Horticulture being hit by over regulation, says federal opposition

Mr Littleproud was speaking at the Fair Farms conference, in Melbourne.

Governments should use "common sense" when putting regulatory guiderails around the sector, "then get out of your life as best they can," he said

"We should be putting more emphasis and more financial support into the policing of those who do the wrong thing, rather than taking the easy and cheap options, as politicians and bureaucrats, to over-regulate your lives," he said.

"Policing that minority, cutting them out and removing them from the industry, will do much more than over regulation."

He said the industry was "under siege" from industrial relations policy, "same-work, same-pay" legislation and muti-employer bargaining "that's being imposed on you."

He said if the value of the agricultural sector was to reach $100 billion by 2030 it would be horticulture that would play the pivotal role.

"It will be horticulture that does the heavy lifting," he said.

The Pacific Australia Labour Market scheme had merit, but it would not come anywhere to close to meeting labour requirements.

"We are a long way short, and that affects agriculture investment confidence across agriculture but particularly horticulture," he said.

He said "tearing up" the agriculture visa - which "would be back" if the Coalition won the next election - was based on the "flawed ideology" of the Australian Workers Union.

He accused the AWU in particular of demonising the sector.

Mr Littleproud also repeated claims the AWU had met with foreign ambassadors, telling them not to send their citizens to Australia, as they would be exploited.

"It is the most abhorrent act I have seen any Australian do to their fellow Australian," he told the conference," he said.

"The trust we had built up in our own community was torn down by an ideological view."

The claims were denied by the AWU at the time; the union has been contacted for comment,.

Mr Littleproud also took aim at the PALM scheme saying over regulation was making it unviable.

He claimed there were businesses who had said they would have to walk away from the scheme, because of over-regulation.

At a recent meeting of employers in Queensland, Mr Littleproud said one of the schedules they showed him was that the "onus of responsibility on the vehicles the workers drove to and from work was on the employer.

"When it gets to a court of law, the interpretation by the judge means it hangs around the neck of those producers that are out there.

"This is where there is a disconnect between Canberra and reality."

While the intent of many politicians and bureaucrats was pure, in a regulatory sense, the practical application of the scheme meant someone had to pay.

Changes to the averaging provisions took no account of the weather, as it would compel employers to pay even when staff couldn't work because it was too wet.

"What business in Australia can afford to do that,?" he said.

"Where has common sense gone, when the averaging provisions meant there was a balance and an understanding and appreciation of the agricultural sector?"

Industry was bearing the brunt of regulations that were making business too costly, he said.

There was also an imbalance in the market place and the horticulture sector "was bearing the brunt of that," he said.

The National Party had a very strong view about reform of the Grocery Code of Conduct, he said.