Mr WOOD - 2014-02-13
As you know, the banana freckle eradication program has had a major effect on people living in the rural area with many people losing all of their bananas. Some people in here lost their bananas. Whilst most of those people are regarded as backyard growers, others had more substantial crops, which they used to supplement their income. The Emergency Response Plant Pest Response Deed questions and answers section says:
We know the government is willing to compensate commercial growers affected by banana freckle. Why should the government not do the same as a matter of social justice for part-time commercial growers who were willing to allow the department to destroy their crops for the sake of the banana industry, even though those crops did not have the disease?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his question. Before I answer, I make the observation that it was fantastic to have two questions about Katherine on this side of the House today in stark contrast to the opposition when it was in government. They never spoke about Katherine at all so this is fantastic. They hated Katherine. We care about the regions. The Labor Party does not.
To answer the question, when you use the word biosecurity, a lot of people’s eyes glaze over and it does not seem like a terribly sexy topic. We, as a government, take biosecurity extremely seriously. You have seen some of the issues we have had in the banana industry around Panama disease and how it has had an effect on our banana industry, and we took it seriously. An enormous amount of work has gone into researching what varieties of bananas might become Panama disease resistant. There is a lot of work happening in this space. We are trying to protect our banana industry, which is my prime focus in dealing with this banana freckle issue.
This is critical to ensuring we protect the Northern Territory’s banana industry, but it is also critical that we protect Australia’s banana industry. We have a relatively small industry in the Territory. Queensland and states such as New South Wales have significant crops which also need to be protected. We need to do the right thing here.
Under the Plant Health Act and the subsequent Cost Sharing Deed between the states, when we have these biosecurity incursions there are provisions for owner reimbursement costs, which are generally restricted to applicants who are commercial growers.
I listened very carefully to the question and the premise is a little incorrect, whereby the government does not decide who gets owner reimbursement costs. It is the national management group, operating under the auspices of the Cost Sharing Deed, which makes the decision.
Commercial growers can apply for owner reimbursement costs; they are entitled to do so. People who are, let us say, hobby farmers who consider their operations to be commercial, can certainly make an application for owner reimbursement costs. I am willing to get the department to look at how we may assist those people who do not qualify.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
- Providing for these Owner Reimbursement Costs also provides for social justice for growers who, through no fault of their own, are detrimentally affected by a plan to eradicate an Emergency Plant Pest.
We know the government is willing to compensate commercial growers affected by banana freckle. Why should the government not do the same as a matter of social justice for part-time commercial growers who were willing to allow the department to destroy their crops for the sake of the banana industry, even though those crops did not have the disease?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his question. Before I answer, I make the observation that it was fantastic to have two questions about Katherine on this side of the House today in stark contrast to the opposition when it was in government. They never spoke about Katherine at all so this is fantastic. They hated Katherine. We care about the regions. The Labor Party does not.
To answer the question, when you use the word biosecurity, a lot of people’s eyes glaze over and it does not seem like a terribly sexy topic. We, as a government, take biosecurity extremely seriously. You have seen some of the issues we have had in the banana industry around Panama disease and how it has had an effect on our banana industry, and we took it seriously. An enormous amount of work has gone into researching what varieties of bananas might become Panama disease resistant. There is a lot of work happening in this space. We are trying to protect our banana industry, which is my prime focus in dealing with this banana freckle issue.
This is critical to ensuring we protect the Northern Territory’s banana industry, but it is also critical that we protect Australia’s banana industry. We have a relatively small industry in the Territory. Queensland and states such as New South Wales have significant crops which also need to be protected. We need to do the right thing here.
Under the Plant Health Act and the subsequent Cost Sharing Deed between the states, when we have these biosecurity incursions there are provisions for owner reimbursement costs, which are generally restricted to applicants who are commercial growers.
I listened very carefully to the question and the premise is a little incorrect, whereby the government does not decide who gets owner reimbursement costs. It is the national management group, operating under the auspices of the Cost Sharing Deed, which makes the decision.
Commercial growers can apply for owner reimbursement costs; they are entitled to do so. People who are, let us say, hobby farmers who consider their operations to be commercial, can certainly make an application for owner reimbursement costs. I am willing to get the department to look at how we may assist those people who do not qualify.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016