Download Fragment

Monday, 19 September 2011
Page: 10620

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (11:44): It is with great pride that I stand to talk about this important matter before the chamber which has been put forward by the member for Sturt. This motion comes in good time as spring is almost upon us, when it is a nice warm day here in Canberra and when it was certainly a warm weekend in Brisbane. This is the time when we should be applying 'Weed and Feed' to our lawns and fertilising our gardens in preparation for the growing seasons. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of this job is that my garden does not always get the attention it deserves. But this motion has, at the very least, prompted me to turn some attention to my garden in the coming weeks. The member for Sturt is right. Like most products, fertilisers can be used in the wrong way and occasionally with damaging results. I once heard a story of a bloke—I am pretty sure he was a constituent—who was gifted a square of grass from the Gabba cricket ground, because now they drop in ovals and the like and they do resurfacing. And so precious was this grass, especially in Queensland, that he took it home, planted it in his backyard, nurtured it, watered it and, for those cricket and Aussie Rules fans, developed his own piece of the Gabba or his own slice of history.

When he moved house years later, he dug up a sample of the grass so that he could take it to his new property so that he had a little slice of the Gabba at his new home. However, the next year he went to fertilise his precious lawn that he had taken with him as he moved house but, instead of applying fertiliser, he poisoned it with something like Roundup. Therefore, he ended up killing his own backyard piece of the Gabba forever. It just goes to show that you can make mistakes in applying simple fertilisers. It makes me wonder what has prompted this motion from the member for Sturt. Has he had a strange or a bad experience in his garden? Has he been exposed to too much manure?

Mr Gibbons: Or is he a precious petal?

Mr PERRETT: I take that interjection, but I am talking garden wise not policy wise, Member for Bendigo. Has he applied the wrong fertiliser and inadvertently killed his hydrangeas? Who knows? I hope not, for his sake. Nevertheless, Australia certainly uses a lot of fertiliser. Each year Australians apply between five and six million tonnes, obviously, mostly in farming but a lot is still applied to domestic gardens. We export up to 400,000 tonnes of fertiliser a year. Any fertilisers imported into Australia must meet strict quarantine requirements for maximum permissible concentrations of certain impurities.

All states already have rules regarding the labelling of fertilisers and that is obviously appropriate. These labels concern appropriate use and application guidelines. Fertiliser labels generally must include the name of the fertiliser, the quantity by weight or by volume, the name and full business address of the wholesaler and all the relevant warnings, particularly about safe handling and all those other occupational health and safety requirements that we need to be aware of.

The gentleman I mentioned earlier, who perhaps could have saved his Gabba turf had he simply read the label or asked for advice from the staff at his local hardware store, particularly if it is a small hardware store rather than one of those big megastores. If in doubt, consumers need to make inquires at the place of purchase about the best product for their desired purpose. If a customer is given the wrong advice, then obviously they are protected under normal consumer law protections. All consumers are able to seek redress if the goods they buy are not suitable for the purpose that was advertised. In Queensland, this would be as per the Sale of Goods Act, and there is similar legislation throughout Australia.

I understand that these consumer guarantees cover goods and services up to the value of $40,000. It would be hard, though, to compensate or replace the original Gabba turf—it is not the sort of thing that you would go to court to receive recompense for—or, if you are a Victorian, a piece of the MCG or whatever your particular piece of special grass.

I do appreciate the concerns of the member for Sturt. However, I think there is a little bit of hypocrisy here. He does not come in here and talk about a national curriculum to drive improvement to our children's education. He does not believe in national education standards for our children but, through this motion that he has introduced, he has shown that he is very passionate about establishing a national standard for fertiliser and compost products. I guess that, sometimes in politics, you just have to follow your heart. Australia already has a voluntary safety standard in place: AS4454. The Australian standards for compost, soil conditioners and mulches include guidance on the required pH levels so that you can guide even a novice gardener like me through to what is required. Significant penalties can apply where a product that claims to meet Australian Standard 4454 yet does not. This may breach the misleading representations provisions of the Australian consumer law. Obviously it is difficult to enforce these things, especially if you are just a normal suburban gardener—it is not the sort of thing you would probably rush off to the courts to enforce but there still are those protections there.

The member for Sturt may have more people going through his electorate door who are keen to talk about compost. However, I have only been in parliament for about four years and I think I could say that I have not had anyone come to my office, write to me, email me or make contact in any way to talk about fertiliser labelling or excessive pH levels in these products. Lots of people have come to talk to me about carbon levels, but never about the pH levels in the products. They are concerned about the impact if the opposition votes against the Carbon Farming Initiative—a lot of people have spoken to me about that but never about pH levels, but I live and wait. I do understand that when government increases regulation the compliance costs will in turn increase for business, and obviously consumers will lose out in the end through increased product costs.

As there is currently no widespread community concern, we simply cannot justify making consumers foot the bill for what, on the surface, would appear to be quite an unnecessary government regulation. However, if the member for Sturt does have evidence of a widespread problem in the fertiliser and compost industry, the government will talk to the state and territory fair trading regulators. That would be the more appropriate body to regulate this because, as I said, there is already an established process.

We have paid a lot of attention to fertiliser over the years after we saw the amazing situation a few years back in the United States where a building was blown up by people inappropriately using fertiliser so now it is much more controlled. There is a much healthier approach to what fertiliser should be sold and where it should be sold. I would suggest to the member for Sturt—and I am not sure if he is the best gardener in the world or not, if he has time for that—that he turn instead to the state and territory fair trading regulators and the approaches they have to controlling the fertiliser industry.

As I said earlier, now is the time—with September upon us and the equinox this week—when people will be turning to their gardens in the school holidays or in their spare time and they will be able to decide how best to use their fertiliser to improve their gardens. Obviously it would be much more appropriate to do that by consultation with the person who sells them the fertiliser rather than by being concerned with the motion put forward by the member for Sturt. I have a lot more faith in our state and territory fair trading regulators and I am sure that they will be able to work out what is needed to be done in this area, and they are best placed to assess any need for further labelling regulations. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.