Standard report template with sample Web viewAgricultural Export Regulation Review: ... regulation...

Agricultural Export Regulation Review

Consultation ReportMay 2016

Agricultural Export Regulation Review: Final Consultation Report

© Commonwealth of Australia Ownership of intellectual property rightsUnless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth).Creative Commons licenceAll material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, save for content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode.Inquiries about the licence and any use of this document should be sent to [email protected] publication is available at agriculture.gov.au/export-regulation-review.Department of Agriculture and Water ResourcesPostal address GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601Telephone 1800 900 090Web agriculture.gov.auThe Australian Government acting through the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources has exercised due care and skill in preparing and compiling the information and data in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence and for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying upon any of the information or data in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Contact us

If you have any questions about this document, please contact the Export Regulation Review team: [email protected].

Department of Agriculture and Water Resources

mailto:[email protected]

http://agriculture.gov.au/

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/export-regulation-review

mailto:[email protected]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en


ContentsIntroduction....................................................................................................................................2

In Scope..........................................................................................................................................2

Out of Scope...................................................................................................................................2

Key Milestones...............................................................................................................................2

Consultation....................................................................................................................................2

Stage 1: Pre-Consultation...............................................................................................................2

Stage 2: Main consultation.............................................................................................................2

Stage 3: Internal Consultation........................................................................................................2

Stage 4: Submissions......................................................................................................................2

What we heard...............................................................................................................................2

Feedback on Export Regulation......................................................................................................2

Feedback on non-regulation issues................................................................................................2

Out of Scope Concerns....................................................................................................................2

Market access.................................................................................................................................2

Importing country requirements....................................................................................................2

Other Issues....................................................................................................................................2

Attachment A..................................................................................................................................2

Attachment B..................................................................................................................................2

Submissions List..............................................................................................................................2



IntroductionThe Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (the department) provides inspection and certification services (supported by audit and verification activities) to assist Australian agricultural export industries, including food, fibre, fish and forestry, to meet domestic requirements, importing country requirements and to maintain access to export markets. The performance of these services is governed by a complex web of regulation (including the Export Control Act 1982 and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997).

The export regulation has served reasonably well since it was implemented in response to the Royal Commission into the Australian meat industry in 1982. However, the department has undertaken a review to assess how the regulation of agricultural exports could be improved to ensure it remains relevant into the future.

The review forms part of the department’s investigation of opportunities to cut unnecessary red tape and make it easier to export. Reducing the burden of red tape on the agriculture sector is a key focus for the Australian Government and the department and is critical to achieving better returns at the farm gate.

The review also satisfies requirements under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 to review delegated export legislation (which includes regulations, orders and declarations) to ensure they are still relevant and required before they ‘sunset’ or cease to be law in 2020.

This report details consultation activities undertaken for the review and feedback received from stakeholders during consultation. The department considered this feedback and has made recommendations to government on how the regulation of agricultural exports could be improved to ensure it remains relevant into the future.

The views expressed in the report are those of stakeholders and reflect their experiences with the current regulatory framework. They may relate to the

framework in general, or they may be about particular commodities. They should not be taken as statements of government policy or practice.

In ScopeThe department undertook the review to assess whether current export regulation;

meets the needs of industry and government today and into the future

is flexible and enables industry and government to respond to a range of situations and contemporary issues

ensures that importing country requirements are met without imposing an unnecessary regulatory burden on users of the system


1


is clear, transparent and easy to understand.

A key element of the consultation process was a discussion paper that was used to generate discussion and seek stakeholder feedback on three key themes:

what does the future look like

increasing flexibility and enabling innovation

cooperation and communication between stakeholders and the department.

Out of ScopeSome aspects of the export system were not considered as a part of this review because they are being considered as a part of other reviews and reforms. These are:

the review of the department’s cost recovery arrangements

reforms to livestock export regulation

reforms to the allocation and administration of quotas.

These reform projects will progress separately to this review, though their outcomes will feed into any changes to the regulatory regime for agricultural exports.

While the review will consider how export regulation assists exporters to meet importing country requirements and how the regulation is administered, it will not consider importing country requirements themselves as these are matters for trading partners to decide.

Key Milestones Discussion paper released – 15 July 2015

Discussion groups/meetings around Australia – August to September 2015

Submissions due – 21 September 2015


2


ConsultationStage 1: Pre-Consultation Pre-consultation tours of export facilities provided the opportunity for staff to have early conversations with stakeholders to gain an understanding of how the export system works throughout the supply chain. Departmental staff also used the pre-consultation tours to get an early idea of administrative and regulatory issues and to begin spreading the word about the review.

Thirteen stakeholders were available to participate in the pre-consultation tours. These stakeholders are listed in Attachment A. They were intended to provide a cross-section of industries.

Stage 2: Main consultationConsultation began on 15 July 2015 with the release of a discussion paper on the department’s website which posed questions to seek the views of a diverse range of stakeholders and encourage stakeholders to make a submission to the review.

The department then coordinated and managed a range of engagement activities throughout the review process, including face-to-face discussion groups, teleconferences and one-on-one meetings.

Over 300 industry stakeholders were invited to attend discussion groups held in all capital cities between 12 August 2015 and 10 September 2015. Stakeholders that were unable to attend discussion groups were given the option of a teleconference or a one-one-one meeting.

During the consultation period over 80 external stakeholders gave their views through workshops, one-on-one meetings or teleconferences. A complete list of organisations who participated can be found at Attachment A.

The department also held one-on-one meetings with relevant state and territory government departments and Commonwealth agencies during this process. More details can be found at Attachment A.

Consultation concluded on 21 September 2015 when submissions to the review closed. More detailed information on submissions is available in Stage 4 – Submissions.

Stage 3: Internal Consultation The department also consulted internal subject matter experts during the review, both in Canberra and in regional offices. It conducted this consultation through a combination of face-to-face meetings and broader workshops.


3


Stage 4: SubmissionsThe discussion paper encouraged stakeholders to make a submission to the review either formally, or informally via an online feedback form. Stakeholders were also encouraged to make a submission during the workshops, teleconferences and other meetings.

Submissions to the review closed on 21 September 2015 at 5pm. A total of 25 submissions were received, including two government submissions. Four submissions were marked as confidential.

The non-confidential submissions are available on the department’s website at: www.agriculture.gov.au/export-regulation-review.

A list of submissions can be found at Attachment B.


4

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/export-regulation-review


What we heardThe following chapter summarises the key issues raised during consultation and is split into two sections – feedback on export regulation and feedback on non-regulation issues.

Stakeholders were asked a number of high level questions in the discussion paper to capture a range of views. Due to the nature of the questions some of the feedback received related to the regulation while some related to exporting more broadly.

The questions asked in the discussion paper were:

What does the future look like?

1. What are the emerging export related challenges or opportunities for your business over the next 5, 10, 20+ years?

2. To what extent would current export regulation make these challenges harder, or restrict you from pursuing opportunities?

Increasing flexibility and enabling innovation

3. What do you see as unnecessary regulation (or ‘red tape’) when exporting? Please provide specific examples.

4. Can you identify any improvements, initiatives or technologies that would make exporting easier for you? Please provide detail.

Cooperation and communication

5. Are there parts of the export process the department currently undertakes that your business could manage? If so, what assistance (if any), would you require from the department to establish these processes?

6. What information about exporting and export regulation does your business need? How would you prefer to receive this information?

Feedback on Export RegulationThe majority of stakeholders are comfortable with the current level of agricultural export regulation and would like to see it maintained yet be flexible to manage change in technologies and future requirements. This is largely because stakeholders recognise the regulation is necessary to protect market access and Australia’s international reputation as an exporter of high quality agricultural products.

However stakeholders would still like to see improvements made to the regulation, including:

aligning requirements with importing country requirements

increased flexibility


5


increased opportunities for government-industry cooperation

reduced complexity and duplication

stronger regulation for compliance and enforcement.

Several stakeholders stated there is potential to develop clearer, more streamlined, user-friendly export regulations which will better enable exporters to meet importing country requirements into the future.

In general, stakeholders do not want agricultural export regulation to be removed. They genuinely accept the burden imposed by regulation and see it as part of doing business.

Aligning requirements with importing country requirements

While stakeholders are generally accepting of agricultural export regulation, they only want to be regulated to the extent required to meet importing country requirements – not beyond this.

In line with this, numerous stakeholders called for the notion of ‘prescribed goods’ to be reviewed with regard to current inclusions and exclusions. They suggest an improved balance of regulation is required between prescribed and non-prescribed goods to manage the risks posed. It was also noted having two types of goods (prescribed and non-prescribed) can confuse exporters and trading partners. For example, wet pet food is a prescribed good (and therefore subject to regulation) regardless of importing country requirements. Whereas dry pet food is a non-prescribed good and is only subject to regulation if it is an importing country requirement.

Each commodity group wants to be regulated to the extent required for their particular commodity to go to a particular market. Below are some examples where it is claimed regulation goes beyond importing country requirements:

The requirements imposed on exporters who have export registered establishments exceed importing country requirements. Importing countries do not require certain things which registered establishments must comply with including specific cleanliness requirements and inspection benches.

Plant products (including grain and horticulture) are regulated to require inspection even though importing countries often do not require it. For example, under the Export Control (Plant and Plant Products) Order 2011 all prescribed grains must undergo inspection before export. However, certain importing countries do not require grain consignments to undergo inspection.

Exports of grain that is not for human consumption is regulated the same way as grain for human consumption even though importing countries do not require it.

Exports of woodchips to certain importing countries require a phytosanitary certificate to certify the consignment is free of prescribed pests. The importing country does not set parameters for sampling rates to produce the phytosanitary certificate, this is determined by the department. The department imposes a grain sampling protocol to issue the certificate which is intensive and not based on the lower risk of woodchips.

A small number of stakeholders noted the flexibility to certify only to importing country requirements already exists in some parts of the export regulation. For example, ‘low alcohol’ wine


6


that fails to meet Australian standards but meets importing country requirements can still be certified under the regulation. Stakeholders would like to see this flexibility utilised for other commodities.

Increased flexibility

In essence, stakeholders want the regulation to be flexible enough to deal with the multitude of differences in commodities and export markets. The majority recognise outcomes based regulation is an appropriate way to provide the flexibility required, a smaller number of stakeholders also want some level of prescription in the regulation to remove ambiguity.

Technical market access issues are only going to increase so we need ongoing commitment and flexibility in export market regulation.

Written Submission

Stakeholders specifically noted the regulation needs to be flexible to adapt to future changes and challenges, including:

Increasing market expectations around production attributes:

animal welfare (including free range eggs) environmental/sustainability genetically modified organisms (GMOs) hormone growth promotants (HGPs) religious (halal, kosher) traceability

Increasing market expectations around quality attributes

Increasing number of smaller consignments

Technological advances:

increasing automation of processes e.g. inspection micro-testing in production facilities video evidence of non-compliance

Testing and certification of:

chemical residue levels new export pathways new export products.

Stakeholders involved in the export of timber products also commented on the flexible regulatory mechanism of exemptions. For example, they would like the exemption from the licensing for


7


exports of unprocessed wood and woodchips to be maintained as it provides greater flexibility. These exemptions apply to wood sourced from areas covered by Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) or wood sourced from states with codes of practice for plantation forestry approved by the Australian Government. These exemptions are in recognition of the environmental protections provided by the RFAs and the codes of practice of plantation forestry.

Increased opportunities for government-industry cooperation

Where acceptable to importing countries, industry stakeholders would like to take on more responsibility. From their perspective, it is in their interest to get it right and they have a commercial incentive to comply. Stakeholders believe industry could potentially take on more responsibility for inspections, treatments and certification processes as well as authorised officer (AO) training. Stakeholders stated that the department’s resources are best used focusing on auditing and verification activities.

A successful and efficient export system is underpinned by a strong working relationship and partnership between government and industry.

Queensland Workshop

Stakeholders are highly supportive of existing government-industry cooperation mechanisms such as approved arrangements and AOs as they find these efficient. They would like approved arrangements to be retained and AOs to be extended as far as possible.

Some additional, mainly non-regulatory, comments from stakeholders to improve government-industry cooperation included:

Allowing AOs to undertake site registration, inspections and testing.

Improving AO training by:

including technical and diagnostic aspects in training, not just process taking into account prior learning shortening timeframes.

The ability for remote areas to jointly authorise officers to increase coverage.

Streamlining the approval of the food safety element of approved arrangements.

However, some stakeholders had concerns around AOs and allowing industry to self-regulate. They felt strong collaboration and a strong compliance regime would be needed for importing countries to accept export activities being conducted by AOs. One stakeholder was also concerned about what protections would be available to industry if AOs or authorised vets fail in their duties and authorised a consignment that was then rejected by the importing country.


8


Industry stakeholders feel they are best equipped to manage commercial matters such as quality and traceability – particularly where established systems are in place which government should tap into (when required) rather than replicate.

Reduced complexity and duplication

Many stakeholders raised concerns regarding duplication within agricultural export regulation as well as between the regulation and other standards.

A number of stakeholders identified a large level of duplication between the various commodity orders and suggested any general requirements should be amalgamated into overarching regulation (e.g. the Export Control (Prescribed Goods – General) Order 2005) rather than duplicated for each commodity. It was proposed this would make the regulation easier to understand and increase cross commodity consistency. A specific issue identified with having information in the individual commodity orders, rather than the Export Control (Prescribed Goods – General) Order 2005, is that it leads to inconsistencies and confusion about whether the ‘fit and proper person’ test for the registration of different establishments applies.

Stakeholders want consistent regulation across commodities with generic requirements applied as much as possible across the board rather than on a commodity by commodity basis. This is particularly relevant for those who deal with multiple commodities and/or multiple markets.

Stakeholders also identified duplication between export regulation and Australian standards as well as between the regulation and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code). It was suggested the regulation should reference rather than duplicate the relevant Australian standard or part of the Code. Stakeholders would also like to see the regulation recognise existing industry and private standards and systems.

A small number of stakeholders also questioned the need for particular aspects of the regulation. These included:

the overly complex system of registered establishments, licences and permits

the highly burdensome requirement to hold a licence to export very small quantities of red meat and various products to foreign Antarctic stations

the requirement to seal exports of reproductive material with an official mark when the only way the official mark can be applied is on a ‘post-it’ note stuck to the seal.

It seems as though being registered means you can think about exporting, being licenced means the government might let you export, and having a permit means

you can actually export.

Written Submission


9


In response to the discussion paper question on improvements that would make exporting easier a number of stakeholders called for the alignment of export and import regulatory requirements. This would reduce duplication for those who are active on both sides of the biosecurity continuum.

Stronger regulation for compliance and enforcement

Overwhelmingly, stakeholders want robust regulation to ensure the integrity of Australian agricultural exports. From their perspective, strong regulation is vital to managing the risks of ‘rogue operators’ who could tarnish Australia’s highly valuable trading reputation if the regulation were reduced.

Stakeholders would like increased compliance options to apply clearly and consistently to all involved in exporting prescribed and non-prescribed goods. They want the regulation to contain graduated compliance options including civil penalties (e.g. enforceable undertakings, infringement notices) and specifically recommended the regulation target the ‘bottom line’ of exporters and others operating in export supply chains to incentivise compliant behaviour. They also want the regulation to contain tests to make sure those operating in agricultural export supply chains are fit and proper.

Any reduction in export regulation could put access to overseas markets at risk because importing countries support and rely on our regulation to satisfy their

requirements.

Northern Territory Workshop

Along these lines, stakeholders note traceability and the ability to prove area freedom from pests and diseases is becoming increasingly important to importing countries. Therefore, the regulation needs to provide powers to access and use this type of information to secure and maintain market access.

However, some stakeholders also raised some points in contrast to the above, noting that the extent and complexity of regulation and export processes can create barriers to entry for small exporters.

A number of stakeholders suggested the department should reward exporters who have demonstrated consistently compliant behaviour with reduced levels of intervention and compliance costs. Some suggestions around compliance based intervention included:

allowing industries with a good compliance history to self-manage more aspects of the process

implementing compliance profiles and subsequent reduced audits

more science based intervention taking into account inspection history.

Feedback on non-regulation issuesThe majority of issues raised by stakeholders were non-regulatory. Stakeholders would like to see improvements to the way the regulation is administered by the department, including:


10


areas of duplication

departmental services and systems

communication

working with states and territories.

From their perspective, there is potential to make the process of exporting easier by improving the systems, policies and procedures underpinning export regulation.

Reduced duplication

Stakeholders identified a high degree of duplication in the export processes that sit under export regulation. This includes within federal processes and between federal and state and territory governments.

While noting it is not something the department is responsible for or can address completely, a key issue raised by a large number of stakeholders was around duplication of audits between state, territory and federal government agencies and commercial bodies. Stakeholders identified the recognition of third party auditors such as other regulatory bodies or state government agencies could help to reduce audit frequency. It was also proposed a set of core audit requirements be recognised and shared between parties. The dairy industry suggested the recognition of a national audit standard for domestic and international audits has streamlined their industry and suggested it be promoted in other industries.

Duplication around documentary requirements, inspections, certification, invoicing and providing information to the department was an issue raised by a number of different stakeholders. Some examples provided by stakeholders included:

AOs submit inspection results to the department but exporters also need to do so to request a phytosanitary certificate.

The process to request an inspection requires the same documentation to be submitted to the department multiple times.

Duplication of vet inspections – first by a department authorised vet then a departmental vet.

To reduce duplication, stakeholders suggest the department:

allow industry bodies to perform certification activities where allowed under importing country requirements

consider the overlap between industry quality assurance accreditation and government quality assurance accreditation

recognise third parties for certain export services wherever possible, including audits (as discussed above), inspections, approving arrangements and issuing documentation

use registered training organisations for industry accreditation.


11


One of the more extreme examples [of duplication], is a multi-species processing plant with multiple market access listing receiving almost 200 days of audit per year, not including the regulators audit and Department of Agriculture on site

veterinarian’s verification activity.

Written Submission

Stakeholders note that for third party recognition to work it would need to be accepted by importing countries and require tight audit requirements.

Departmental services and systems

Broadly stakeholders want departmental services and systems to be responsive and flexible to their needs. They find departmental services and systems to be slow and not suited to commercial requirements. Stakeholders want the department to utilise improved technology to better their services and systems, for example, to allow AOs to work faster and smarter.

Services

Some stakeholders raised concerns with receiving inconsistent services, including interpretation and application of the regulations, by departmental officers. One stakeholder provided an example where woodchips being exported from different regions were subject to different requirements for phytosanitary certificates and registered establishments, due to different interpretations of the regulation.

Inspections

A number of stakeholders raised concerns with departmental inspections including:

Departmental inspectors seem to hold a higher standard than overseas governments, for example bulk vessels that pass inspection to load grain in Canada fail in Australia.

Food grade containers that pass inspection at depot by AOs fail inspection at port by departmental inspectors.

Incoming vessel inspections can only be carried out in daylight so the vessel sits there blocking the port and incurring demurrage costs.

Industry would like the option to hire part time departmental inspectors as AOs when not working for the department.

The process to book inspections is ineffective and inefficient, for example exporters need to prove a health certificate is required by the importing country before an inspection can be arranged.

Inspections have to be booked by 3pm the day before.

Inspectors are not always available when needed including evenings and weekends. This is a major concern for seasonal exporters who operate 24 hours a day for a small part of the year.


12


Marine surveys can only occur in port, it would be more efficient if they could be carried out at anchor so issues could be resolved before coming into port.

Documentation

Stakeholders also raised concerns with departmental documentation services, for example:

The issue of government certificates takes too long, especially for sea freight.

The requirement to submit a notice of intention to export 14 days prior to export is too far in advance and unrealistic in terms of export supply chain timeframes for some commodities.

Documentation processes can be inefficient and costly, e.g. there is one printer for phytosanitary certificates in Tasmania which then needs to be couriered.

The request for permit (RFP) process does not allow for easy linking of product, destination and pack type. Instead exporters must submit the RFP, receive an error message then link the information.

The testing requirements for increased volumes are greater than that required for total volume.

Treatments

Departmental treatment services were also raised as an issue by stakeholders during the review, for example:

The department does not recognise in transit fumigation for certain commodities, including post loading fumigation of vessels at berth.

Fumigation requirements and processes are not flexible enough and do not align with the biosecurity risk of the product.

Systems

Many stakeholders called for electronic government certification and for documents such as phytosanitary certificates, declarations, RFPs to be electronic and instantaneous as much as possible.

Stakeholders found updates to the Manual of Importing Country Requirements (MICoR) to be slow which has implications when requirements around certification change. Stakeholders stated they often relied on contacts in the department rather than MICoR to find out requirements. Some stakeholders, mostly small organisations, felt it should not be their role to seek information from importing countries around requirements and the government should be proactive about seeking information and updating MICoR.

Departmental systems like MICoR are slow and out of date, difficult to navigate and information on importing country requirements is difficult to understand.

South Australia Workshop


13


Some stakeholders suggested the department should create an export portal that merged information from multiple systems into one. It was proposed that MICoR, EXDOC, free trade agreement information and all other documentation systems be integrated into a central system with functionality to upload a range of data file types.

Communication

Stakeholders view communication as a very important step in the export process. Many stakeholders raised issues with the way the department communicates export information and changes to export requirements to exporters and others involved in export supply chains.

Overall, stakeholders find it difficult to find information on the department’s website or contact the right area via the department’s 1800 number. To address this, stakeholders suggested:

easy to use department website

understandable export information, including details of the obligations of exporters and others operating in export supply chains

a ‘case officer’ or first point of contact to help find information or the right area of the department.

a list of key departmental contacts or export program area contacts.

Another issue raised about communication was the uncertainty around department processing times which creates inefficiencies for exporters and others operating in export supply chains. Stakeholders want to know how long things will take so they can adjust their business activities accordingly. For example, instead of a truck/driver sitting around waiting it could go to another job and come back.

Some stakeholders noted consultation does not always occur before changes are made to the export system and, once changes are made, these are not always communicated to all relevant stakeholders. When requirements change, stakeholders want the department to consult early and often with all affected stakeholders. Some stakeholders also suggested electronic mechanisms are best when communicating and/or consulting.

Working with states and territories

A key issue raised by states and territories was the need for two-way information sharing. It was stated that more work is required to ensure responsibilities are clear and information is shared on gaps and overlaps between domestic and export regulation. It was proposed further memorandums of understanding with states and territories be developed to cover agricultural products intended for domestic or export markets to the extent necessary to avoid duplication.

The department needs to work alongside states and territories on elements covered by state legislation which are emerging issues for importing countries,

such as animal welfare, for example.


14


Internal Meeting

It was also suggested a central source of pest free area information would improve coordination of the certification process conducted by states and territories.

Commodity stakeholders were generally happy with the current system of states and territories auditing on behalf of the department. Overall stakeholders felt the department needed to continue to work with states and territories in the harmonisation of regulatory outcomes.


15


Out of Scope ConcernsDuring consultation stakeholders raised issues out of scope of the review. These were importing country requirements, market access negotiations and fees.

Some stakeholders commented on the review process and suggested that as part of the review the department should benchmark export regulation in other countries, such as NZ and Canada, who target similar markets.

Market access Stakeholders identified the most important thing for their exports was to maintain and develop new markets. It was stated Australia needs to maintain strong bilateral relationships, and develop a strong understanding of key markets. Some stakeholders felt that market access negotiations and maintaining ongoing access to markets was the government’s role while some stakeholders thought it should be a partnership between government and industry. A number of stakeholders proposed that industry and states/territories could be involved in the negotiation of trade protocols.

Stakeholders identified technical market access barriers to trade and that government to government engagement is crucial to resolve these issues. Some market access issues raised by stakeholders included:

Overseas subsidies of agricultural industries act as a barrier to Australian exports. For example, highly subsidised US cotton.

Technical market access has been compromised for pet food products in recent times due to the effects of avian influenza.

Domestic trade barriers can cause issues with international markets who question the quality/safety of Australian products as a result. For example, potatoes can’t be transported from South Australia to Western Australia.

Some stakeholders suggested the department should spend time educating trading partners on Australian Standards to influence their acceptance of them. They also noted that the government should communicate any changes to the regulation to trading partners to assure them of the integrity of Australia’s export system. Further, some stakeholders put forward that Australia should promote its regulatory system rather than individual products.

One stakeholder stated “access to overseas markets relies on Australia maintaining a robust biosecurity system and on maintaining and proving our (excellent) animal health status”. It was recommended the government should work more flexibly and holistically across markets.

Importing country requirementsSeveral issues raised by stakeholders related to importing country requirements. As these are set by the importing country they were out of scope of the review. Specific issues with importing country requirements raised by stakeholders include:


16


Protocols and importing country requirements are inconsistent between importing countries and can be difficult to understand.

Importing countries often use different test methods and may be inconsistent in the application which can lead to the rejection of good stock.

Importing countries should lessen their requirements for exporters of consistently good consignments where nothing of concern is found. For example,

review the need for a phytosanitary certificate for timber product exports to China review the inspection regime for table grapes and citrus into China.

Exporting further processed meat products is regulated by multiple health certificates for each ingredient instead of one certificate with multiple declarations.

Certificates of Australian Origin are required even though phytosanitary certificates state goods are Australian. Stakeholders generally think Certificates of Australian Origin are costly and unnecessary.

Other IssuesStakeholders also raised concerns out of scope of the review around the areas of fees and charges, industry bodies, re-landing animals and specific state-based issues.

A number of stakeholders considered export fees to be significant and small businesses identified the costs of setting up and becoming registered as an exporter are high and can become a barrier to exporting.

Some stakeholders expressed the view that industry bodies are most strongly influenced by large players.

An issue was raised by a number of stakeholders around re-landing animals, including fish and livestock once they have been moved offshore. A specific example was the live animal export ship that broke down offshore and the difficulties in returning the livestock to Australia as the animals were treated as having been exported despite never reaching an overseas country.

Some stakeholders had specific state-based issues:

Northern Territory has issues with lack of irradiation/treatment facilities, lack of regular, cost competitive air and sea transport, lack of information and face to face support to navigating importing country requirements.

Western Australia has issues as they are small so they can’t develop the skills in audits and other areas which they may need as industry grows.

Tasmania has issues with freight rates between Tasmania and Melbourne and that containers sit on the wharf for 10-14 days prior to shipment. This causes delays in payment.


17


Attachment APre-consultation tours

State Organisation Name

Tasmania Cherry Growers Australia Inc

Fruit Growers Tasmania

Hansen Orchards

Reid Fruits

Victoria CT Freight

Plunkett Orchard

Queensland Teys Australia

Shamrockvale Farm

Food Partners (owned by JBS)

Doboy Cold Store

AusMeat

South Australia Balco

JT Johnsons

Consultation – external stakeholders

Organisation

Accolade WinesAMICAnimal Medicines Australia and Animal Health Alliance AustraliaAus-MeatAustralian Council of Wool Exporters and Processors Australian Duck Meat AssociationAustralian Export Grains Innovation CentreAustralian Fodder Industry AssociationAustralian Forest Products AssociationAustralian Grain Export Pty LtdAustralian Grape and Wine AuthorityAustralian Honey Bee Industry CouncilAustralian Honey ProductsAustralian Horticultural Exporters Association Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association Australian Livestock Export CouncilAustralian Mango Industry AssociationAustralian Meat Processing Council

Hansen OrchardsHorticulture Coalition of SAHQ Plantations Pty LtdIRT (International Transport of Horses)JBSMidway LtdNorthern Territory Cattlemens AssociationNorthern Territory Farmer's AssociationNorthern Territory Seafood Council Nut Producers AustraliaOBE BeefOneFortyOne PlantationsP&D ExportsPace Farms Pty LtdPackaging Council of AustraliaPastoralists and Graziers of Western AustraliaPernod Ricard WinemakersPetFood Industry Association of Australia


18


Australian Mungbean AssociationAustralian Ostrich AssociationAustralian Renderers AssociationAvocados AustraliaBrownes DairyBunge AgribusinessBusiness Research Institute - The International Livestock Resources & Information Centre and the Australian Cattle Genetics Export AgencyCairns MarineCapricorn PastoralCargill Cattle Council of AustraliaCBH GroupCherry Growers Australia IncCustoms Brokers and Forwarders Council of AustraliaDoboy Cold StoreEmu Industry Federation of AustraliaExport Council of AustraliaForest Industries FederationForico Pty LtdGenetics AustraliaGrain Producers AustraliaGrain Producers SA

Pirovic Enterprises Pty LtdPotatoes SAQueensland Commodity ExportsQueensland Livestock Exporters AssociationReid FruitsSheepmeat Council of AustraliaShipping AustraliaSouth Australian Freight CouncilSunny Queen Pty ltdSuperior CasingsTasmanian Beekeepers AssociationTasmanian Logistics CommitteeTasmanian Salmonid Growers AssociationTasmanian Seafood Industry CouncilTassal The Truffle and Wine CompanyTreasury Wine EstatesVegetables WAVictorian Freight and Logistics Council (RSVPed as Victorian Transport Association)Viterra LtdWA Plantation ResourcesWellard Rural ExportsWestern Australian Fishing Industry Council

Consultation – state and territory government stakeholders

State Department/Authority

South Australia Dairy Authority of SA

PIRSA

SA Department of Health

Tasmania DPIPWE

Victoria ECODEV

Dairy Food Safety Victoria

PrimeSafe

Queensland SafeFood QueenslandDAF QLD

New South Wales NSW DPI

Western Australia DAFWA

Forest Products Commission of WA

Department of Health WA

South Australia Dairy Authority of SA


19


Consultation – Commonwealth agencies

Attorney-General’s Department

Australian Grape and Wine Authority

Australian Trade Commission (Austrade)

Department of Environment

Department of Finance

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Department of Health

Department of Immigration and Border Protection

Department of Industry, Innovation and Science

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Food Standards Australia New Zealand

The Treasury


20


Attachment BSubmissions ListThe following stakeholders provided submissions to the Agricultural Export Regulation Review:

Name of Submission

Australian Cotton Shippers Association

Animal Health Australia

Australian Forest Products Association

Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association

AUSVEG

Bejo

Ben Furney Flour Mills

Brownes Dairy

CBH Group

Cotton Australia

Dairy Australia

Emerald Grain

Grain Producers Australia

GrainGrowers

JBS

Midway Limited

Northern Territory Farmers Association

Pastoralists and Graziers of Western Australia

Pet Food Industry Association of Australia

Tasmanian Shipping Supplies

Teys Australia

Confidential submission





21

Date post:	30-Jan-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhthuan
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Standard report template with sample Web viewAgricultural Export Regulation Review: ... regulation...

Documents