BARNABY Joyce says the Productivity Commission’s recommendations against imposing red tape in core farm policy areas, like implementing a compulsory sugar marketing code of conduct, won’t be supported by the federal government.
But Shadow Agriculture Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has accused his rival of burying the report for months due to fears it contains recommendations that disagree with the Federal Agriculture and Water Resources Minister’s views like adopting an independent animal welfare agency that industry believes adds unnecessary regulatory burden.
“I note that the Productivity Commission has a role to play and a very important role to play but I disagree with them on the issue of whether we need a sugar code and we’re bringing that forward,” Mr Joyce said last week as the government announced it would launch the code of conduct regulation process this week.
Mr Joyce said the Commission’s farm red tape report also made suggestions about adding more regulation onto the live cattle sector but “we don’t want more regulation”.
He said people in regional areas also felt tree clearing legislation was “completely onerous” and wanted to ensure it wasn’t not excessive and “I think we should be supporting them on that”.
Mr Joyce said he also understood the Productivity Commission’s statement on Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) guidelines but stressed there was also a group called the Australian voter and the Australian people and “they want proper oversight”.
“We’ve read over it and we still have the capacity to reply,” he said when challenged about commissioning the Commission inquiry into agricultural red tape as part of the Coalition’s Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper but rejecting some of its findings.
“It’s an extensive report but just in some areas – and I’m being quite frank – such as more regulation in the live cattle area, we don’t agree with that,” he said.
“We consider everything in these reports.”
Mr Fitzgibbon said he’d “laboured through” a large part of the document which the government had been “sitting on since November”.
“Now this was one of the few good things that came out of the Agricultural White Paper: the decision to send to the Productivity Commission an inquiry into the regulatory burden in the farm sector,” he said.
“Why have they sat on it since November?
“Because they've got all the wrong answers from their perspective and - it has been highly critical of some of their key policies areas.”
Mr Fitzgibbon pointed to the report’s suggestions on the effects test, FIRB thresholds and specifically mentioned Queensland sugar and it “basically made an appeal to this government to stay out of it”.
But he said he was “very pleased that the rather economically dry Productivity Commission” had agreed with Labor’s view about implementing an independent animal welfare office.
“The best way to produce sustainability and to maintain social license for the sector in Australia is to make sure people can see an independent arm's length regulator watching over the industry,” he said.
“That's what we promised at the last election.
“I have no doubt we will be promising that at the next election and I'm glad that the Productivity Commission has given our policy a tick.”
Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen said the Coalition government wasn’t going to respond in full to the Commission’s report “because they don't like it” and because the independent analysis had “called them out” on an effects test, on FIRB thresholds and on sugar re-regulation.
“Of course they're not going to respond in full because the Productivity Commission has pointed out the economically reckless approach of this government in agriculture,” he said.
The report recommended the Australian government should take responsibility for ensuring scientific principles guide the development of farm animal welfare standards by implementing a “stand-alone statutory organisation” to be called the Australian Commission for Animal Welfare (ACAW).
It said the ACAW’s functions should include: determining if new standards for farm animal welfare are required, and if so, to develop the standards using good-practice public consultation and regulatory impact assessment processes
It should also include animal science and community ethics advisory committees to provide independent, evidence-based advice on animal welfare science and community values, the report said.
If the ACAW is established in time, the report said it should undertake the first review - , by the end of 2017 - on the efficiency and effectiveness of the livestock export regulatory system.
It said that review should include an assessment and make recommendations for reform on: industry-developed initiatives, like quality assurance programs, as a means of compliance with livestock export regulations.
The report found that there was no market failure or other reasonable objective to justify the re-regulation of the Queensland sugar industry and recommended the Queensland government repeal amendments made by the Sugar Industry (Real Choice in Marketing) Amendment Act 2015.
The Productivity Commission also found that the perception in the agricultural sector that introducing an ‘effects test’ to section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 was likely to shield farm businesses from intense competition in retail grocery markets was “ill-founded”.
“In any event, doing so would not be in the interest of consumers,” it said.
It also recommended screening thresholds for examination of foreign investment in agricultural land and agribusinesses by the FIRB should be increased to their previous level of $252 million - indexed annually and not cumulative.
“The Australian government should set application fees for foreign investment proposals at the level that recovers the costs incurred by the FIRB in reviewing proposals, and should closely monitor the fees to ensure no over- or under-recovery of costs,” it said.
The report also found that regulation and policies aimed at preserving agricultural land per se can prevent land from being put to its highest value use and a right of veto by agricultural landholders over resource development would arbitrarily transfer property rights from the community as a whole to individual landholders.
It recommended Australian, state and territory governments should continue to develop market-based approaches to native vegetation and biodiversity conservation.
“Governments could achieve desired environmental outcomes by buying environmental services - such as native vegetation retention and management - from private landholders,” it said.
Another recommendation called on the government to legislate to exclude agricultural commodity trading companies from being granted charity status and receiving the associated tax concessions.