Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

We have some better ones than that. I also want to talk a little bit about the second part of this bill—that is, the equine influenza assistance. In general, my comments in relation to the program to eliminate equine influenza will be complimentary because I think we have done quite well as governments and as a community to try and address these issues. It now seems very likely, assuming there are no further outbreaks, that the elimination—which many people thought would not be possible at all—will happen well ahead of the best possible estimates. That is commendable. We are not quite through it yet; there is still potential for further outbreaks, but there has been good progress. That is important because a lot of people have been hurt very much by this outbreak. It is an example of how disease can cause problems in a community when it occurs. As to why it occurred, that is the subject of an inquiry. I think we all need to look very closely at what the circumstances were, what the facts are and then whether there are things that can be done to avoid a recurrence in the future.

There was early attention on the horseracing industry. They adopted a high profile, they were in the media, so most of the resources were initially put into protecting the horseracing industry. But there were many others who were adversely affected, including the recreational riders, the produce stores and the farriers. Many shows and pony clubs simply could not proceed with events that they wanted to hold. That has had real financial impact. In my own area, even though there were no cases of equine influenza, the area was simply closed down and a major training facility and events stadium has been unable to operate for many months. That has had a huge impact on produce stores and others.

A government assistance program was put in place, and that has been helpful, although it has been difficult for people to qualify for it. The state authorities that administer it have adopted a pretty heavy hand in relation to some of these issues and many people that are clearly deserving have simply been unable to qualify. So, whilst I welcome the extension of the assistance on a timed basis, I think we also need to look at some of the cases that have been excluded from the assistance as to whether there can be some further support.

I will also comment briefly on the way in which this outbreak was addressed. There was a higher level of cooperation between the states, the industry and the federal government than has normally occurred. It is true that the New South Wales state government were very slow to come on board, but eventually they did. The legislation before the House makes it clear that it is the industry itself that is going to have to bear much of this cost. From memory, the minister said 85 per cent of the cost is going to come from the industry by way of some future levy program.

This response contrasts quite dramatically with the way in which the states reacted to outbreaks such as citrus canker. The states were incredibly slow to come on board. Many have resisted it all the way through and refused to provide any kind of assistance whatsoever. Even after it was agreed that there should be some assistance provided, Queensland never came to the party with its share of the compensation package. That is an extremely disappointing attitude from the Queensland state Labor government.

Queensland also has form in relation to fire ants. The responsible minister at the time, Henry Palaszczuk, simply did not tell the truth to the other states or the federal government about the cost of the fire ant eradication program and the capacity for it to succeed. I wonder whether, if the ministers and the officials at the time had known that program was going to cost in excess of $1 billion, it would have even begun, because the program is not there yet, and we still do not know whether it is going to succeed. There was an incredible lack of cooperation between the state authorities, the industry and the community. To get all the states on board in one of these eradication programs is almost impossible. In the case of black sigatoka, none of the states would come on board and the industry ended up doing it themselves. The scientists said it could not be done. The advice given to all of the people making the decisions was that this was a forlorn and wasted exercise, and in reality the industry did it themselves. It is an incredible compliment to the banana industry that they had faith where the experts did not and they proved the experts wrong.

I think it is essential, if these programs are to be effective, for there to be a higher level of cooperation, for the industry to be engaged and for there to be an acceptance that the community wants these sorts of things to happen. Our pest- and disease-free status is precious and it is something that we need to maintain and preserve even though the costs are high. We may eliminate equine influenza, but that does not mean it will not come back again sometime. Like all viruses it can travel, and we could have another problem. This case, like those of black sigatoka and the papaya fruit fly, is an extraordinary example of Australia’s quarantine measures working well and, when there has been a breakdown, the secondary levels achieving the objective. What was clearly absent in many instances in the past was the willingness of the state authorities, who have the primary responsibility—they are the only governments that have a power of entry in relation to quarantine issues, so they have a key role to play—to take up the cudgels. They have been unwilling to bear their load. I hope that the success of the equine influenza eradication program will encourage them to do better in the future.

The opposition supports the legislation. As I mentioned earlier, these are essentially funding measures. For that reason they are clearly extra meritorious, but they will do something to help ease the burden of drought in some affected areas and to ensure that there is an effective funding regime in place to continue our assault on equine influenza with the objective of achieving a satisfactory outcome.

Drought assistance is particularly important in those areas that are enduring the effects of drought. As I said when fewer members were in the House, there are a significant number of areas where drought is still a problem, even though through parts of my electorate and other parts of Queensland, and especially through some parts of New South Wales, flooding is currently an issue. We need to not forget that there are some people who have been without significant rainfall for four, five, six or seven years, and for them the pain and hardship are real. We as Australians need to be with them in their time of difficulty and assure them of our continuing support. That is the objective of this legislation and similar legislation that has provided drought assistance previously. I commend these bills to the House.

See this speech in context