General Debate

Agriculture Industry

House of Representatives · Monday 7 September 2026

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate centred on a motion moved by Bob Katter calling for stricter controls on agricultural imports to protect domestic farmers from biosecurity threats and unfair competition. Opposition members argued that current government policies allowed harmful imports and failed to level the playing field against foreign producers with lower standards. Government members defended the existing science-based biosecurity system, highlighting significant funding for border protection and recent successes in opening export markets for Australian produce. They contended that the proposed motion’s criteria were unworkable and would jeopardise Australia’s access to international trade. The debate concluded with members reiterating their respective positions on food security and trade policy.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Bob Katter (Kennedy) (Katter's Australian Party) KAP

Katter moved a motion acknowledging the high input costs faced by Australian farmers and the low level of government subsidies compared to other nations. Katter argued that allowing imports without strict conditions had led to devastating biosecurity outbreaks, such as black sigatoka and citrus canker, which damaged local industries. Katter called for the rejection of fresh produce import applications unless the exporting country demonstrated no biosecurity risk, no negative economic impact, and equivalent environmental and labour standards. Katter also urged the introduction of legislation prohibiting imports from countries that do not comply with international obligations regarding slavery, child labour, and environmental practices.

Opposition response

Andrew Willcox (Dawson) (Liberal National Party) LNP

Willcox supported the motion, arguing that Australian farmers faced an unfair disadvantage due to high input costs and regulations while competing with imports produced under lower standards. Willcox criticised the government for allowing farmland to be acquired for carbon credits rather than food production, stating this undermined national food security. Willcox asserted that imports should only be permitted if they met Australian standards for environmental protection, chemical usage, and fair labour practices. Willcox emphasised that protecting the agricultural sector was essential for maintaining regional jobs and national resilience.

Rowan Holzberger (Forde) (Australian Labor Party) ALP oppose

Holzberger highlighted his background in agriculture and the importance of government support during crises such as the millennium drought. Holzberger noted the opening of the Australian AgriBusiness Institute in his electorate as a positive step for training future agricultural experts. Holzberger referenced the government’s successful prevention of foot-and-mouth disease entry as evidence of effective biosecurity management. Holzberger indicated that while he respected the motion’s intent, his party would vote against it.
Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo) (Centre Alliance) Centre Alliance support

Sharkie raised concerns about pending import applications for pineapples and bananas, arguing they posed significant biosecurity risks and threatened local jobs. Sharkie detailed specific pests associated with imports from India and Indonesia and noted the lack of registered chemicals to combat them in Australia. Sharkie cited the negative impact of cheap citrus imports in the 1990s and the high proportion of imported pork in supermarkets as evidence of market displacement. Sharkie argued that entertaining these import proposals failed to prioritise Australian farmers.
Trish Cook (Bullwinkel) (Australian Labor Party) ALP oppose

Cook defended the government’s commitment to agricultural resilience, citing the development of the Feeding Australia national food security strategy. Cook highlighted recent achievements in market access, including opening 50 new markets and restoring access to 19 critical pathways. Cook explained that import assessments are rigorous, science-based processes that do not guarantee approval and involve consultation with growers. Cook emphasised that the government had invested over $2 billion in strengthening the biosecurity system.
Dan Repacholi (Hunter) (Australian Labor Party) ALP oppose

Repacholi used the recovery of Hunter Valley wine exports to China as an example of the benefits of fair trade access. Repacholi argued that the motion’s demand for zero biosecurity risk and identical production costs was unworkable and would invite retaliation against Australian exports. Repacholi stated that import applications are assessed by independent experts and rejected if risks cannot be managed to strict standards. Repacholi reiterated the government’s investment in biosecurity and the importance of maintaining a rules-based trading system.

Opened by

Bob Katter (Kennedy) (Katter's Australian Party)

KAP

Speeches

6 speeches, 4 other contributors

Topics

Agriculture Trade

Debate Agriculture Industry General Debate, 14 Sep 2026 · Shared topics: Agriculture, Trade
Debate Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026; Second Reading Bill Debate, 10 Sep 2026 · Shared topic: Agriculture
Question Time Senate Question Time 17 Sep 2026 · Shared topics: Agriculture, Trade
Question Time Senate Question Time 8 Sep 2026 · Shared topics: Agriculture, Trade

About House of Representatives debates

The House of Representatives debates bills, motions and matters of public importance in its main chamber. Members from all parties can take part, and the responsible minister usually replies for the government. Summaries are in reported speech, not transcripts; always check the official record before quoting.