Introduction
8.1
Already weeds, pests, and disease cost the agriculture sector around $12 billion per year. Ensuring that Australia’s agricultural industries are protected from outbreaks of new pests and diseases will be crucial to achieving the $100 billion by 2030 target. This chapter will consider the risks posed by biosecurity threats as well as how effectively the system is responding to these risks.
8.2
An efficient and affordable transport system is crucial to the ability of producers to compete in international markets. This chapter will consider infrastructure issues including the road and rail freight lines, ports and shipping, and the use of air freight. This chapter will also consider telecommunications infrastructure in rural and regional Australia.
Review of the Evidence
Biosecurity
8.3
The CSIRO highlighted the risk to the agriculture sector from weeds, pests, and diseases and the positive effect Australia’s strong biosecurity system has in limiting the impacts of these threats, stating:
The annual costs of weeds (c. $6 billion), pests (c. $3 billion) and diseases (c. $3 billion) are significantly affecting agricultural production and commodity quality. While these costs are increasing, the rate of increase is managed through….. Australia’s national biosecurity system which is keeping Australia free of key pests (e.g. khapra beetle, Foot-and-mouth disease, and Xylella) that would shut access to some existing markets if we were to have an incursion.
8.4
Animal Health Australia (AHA) and the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions (CISS) in a joint submission stated that there is a reservoir of 5,900 non-native plant species that exist in Australia but have not yet naturalised, but that a new weed is naturalising every 18 days on average. AHA and CISS added that weeds are costing the agriculture sector on average $4.8 billion per year.
8.5
The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA) view biosecurity as crucial to the growth of Australia’s agriculture sector and stated that ‘one of the biggest threats to Australian agriculture and reaching the goal of $100 billion by 2030 is the introduction of an exotic pest or disease.’
8.6
Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (QDAF) stated that ‘a single disease outbreak can cost an industry millions of dollars and can devastate whole communities.’ As an example, QDAF cited the 2016 outbreak of the prawn white spot disease, stating it:
… wiped out an entire season’s crop of farmed prawns in the Logan River for seven farms. These farms were unusable for three years afterward, creating significant socio-economic impacts to the affected families and communities. Affected prawn farms have only recently returned to production. The farmed prawn industry in Queensland is worth approximately $87 million annually, and more than $17 million was spent to eradicate white spot disease.
8.7
QDAF also highlighted that Queensland’s climate ‘already suits the majority of the world’s invasive species and pathogens, and global warming is expected to expand their distribution.’ QDAF drew particular attention to Foot-and-mouth disease as the ‘single greatest threat to Australia’s livestock industries.’ QDAF noted that while it had not occurred in Australia since 1872 it is common in some other countries and that should an outbreak occur it has been estimated to have a nation-wide cost of between $5.6 billion and $52 billion.
Globalisation and Biosecurity
8.8
Citrus Australia, writing prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, noted that ‘international airline passenger arrivals have increased by 72 per cent in the past ten years [and] sea freight has also increased astronomically with reports of growth in Twenty Foot Equivalents (TEU) of 300 per cent over the last ten years.’
8.9
Citrus Australia also highlighted that the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment has ‘reported 275,000 interceptions of quarantine risk material at international airports, with a further 73,000 items intercepted at international mail centres and 2,400 at cruise ship terminals.’
8.10
Plant Health Australia (PHA) also stressed the biosecurity risks from international trade and tourism, stating:
…the risks posed by exotic pests and diseases continue to change due to growing international passenger, mail and trade volumes, population expansion, increasing dispersal of pests globally and regional development. Compounding these challenges is the need to manage human, infrastructure and financial resources within a complex mix of competing demands.
8.11
Similarly, Horticulture Innovation Australia (Hort Innovation) noted that ‘changing regional prevalence of pests and more international trade’ is increasing biosecurity risks. Hort Innovation added that in its view ‘policing of quarantine controls on international arrivals remains inadequate at some entry points.’
8.12
The NSW Apiarists Association (NSWAA) was also critical of the current biosecurity arrangements stating that there is an ‘apparent lack of will and commitment on the part of the Government to adequately support biosecurity measures to protect the Australian honey been industry.’
8.13
Citrus Australia stated that ‘significant funding and resourcing cuts to state departments of agriculture have meant that surveillance activities in horticulture growing regions are inadequate.’ Further, Citrus Australia called on the Australian Government to:
… invest in strengthening the border surveillance conducted at passenger and freight ports, to introduce the Biosecurity Import Levy and to invest in a ‘Southern Australia Quarantine Strategy’ to further bolster surveillance efforts.’
8.14
Humpty Doo Barramundi highlighted the importance of biosecurity to the aquaculture industry, stating that ‘genetics provides you potential; disease destroys it.’ Humpty Doo described border regulation as being ‘a bit lax’ and suggested ‘there would be benefit in having a third-party audit process … to protect our agricultural industries.’ Humpty Doo added that it wanted the government to stop allowing the importation of fish with high disease risks, including barramundi and some bait products out of South-East Asia.
Biosecurity Governance and Collaboration
8.15
AUSVEG described biosecurity as a ‘shared responsibility with the Commonwealth, state governments, growers and citizens at large.’ AUSVEG highlighted that while international trade and travel is increasing early detection can eradicate incursions, but this requires:
A robust mechanism that does not discourage growers to report suspect pest and disease issues needs to be established as a high priority. This must be communicated to industry and the wider public to reiterate the shared responsibility that all sectors play in helping to safeguard Australia’s agricultural sector.
8.16
AHA and CISS stated that reaching the $100 billion by 2030 target ‘will require a transformation of our national biosecurity system.’ AHA and CISS called for a National Biosecurity Strategy and highlighted the outcomes of a recent biosecurity symposium hosted by AHA, which had developed the following five-point plan:
Setting 2020-2030 as the decade of biosecurity
Designing an innovation-centred biosecurity system
Developing a national biosecurity strategy and sustainable investment plan
Creating a formal national biosecurity partnership agreement between government, industry and the community
Mobilising a 25-million strong Australian biosecurity mass movement.
8.17
The Tasmanian Government highlighted the crucial role consistent biosecurity regulations play in the management of potential risks, stating:
…the establishment of nationally harmonised biosecurity protocols is of prime importance to ensuring Tasmania’s agriculture sector is able to maximise opportunities for growth. This is particularly so in relation to produce moved between states before export to international markets.
8.18
Summerfuit Australia (SFA) described its industry as being ‘hampered by a federal system’ and the lack of a consistent approach to biosecurity. SFA added that national approach to fruit fly management was needed including national funding for a long-term program of eradication or population reduction.
8.19
The Government of South Australia highlight the essential role several biosecurity programs play in protecting the health and security of South and rest of Australian agricultural products. Such programs include those targeting fruit fly, the livestock “One Biosecurity” program as well as the dog fence rebuild measure. The government of SA further explains the important role biosecurity plays in allowing for strong and viable trade of SA agricultural products.
8.20
NRM Regions Australia called for governments to give greater recognition and resourcing to regional natural resource management (NRM) groups to support their work managing established pests and diseases. NRM Regions Australia stated that NRM groups undertake important biosecurity work, for example they:
… act as a go‑between with landowners and government agencies, build local groups and networks, can undertake surveillance, help inform landowners of new or potential risks, provide resources to tackle emerging issue and may serve as a first call for landowners.
8.21
The Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (QDAF) drew attention to an emerging array of technologies that have the potential to transform how biosecurity is monitored. QDAF stated that genomics can ‘provide rapid diagnostics such as automated screening technologies’ and, additionally, blockchain may ‘render obsolete many of the existing mechanisms used for tracing and biosecurity compliance.’
8.22
The Plant Biosecurity Science Foundation (PBSF) stated that it considers science to be the:
… currency of biosecurity [which] underpins many of the risk, border protection, diagnostic and surveillance tools and systems, incursion and management responses, and perhaps more importantly, trade arrangements between states and internationally with offshore trading partners.
8.23
Additionally, PBSF reported that four biosecurity related cooperative research centres had closed in the last decade ‘with nothing substantial to replace their function or resources.’ PBSF calls for the establishment of a cross-sectoral rural research agency with biosecurity being one its responsibilities, or the creation of an enduring national biosecurity science centre funded by governments, research bodies, and end-users.
8.24
Grain Producers Australia (GPA) also called for broad based biosecurity funding, noting that ‘those creating biosecurity risks, such as businesses importing containers of products into Australia, are not adequately contributing to biosecurity activities. GPA added that it supported:
…the imposition of a levy on all incoming containers to ensure a broader base for biosecurity funding. GPA calls for funding raised through the levy to be used to ensure a greater level of investment and a commitment to prioritisation of biosecurity across Government.
8.25
WA Farmers suggested that biosecurity funding must track the growth of agricultural productivity. They have suggested the creation of a biosecurity emergency response team capable of being deployed in a targeted manner to specific outbreaks such as an outbreak of African swine fever.
Infrastructure and Freight
8.26
Transporting agricultural products to consumers is one of the largest cost components of the production process. Indeed, AgriFutures reported that supply chain logistics can account for as much as 48.5 per cent of the farm-gate value of a product.
8.27
WoolProducers Australia (WPA) highlighted the role efficient transport infrastructure has in enabling the international competitiveness of producers. WPA also noted that overall freight volumes were expected to double in the next twenty years and that added investment was likely to struggle to keep up with this increasing demand; so it was critical that investment was made in a nationally coordinated and integrated manner.
8.28
In 2019, Infrastructure Australia, in its An Assessment of Australia’s Future Infrastructure Needs: The Australian Infrastructure Audit 2019 (Infrastructure Audit) noted that, in comparison to the supply-chains for resources, agricultural freight has complexities that make investment and maintenance difficult, stating:
The scale, diversity and seasonal nature of Australia’s agricultural activity make these supply chains complicated from a governance and infrastructure provision perspective ... the geographic spread and seasonal nature of a lot of agricultural activity means that expensive infrastructure can be underutilised for months and sometimes years before receiving significant traffic. This means local roads and branch railways are of a lower structural standards than main freight routes which have more consistent traffic flows. The result is that bumper crop years can overwhelm local infrastructure, meaning farmers and business are unable to get their product to market within an optimal timeframe.
8.29
The Infrastructure Audit also stated that agricultural supply chains suffer from the combination of poorly maintained local infrastructure and ‘inefficient regulation in our regions, where freight operators often cross jurisdictional boundaries and have to deal with a myriad of access permits.’
8.30
Cooperative Bulk Handling Group (CBH) stated that the Western Australian grain market is almost entirely export oriented and as such it needs ‘to be able to get a consistent quality of grain to market at a reliable and, importantly, fast pace.’ CBH added that there has been ‘considerable underinvestment’ in transport infrastructure. CBH explained that the delays this results in WA grains not being shipped in the first half of the year when prices are higher. Instead, by the time the grain arrives in market it must compete with low-cost Black Sea grain.
8.31
The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) highlighted that infrastructure challenges occur across the entire supply chain from producers to consumers. For exporters this means that ‘issues around infrastructure are as much in receiving countries as they are here’.
8.32
The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development (DITCRD) advised that the Australian Government released a National Freight and Supply Chain Strategy and National Action Plan in August 2019. The Strategy aims to ‘integrate all transport modes’ and ‘meet our freight challenges for the next 20 years’.
8.33
The Supply Chain Strategy includes the following four priorities:
Smarter, targeted infrastructure investment
Enabling improved supply chain efficiency
Better planning, coordination and regulation
Better freight location and performance data.
8.34
The Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia (CRC DNA) highlighted the role of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) in driving infrastructure development in the north. CRC DNA noted, however, that while the NAIF supports multi‑user infrastructure it needs a proponent to apply for the funding and that this means that not all potentially beneficial projects can be funded. CRC DNA explained that if:
Multiple players within a supply chain might benefit [but] there is no proponent that’s going to invest and so NAIF doesn’t have a proponent. There might be 100 growers, and that might benefit a few supply chain people, but there’s no one proponent in there. There is market failure around understanding the feasibility of developing that supply chain.
Road freight
8.35
DITCRD reported that the Australian Government was undertaking a range of programs intended to improve the quality of significant regional highways and improve the efficiency of road freight. In particular, through the Roads of Strategic Importance (ROSI) program the Government is investing $4.5 billion over 10 years on upgrading roads with work such as sealing, widening, flood protection, and bridge upgrades. Key freight projects resourced through the ROSI program include:
$235 million for the Alice Springs to Hall Creek corridor
$70 million for secondary freight roads in the Western Australian wheatbelt
$15 million for Mango Industry Roads Upgrades around Litchfield in the NT.
8.36
Other key road investments currently being implemented by the Australian Government include:
$10 billion (over 15 years) for the Bruce Highway (Qld)
$1 billion for the Princes Highway (NSW, Vic, and SA)
$700 million for the Newell Highway (NSW)
$600 million for the Northern Australia Roads Program (Qld, NT, WA)
$330 million (over 10 years) for the Outback Way (Qld, NT, WA)
$100 million for Northern Australia Beef Roads Program (Qld, NT, WA).
8.37
CBH suggested that there had been underinvestment in the Western Australian road network, stating that it ‘has a maintenance backlog of in excess of $800 million, much of which is across the large regional road network.’
8.38
Tiwi Plantations Corporation (TPC) highlighted the difficulties that poor quality roads cause for their business on the Tiwi Islands. TPC stated that despite it being a small corporation it:
…spends $1.9 million maintaining and building a public road. It's ridiculous … the mining industry actually ask the government to invest in the roads, and they'll invest in the infrastructure … that $1.9 million is Tiwi money to maintain infrastructure so they can get their logs and woodchip to their port, but it's a public road that's used by people.
8.39
The Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association (NTCA) stated that ‘road improvements and regular maintenance is imperative in ensuring efficiency and profitability’ of their industry. The NTCA added that in its view ‘all Territory roads should be capable of safely accommodating a 6‑deck road train, allowing producers to access markets year-round.
Heavy vehicle regulations
8.40
The Infrastructure Audit highlighted the barriers to greater use of high productivity vehicles (HPVs), which are trucks larger than a standard semi-trailer. Infrastructure Australia stated that HPVs ‘generate cost savings to operators and customers’ as well as generating other productivity benefits such as reducing congestion and lowering emissions (due to less overall truck movements). The Infrastructure Audit added that there are legitimate challenges, however, to greater use of HPVs including community concerns and the impact on road assets.
8.41
The Infrastructure Audit also noted that inconsistent regulations limit the efficiency of operators and that ‘there are concerns about the lack of coordinated policy initiatives to promote HPV access to the road network.’
8.42
The Australian Trucking Association (ATA) reported that in 2014 the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) came into effect. Prior to its implementation the HVNL was forecast to deliver up to $12.4 billion in economic benefits from the ‘harmonisation of restricted access vehicles, higher mass limits and intelligent program regulations’. The ATA reported, however, that the HVNL had failed to achieve these objectives and in fact ‘productivity of the transport, postal and warehousing sector has fallen steadily since the law came into force in 2014.’
8.43
The ATA described the process of implementing the HVNL as ‘prescriptive and inflexible’. The ATA called for greater consistency around road access conditions, as well as reduced processing time for applications, introducing external reviews of access decisions, and expanding the range of roads HPVs can access without requiring permits.
8.44
The ATA also advocated for greater use of larger trucks, highlighting that B-triple vehicles can move 1,000 tonne of freight in 19 trips in comparison to 42 trips for a 19 metre semi-trailer, in addition the B-triple would generate 19.43 tonnes of CO2 as opposed to the semi-trailer which would generate 28.78 tonnes of CO2.
8.45
Mr Robert Miller and Narrawilly Diary highlighted the impact road restrictions can have on individual farmers noting that they had to negotiate with local authorities to have feed freighted to their farm due to a restriction on the use of B‑double trucks on the local arterial highway. In addition, they were not permitted to use tractors along the local roads to deliver feed to starving animals during the drought.
8.46
DITCRD reported that recent regulatory changes issued by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator exempts eligible agricultural vehicles from size limits and reduced the need for submitting applications to use larger agricultural vehicles on roads.
Rail
8.47
The Infrastructure Audit described the regional rail network, and in particular routes used for freighting grain, as being poor quality, suffering from choke points, and being unable to provide sufficient capacity in bumper crop years. In addition, due to the difficulties of running regional rail lines cost-effectively, some routes have been closed in recent years. Infrastructure Australia highlighted that in 2013-14 500km of ‘tier 3’ rail lines in Western Australia were closed after they were found to be uneconomic, but businesses in the grain sector have argued that this ‘increased costs and reduced the access to the grain supply chain’.
8.48
CBH described the rail network as ranking poorly in comparison to other grain exporters. A recent WA Government report found that the Australian rail network ranked 35th, lower than all other grain exporters except Argentina, which has ‘multibillion-dollar renovations commencing in the coming years.’
8.49
CBH suggested that a key reason that growers are experiencing issues with the rail system is that infrastructure has not kept pace with the growing size of the grain harvest. CBH explained that 10 years ago the WA grain industry might harvest nine million tonnes in a good year but now the average harvest is 15 million tonnes. As a result, CBH states there are:
... rail sidings that can’t take trains of the size that we need to move all that grain from that site to port at a fast pace in order to meet the shipping window ... the solution to that is for industry and government to look at how we bring that infrastructure up to a standard that will not only meet current but also forecast crop or commodity sizes.’
8.50
Similarly, Grain Growers described the rail network as ‘ageing’ and added that although rail is the most efficient means of transporting grain ‘there has been a significant shift of grain from rail to road because of poor infrastructure, a lack of maintenance and an uncertain investment environment.’ Grain Growers added that rail and road investment decisions were often made in isolation instead of taking a holistic approach to supply chain investment and that there was a need for greater partnerships between levels of government to improve freight systems.
8.51
Representatives from the horticulture industry highlighted the costs of transporting fruit, especially around the Mildura region. The Australian Table Grape Association (ATGA) stated that currently approximately half of their fruit was transported by road and half by rail but that with the growth in exports they expected that within five years the roads will not have capacity to move the additional freight. Already, a road near Robinvale has had its speed limit dropped due to the quantity of trucks using the road.
8.52
The ATGA stated that, ideally, 80 per cent of their fruit would be moved by rail. Similarly, Citrus Australia questioned the adequacy of transport infrastructure in the Mildura region, noting that ‘it is currently more expensive to freight goods by road from Mildura to Melbourne than it is to ship from Melbourne to Tokyo.’
Inland Rail
8.53
The Australian Government is investing $9.3 billion in the Inland Rail system which will provide a freight rail link between Melbourne and Brisbane. DITCRD stated that the Inland Rail will provide ‘new market opportunities for existing producers [and] open new and lower-cost transport options for agricultural inputs such as fertilisers and feedlot grains’.
8.54
DITRCD forecast that due to the implementation of the inland rail the proportion of freight moving by rail between Melbourne to Brisbane will increase from its current level of 24 per cent to over 60 per cent by 2050. In addition, DITCRD stated that the movement of freight from roads to the Inland Rail will result in a reduction of 750,000 tonnes per year of CO2 equivalent emissions.
8.55
Mr Graham Matthew, a partner at KPMG, stated in the NFF’s 2030 Roadmap that the Inland Rail could ‘create an infrastructure spine for freight haulage for agricultural producers and suppliers.’ Mr Matthew suggested that for the maximum benefits of the Inland Rail to be realised it was critical that supporting infrastructure such as ‘rail sidings, intermodal freight facilities, and supply depots’ were also upgraded.
8.56
The Central NSW Joint Organisation highlighted the Parkes Inland Rail project as an example of a supporting infrastructure project with associated regional development benefits. Parkes is planned to be a hub depot along the inland rail route and the public sector funding in the site has been followed by private sector funding in the form of a $35 million terminal, a $23 million manufacturing company, and waste-to-energy facilities are also proposed.
Shipping
8.57
Consolidated Pastoral Company (CPC) highlighted a report by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development which found that the ‘efficiency of ports and the transport infrastructure that links them to various markets is vital in reducing import and export costs.’ CPC added that the report had found that there had been ‘little improvement in productivity and efficiency across Australia’s five major container ports since 2014.
8.58
Tropical Grains reported that Queensland growers were planning to access international markets by exporting via Townsville Port but that investment in grain storage facilities was needed to make this possible for most growers.
8.59
WA Grain Group highlighted the potential of containerising grain rather than exporting bulk shipments, noting that it was easier for some smaller, developing countries to process containers. WA Grains added that it would be potentially possible for containers to be packed on farm and that containerised grain could lead to opening up of smaller niche markets.
8.60
The Australian Trucking Association highlighted the costs imposed on transport companies by stevedoring operations at ports. ATA reported that these costs had increased by 63 per cent in the last year and that ‘apart from increasing profits it is unclear what rationale there is for the increased charges.’
8.61
DITCRD reported that the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme (TFES) ‘was introduced in 1976 to provide financial assistance for costs incurred by shippers of eligible non-bulk goods moved by seas across the Bass Strait.’ The TFES was expanded in 2016 to cover Tasmanian goods being shipped to the mainland for the purposes of transhipment.
8.62
The Tasmanian Fruit and Vegetable Export Facilitation Group stated that the TFES meant that the Bass Strait was ‘more or less conquered’ and that had ‘been a major help to our agricultural producers.’
8.63
Protected Cropping Australia drew attention to freight difficulties encountered by Tasmanian producers stating that:
We do face serious challenges for all our exports out of Tasmania to the mainland in summer, when the Spirit of Tasmania is absolutely chock‑a‑block with summer travellers and it’s not unusual for products to get left on the wharf. In that case, when its high‑value and perishable, we suffer all sorts of challenges, particularly as we don’t often get enough warning to get it off the wharf and onto a plane.
Air Freight
8.64
Toowoomba and Surat Basin Enterprises (TSBE) stated that the development of the Toowoomba Wellcamp Airport had ‘changed our region’ and reported that it offered dedicated freight flights, including a weekly flight to Hong Kong. Growcom noted that because of the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic international flights had grown from once-weekly to eight times a week to make up for the reduced opportunity for freight to travel in the belly of passenger aircraft.
8.65
TSBE added that agricultural businesses needed to get used to using the airport as the belly of the planes is currently often filled with machinery and reported that it was working with the airport to try and increase the quantity of produce that is getting on planes.
8.66
Growcom reported that local horticulturalists were using Wellcamp Airport to freight leafy greens which are a ‘higher value, lower weight commodity that will fly well, and needs to be flown, a boat is no good.’ Growcom added that stone fruit and citrus were also being flown out of Wellcamp.
Other Infrastructure
8.67
The Central NSW Joint Organisation (Central NSWJO) noted that the increasing use precision agriculture is resulting in a whole new range of agricultural machines being connected to the internet. Central NSWJO added that IT communications infrastructure was not keeping up with the increased demand noting that ‘infrastructure that’s already been put in place, such as wireless, NBN towers, satellites … are at capacity and are starting to slow down.’
8.68
WA Grain Group also reported issues with communications infrastructure, stating that in a lot of areas the network was:
... set up for 10 simultaneous phone calls, so small cell towers with low capacity. You get the big corporate farms that come in with lots of John Deere gear, lots of John Deere data, and when they start their seeding-harvesting operations the phone networks basically collapse.
8.69
WoolProducers Australian (WPA) highlighted their members need for ‘reliable and affordable telecommunications’ and stated that the issues that they faced include ‘mobile blackspots, internet and NBN connection drop-outs, lack of service providers, and increased costs associated with telecommunications.’ WPA also called for the Government to implement the ten recommendations in the the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee’s 2018 Report Getting it right out there.
Committee Comment
8.70
A successful biosecurity system is critical to the long-term success of Australian agriculture. As the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has shown, the disruption that can be caused by a disease outbreak can be rapid and intense. There is perhaps no other risk that has the potential to more significantly derail growth in the agriculture sector than an outbreak of a major agricultural pest or disease.
8.71
Australia’s largely disease and pest free status is key to accessing many of our agricultural export markets and losing this market access would be devastating for many industries. Australia’s biosecurity regime currently protects the Australian community by making hundreds of thousands of quarantine interceptions each year. Nevertheless, in a heavily globalised world there is an almost limitless quantity of potential risk vectors, from passengers arriving at international airports to shipping containers full of freight.
8.72
Many agricultural stakeholders are concerned that Australia’s biosecurity system is not as tight as it could be. In particular, there is concern around a lack of coordination between jurisdictions and between government and industry. There appears to be a need for a National Biosecurity Strategy to coordinate biosecurity responsibilities and lead the implementation of new technologies that could improve how freight is tracked and biosecurity risk assessed.
8.73
Given that some pests, such as Fruit Fly, only occur in some parts of the country, it may not be possible for this Strategy to completely harmonise regulations across jurisdictions. It should, however, be a regulatory framework that prioritise consistency and cooperation across Australia.
8.74
Almost half the cost of food paid by consumers is made up of freight costs. Therefore, if Australian producers are going to be able to maintain their competitiveness it is vital that transport infrastructure can move produce as efficiently as possible.
8.75
Roads carry the bulk of agricultural produce and so the Committee was pleased to hear about the long‑term regional road building being undertaken by the Australian Government.
8.76
Some inquiry participants were concerned, however, that it is too difficult for high capacity trucks to access the road network. Moving freight from small trucks to fewer larger trucks enables the movement of agricultural freight faster, cheaper, and with less greenhouse emissions. It may be beneficial, therefore, if large capacity trucks have increased access to the road network. The Committee notes, however, that there is sometimes increased community concern around greater use of large trucks. The Committee suggests that this issue needs to be considered further to ensure that any restrictions on the use of large capacity trucks are warranted.
8.77
One of the most successful methods of reducing the quantity of large trucks on regional roads is to have an effective and efficient rail system. The Committee heard evidence that Australia’s agricultural rail system is ageing and, in some cases, reducing in size. While accepting that the operation of rail systems can be expensive, the Committee hopes that the shutting down of an agricultural rail route would only occur as a matter of last resort.
8.78
On a more positive note, the development of the Inland Rail is likely to bring significant benefits to agricultural producers on the east coast. The Committee was fortunate to visit Toowoomba Wellcamp Airport, which has successfully opened up access to export markets for many producers in southeast Queensland. Wellcamp is also planned to be integrated into the Inland Rail route thus dramatically expanding the range of producers who will be able to access the airport’s freight flights. The Committee was also pleased to hear of the developments at the Parkes Inland Rail hub, which is also likely to reduce transport costs for producers in its region.
8.79
Accessing reliable communication technology is an ongoing challenge for people living in rural and remote Australia. The uptake in the use of internet connected devices to monitor and measure farm activities is likely to further increase the strain on regional communications infrastructure. Continuing to invest in communications infrastructure in regional Australia is going to be vital to enabling the growth of digital agriculture.
Recommendations
8.80
The Committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment work with the Council of Australian Governments and relevant industry stakeholders to develop a National Biosecurity Strategy. This strategy should seek to:
Harmonise regulations between jurisdictions wherever possible
Develop new biosecurity technologies and ensure they are implemented consistently across Australia.
8.81
The Committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development undertake a review of the Heavy Vehicle National Law and other regulations relevant to the use of high capacity freight vehicles to ensure that all restrictions on heavy vehicle use are warranted.