Chapter Three - Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry
3.1 The Committee heard evidence from the Department on Tuesday, 15 February 2005. The
hearing was conducted in the following order:
- Management Services and Corporate Governance
- Food and Agriculture
- Biosecurity Australia
- Market Access
- Product Integrity, Animal (including aquatic
animal) and Plant Health
- Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service
(AQIS)
- Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics
(ABARE)
- Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS)
- Rural Policy and Innovation
- Fisheries and Forestry
- Natural Resource Management
3.2
The Committee began the hearing by welcoming the new Departmental
Secretary, Ms Joanna
Hewitt. The Department drew to the Committee's
attention to the transfer of the Plant Breeders Rights Office from the Department
to IP Australia.[115] In addition to
this, the Committee was informed that on 1 December 2004 Biosecurity Australia
was established as a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. This translates
to the agency remaining within the Department's portfolio, but for financial purposes
it is considered a separate entity.[116]
3.3
The Department advised that they have made some minor
structural changes to better manage the emergence and re-emergence of various
disease threats such as avian influenza, BSE and foot-and-mouth disease.
Furthermore, the Department sees a need to focus more attention on animal
welfare issues, as well as technical issues related to the international
trading environment. As a consequence, the government's chief vet will spend
less time on the administrative and financial management of Product Integrity, Animal
(including aquatic animal) and Plant Health (PIAPH) and the Executive Manager
of PIAPH will handle these matters. This will allow the chief vet to work more
closely with the Department's executive management team and provide leadership
and high-level input on the aforementioned issues.[117]
3.4
The Department also noted that the responsibility of
each of the Department's Deputy Secretaries has been rearranged.[118]
Management Services and Corporate Governance
3.5
The Committee inquired about the compensation for the
Hewitt defective administration claim for the attempted export of sultana grapes
to the UK in
1984. This matter has been routinely brought before the Committee at estimates
hearings.[119] The Department informed
the Committee that on 30 April 2004[120]
the Hewitts accepted the government's offer of $7.649 million to settle the
matter.[121] The total administrative
costs relating to the matter have amounted to $185, 486. The Department
considers the matter settled and no further action will be given to the Hewitt
claim.[122]
3.6
The departmental saving of $1.2 million on the Tasmanian
wheat freight subsidy scheme was also discussed. The Committee was informed
that the saving reflected in the PAES was due to the scheme being transferred
to the Department of Transport and Regional Services.[123]
Food and Agriculture
3.7 The Committee engaged the Department in a lengthy
discussion on the progress of the Sugar Industry Reform Package. The Department
informed the Committee that the process was currently at the stage where the
second tranche of sustainability grants were overdue, but have been delayed. The
second sustainability grant payment was due in January 2005, contingent on the
government being satisfied that industry had undertaken agreed industry
reforms, including the development of regional plans. These plans for reforming
the industry region by region are to be developed by a number of regional
advisory groups (RAGs), which are overseen by an industry oversight group (IOG)
responsible for advising the Minister on the progress of the plans.[124]
3.8
The Committee questioned the delays in the payment of
the $73 million second tranche of sustainability grants. The Department
referred to the Minister's statement of 2
February 2005, in which he stated that the regional advisory groups'
regional plans did not demonstrate sufficient evidence of industry reform against
the government's criteria; advice which came to the Minister through the IOG.[125] The Department elaborated to say
that, according to the IOG, each of the plans needed "more work".[126]
3.9
The Committee expressed concern that the regional
advisory groups had been given a very difficult standard to reach in view of
their voluntary and part time status, and their inexperience in contemplating
bureaucratic guidelines. The Committee was advised that the RAGs were assisted
by a secretariat within the Department to facilitate communication with the IOG
and assist in understanding the issues involved. The Department further
indicated that the IOG had provided specific advice to the regional groups as
to how their reform plans could be improved to be deemed satisfactory.[127]
3.10
The Committee asked for copies of the regional plans, a
request the Department took on notice given that the plans are subject to
ministerial discretion.[128]
3.11
The Committee questioned the Department in relation to
a recent evaluation of the Dairy Structural Adjustment Program. The evaluation
was conducted by the South Australian Centre for Economics in the second half
of 2003 and is available on the Department's website. The Department stated
that:
the evaluation of the dairy package, DSAP and SDA, indicated
that the package has been well implemented by the Dairy Adjustment Authority:
that there was an almost 100 per cent uptake of the package by eligible
entities, that it was progressing well and that generally the package had been
used for adjustment assistance throughout the industry—to assist the industry
to adjust to deregulation.[129]
The evaluation showed that
farmers in Victoria
and Tasmanian used the adjustment payments to improve productivity while this
was less predominant in New South Wales
and Queensland.[130] The Department explained the cause
behind this could be that different strategies of adjustment are required in
different regions.[131]
3.12
The Committee then discussed the eradication of citrus
canker. They were informed that $5.5 million has been allocated to the emergency
response program for citrus canker over the next three financial years. Within
the program, national consultation and management arrangements have been
undertaken through a committee on emergency plant pests. The national plan is
managed by the Queensland government,
however costs are shared between the Commonwealth and the States, with the
Commonwealth paying 50 per cent and the States on a pro rata citrus production basis.
The budget is endorsed through the Primary Industries Ministerial Council.[132] The Department stated that the
funding deals only with the technical eradication of citrus canker, and does
not include funding to affected growers.
3.13
Two assistance packages are on offer to growers
affected by the citrus canker disease. The first is a Queensland
government package which provides farmers within the plant quarantine area
around Emerald with interest-free loans for up to two years.[133]
3.14
There is also a separate $1.5 million Commonwealth
package - administered by Centrelink - which has two major components; income
support and interest rate subsidies. The Department indicated that the Commonwealth
assistance equates to up to $100, 000 for each affected farmer. Subsidies may
be applied for against existing or new debt incurred from financial deductions related
to the citrus canker disease, and the package is available to growers outside
the quarantine area in Queensland
who can show a reduction in the vicinity of 30 per cent due to citrus canker.
Whilst the guidelines are still being finalised, a number has been made
available publicly for inquiries about assistance available. The Department commented
that it expects the majority of the funding to go towards interest rate
subsidies.[134]
Biosecurity Australia
3.15
The Committee engaged the Department at length about
the importation of fresh meat from within a country in which foot and mouth disease
(FMD) is present, and a suspected outbreak had occurred. In describing the
chronology of events relating to this incident, the Department informed the
Committee that:
- The imported meat was accepted under the policy
of accepting red meat from zones declared by the World Organisation for Animal
Health (OIE) as being foot and mouth free;
- The consignment in question arrived in November
2004 and was comprised of half a tonne of Brazilian frozen beef trimmings. Of
the 20 cartons, 13 were held in a cold store in Melbourne,
five were distributed to individual smallgoods manufacturers and two to a
processing plant in Wagga Wagga;
- On 24
December 2004, Biosecurity Australia
became aware of the report of an unconfirmed FMD case on a property in Brazil
(on the border with Paraguay)
within one of their FMD-free zones;
- Import permits were immediately suspended, the
18 cartons that had not been opened were quarantined and precautionary measures
applied to the two cartons opened and tested in Wagga
Wagga and buried at the Wagga
Wagga municipal tip. The policy allowing the
imports was suspended pending a review;
- On 7
January 2005 the Brazilian government advised Australian officials that
the suspected outbreak was a false alarm;
- The policy under which the imports arrived
remains suspended and departmental officers will travel to Brazil
to assess the effectiveness of FMD-free zones and the safety measures in place.[135]
3.16 The Committee expressed concern over a number of
aspects of this incident. Particularly, the Committee questioned why Australia
accepted the OIE defined zones when many other countries do not accept the risk
associated with importing from countries not entirely FMD-free. The Department
reiterated that the policy was under review, but that zoning provided
advantages to Australian exporters unaffected by endemic diseases present in
other regions.[136] The Committee notes
that while zoning may be a fair proposition for minor diseases, FMD constitutes
a catastrophic risk to Australia's
beef industry and it is entirely reasonable for discretion to be applied.
3.17 Another concern was the absence of an import risk
analysis to precede the decision to accept Brazilian beef from FMD-free zones,
particularly given Australia's
own lack of understanding of that country's internal controls. The Department
stated that import permits could be issued on the basis of the available OIE
evidence. They stressed that the original decision had been on the basis of OIE's
auditing of Brazil's
controls and that the initial raising of the alert demonstrated the efficacy of
these controls.[137]
3.18 A discussion then ensued as to the burden of the cost
of auditing the controls of countries exporting beef to Australia
if OIE certification was deemed not to be an appropriate measure. The
Department indicated that this would be a "hugely expensive"
undertaking.[138]
3.19 The Committee also questioned how beef imported using
one permit can be distributed as widely as this one was, rendering containment
of an infected shipment difficult. The Department indicated that there was no
restriction on the use or movement of the product once it had been imported.[139] The Committee is concerned that the
meat entered the country legally but was disposed of at a commercial tip, prior
to the notification of the suspected outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Given
that the meat was disposed of prior to notification, had the outbreak been
confirmed the outcome could have been catastrophic.
3.20 The Department also indicated to the Committee that Brazil
is the only country with FMD from which we have received meat from an FMD free zone.[140]
3.21 The Committee went on to raise concerns about AQIS'
consultation with Biosecurity Australia
when assessing import permit applications. The Department explained to the
Committee that middle level AQIS officers would, in the course of determining
an import permit application, confirm with their Biosecurity Australia
counterparts that any approval would be consistent with Biosecurity's policy on
FMD-free zone imports.[141] The
Committee is concerned that an application to import meat from a country with
FMD would be handled at this level of the bureaucracy, without consultation
with senior Biosecurity Australia
officials.
Market Access
3.22 The Committee then moved to the issue of live animal
export MOU's with a number of Middle Eastern countries. The Department advised
that in December 2004 an MOU had been signed with the UAE, while an agreement
with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Eritrea was imminent. Negotiations are continuing
with Jordan, Syria, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. When questioned on why agreements
were not being sought with countries in regions other than the Middle
East, the Department indicated that from a resources standpoint
the region that had previously posed difficulties was being focussed on first.[142]
Product Integrity, Animal and Plant Health
3.23 The Committee inquired about $20 million to assists
farmers with the implementation of the National Livestock Identification Scheme
(NLIS). The Department indicated that the details of the expenditure had not
been finalised but anticipated that it would help producers, livestock agents
and saleyards with the uptake of the relevant technology.[143]
3.24 With regard to the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy,
the Committee was informed that the implementation plan had not been completed
due to a delay in receiving the necessary funding. Departmental officers
indicated that the development of Australian live export standards was a
greater priority with the funding available.[144]
3.25 The Committee then queried the Department on assistance
to wool and sheepmeat producers following PETA's instigation of their
anti-mulesing campaign. The Department stated that the government continued to
provide matched funding to Australian Wool Innovation, who were investigating
alternatives to mulesing. The Department stated that industry groups had been
leading the response to PETA's campaign, and that industry had reported no
significant impact on their markets.[145]
3.26 The Department further informed the Committee that they
had received legal advice indicating that AWI were within their rights to use
grower levy funds to fund legal action against PETA.[146]
3.27 The Committee sought information on the $505,000
proposed expenditure over the next two years for the future management plan for
Ovine Johne's Disease (OJD). The Department explained that they also expected
the states and industry to contribute funding to the plan. Under the new program the movement of sheep
will be based on vendor declarations of risk, termed assurance based trading.
This will comprise a national effort to move to risk based trading and away
from state enforced regulatory zones. This will be complemented with the
availability of vaccine and the use of such farming practices as pasture spelling
and the running of weaners on spelled pasture.[147]
3.28 The Department indicated that the system was not an
effort to eradicate OJD, rather to minimise the risk of contracting or
spreading the disease. The Department further advised that no decision had yet
been made as to whether the program's funding would continue beyond 2005-06, or
whether there would be a successor program.[148]
3.29 The Committee also engaged the Department on the
accountability and budgetary practices of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary
Medicines Authority (APVMA). The Department indicated that the APVMA's budget
was set by their board of directors and the organisation was accountable to the
parliament through the tabling of its annual report, approved by the
parliamentary secretary. Officers explained that APVMA was struggling to match
revenue to expenditure because it had been required to take on a broader range
of functions and the drought had impacted on chemical sales, from which APVMA
derives its revenue.[149]
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service
3.30 The Committee inquired about the staff impact on the termination
of the increased quarantine intervention and Nairn programs. The Department’s
response was:
I think we answered those questions at the last hearings. We
indicated that the amount of money that is involved in those lapsing programs
accounts for something like 1,200 AQIS staff, but we then went on to explain
that, while that was a direct translation, should those funds lapse, it would
be up to the department to look at what its priorities were.[150]
The Department explained
that all programs have a time period that will come to an end and decisions on
program durability are examined on a regular basis. [151]
3.31 The Committee asked about the recall of wood and cane
hampers, imported from China
before Christmas in 2004, which were suspected of containing larvae from wood-boring
beetles. Approximately 114,000 baskets were distributed through two chain
stores amongst all the states. At the time of the hearing, 1,500 – 2,000
baskets have been returned through a voluntary recall of the product. However,
consumers have also been instructed to dispose of the item by freezing it for
15 days or incineration. Consumers have been notified through two recalls, the
first on 31 January, the second in early February. In addition to this signs
have been placed in the two major retail outlets and there have been some 157
items in the media. The Department explained to the Committee that the larvae
can not do any damage; it is the adult wood-boring beetles that are the risk.
There is a strong possibility that many of the hampers will not be in an
environment conducive for the larvae to mature. [152]
3.32 The Committee asked for its regular update on the
export of Australian honey to New Zealand.
The Department noted the recent receipt of the import risk analysis from New
Zealand. Bisosecurity Australia
and AQIS will assess the New Zealand IRA to see if export to New
Zealand is viable. This is expected to be
completed in the next couple of months.[153]
Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics
3.33 The Committee requested the Department’s general
outlook for world market trends for major rural commodities. The Department
outlined that world economic growth was approximately 4.6 per cent in the 2004
calendar year. A figure above 4 per cent translates to a larger demand and a
rise in commodity prices. Entering into 2005 there is uncertainty surrounding
the United States
direction and there has been talk of the impact of a triple deficit situation
in the US. As a
consequence there would be an expected easing of world economic growth, and
hence commodity prices in Australia
would ease also. The US
would likely resume beef exports into Australia’s
key North Asian markets which would ease the price of beef in the 2005-06 financial
year. Reasonably flat prices are expected for the cereal and grain sector.
Sugar prices have been slightly higher and this is expected to continue. Due to
the trend in fashions, the demand for wool has decreased. Consequently, wool
prices are expected to remain flat or even decline slightly. Dairy is doing
well, particularly cheese, and an increase in the farm gate price for milk is
expected. Small increases in the price of cotton are expected for this
financial year while a moderate easing on the price of pork is expected for the
2005-06 financial year. A key to the country's export earnings, the Australian
dollar, is expected to trade at 75c against the US dollar in 2004-05, up 4
cents on the previous financial year.[154]
3.34 The Committee was particularly interested in the effects
of the ongoing drought on major rural commodities. The Department informed the
Committee that as the continent of Australia
is so large there is always likely to be a drought somewhere. Summer crop
production forecasts indicate there will be 3.9 million tonnes, up 3.5 million
tonnes from last year. The winter crops however, are expected to drop
dramatically from the record 40.3 million tonnes in 2003-04 to 31.5 million
tonnes in 2004-05.[155]
3.35 The Committee asked about the ABARE reports used in the
Biofuels Capital Grants scheme. The Department informed the Committee that the
reports would not be updated unless the contracting department, the Department of
Industry, Tourism and Resources, requested. The Committee questioned the Department
about the demand for alternative fuels when the price of crude oil is
increasing. The Department stated that:
If those fuels can be produced competitively to compete with
oil, then we would expect to see more of those fuels in the mix... as oil prices
rise then it would appear to me prima facie that the industry actually becomes
more competitive rather than less.[156]
Bureau of Rural Sciences
3.36 The Committee inquired about the $6 million funding
over four years for the Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis and
Research. [157] BRS officers informed
the Committee that they were tasked with development work for the centre just a
week before the hearing. The plans to establish the centre include design,
consulting with relevant stakeholders and identifying potential proponents to
manage the centre. At this stage neither a physical location for the centre has
been decided on, nor how much it will cost to get the centre up and running. However,
$116,000 has been allocated in 2004-05 for the administration of the project by
BRS. The Department's goal is to have the development plan for the centre
completed by the commencement of the new financial year, and will therefore report
further on the matter at the coming budget estimates.[158]
Rural Policy and Innovation
3.37 The Committee asked for an explanation for the reduction
in appropriations of $111.13 million for drought related exceptional
circumstances in 2004-05, a reduction in appropriations of $3.2 million for
drought related interest relief and a $500,000 reduction for drought related interim
support.[159] The explanation provided by
the Department was that the appropriations are a reflection of farmers' actual
take-up of drought assistant measures against the original budget estimates
figures. [160]
3.38 The Committee then sought information as to why the
Farm Help program had again been underspent. The Department indicated that they
had anticipated an increased demand for the program as farmers moved from
Exceptional Circumstances assistance to Farm Help, however this had not occurred.
Officers suggested that the main reason for this was that there had been
further extensions to EC areas. [161]
Fisheries and Forestry
3.39 The Department informed the Committee that the ABARE
report on defining economic efficiency in the fishing industry was now complete
and is with Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) before it will be
finalised. The Department also stated that it contains recommendations on how
the AFMA can better structure an approach to measure economic efficiency in the
fishery industry. [162]
3.40 The Committee received an update on the National Plan
of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
Fishing. The plan for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) was
developed by the Department in consultation with the states and industry. It
provides a comprehensive analysis of Australia's
problems with IUU fishing domestically and in the near high seas and is
expected to direct fisheries agencies to help mitigate the problem. The plan is
complete and currently being processed by the ministerial council before it is
approved for release. The Department stated that the plan is considered a soft
law document and enforcement will be on a voluntary basis. [163]
3.41 The Commonwealth fisheries review document was
discussed. At the last estimates hearing the Committee was informed 34 of the
53 recommendations had been implemented.[164]
Since then, a further three recommendations have been implemented. An
additional two will be dealt with in the amendments to the Fisheries Management Act 1991 that will go through parliament in
the autumn sitting. The recommendations that have been completed are as
follows:
- Outcome 18, National Fisheries Compliance
Strategy;
- Outcome 23, the recreational component of
resource sharing; and
- Outcome 49, the first Australian Fisheries and
Seafood Forum.[165]
3.42 The Committee inquired about a variety of illegal
fishing matters in the North of Australia. The Department outlined a major
project over the course of last year was improving existing detention and
apprehension arrangements. They reported that 107 Indonesian fishing vessels
have been apprehended in Australian waters in the current financial year up to 20 January 2005. Of these vessels,
there were 94 legislative forfeitures. The Committee discussed the Minister's
announcement on 31 January 2005
of a new detention facility at Berrimah Jail (Darwin,
NT) for illegal fishers. The facility was
already established but is being modified to make it suitable for accommodating
up to 250 detainees. The Committee was told that this project is funded in the Department
of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) budget. [166]
3.43 Currently, illegal fishers are detained and processed
on their boats. However, they are transferred to alternate accommodation such
as another boat, part of the Berrimah Jail or a watch-house on Thursday
Island if their boat has sunk. Hygiene packs are now being
provided for detained illegal fisherman and funding is being allocated for
screening fisherman for tuberculosis on arrival. The Department advised that
the average period of detention is around three weeks before repatriation. Further,
a transit detention facility will be established and operated by AFMA on Horn
Island.[167]
3.44 The Committee was informed that rapid progress on
detention policy and facilities have been made in the last six months, allowing
the Department to focus more attention on longer term policy and deterrence
issues where progress had been less rapid.[168]
The Department will continue to examine policy issues associated with Australia's
bilateral marine relationship, capacity building, fisheries management and
dealings with Indonesian fishing authorities in the long term. Possible
deterrence measures include improving opportunities for alternative livelihoods
in the communities where illegal fishing is stemming from, improving the
Indonesian government's capacity to regulate fishing and ensuring consistent law
enforcement efforts in Australia.[169]
3.45 The Committee was provided with an update from the previous
budget estimates on the AusAID program working with Indonesian fisheries.[170] Phase one of the program has been
completed, whereby senior Indonesian officials spent time with government
officials for several weeks (with the AFMA and Coastwatch), learning how Australia
manages fisheries. Phase two, where additional people will visit Australia
from Indonesia
to observe Australia's
compliance programs, is yet to be completed. Delays have occurred, however, due
to the affects of the Tsunami on the Indonesian fisheries department.[171]
3.46 The Department reported that it plans to introduce an
identification system to identify repeat illegal fishing offenders and additional
land based facilities such as police facilities and existing DIMIA detention
centres will be examined. Additionally, boat disposal sites will be erected at
each port; Broome, Darwin, Gove and in the Torres
Strait on Horn Island.[172]
3.47 The Department also outlined that the planned changes
to the management of illegal fishing problem will involve cooperation between
the Department and DIMIA. They explained that the Department will continue to
regulate the fisheries aspect of the issue, while DIMIA will take control of
the process once illegal boats and their crews have been apprehended.[173] The legislation to give effect to
these changes, the Border Protection Amendment Legislation Bill (Deterrence of
Illegal Foreign Fishing) Bill 2005, is presently before the parliament and the
subject of a bill inquiry being undertaken by the Committee.
3.48 The Committee then proceeded to discuss issues related
to illegal fishing in the Southern Ocean. The Department informed the Committee
that prior to the Oceaniac Viking's deployment
in late November 2004, the Aurora
Australis had been used for protecting southern fisheries in combination with
a French patrol naval ship to cover some of the gaps. Funding has been allocated
for the operation of the Oceanic Viking
for two financial years.[174] The Committee
was told that the budget for the operation for all the vessels was $47.8
million for the current financial year and $41.4 million for the coming year. [175]
3.49 The Committee inquired about recent proceedings of the
1998 Threat Abatement Plan for the Incidental Catch of Seabirds and whether the
target of 0.05 birds per 1,000 hooks had been reached and the review completed.
The Department responded that:
The review did take place but my understanding is that it is
still continuing in some respects because of comments from the industry about
the applicability of some of the research that was being undertaken to
determine some seabird by-catch mitigation measures. It was focused on the sink
rate of long lines in that fishery and whether increased sink rates might
decrease bird catches. That TAP process is still running in terms of looking at
two issues: the further modification of the gear that they use and night
setting of lines rather than day setting. There have also been some recent
decisions by the AFMA board to move the measurement line north and to require
the use of Tory poles and night setting. Those are additional management
measures as an interim.[176]
The review is being undertaken by the Threat Abatement Plan (TAP)
Team, chaired by the Australian Antarctic Division. The Department expects the
review to be further advanced by budget estimates hearings, however much of the
progress is dependent on the TAP team.[177]
3.50 During the election campaign the government made
commitments to identify boundaries adding over 170,000 hectares to Tasmanian
forestry industry's current reserve system, and to advise on the social and
economic impacts of protecting Tasmanian forests. At this stage, negotiations
are still underway with the Tasmanian government to ensure that there would be
no jobs lost due to reservation measures. Whilst possible boundaries have been
discussed with Tasmanian officials the proposal is confidential in this initial
stage.[178] When negotiations are
finalised the Department will undertake a final assessment which will become
part of their advice to the two governments on the proposed package.[179]
3.51 Of particular interest to the Committee was whether
compensation will provided for timber harvesters under the RFA if allocated
harvest areas are set aside for reservation. At this stage the Department could
not provide an answer as negotiations are still underway.[180]
Natural Resource Management
3.52 Discussions began with the $20 million allocation,
listed in the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements over four years, to a
new program for defeating the weed menace. The Department stated that the
intention of the program was to supplement the work done by the Natural
Heritage Trust on addressing weed problems. Furthermore:
You can spend a lot of money addressing the symptoms of weeds
and spraying them, but you really want to put in place a strategic approach
which gets to the causes of the problems or contains those that can be
contained. The roll-out of this program will be very much informed by the work
that is going on the revision of the National Weed Strategy.[181]
The Committee heard that it
will have a major regional component to address the on ground weed problem, as
well as a national component to communicate the need for weed infestations management
and to obtain a consistent declaration of weeds from state to state. Matching
expenditure for the program will be sought from the states.[182]
Senator the Hon. Bill Heffernan
Chair
Comments to: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 24 March 2005 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site
Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
