry to sign up to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement and for the matter to be progressed to the point where there is a levy collection mechanism in circumstances where the minister, I believe, has given very proper and adequate undertakings to this chamber and to the industry as to how the development of the regulations would proceed. Indeed, as I outlined earlier, in circumstances where there was significant dissatisfaction with those regulations the regulations would be subject to disallowance. Given the position of the Greens and the opposition, the minister would probably have reason to fear, if he did not get strong agreement, that there might be a move to disallow. In all of those circumstances, why oppose the legislation? What is the barrier? As I said, from the opposition’s point of view, this is a matter of hypocrisy, given the position that they in government took in relation to various pieces of legislation and the regulatory arrangements that followed upon them.

Having read the one-page dissenting report by the Greens, it seems like a toss of the coin decision. You could read it either way. On the one hand, they say that it is too early to condemn the legislation without consideration of the regulations that would follow; but then, on the other hand, they say that maybe it is too early to support the legislation without considering the regulations. I suggest in the circumstances that that is not a justification to defeat this legislation. That is not a reason to send this back to the drawing board. That is not a reason to delay the implementation of a mechanism which, as I said earlier, potentially will deal equitably with taxpayers; it will deal equitably with other industries that are already contributors under the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement and who have made their commitment to make such contribution; and it will deal equitably with the horse industry and its future viability. Certainly, arrangements such as this ultimately will be in the interests of the horse industry.

Perhaps numbers will make sure that this legislation does not proceed and that this matter is further delayed. I hope that is not the case. As I said, I do have an interest in the horse industry. I do think that it would be better that this legislation passes and the minister is allowed to get on with the job that he is committed to doing, which is to get proper regulations and to get a levy system in place that has significant support in the industry and that is equitable to all.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and the Horse Disease Response Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Burke, from the other place, I want to thank all those who have spoken. I did listen to part of the debate. I want to commend certainly Senator O’Brien and Senator Sterle, whose contributions I did listen to, and the work, as outlined by Senator Sterle, of the Senate committee and his observation that all members of the committee on both sides of the parliament—Liberal, National Party, Labor and Greens—who participated in those hearings did a very thorough job. I know that Senator O’Brien—and he has obviously mentioned this—has a very long-term and deep knowledge and participation in this sector. I suspect that knowledge is unsurpassed in this parliament.

The purpose of the bills is to give the horse industry the certainty that other livestock industries have when responding with government to emergency horse disease outbreaks. The proposed levy arrangements for the horse industry are similar to those applying to the chicken meat, honey, cattle, dairy, laying chickens, sheep meat, lamb, goat and pig industries. We are not dealing with a new principle here. The principle of a levy applying to a wide range of primary industries in this country has been long established. In fact, I know from when we were in government previously, and I was a parliamentary secretary from 1993 to 1996, that it was not infrequently that the Senate dealt with levies of this nature. I point that out because the principle of levies and their application in particular sectors has been of very long standing—at least 20 years to my knowledge—and, I think importantly, supported by both sides of politics.

Regrettably, we have a situation where the now Liberal-National Party opposition have abandoned that approach in principle. I point out in passing that the Labor Party, when in opposition from 1996 to 2007, maintained the consistent principle to support levies and their necessary increase from time to time. I find it somewhat odd that the now Liberal-National Party are opposing a long-held principle that both sides of politics have consistently supported for so long. I do find this somewhat odd. When he was primary industries minister in the Liberal-National Party, Mr Peter McGauran—who is no longer in the parliament—supported that principle. As I understand it—and he has left politics and is now involved in the horse industry—he supports this levy. He supports these arrangements. I find it somewhat strange that the Liberal-National Party, as soon as they moved into opposition, abandoned the long-held principles and approaches of both sides of politics, whether in government or opposition.

I do know and I do acknowledge that the application and development of levies is not an easy job because there are diverse arrangements in particular sectors. It is not an easy job. Briefly, on reflection, I can recall attempts to introduce a levy into the vegetable industry in that period between 1993 and 1996. I have to say, having been involved in a meeting with an incredible range of diverse organisations and trying to find a cost-effective way of applying the levy, it was no easy task. I acknowledge that. It is not an easy job to bring together a sometimes diverse group within a particular industry to apply a levy.

It was in 2006 that the horse industry requested the former Liberal-National Party government to introduce a statutory levy on the registration of horses as the best means of protecting the industry against the impacts of emergency horse disease outbreaks. A large number of alternative levies were evaluated by the industry but considered less equitable than the mechanisms selected. So it is not as though this is a rush job. This goes back to 2006. Unfortunately, at the time of the equine influenza outbreak in August 2007 the industry was still not a signatory to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, which would have assisted with the industry’s emergency disease preparedness. The intention at the time was that the horse industry and the government would share the costs. I do want to say that I think all the levies that I am aware of involve cost sharing. It is reasonable to expect individuals and participants in a particular industry to share part of the cost with government, with the broader taxpayer. But it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to pay all the costs. So there is cost sharing. Again, this is a long-held principle—of the last couple of decades—in the approach to levies in this country.

Since their introduction to parliament these bills have been the subject of an inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. The committee recommended the passage of these bills. Whilst the Liberal-National opposition and the Australian Greens submitted dissenting reports, the government is confident the regulations under the bills will provide an equitable, effective and efficient levy mechanism to substantially address these concerns. The process of framing these regulations will involve close consultation. They will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, an important safeguard for all stakeholders. Nevertheless, drafting instructions for the regulations have been provided to the Senate committee and they provide clarity on many of the questions raised during debate. I intend to add in response to a request by Senator Xenophon—and his contribution was, as always, very incisive and informed—some additional information at the conclusion of my remarks on the second reading debate, in an attempt to ensure that the committee stage of the discussions is kept within reason.

I point out that the Commonwealth does not have the constitutional authority to make national horse registration compulsory. However, the chief veterinary officers of the states and territories are examining options to collect data on horse ownership. The preferred method—similar to other systems in use for disease control purposes—is to identify properties that own horses and work with existing horse registration bodies. It has been suggested that the commercial horse sector presents a greater risk and should shoulder a heavier levy burden. The reality is that non-commercial horses pose similar risks of bringing exotic diseases into Australia. Of the 515 horses imported to Australia from countries other than New Zealand in 2007, some 47 per cent were not from the thoroughbred or standard bred sectors. Further, a number of diseases—which threaten all horse sectors—are either already present in Australia, such as hendra virus, or could be introduced by the movement of insects or birds. Having to manage these diseases once they became endemic would be a cost to all horse owners and the wider community.

All horses, whether they belong to the commercial or non-commercial sectors of the industry, benefit equally from the containment and eradication of diseases. As the President of the Australian Horse Industry Council representing many non-commercial horse owners, Mr Barry Smith, argues:

Every horse is susceptible and everyone benefits from and eradication program.

These bills provide for a mechanism to impose, collect and appropriate a new levy on the initial registration of horses and provide certainty for resourcing emergency responses to future horse disease outbreaks. I have indicated some two years of development and discussion—if we can do it for the pig industry or the sheep industry or the cattle industry and other examples I have given them, surely, we can do it for horses.

If it is passed the levy will be set at zero. If activated in response to a disease incursion the levy will be payable only once and appropriated through Animal Health Australia. The horse industry does not need to repay its share of the costs of the 2007 emergency response. The legislation is supported by three peak national representative industries: the Australian Horse Industry Council, Harness Racing Australia and the Australian Racing Board. In addition, the bills have the support of Thoroughbred Breeders Australia, Riding for the Disabled, the Equestrian Federation of Australia, and Australian horse riding centres and many other groups. The majority of the horse industry has argued that the legislation should be passed in the interests of the broader horse industry’s national interest. I urge all senators to support the bills to provide certainty and protection to all Australians who own horses.

Specifically in response to some questions Senator Xenophon raised around the definition of what is considered a ‘regular competition’, obviously there is consultation going on about this. Regular competition is a regular scheduled event which is advertised by an organisation. The example that Senator Xenophon raised concerned a couple of people getting together, going off horse riding, maybe having a race between themselves and having a barbie afterwards and a glass of wine. That would not be covered by the levy. It is not a regular scheduled event advertised and conducted by an organisation.

To the issue of regulations that he touched on concerning intention to consult: yes, I think that everyone would accept that Minister Burke has indicated that consultation on the details of the regs will occur. It will be thorough and it will be as widespread as possible. In fact anyone and everyone, I am told, that has a view will be consulted and listened to. The timetable, Senator Xenophon, is likely to be about six months, and I think that is a very reasonable period. As for the extent of the organisations, anyone and everyone that has got a view on this matter will be consulted. Thoroughbred Breeders Australia; Riding for the Disabled; Australian horse centres, representing some 80 horseriding schools and 40,000 riders across Australia; the Equestrian Federation of Australia; the Welsh Pony and Cob Society of Australia; the Western Australian Horse Council; the Southern Horse Council, representing a range of groups in WA; pony clubs; the Queensland Horse Council; and camp drafting. Anyone else on the face of Australia that wants to be involved in the consultation will be consulted and listened to over the coming months.

I have also sought clarification on another issue that Senator Xenophon raised concerning the regulations. The regulations are finalised after this consultation and the Senate and the House have the opportunity to disallow the regulations. Regarding the operative date for regulations, which could obviously be the date they are approved by the Executive Council, I was asked whether the Senate would have the opportunity to debate and disallow those before they come into effect. I can give you that assurance, Senator Xenophon. The minister will ensure that the operative date will provide for a period when the Reps or the Senate is sitting so they can disallow the regulations before they take effect to avoid that circumstance, and I know that difficulty can occur.

So that is where we are. We believe that it is important. It is in the national interest to provide certainty and protection if we have the sorts of disastrous events that occurred—and they could have been far worse of course—in respect of the equine disease outbreak of some 18 months or two years ago. I would urge the Senate to support the legislation. There is still a great deal more work to do obviously, but as I have indicated on behalf of my Minister Burke, and knowing him as I do, the intent to consult the timetable, the thoroughness, the extent of the organisations, the issues, the opportunity for the Senate to disallow prior to the regulations coming into effect––all of those assurances I have given on behalf of the government and on behalf of the minister. It will happen and I know that the minister is very serious indeed to ensure that all of this will happen, and I would urge the Senate to pass this legislation.

In conclusion, the principles and the approach that is being taken are no different from what has occurred over the last couple of decades. These sorts of circumstances and the need for this levy are very significant and very serious. Let us hope we do not face outbreaks of disease that we saw 18 months ago. I would urge the Senate to support the legislation and we will no doubt have an opportunity, if senators want it, to debate the regulations before they come into effect.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.