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

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig. In relation to the cost recovery of export fees from exporters, the department's website states quite clearly that the cost-recovery process must follow the protocols set out in the Australian government cost-recovery guidelines from July 2005. Under these guidelines specific requirements are set out for agencies with significant cost-recovery arrangements. Can the minister confirm whether DAFF's cost-recovery processes are considered significant and, if so, whether the protocols are adhered to? Can the minister also provide advice on whether the protocols are considered legally binding? Can the minister explained why Riverland lime producers Mick and Tanya Punturiero have seen an increase in inspection fees from $550-$8,530, which has destroyed their export market to New Zealand?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for his question. As I understand it, the answer to the first and second parts of Senator Xenophon's question is: yes, the cost recovery of export fees are from the guidelines from July 2005 and the DAFF cost-recovery process is considered significant. The cost-recovery guidelines are guidelines. I am advised by the department that, in the case of horticultural export program fees and charges, the guidelines were stringently followed. In the horticulture export program the new system corrects a chronic under-collection in previous years and addresses complaints from export certification users about previous service delivery arrangements. It provides a more streamlined export certification arrangement which in time will reduce the cost of export certification. Not all the benefits of the new system are available immediately. That is why I made $6.5 million in transitional funding available to horticultural exporters until 2013-14 to offset the registration charges.

Full cost recovery for export certification services is—and may I remind you and perhaps Senator Ruston as well—the opposition policy from 2005. We are implementing that policy. They committed to it in 2005. They went into the 2007 election with no provision for fee rebate in the forward estimates and no election commitment to deal with that. We continued the rebate in 2009 so that we could find ways to improve service delivery and implement $30 million in efficiencies across all export programs. The export program itself was $127.4 million that we spent to ensure that we could have an export certification program. The exporter the senator refers to will have a rebate applied to his fee for year of $6,730, reducing the fee to $1,800 for 2012-13— (Time expired)

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

My supplementary question is: the protocols also provide that appropriate stakeholder consultation should be undertaken without significant cost recovery arrangements. Can the minister provide a working definition of 'appropriate' and provide a breakdown of how many stakeholders were consulted, including their relative size in terms of employees and turnover? Does the minister acknowledge that the current rules favour big agribusinesses and make life incredibly hard for small family farmers like Mick and Tanya Punturiero in the Riverland?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can outline that the consultation process for the new fees and charges was not only consistent with the cost-recovery guidelines but also went well above and beyond anything specified in the guidelines. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry convened a horticulture ministerial task force on the topic and consulted with entities including but not limited to the Australian Horticultural Exporters' Association, Citrus Australia and Fruit Growers Tasmania. After two years this consultation process did not eventually settle on a fee model that eliminated the chronic undercollection issue that I referred to earlier. I then convened a meeting that I attended with more than a dozen horticultural export representatives. We continued to liaise and consult until an agreed position was found. I am confident that the consultation with both the department and with my office over the two years was reported widely among industry participants, including those small— (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Under these protocols the agency in question is required to prepare a cost recovery impact statement or a regulation impact statement. Can the minister indicate whether either of these documents were prepared for this process? If so, when, and have they been or will they be publicly released? Isn't it the case that small producers like Mick and Tanya Punturiero were effectively ignored in this process?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for his interest in cost recovery impact statements. A cost recovery impact statement was prepared in association with the changes to the horticultural fees and charges and is available on the department's website. The department's website is www.daff.gov.au and the link to the document should appear if the senators type 'horticultural CRIS' into their search field.

I accept that the horticultural sector is vast and diverse and not all members of the supply chain are members of industry organisations. That is why the department wrote to all registered establishments in 2012 on two occasions to advise them of the new fees and charges. The department will work with individuals to assess their individual circumstances and requirements to ensure that we can continue to work with them to ensure their fees are as low as possible. (Time expired)