Chapter 3
Biosecurity issues
3.1
This chapter discusses the adequacy of the current biosecurity
arrangements for imported and exported honey, apiary products, package bees and
queen bees. It covers issues such as threats to biosecurity that Australia
faces in relation to the beekeeping industry and its related products and
services, discusses current biosecurity arrangements, and options for advancing
the current arrangements that apply to the beekeeping, honey and related
industries.
Australian biosecurity arrangements
3.2
Under the Australian Constitution, the Commonwealth does not have exclusive
power to make laws in relation to biosecurity and quarantine arrangements. The administration
of Australia's biosecurity and quarantine is therefore governed by both
Commonwealth and state and territory laws.
3.3
The Commonwealth's quarantine laws are contained in the Quarantine
Act 1908 (Quarantine Act) and associated subordinate legislation, the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Wildlife Protection) Act
1999, the Quarantine Regulations 2000 and the Quarantine
Proclamation 1998.[1]
3.4
Responsibility for the movement of goods of quarantine concern within
Australia's border is assumed by state and territory authorities, which
undertake both intra and interstate quarantine operations that reflect regional
differences in pest and disease status, as part of their wider plant and animal
health obligations.[2]
3.5
The Department of Agriculture manages quarantine controls at Australia's
borders to minimise the risk of exotic pests and diseases entering the country
and provides import and export inspection and certification services. The
Department is also responsible for the development of Commonwealth biosecurity policy,
for undertaking risk analyses in relation to the importation of new products to
Australia and the establishment of appropriate risk management measures. It
also undertakes offshore activities to minimise the risk of unwanted pests and
diseases arriving in Australia.[3]
3.6
The Department of Agriculture is responsible for making quarantine
decisions under the Quarantine Act and for the development of operational
procedures at Australia's borders. Border activities include the interception
of biosecurity risks that present at airports, seaports, mail centres and along
Australia's coastline. Activities are therefore centred around the screening of
mail, vessels (including aircraft), people and goods entering the country.
Pest and disease incursions
3.7
The committee received significant evidence expressing a high degree of
concern about the threat to the beekeeping and pollination industries by the presence
of the Asian honey bee in Australia and the possibility of varroa mite entering
the country.
The Asian honey bee
3.8
Asian honey bees, Apis cerana (AHB), are honey bees native to
southeast and mainland Asia.[4]
The AHB is considered an invasive species in Australia which adversely impacts
populations of European honey bees (EHB) by competing for natural resources,
robbing managed hives,[5]
transmitting disease or parasites and inhabiting nesting spaces which would
otherwise be available for native bees, small marsupials and birds.[6]
The AHB also presents an environmental threat through the pollination of
unwanted weed species and is difficult to eradicate due to its adaptability to
varying climates and rapid breeding patterns.[7]
3.9
The National Sentinel Hive Program was initiated in 2000 to enhance
surveillance for honeybee parasites and exotic bees in the vicinity of seaports.[8]
The program works to detect incursions by conducting surveillance at likely
entry points throughout Australia.[9] In May 2007, a nest of
Asian honey bees was detected within Australia's quarantine barrier in the mast
of a fishing boat in dry dock in Cairns.
3.10
Since that first detection, more than 561 colonies of the bee have been
detected and destroyed in the Cairns region.[10] The AHB was initially
classed as an emergency pest and an eradication program commenced, however this
was not successful and in 2011, activities were moved from an eradication
program to a management program.[11] Following the AHB
incursion, restrictions were implemented in north Queensland on the movement of
managed bees and beekeeping equipment to contain the pest.[12]
3.11
Several submitters were critical of the effort undertaken to eradicate
AHB[13]
and others questioned the evidence used to determine the decision to discontinue
eradication attempts:
The Asian bee incursion was not taken on seriously and too
much time elapsed allowing this difficult pest to escape. The situation should
have been handled by entomologists instead of veterinarians. Some of the people
consulted on the expert panel were inexperienced with bees. Apiary officers
were excluded.[14]
3.12
Other submitters suggested that the eradication program should be
reinstated, with adequate staffing and under federal control,[15]
and that the Commonwealth, along with the beekeeping industry and pollination
dependent industries, support continued research effort to develop effective
and specific feeding and bait stations for early detection and eradication of
future incursions of Asian honey bees.[16]
3.13
The committee notes that the More Than Honey report made a number of
recommendations in relation to strengthening Australia's ability to
appropriately manage incursions. Among these was maintaining and strengthening
the National Sentinel Hive Program.[17]
3.14
The Department of Agriculture advised the committee that the CSIRO was
funded to undertake a risk-based analysis of the costs and benefits of
surveillance systems for honey bee pests. The report recommended that the National
Sentinel Hive Program be maintained and improved; that targeted studies should
be undertaken to obtain data on the efficiency of sentinel hives to detect
exotic bee mites; and that operations in port areas should be strengthened to
safeguard bee biosecurity.[18]
3.15
In 2012, administration and management of the National Sentinel Hive
Program was transferred to Plant Health Australia (PHA) from Animal Health
Australia in line with the honey bee industry's move to align with pollination dependent
plant industries. At that time, the program was enhanced to make it consistent
with recommendations from CSIRO's review. The program has now been renamed to
the National Bee Pest Surveillance Program (NBPSP) to reflect its broader scope,
and the Commonwealth government, Horticulture Australia Limited and the honey
bee industry have committed further funding to the program until 30 June 2015,
at which point a review will be undertaken.[19]
3.16
In its submission CSIRO indicated that the NBPSP could be improved, and
that it is highly unlikely that all incursions could be detected:
...methods for detecting swarms of Asian honey bee (Apis
cerana) remain under development. In particular, Asian honey bee swarms are
much less likely to be detected in swarm boxes, and sweep netting appears more
promising [the Cairns Asian honey bee incursion was not detected by the log
traps in operation at the time]. The NBPSP runs on a very modest budget...It
needs to be complemented with activities to mitigate the impacts of any
possible incursions to properly manage the risk. Our view is that deepening
that defence by undertaking the research now to prevent impact should an
incursion occur, will substantially reduce the overall impact on primary
producers and the wider community and enable our pollination dependant
industries the best chance to adapt effectively to a post-Varroa
incursion reality.[20]
Varroa mite
3.17
Varroa mites were originally natural external parasites of the Asian
honey bee. However in recent decades they have adjusted to living on the European
honey bee and established themselves around the world. Varroa mites are pinhead
sized mites that feed on both larvae and adult bees, causing the development of
infections or deformities, such as stunted wings or missing legs, and continue
to diminish the health of the bee colony until all are dead.[21]
3.18
Varroa mites have spread to all inhabited continents except Australia,
as depicted in Figure 1 below.[22] In the United States of
America and Europe, 95–100 per cent of unmanaged hives were destroyed by varroa
mites within three to four years of infestation.[23] In countries
where varroa mite is established, feral honey bees have been largely wiped out.
In New Zealand feral bees largely vanished from the North Island within four
years of the varroa mite invasion.[24]
3.19
During its public hearing in Murray Bridge, the committee heard evidence
to suggest that almost all feral and wild bee populations, including the 1500
species of native bees, would be exterminated if varroa become established in
Australia.[25]
Figure 1—Current varroa mite distribution (2010)
Red areas indicate establishment of varroa
destructor[26]
3.20
Researchers warn that Australia is unlikely to remain free of the varroa
mite or succeed in eradication as it has not been achieved elsewhere.[27]
The Victorian Apiarists’ Association submitted that varroa mite would most
likely arrive in Australian ports via previously infected EHB from South East
Asia or illegal smuggling of EHB.[28] Categorisation of
Emergency Plant Pests determines what structure of funding will apply in the
event of an incursion.[29]
Categorisation of varroa has not yet occurred so it is not known the
level of resourcing a possible incursion would attract.[30]
3.21
The committee considers this to be an unacceptable risk.
Recommendation 5
3.22
The committee
recommends the categorisation of varroa destructor be completed as a
matter of urgency to provide industry with funding certainty in case of an
incursion.
3.23
RIRDC has stated that if varroa mite does arrive in Australia, it is
likely to have a significant impact on apicultural and agricultural industries.[31]
In the RIRDC report Valuing honeybee pollination, honey bee crop
pollination services were valued at $1.7 billion for 1999-2000, based on the
direct cost of a loss of pollination services, including directly affecting
9500 jobs. In addition, RIRDC estimated an extra $2 billion loss in industry output
and 11 000 jobs following the loss of all pollination services. A decade later,
these figures are expected to be far higher.[32]
3.24
Figure 2 below presents the outcome of one approach to modelling
the impact of varroa mite on Australia’s crop industries completed in 2011.
Losses to 25 pollination dependent plant industries over the next 30 years are
presented, including potential yield losses and cost increases because of the
need to purchase commercial pollination services. These are expected losses in
the sense that they reflect that Australia is currently free of varroa mite. On
average, annual losses over the 30 year period simulated by the model were
around $70 million.[33]
Figure 2—Estimated
loss of plant industry production (decrease yields and higher input costs) over
time attributable to honey bee mite incursion, establishment and
spread
Department
of Agriculture, A honey bee industry and pollination continuity
strategy should varroa become established in Australia, May 2011, p. 8.
3.25
The committee was presented with a number of suggestions to help to
manage a varroa mite incursion should it arrive. These include:
-
Importing varroa resistant strains of live bees and commencing
breeding programs to create stronger colonies;[34]
-
Reviewing procedures for chemical registration to avoid delays
during incursion;[35]
-
Implementing electronic live maps of registered static and mobile beehives to assist
containment during outbreak;[36]
-
Increasing numbers of state apiary officers to adequately
enforce regulations;[37]
-
Finalising the import risk assessment protocol to allow varroa resistant
honey bee semen for research and development;[38]
and
-
Introducing a funding model to assist industry participants to purchase
mite strips to control varroa.[39]
3.26
Dr Doug Somerville and Dr Max Whitten submit that importing varroa
tolerant breeding material to conduct research which improves current bee
stocks is considered by experts around the world as the best solution to deal
with varroa mite, and results in breeding resistant strains of bees.[40]
However, Dr Doug Somerville suggested that Australia's bee industry is not big
enough to support or sustain its own selective breeding program and that the
best alternative is for resistant breeding stock to be imported before there is
an incursion.[41]
3.27
Ms Serena Dorf advised the committee that varroa resistant genetic
material, in the form of honeybee semen, could be imported as a further measure
of prevention. However there is currently no protocol for the importation of
honeybee semen despite the beginning of an import risk analysis and the recent
resumption of queen bee importation.[42]
Honeybee semen can survive at room temperature for 10-14 days, has advantages
in ease of transport, long term viability, is low maintenance and offers a low
risk as it cannot transfer parasites and mites.[43]
3.28
The committee notes that the More Than Honey report recommended that an
import risk analysis be done for drone bee semen by the end of 2008.[44]
The government's response to the More Than Honey report indicated that the risk
analysis was a comprehensive process and would not be undertaken within the
time frame recommended.[45]
3.29
The committee asked the Department of Agriculture to provide information
on the status of the import risk assessment for honey bee semen:
In response to continuing interest from the honey bee
industry to import diverse new genetic material into Australia...the department
completed a Review of the importation of queen honey bees in 2012...The
department has again been requested to undertake an analysis of the biosecurity
risks associated with importing bee semen. This analysis will be considered for
inclusion in the department’s future work program, subject to competing
priorities and the availability of resources.[46]
3.30
Further biosecurity controls, such as the implementation of electronic
'live' maps, administered by government agencies and updated by individual
beekeepers of all static beehive sites, was suggested as a way of providing greater
containment in the event of an outbreak of varroa mite. A restriction on mobile
beehives when traveling stock routes to maintain a three kilometre distance
from registered static hives was suggested as a strategy to reduce the spread
of disease or pests.[47]
Another suggestion was to monitor ships destined for Australia before they
depart overseas ports.[48]
3.31
The South Australian Apiarists' Association made suggestions for
improvements to current biosecurity arrangements, recommending that state
government inspectors should be in place to maintain control of endemic
diseases and neglected material, that a National Incursion Training scheme for
beekeepers and state apiary officers be implemented and that government fund
research into appropriate chemicals that could be used should an incursion of
an exotic pest occur.[49]
3.32
Several submissions supported expansion of the National Bee Pest
Surveillance Program. The Department advised that during 2013, 128 sentinel
hives for bee parasites were maintained at seaports and airports across
Australia.[50]
According to Mr Monson, of Monson's Honey and Pollination, sentinel hives
should be expanded across the country:
We have developed, through the cooperation of Horticulture
Australia, Plant Health Australia, the beekeeping industry and Rural
Development, a surveillance box that uses all of the latest technology. It has
a solar panel, cameras, heat sensors and everything. So, if a swarm of bees
were to land at a port, it would send a telephone message with a picture to
someone who can look at it. We have developed that and it looks like it is
going to cost around $250 a unit, but that needs to be rolled out...right around
the perimeter of this country, at airports and other places.[51]
Committee view
3.33
The committee agrees with the CSIRO that undertaking research and
associated activities through the National Bee Pest Surveillance Program should
form part of the risk management strategy to reduce the overall impact of a varroa
mite incursion on primary producers, and to enable pollination dependant
industries the best chance to adapt effectively.
3.34
However, the committee also considers that further steps are necessary
to better prepare Australia for what appears to be an inevitable incursion of varroa
in the near to medium term. Accordingly, the committee recommends that the
Commonwealth government give urgent consideration to
prioritising the importation of suitable varroa-resistant breeding material
into Australia, subject to appropriate safeguards being put in place.
Recommendation 6
3.35
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government confirm, and
consider enlarging, its commitment to the National Bee Pest Surveillance
Program.
Recommendation 7
3.36
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government give urgent consideration
to facilitating efforts by the industry to import suitable varroa-resistant
breeding material into Australia, subject to stringent biosecurity safeguards
being put in place.
Package bees and queen bees
3.37
Australian live honey bees are exported
either as individual queen honey bees accompanied
by a small number (usually less than
12) of escort worker honey bees or as package honey bees. Package honey bees are generally sold by weight and
consist of a mated queen honey bee and between
one and two kilograms of worker honey bees. Packages do not contain
frames of honey or brood—a supply of sugar syrup or gelled sugar is the package’s food
source for the duration of travel and establishment. These exports allow fully functioning colonies
to be established almost
immediately at the destination.[52] During 2000-01
Australian beekeepers sold approximately $3.3 million worth of queen bees. The
value of package bee exports has been estimated to be approximately $2 million
per year.[53]
3.38
Australia restricts the importation of European queen honey bees to the
approved countries of Canada, member states of the European Union, Japan and
New Zealand. Each group of queen bees and escorts from a single apiary must be accompanied
by a valid import permit, an original health certificate and a declaration from
the owner of the exporting apiary. Imported queen and package bees must be
packaged in a way that prevents biosecurity hazards as well as meets International
Air Transport Association regulations. Before importation, the importer must
enter into a written agreement with the Department of Agriculture and reserve
space for use of the Bee Post Entry Quarantine Facility.[54]
3.39
Queen bees which are imported into Australia and tested in quarantine
for pests and diseases are not released once they are cleared. Unlike other
animals, cleared imported queen bees are kept in quarantine and destroyed after
an amount of time. This is because queen honey bees from these countries do not
achieve Australia’s level of protection with respect to a number of hazards,
such as certain mites and Africanised honey bees. Queens and escorts are
required to undergo post arrival quarantine where a colony is propagated,
derived from the imported queen; and then only larvae grafted from this colony are
released from quarantine.[55]
3.40
Mr Trevor Monson and Australian Queen Bee Exporters Pty. Ltd suggested
that this system should be reviewed to allow for the release of queens as soon
as they have been declared free from disease and pests rather than be destroyed.[56]
3.41
The committee asked the department to provide reasons why queens are
destroyed instead of being released to the importer. The department advised
that the Review of the importation of queen honey bees (2012) recommended that progeny of imported queen honey bees be
released from quarantine but not the queen honey bee herself, which is consistent with
currently available, published scientific information and
international standards developed by the
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code).
3.42
The Department advised the committee that:
-
Tracheal mites are minute and reside within the respiratory system of the honey bee. The
mites can only be reliably detected using laboratory methods that require maceration of (killing)
the queen honey bee.
-
Some queen honey bees that are infected with these disease agents
may not show clinical signs of infection and/or they may carry undesirable
genetics (e.g. Africanisation) that may not be immediately evident. Therefore
detection of disease through diagnostic tests, visual observation and
examination of the live queen honey bee is unreliable. The larval stages are
much more susceptible to disease and clinical signs are more reliably observed,
and diagnostic tests are considered to be more sensitive.
-
Treatments for some of these diseases are not always effective in
preventing or stopping shedding of disease agents. Other options such as heat
treatments are also fatal to queen honey bees. The review determined that
releasing live imported queen honey bees with the limitations described above
would not be a reliable means of preventing the introduction of exotic honey bee
diseases and pests.[57]
3.43
On this basis, the committee understands that there are no plans to
allow for the queen bees to be released from quarantine.
Queen bee levy
3.44
A levy is payable on queen bees produced in Australia and exported by the
producer. Export charges are also payable on queen bees produced in and
exported from Australia.[58]
This levy funds the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation's
queen bee breeding research and development program. The More Than Honey
inquiry found that the queen bee and packaged bee export sector is an important
part of the Australian honey bee industry and recommended that inspection
charges for queen and packaged bees be reduced to make the export of this
product more cost effective for producers.[59]
3.45
The government response to this recommendation stated that it agreed to
this recommendation subject to the bee industry consulting with states and
territories on alternative inspection arrangements to be used to confirm the
health status of bee colonies, and consultation by the government with trading
partners.[60]
However the Victorian Apiarists Association advised the committee that this
recommendation had not been implemented.[61]
3.46
During the committee's public hearing in Brisbane, the committee heard
that the cost of administering the queen bee levy may be more than it collects:
We have made representation to the minister to have the queen
bee levy set at zero because that one was costing us more than we were actually
collecting. I have been informed that that is now to go to the Treasurer and
the Prime Minister.[62]
3.47
The committee looks forward to being advised of progress made in
relation to the current queen bee levy being made more effective.
Quarantine arrangements
3.48
The Department of Agriculture currently leases and operates five
post-entry quarantine facilities in four states for imported live animals and
plants. Leases for the five facilities are due to expire between 2015 and 2018
and will not be renewed.[63]
The Commonwealth government has committed to replace the existing facilities
with a new, single consolidated facility on one site at Mickleham, Victoria.[64]
3.49
Several submitters raised concerns that the proposed Victorian site is
not appropriate for the bee industry. The committee heard that Victoria's
highly variable climate and long winters would reduce optimal breeding
conditions and as a majority of queen breeders operate out of NSW and
Queensland, the site will add to the costs of importers.[65]
3.50
A number of submitters suggested the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural
Institute (EMAI), which is the is the NSW Department of Primary Industries' Centre
of Excellence for Animal and Plant Health in Camden, would be a better location
for a bee quarantine facility as it offers a temperate climate and a more
centralised location.[66]
During the public hearing in Brisbane, the committee inquired if the Department
had considered the possibility of using the EMAI for bee quarantine services:
The answer is no. We had long discussions with the Wheen Bee
Foundation and with the Australian Honey Bee Industry Council some years ago...we
had discussions with the industry as to whether the industry was interested in
setting up what is called a quarantine-approved premises. The Wheen foundation
indicated its interest in possibly undertaking that on its property in Western
Sydney. In the end, correspondence from AHBIC and the Wheen foundation to the
government said that they were not going to follow through with that interest,
and so no further action has been taken.[67]
3.51
The committee notes that recommendation 10 of the More Than Honey report
considered the issue of a bee-specific quarantine facility and recommended that
consideration be given to establishing it at the EMAI or some other suitable
location.[68]
3.52
In addition to the new quarantine facility being located at a site not
supported by some industry participants, concerns were also raised at the lack
of staff with relevant expertise in existing facilities. The committee heard
that managing a colony in an artificial environment requires a high level of
expertise to maintain the good health and strength necessary for successful
breeding. As Dr Doug Somerville told the committee:
You can certainly artificially look after a colony in a cage,
although it takes very, very high level expertise and AQIS does not have it
presently, believe me...The other issue I have right now with that particular
facility is that they do not have a protocol or a set of procedures on how to
manage those bees.[69]
3.53
During the public hearing in Brisbane, the committee heard that some Australian
importers were so doubtful of the quarantine facility's ability to
appropriately manage their bees that they had recommended a specialist be
present in addition to those staff employed at the quarantine station.[70]
3.54
The Department responded by advising the committee that:
...there are no specific qualifications that will give an
officer all the skills and experience to be able to successfully maintain bee
colonies in an artificial environment like a flight room...officers are required
to be skilled in basic bee husbandry and colony management and all have a
background in beekeeping, including commercial beekeeping businesses and
managing/studying bee colonies at university. They have also all received
training from the NSW Department of Primary Industries in beekeeping and
on-the-job training from the department prior to working with imported bees in
quarantine. Additionally, when required, the department calls on the skills of
industry specialists and the importer to undertake certain tasks such as
grafting.[71]
Committee view
3.55
The committee considers that an effective consultation and communication
strategy, to assist the bee industry build readiness for the quarantine station
to be relocated, should be developed by the Department of Agriculture in
consultation with the AHBIC and other stakeholders.
Recommendation 8
3.56
The committee recommends the Department of Agriculture consult with
relevant industry groups to ensure quarantine concerns are addressed, either as
part of the proposed facility relocation or through the establishment of a
specific bee-centric facility.
Imported and exported honey
3.57
This section discusses the biosecurity arrangements for imported and
exported honey.
Biosecurity arrangements for
exported honey
3.58
Honey is considered a
non-prescribed good; therefore, the Department of Agriculture only becomes involved when export certification by the competent authority of the exporting country is required. In these circumstances, the department ensures compliance with food safety
and quarantine requirements of the importing country. There is no
legislated biosecurity requirements mandated
for export purposes. However to demonstrate compliance with importing
country requirements, the industry
utilises a range of industry standards including B-QUAL, BSafe and the
International Standard for Food
Safety Management Systems (ISO22000).[72]
3.59
Under Commonwealth, state and territory regulations, all food businesses
have a legal obligation to produce food that is safe for human consumption. The
B-QUAL quality assurance program was established for the Australian honey bee
industry by the Australian Honey Bee Industry Council.[73]
B-QUAL aims to develop accreditation and train industry participants in quality
assurance standards, organic standards and biosecurity as well as provide an
ongoing third party audit system.[74]
3.60
B-QUAL approved honey suppliers are required to complete biosecurity
training and bring operations into line with the program's biosecurity
standards. Each enterprise is audited biennially or annually to monitor
compliance to their approved Quality Assurance system.[75]
In addition to B-QUAL, the honey industry must comply with the Food Standards
Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (FSANZ) which requires businesses to
develop a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) food safety
program. The HACCP program identifies and controls food safety hazards of
microbiological, chemical and physical properties.[76]
Further to meeting domestic compliance requirements, various international
conditions are imposed on Australian honey exporters.
Biosecurity arrangements for
imported honey bee products
3.61
Chapter 4 of this report discusses issues raised in relation to
the honey food standard and concerns that Australian honey producers are
disadvantaged as imported honey products are not subject to the same quality and
biosecurity standards as domestic producers.[77]
3.62
The Department of Agriculture manages an import risk analysis
(IRA) process to identify and appropriately manage the risks posed by the
importation of honey bee commodities. The intention is to minimise the
likelihood of disease incursions and their consequences, whilst continuing to
fulfil obligations under international trade agreements.[78]
3.63
Usually, the exporter provides a written import proposal to the department
requesting market access and may include information on incidence of diseases
or treatments used on the goods.[79]
An ‘import
proposal’ is a generic term used to
describe a proposal to bring
into Australia plants, animals
or other goods not imported previously, or not imported previously from the country
or region concerned. After
receiving the proposal, the department considers whether a risk analysis is
required, and if there is sufficient information to proceed. A risk analysis
may also be undertaken if the risk profile of an existing trade in a good, or
pests or diseases have changed.[80]
3.64
Currently, the department imposes conditions on commodities intended for
Australia to determine if products require quarantine permits or treatments, or
are subject to other quarantine conditions.[81]
For a commercial quantity of honey product the following conditions apply:
- a quarantine entry must be lodged for each consignment;
-
the product must be commercially processed and packaged;
-
contaminants must have been removed from containers; and
-
an accompanying declaration states the honey has been processed to
remove contaminants, or the honey is a sample.[82]
3.65
In the event a product does not meet these conditions, an import permit
is required.[83]
3.66
Samples of imported food consignments are inspected by the department to
ensure contents meet the Australian requirements for public health and safety
and comply with Australian food standards as detailed in the Australia New
Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code).[84]
Food safety inspection of imported food is managed under the Imported Food
Control Act 1992.
3.67
Under the scheme, foods are referred for inspection by the Australian
Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs). Each consignment has a five
per cent chance of being referred for inspection but this may vary according to
its risk level. The selection of food consignments for inspection is random and
samples may be analysed for pesticides and antibiotics above accepted levels,
microbiological contaminants, natural toxicants, metal contaminants and food
additives.[85]
The Imported Food Program (IFP) Testing Guidelines provide information for
appointed analyst laboratories on requirements for analysis of food sampled under
the Imported Food Inspection Scheme.[86]
3.68
According to some submitters, there should be a more rigorous inspection
of honey that is imported to Australia, so it can be subject to the same
quality assurance prescriptions as Australian honey is subjected to when it is
exported to other countries.[87]
WA Farmers submitted that imported honey should have the same or higher quality
assurance standards applied to it.[88]
3.69
During the public hearing in Murray Bridge, the committee heard that
there may also be cause to increase the percentage of sample testing:
It should be increased to 100 per cent...the problem is that
a lot of the honey that is floating around the world is potentially coming out
of countries with suspect bee practices. Chinese honey has actually been banned
in some of the European countries, and it is tested beyond belief in the US,
but it comes in here easily.[89]
3.70
The department advised that testing under the current inspection scheme
is offered to importers by six appointed laboratories. Three of these
laboratories conduct the testing at their facility with the remainder
sub-contracting the work to those three laboratories.[90]
Recommendation 9
3.71
The committee recommends the Department of Agriculture, in consultation
with industry groups, review the Import Risk Analysis for honey bee
commodities, with a view to protecting the Australian industry and its ‘clean,
green’ reputation.
Domestic biosecurity improvement
3.72
During the inquiry the committee also heard a range of suggestions for
improving existing biosecurity measures to help protect the Australian honey
bee industry. These include:
-
Mandatory national registration of all beehives;[91]
-
An annual 'State of the Industry' report to be conducted on the
Australian beekeeping industry to provide ready access to key industry data
such as the number of hives, location of hives and beekeepers, quantity and
value of hive products being produced, value of paid pollination services
undertaken, value of capital investment and return on investment and level of
beekeeper training.[92]
-
Introduce the mandatory labelling of hives to include brand
registration and mobile phone numbers to ensure that beekeepers receive urgent
notifications via SMS.[93]
-
Local councils to advertise the necessity of beekeeper and hive
registration in similar way that is done for registration requirements related
to domestic pets.[94]
-
Implement a National Standard or Code of Practice for beekeeping,
as proposed by AHBIC, promoting beekeeping best management practices that
include commercial and hobby beekeepers to promote optimal biosecurity.[95]
Committee view
3.73
The committee supports the concept of producing a publication which
monitors beekeeping trends across the country. An annual industry report could
be used to provide a financial and physical forecast reflecting industry trends
and issues, and production levels. It could also be used to identify options to
market honey and hive products and pollination services. In chapter 2 the
committee discussed the possibility of establishing a national honey bee colony
survey scheme with a view to collecting reliable data that monitors the long
term health of the industry, and considers that information collected as part
of such a scheme could feed into an annual industry publication.
Recommendation 10
3.74
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government, in
consultation with the AHBIC and other relevant stakeholders, investigate the
viability and benefits of producing an annual industry report in the terms
outlined in paragraph 3.73.
Bumblebees in Tasmania
3.75
European bumblebees were accidently introduced into
Tasmania in 1992, most likely from New Zealand. Since this time feral populations
have been distributed across the state. Bumblebees cannot be imported to
Australia and are prohibited by state legislation from being moved from
Tasmania to other states or territories as they can spread weeds.[96]
3.76
According to the Costa horticultural company, the effective pollination
of glasshouse tomato plants is accomplished by a few species of bees, and while
the use of native bees has been researched, the bumblebee remains the most
efficient.[97]
Costa claims that the use of bumblebees is prohibited in Australia because of a
bureaucratic misunderstanding of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and consequently, tomato
glasshouse producers substitute pollination by tapping each plant with a
vibrating wand which adds considerably to production costs.[98]
3.77
As bumblebees are used in commercial glasshouses in New Zealand, South
Korea, Japan, Chile and Peru, Costa argues that Australia is placed at a
competitive disadvantage domestically and internationally.[99]
The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association and Costa suggest that
bumblebees should be permitted for use in glasshouse pollination
in Tasmania[100].
3.78
In 2008, the Minister for Environment rejected an application by
the Australian Hydroponic and Greenhouse Association requesting approval for
the importation and use of bumblebees for pollination in glasshouses.[101]
3.79
The More Than Honey inquiry recommended that research into alternative
pollinators such as bumbles should be undertaken, and submitters and witnesses to
this inquiry agreed that more research into the matter would need to be
completed before changes in legislation were made to allow the use of
bumblebees for intensive pollination in glasshouses.[102]
Beechworth Honey Group cautioned against the use of bumblebees and said their
use was 'not supported widely by the industry.'[103]
Committee view
3.80
Although the committee notes that bumblebees already exist in Tasmania, governments
would need to be assured that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a trial
of bumblebees for use in commercial pollination, and that very strict
biosecurity controls were in place. The committee was not in a position to
further investigate their potential use in Australia.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page