STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT
(Senate-Monday, 20 October 2008)

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY PORTFOLIO - Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service 

 Senator MILNE» -I would like to start by asking for an update on the ganglioneuritis virus in abalone. Can you tell me where that is up to, particularly in relation to the Tasmanian experience? We received a briefing note recently, but there was only a passing reference to the fact that it had been found in the wild fishery in Tasmania, not just in the processing plant. If you could give me some information about that to start with I would appreciate it.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORTMeat and Livestock Australia Discussion Senator MILNE—I would like to ask how much embedded carbon there is in a leg of lamb landed into Brussels and how much embedded carbon there is in a kilogram steak landed into Tokyo. Mr Palmer—I, for one, cannot give you the answer, but I would be more than happy to take it on board. Seriously, we actually take this— Senator MILNE—I am very serious about this. Mr Palmer—We additionally take this very seriously. We employed recently a very talented officer from the Queensland government to assist in this whole area. The livestock industries take very seriously their role in this whole matter of emissions. We are pleased to see some of the successes that have been achieved since the 1990 Kyoto years, where livestock industries have reduced emissions by about 12 per cent. The other part of your question I might answer slightly differently. I have seen some research work done by Massey University in New Zealand. Senator MILNE—Lincoln. Mr Palmer—Thank you. That shows how favourably New Zealand lamb stacks up against European lamb, and apples and butter. We could extrapolate some of that work to apply to ourselves or do some stand-alone work. But can I take the question on notice? I am happy to come back with an answer. Senator MILNE—It is a bigger question. It really is: why has the Australian meat and livestock industry not anticipated the whole argument about food miles and embedded carbon and recognised this as one of the biggest threats to your export markets that is looming on the horizon? Why is New Zealand now able to tell Tesco exactly how much embedded carbon is in a leg of lamb and yet we have not done any work on it? Why is that? Mr Palmer—We do do work. I will furnish it. Because I cannot answer the question does not mean to say work has not been done. We will furnish you with the answers. The only other point I would make between Australia and New Zealand on this score is that New Zealand has an enormous lamb quota with Europe, which Australia does not enjoy. New Zealand therefore becomes considerably more exposed in a particular market that puts a higher importance perhaps in this area than some of the markets that Australia traditionally supplies. I think New Zealand is responding to market signals that they have taken directly out of Europe, whereas our principal trading nations have been North America and North Asia and those market signals have not been quite so pronounced. Senator MILNE—Nevertheless, the proposed 2012 treaty and growing consumer awareness is going to see food miles used as an informal trade barrier, and we will be out in the cold unless we can justify the amount of carbon in what we do. Secondly, have you done any risk analysis on people changing their eating habits away from meat in view of the carbon emissions from livestock? There is a major international campaign on eating red meat and the amount of emissions. If we ever end up with individual carbon rations, people will think more carefully about this. It seems to me that Australia is way behind the eight ball in anticipating where consumer preference is going to go. Have you done any risk analysis on that? Mr Thomason—There is a lot of information being circulated in the community that is either selective or piecemeal or inappropriate for the claims that are being made. I think perhaps the claims around water usage are a classic example of that. Our approach has been that we are here for the livestock industry for the long term and we want to make sure that we have the right information and the right science before we go out and make strong claims to the community about carbon embedded in product, particularly when a lot of those measures to this point just focus on emissions rather than seeing carbon as a cycle and therefore getting benefit for the carbon capture that also occurs through livestock production. I do not think we are in a position to be definitive on those sorts of issues at this point. They are a very, very high priority within the MLA. As Mr Palmer just said, we are recruiting some of Australia’s best brains on this issue. When we have the right information we will be circulating that and defending the importance of red meat in a balanced diet. But at the end of the day we should never lose sight of the fact that red meat is a vital human food. Every human endeavour in producing food produces some carbon. It is unfortunate that some people in the community choose to focus just on red meat in isolation. Senator MILNE—I am not arguing the point about the merits of red meat. What I am pointing out is that there are a lot of people miles ahead of where you are and you are going to now in catch-up to try and deal with consumer opinion that is already being formed by our competitors and by the whole carbon debate around the world. You say you have put some of the best brains on the problem. I have heard about one person from the Queensland department you have put on. What else are you doing? Mr Thomason—We have brought together an expert committee of academics and scientists, again to advise us on this issue. We have substantially increased our investment in environmental research. Also, I think it is important to keep in mind that this industry is, perhaps not directly, focused on carbon as the issue, but it has been focusing on improving productivity in the industry for 20 years. A large part of that productivity improvement is about capturing the energy that is available to animals and converting that into meat. Methane represents lost energy, so we have been working on that, for productivity reasons, not necessarily just for environmental purposes. Senator HEFFERNAN—Would it be fair, to put that in reasonable terms, to say that you have a fart reduction program for cattle? Mr Thomason—Through better conversion of the feed— CHAIR—I am sure that will get another headline by the end of close of business. Senator HEFFERNAN—It is true. CHAIR—With the greatest respect, Senator Milne is halfway through her question. Senator MILNE—In relation to that work you have been doing to increase productivity, I would just make the point again that farmers may produce a fantastic product that represents great increase in productivity but if it is not what consumers want to buy, for whatever reason they may not want to buy it and then it does not matter how good the product is. Where we are at cross-purposes here is that it is my observation that the focus has been on productivity at the expense of being aware of how consumer tastes are changing in view of an increasing level of awareness of carbon issues around the production of food. I am really just putting you on notice that it is my observation—and I do travel a lot to international conferences and to Europe in particular, and I see those aeroplane stickers on food, including meat products in supermarkets, and so on. When all things appear equal, that might well be the difference between picking up one leg of lamb or something else. I would hope that, by the time you come back next year, you will be able to tell me that those market representatives that you have in Brussels and everywhere else would be able to answer the question, if they were asked by anyone in those markets, how much carbon is embedded in the Australian product. Mr Thomason—We take on board your challenge and hopefully when we meet next time we will have the story complete. Senator HEFFERNAN—Part of the calculation, surely, has got to be that a lot of Australia’s beef is produced in a natural environment. Senator MILNE—Yes, that is fine. That is all part of the analysis— Senator HEFFERNAN—The Australian farmers that are subject to the—I will not use the same word again—emissions problems with cattle—is that better, Mr Chairman? CHAIR—That is better. Senator HEFFERNAN—They really need to be measured against the lack of credits the farmer gets who runs the native pasture and the carbon set from native pastures as opposed to artificial pastures. That needs to be part of the argument, otherwise with the 50-year prediction for a billion on the planet unable to feed themselves, if you wanted to go to the politically correct view of life, they will starve. Mr Thomason—That is exactly right. Mr Palmer—Can I just back up and comment there that not just for the meat and livestock industries but for agriculture generally, the whole accounting standards and the accounting for emissions, et cetera, is a very imperfect science. As David Thomason referred to a moment ago, we have heard it alleged that it takes 100,000 litres of water, et cetera, and then other pundits will tell you it is closer to 100 litres and others might tell you it is what is on the animal as it walks up the loading ramp. The accounting standards are all over the place at the moment. Senator HEFFERNAN—The great danger for Australia’s farmers, might I add, is that in the event of a carbon trading regime it just becomes a pass-the-parcel thing where the farmer misses out in much the same way as the world is in turmoil financially now; the parcel got passed to some silly bugger at the end of the line who had to buy the mortgage and got landed with the baby water. There is a real danger in trying to come to terms with the carbon load and all the rest of it. I mean, have a look at all these people who fly all around the world touring and looking at themselves. The farmers are taken for granted in all of this. There are great carbon returns to the soil in farming that we do not get any credit for. The serious science predictions on the future of feeding the world and the global food task as we build from 6.2 billion to 9 billion people, and the prospect of hundreds of millions of people being displaced, does not want to be overrun by the lack of equity return to the farmers in the carbon debate. Farmers will not be able to afford to have the wealth creation of the carbon offset program disappear from the farm or we will all be insolvent. Mr Palmer—I fear one of the additional challenges for our company, for the benefit of senators, is to involve in the community debate. You see, I think one of the impediments we face is that the community in the cities see us as being in the livestock industry and not instead seeing us in the food business. I think much of our work now in public relations is about getting people to realise and understand that we are in the meals business. In fact, if you convert all the cattle sold in Australia annually it converts to 4¾ billion meals. If you add sheep meats to it, it takes the number up to over six billion meals. That is, I think, the way we need to portray ourselves. Senator HEFFERNAN—Good stuff, yes. CHAIR—Senator Milne, have you completed your questions? Senator MILNE—Yes, for ABARE. CHAIR—If you have then I believe Senator Macdonald— Senator SCULLION—I just have one short question. What sort of communication have you had with the government in regard to the potential for a trading scheme to embrace your sector? Mr Palmer—As I understand it, there is a paper coming through at the moment, later this year, and some draft legislation, but from an agricultural involvement in a trading scheme we are not scheduled to be in that early round when it commences in 2010 and agricultural would be shifted beyond that time. If I might say from my point of view, agriculture needs to completely understand the rules of the game, I think, before we enter the game. My fear is that if a trading scheme may inadvertently end up as just a tax on food, then I think we are in a whole new round of problems. I think that we need to understand the rules of the game. We need to be completely in agreement about the whole accounting standards and how we account for emissions and how we apportion and assign those emissions. Once that is all fully understood and agreed, then I think maybe the agricultural sector may enter the game. I was at a seminar recently where the Canadians and New Zealanders were present and, despite the comments about New Zealand being ahead of the game, they are in all sorts of bother as they grapple with an emissions trading scheme as they see part of their country going back into forestry and native shrubs and having difficulty, and their sheep numbers are now coming down enormously as they try to grapple with all this. Conversely, there is a national trading scheme in Canada yet the two largest polluting provinces have not joined it and will not join it. Not a day goes by when we do not hear something new and a bit frightening about what can lie ahead in a trading scheme applying to agriculture. Senator SCULLION—Do you have a view on the practices or areas within your sector that you think we can have training on or the change of practices, forgetting about a trading scheme, that would have a positive impact on carbon emissions? Mr Palmer—I think a living example right now is the sheep industry. Sheep flocks have come from 140 million down to 85 million in only a matter of years and yet last year we turned in record production of lamb meat. We have a younger, more productive flock, which can only be positive from an emission point of view. So we have in fact increased production and reduced emissions. Younger turn-off; a younger flock; younger herd; quicker age; younger age at turn-off; better pasture utilisation, so young, vibrant pastures growing vigorously and being consumed and growing again—these are, I think, the positive aspects for the livestock industries. It is so doubly pleasing to see that production conversely continues to increase whilst at the same time emissions appear to be decreasing. Senator McGAURAN—Following up on the same point from Senator Scullion, I want to ask Mr O’Connell about something that was just said just to confirm to make it official that the agricultural sector has been exempted from the 2010 introduction of the trading emissions scheme. Dr O’Connell—I do not think that is correct. I think the issue of whether and, if so, when agriculture is included in the emissions trading scheme is a matter still of consultation between the government and the industry and still a matter to be decided. Senator McGAURAN—Mr Palmer, how does that change what you have just said? You said it had been, did you not? Mr Palmer—As I understood it. I am close, but clearly not close enough. I stand by the comments by the secretary of the department, so I have misled you, for which I apologise. Senator McGAURAN—But you have been working on the basis that you have been excluded. Mr Palmer—No, I did not say that. I said I understood that there was a white paper or green paper coming out now and some draft legislation at the end of the year and due for commencement in 2010. I thought agriculture was not going in that first round. If I am wrong, as just revealed, then— Senator McGAURAN—What led you to that thinking? Mr Palmer—My anecdotal understanding of it. Senator McGAURAN—Where did you get this anecdotal understanding? Would you share with us one of your anecdotes? Mr Palmer—I am not certain that I can point to any particular event. It was just my understanding. Senator McGAURAN—Because it is a pretty— CHAIR—Senator McGauran, I think in all fairness Mr Palmer has admitted that he made a mistake. I do not think there is any conspiracy theory here and I think that— Senator McGAURAN—But it is all about readiness. CHAIR—Mr Palmer has corrected the Hansard. Senator McGAURAN—He has, indeed. CHAIR—Senator McGauran, Senator Milne has just asked can she ask a question to clarify. Senator MILNE—Just to clarify this, which may assist, Mr O’Connell, is it not true that the important thing in an emissions trading system is that the data for each sector is good data and that one of the discussion points around whether or not to include agriculture is that we do not yet have good enough data? Dr O’Connell—Certainly if you are talking about the capacity to measure emissions and therefore potentially control them, that is one of the issues that is being raised. Of course, just to show how it can be handled on the other hand, New Zealand has moved to look at a point of obligation up the chain in order to avoid that issue and assume that the signals go down. Senator MILNE—Is it not fair to say at the moment that there is considerable debate as to whether there would be sufficient good data by the time the emissions trading system starts for an early inclusion of agriculture, which is probably why Mr Palmer has the impression that it may not be included because that has been the point of contention. Is that not right? Dr O’Connell—There certainly is a significant debate around that issue, yes. Senator MILNE—I hope that should clarify.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORTBiosecurity Australia Discussion Senator MILNE—I would like to come back to the questions in relation to strawberries. You will recall that at the last estimates I asked some questions about the Choice review of strawberries showing that there were chemical residues in some of the strawberry samples and so on. The department provided some answers. I was a bit concerned to see that one of those reviews has taken six years and nothing was going on. Can you tell me where you are up to with all the chemicals identified, including endosulfan? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—With respect to the chemicals that were under review, the endosulfan review was finished several years ago. The chlorpyrifos review is ongoing and will be finalised this year. That is actually a second part of the review. The original review was already completed. There is often confusion about when we start a review. Because the chemical always is, if you like, under suspicion, you continue to look at it closely. Chlorpyrifos is one of them. So we are progressing them, as I mentioned at the last Senate estimates. Senator MILNE—What does ‘we are progressing them’ mean? They should not have turned up in those strawberry samples. One of them was a prohibited chemical. Is that correct? Mr Magee—I might just add some points to this topic. We did discuss this quite a bit last time. Following that last hearing, the Australian government did quite a bit of follow-up on the matter. There was some further discussion with Choice magazine over their findings and what they put in that previous edition. In the June edition of Choice, they have actually clarified that in fact there was only one violation, not three. They have also clarified that that was for chlorpyrifos, I believe, which is permitted for use on strawberries. So the ones that were prohibited were in fact not violations. Senator MILNE—And the ongoing review of that chemical, you said, will be finished this year. Is that correct? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—Chlorpyrifos review, yes. Senator MILNE—It will be finished this year? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—That will be finished this year. Senator MILNE—I also asked in the health estimates whether strawberries could be included in the range of products that the government will look at this year. They do a grocery basket sort of thing and choose 80 products or thereabouts to just do a random test on. Can you tell me whether strawberries have been included in that since the last estimates? Mr Magee—I think that would be a question for Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Senator. Senator MILNE—So you do not know? Mr Magee—No.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORTAustralian Quarantine Inspection Service Discussion Senator MILNE—I have a few questions. The first one relates to pandemic influenza preparedness. I notice in the budget statements that you say that funding for these measures will be met from within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s existing resources. Can you explain to me what kind of in-house support this program will get and what will it mean in terms of a relative cut from previously? Mr S Hunter—At this time we are working through existing departmental resources to see how that activity might be supported. There are a couple of elements to the equation. One is the extent of funding that is necessary in order to maintain the appropriate level of readiness for those teams that have been trained under that program. The other part of the equation is, if funding is required to maintain that level of readiness, how much and from where. We have started that process but we have not completed that. Senator MILNE—What did you spend on that previously? Mr S Hunter—Principally for training of staff at airports to be able to detect symptoms on people coming into Australia using thermal scanning. Ms Gordon—We received $2.8 million to, as Mr Hunter said, train staff to effectively operate thermal scanners for passengers coming into the country and to talk to them or interview them if they thought they were exhibiting symptoms or reported symptoms, and then to refer them appropriately to Department of Health nurses and others for medical assessments and management. Our staff are there basically carrying out the role that they normally play in respect of human quarantine, which is to identify passengers and then refer them appropriately. The funding itself, as Mr Hunter has indicated, was largely to enable us to take people offline to train them so that we maintained a ready pool of people with the knowledge and experience to undertake this sort of work. For the moment, we have fully trained people available to do that work, and we would expect that we would be able to maintain our capacity for some time to come. We have fulfilled the training requirements of the people who are currently at the airport. Senator MILNE—That requires that you have a relatively stable staff, and maintaining people in the places they currently are with that level of preparedness. Presumably each year you would need to do some kind of refresher and/or emergency procedure. Will that cost money? Or are you suggesting that people will just be able to do it as part of their day-to-day activities? Ms Gordon—Yes, it is true that as staff move or as time passes, if there is no particular call on those skill sets, people lose their currency of those skills, and they will require upgrading training, as will new staff coming through. As Mr Hunter has indicated, we are still assessing which is going to be the best way to maintain those skill sets. We obviously train our airport officers in a whole range of skills and we are looking, among other options, at how we might integrate that into that sort of training as well. Senator MILNE—Perhaps you might report some time later in the year. Could you take this on notice? When you do an assessment of what it is going to cost, I would be interested to know what you estimate will come from somewhere else in the department. The other thing I want to ask you about is Ug99, wheat rust, which people are very concerned about coming out of Africa. Are we doing anything in terms of special surveillance in relation to that? Ms Gordon—We might have to take that one on notice, unless Mr Lehne can help you. Mr Lehne—I will take that on notice. The importation of wheat is highly restricted. We only allow wheat in from certain countries and under certain conditions. They normally go for processing in metropolitan areas. It is highly contained in that sense. We do import seed wheat for genetic purposes, but that has grown under quarantine conditions and it is the progeny of that which is released. In that period in quarantine it is tested for diseases such as rust, et cetera, to ensure that we do not bring in any material of that sort. Senator MILNE—Are you confident that we can keep Ug99 out of Australia? Mr Lehne—We have systems in place that are specifically designed to ensure that those sorts of diseases are not imported on seed that is brought into the country. Senator MILNE—Presumably Uganda is one of the places we do not import it from? Mr Lehne—I would need to take that on notice. Senator MILNE—The final question I have is in relation to the red fire ants and the progress in terms of eradication. I am interested in an update from anyone as to how we are going towards eradication, whether we are winning the battle and where we are up to. Mr Aldred—Yes, I would like to say we are winning the battle. The program has been highly successful. There have been a couple of reviews done of the program. It is moving forward. The Primary Industries Ministerial Council, at the end of April, agreed to continue funding the program for a further two years. There is an issue that, as with a number of the tramp ants, as you get down to the final nests it is difficult to be sure that you have got them all. Occasionally they pop up, and you need to keep people vigilant. But at the moment we are on track and we expect it to keep going for a couple of years. Senator MILNE—What are we down to in terms of a physical area? Mr Aldred—I would have to take the area on notice. Senator MILNE—Have you any sense of how many active nests you have still to deal with? Are we talking a few square kilometres now? Mr Aldred—I would not like to guess, frankly. In terms of active nests, we had a situation where a while ago a number of additional nests—I think a couple of hundred—were found in a quarry or something of that nature. Essentially, when you find the active nests they get dealt with pretty swiftly. It is very much a matter of surveillance and knocking them on the head one at a time. Senator MILNE—Given our experience and how much it has cost to actually manage this and try and eradicate it, what actions are we taking with our Pacific island neighbours and around the Pacific to raise awareness of the problems and so on to attempt to sort out these issues before we get them again? Mr Aldred—I would have to take that on notice. We have a number of programs around on a whole range of pests and diseases, but I do not know the specific answer in terms of red imported fire ant. Senator MILNE—Which department does the educative work in the region? Mr Aldred—It would be us. We would work with the department of the environment because a number of these pests are not strictly what you would call production pests; they are pests of the environment or social amenity. With a number of the educative activities that we look after, we work with AusAID. Senator MILNE—I am trying to get a handle on where I get a picture of the work Australia does on alien invasive species, both marine and terrestrial, in the region. Is it through AusAID? Is that mainly the delivery source? Mr Aldred—I will take that on notice and provide you with a collation of information. Senator MILNE—It seems to me that would be a productive use of our time and money. Mr S Hunter—We do some work through the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy in countries such as Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste, working with the quarantine administrations in those countries to lift their capacity and preparedness to deal with quarantine diseases in those places. While I am speaking, can I advise you that Ms Gordon wants to clarify some figures she gave you about the rapid deployment teams. Senator MILNE—Just before we go off the regional involvement, does the Australian government contribute to GISP, the Global Invasive Species Program? Mr S Hunter—I do not know the answer to that. I think that is probably something that would occur through the environment department, if it did. Mr Aldred—Again, I will take that on notice. Ms Gordon—I would like to clarify the figure of $2.8 million I gave you for the rapid deployment teams. It was the funding that we had available in this financial year. Overall, the budget measure was $10.8 million over four years. Senator MILNE—And is that now nothing? Ms Gordon—That funding has been withdrawn and we will incorporate the activities into our ongoing funding for our airport staff. Senator MILNE—That was basically training and now we are into maintenance? Ms Gordon—Yes. Senator MILNE—Thank you. CHAIR—Thank you, Senator Milne. Senator MILNE—I just wanted to ask a follow-up from Senator McGauran on this issue of consistency and people understanding what they have to declare. There seems to be real inconsistency in airports about chocolate. People line up for ages because they have ticked a box saying they are bringing in a food item when they are bringing in a box of chocolates that is packaged and is not a raw food as such. Frequently I have ticked that as well because I have packaged chocolate, but I know they are going to say to me, ‘Oh, that is not what we mean. We mean salamis and da, da, da’, which I know. But it is not clear on the forms what you are doing about chocolate, and yet half the people in the queue are wasting people’s time essentially by ticking chocolate as a food. Is there anything specific you can do to say which chocolates are quarantined, which ones you have to declare—if they are not packaged or they are from certain countries or something—or do you just want everybody to declare chocolates and fill up the queues? Ms Gordon—You raise a very good point. I think there are two issues sitting behind that. The form, as you know, is quite small and so we have to be very sparing with the language that we use. In regard to chocolates, largely what we would be concerned about there is some of the milk product. To try to distinguish different categories of chocolate or where it was produced, et cetera, on a form of that size is probably not going to be very easy, so it is our preference that people declare anything that they have got any doubts about so that we can at least talk to them. And, yes, it does mean that for many people who have just got Lindt chocolate from Switzerland we can say, ‘Sorry. That is fine. You can go through.’ But it does give us the opportunity to assure ourselves that people do not have something that would be of greater concern to us. Senator MILNE—It is quite inconsistent. Sometimes they just say, ‘Keep going.’ And other times you are sent through the other queue. I just wanted to get some consistency on that. Senator HEFFERNAN—Do these people from the department moonlight on this show? Do they get paid for their appearance or, if they do appear, do they get paid? CHAIR—It is all right. You can say ‘no’ in one word; that is easy. Thank you, Ms Gordon. Senator Milne, there are five minutes to go. Senator Siewert has not had a go yet, so do you want your colleague to go? You can sort it out between yourselves. Senator MILNE—On notice, when you come back on the national fruit fly strategy, I am interested to know whether the increased minimum temperatures in parts of Australia where fruit fly was never a risk before are now being identified—whether you are cross-checking with the climate data on changed minimum temperatures. Mr Aldred—Some of the work that is being done or envisaged over the next 12 months or so is essentially setting baselines for us to do just that work.

Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Senator MILNE-During the February estimates this year, I asked whether the government had made a decision about the extension of Medicare funding for PET for recurrent colorectal cancer, melanoma and ovarian cancer, given that the government funded research had shown at that time that using PET had improved treatment in more than 50 per cent of patients with these lethal conditions. At the time, the department said that advice was being prepared for the new minister, and the department's advice would be going to the minister 'soon'-that was in February. I ask now: will the government be adding these new PET indications to the Medicare schedule, given the robust evidence that PET can prevent large numbers of cancer patients from having futile treatments, and when will that be happening?