Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 6:37:18 to 6:46:02
Senators challenge the adequacy of the $4.6 million package for a $6 billion industry and discuss potential reforms to the wine levy structure to ensure long-term viability.
Topics: Agricultural research and levies, Government spending
Speakers: Speaker 28, Speaker 12, Speaker 18, Speaker 27, Speaker 1
>> Sure. Because I mean it just sort of goes back to you know the the grape and wine sector long-term viability support package the 4.6 million that you've just kindly run through. I mean when you consider um you know it's it's less than sort of 0.001% of the economic contribution um of the wine industry to the economy. I'm sort of keen to understand. So what sort of analysis determined the level of funding that was adequate for um this viability support package?
>> Well, I think that my colleague spoken to the the engagement that occurred, Senator. So um what we were driven by was both um an there was analysis, there was a there was a report done um but there was also engagement and um maybe Mr. Danny, you might want to characterize the the working group's composition in a bit more detail, but it did include industry representation and states state representation as well. >> Um, and then and then done as well.
>> It was those people that you met with who said $4.6 million will do the job.
Well, they I don't know that there was a um a dollar number um that was characterized um through those conversations. What it pointed to was the types of activities that would be of utility to the industry.
>> Yeah. Look, I mean, I would contest it's manifestly inadequate given the size of the industry. So, just interested um can you give us a comparison? Um
>> Senator before you you asked that question I might just finish your last question which was about the analysis and and the report that was done.
>> Uh so yes that was uh that working group comprised Commonwealth and state and territory government representatives as well as Australian grape and wine um and wine Australia. Um there was economic analysis that was commissioned as well by >> do you table that >> Dr. Anderson? Yep. It's I think it's a
public available. So where would I be able to follow the bouncing ball to say that $4.6 million as a structural, you know, long-term viability support package was adequate for a $6 billion industry that's on its knees? >> Is there is there a pathway I can follow to get that through your economic
analysis? >> Uh certainly welcome to examine the economic analysis, Senator. Um I'm not sure that um the way you've framed the policy question is the same way that we
framed the policy question. >> Okay. But I mean the cold hard facts $4.6 million for a long-term viability support package for an industry that is worth $6 billion. Um just interested then how does the support um for this adjustment package compare with other adjustment packages that um agricultural sectors in comparable market dis you know sort of like disruptions have received
>> um we probably have to take that on
notice Senator. Okay, Senator, >> I might just add something else. Join stand in first assistant secretary agricultural policy division. Um, as well as the 4.6 million for the long-term viability package. I think it's important to also recognize the money that goes into Wine Australia for research and development um in for the long-term support of the industry and its productivity.
>> So, how much money does the federal government put into Wine Australia this
year? I don't have that to hand I don't think I'll >> try and come back come back to you on
that senator. >> We should be able to do that in the
course session. >> So in the absence of wine Australia being here I can't ask them this but I'm I'm keen to understand whether you're aware if there's been any anticipation in a significant decline in the n in the levies that are likely to be provided to the various bodies including wine Australia because of the global downturn in demand for wine. Do you have any idea of the kind of reduct reduction in the amount of money that wine Australia will actually be able to access for programs?
>> We we not sure if they've done modeling necessarily, but they would have that and I think there has been a reduction. I don't have the figures to hand because you know less less production also and and less exports means less levies
collected. So >> So um you've given of this $4.6 $6 million for that package. Did that all go to Wine Australia? >> Yes, they're administering it. >> Okay. >> Because what would be really interesting to understand is that, you know, you've got Wine Australia who probably their job is more important now than it's ever been before because of the stresses that are on the the industry. >> Um they I'm sure will be suffering a significant decline in their levy um payments that they're receiving. Um, is the government concerned that at a time when the industry needs support that Wine Australia is not going to be in position to be able to provide the same level of support because of the reduction in the amount of funding that they've been provided?
>> Um, we we we're certainly um engaged in conversations with Wine Australia Senator. Um, we know that they're very much concerned with the long-term viability and productivity of the industry as well. And we know that they're working hard both on the package that we've funded for them and on programs that support the long-term productivity of the industry as well.
So just um finally in relation to levies um the um the one sector plan for levies um I think you know drew some attention to the fact that the levy structure system for was probably not fit for purpose. Is is that a a view that the department holds and what do you think should be done about it if that is your view? I
think the one sector plan was was a a wine Australia sort of industry plan
>> joint joint with wine Australia and AGW. So sort of whole of kind of industry wine Australia plan. >> Yes.
>> But it I think the recommendation that came out of it said that that the levy structure wasn't fit for purpose. Is
that correct? >> And uh I'm not sure about the one sector plan but certainly it was an issue raised in the working group as well. And so one of the recommendations or outcomes of that working group was for AGW to consider um potential changes to the levy structure >> and what's happened there. >> That's that's an action for AGW to take forward. Um I know that they had started work on that started some consultation um on that piece of work with some other bodies but I I can't talk to it um directly. Ultimately any sort of levy changes is um is a matter for industry and and um driven by industry.
>> Okay. Done. >> Chair, sorry. Was I thinking loud?
>> Um, look, I I'm I'm just interested. I mean, I'm assuming the answer is going to be no given all the answers you've already given me, but I'm sort of and I'll put on notice the questions I've got here in relation to, you know, what plans are there? This problem's not going anywhere. We've got an industry that is in various degrees of falling over depending on where they are around the country ranging from you know some regions that are probably doing okay because of their investment particularly in their wine tourism assets but there are other regions like the one that I come from that this is having absolutely catastrophic impact on the economy of the region and nothing looks like it's going to change anytime soon. So, I'll put a heap of questions at notice, but I really would be keen to understand what the federal government thinks um its responsibility is to support an industry that is worth six billion dollars to this country um that's been on its knees now for you know three or four years um and how we can help them and my community of the Riverland to help them actually get on their feet because they don't want handouts. They want help and quite frankly um neither the federal government nor the state government appears to be um really acting with much haste in terms of delivery of that help but I look forward to your responses.
>> Thank you chair. >> Thanks Russ. Can I ask Hans Sardon Brook? I I haven't heard a word you've been saying. Sorry. Is it just me? You
>> want me to do it all again?
>> Sure. >> Yeah sure. We'll come back tomorrow. >> If you could please. >> Thanks. >> I might not be here but you're more than welcome. Um Senator Senator Canavan. Senator, sorry. >> Senator, Senator, Senator, Senator