House debates
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
Bills
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012; Consideration in Detail
5:54 pm
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Hansard source
To begin, the member for Calare asked questions regarding myrtle rust and the related issue of guava rust. The information I have is as follows: myrtle rust was first detected on the Central Coast of New South Wales in April 2010, as the member for Calare referred to in his question. It is not known and never has been known how it entered Australia. The rust fungi do produce spores which are carried by wind. They can be carried on people's clothing; they can also be carried on plants or goods that are shipped around the world. Myrtle rust does belong to a group known as the guava rust complex; it is part of that group. It is native to South America and is present in the United States and Mexico. Immediately after it was identified as myrtle rust the Commonwealth-state Consultative Committee on Emergency Plant Pests developed a response plan to attempt to eradicate the fungus. I am advised that after several months of effort it was determined in December 2010 that it was not technically feasible to eradicate it. The member for Calare asked quite specifically how these decisions are made and why we make the judgment call that we do. It is on the best available scientific information that comes forward. I do believe that is the appropriate way for advice to be given to a minister.
A similar question was asked by the member for Calare, the shadow minister, with respect to Asian honeybees. We do need to remember that when Asian honeybees were first found, in May 2007, the agriculture minister was Peter McGauran, a former member for Gippsland. No immediate action was taken by Minister McGauran. I should read directly from the notes of Minister Ludwig: 'In fact it took the Labor government under Minister Tony Burke to approve the funding to combat this pest.' But, in fairness to Peter McGauran, at that point you initially do your assessments, you work out whether to use containment or eradication, and you work out what might be possible. He did what I have just described as subsequent ministers doing, and that is to take the best available scientific advice that is in front of you. That is why the decision was taken on Asian honeybees. Subsequent decisions were similarly taken on the basis of scientific advice which came forward.
The member for Gippsland then asked about pest animals generally, with specific reference to wild dogs and other animals. The first answer to that is that, in working these issues through with the states, eradication jobs in the first instance do fall to state jurisdictions. They then come to a ministerial council where it is worked out whether a cooperative approach might be possible. The department does fund a number of surveillance programs from the Office of the Chief Veterinary Officer. We do work closely with state and territory governments but funding is also available through Landcare, the National Landcare Program, and through Caring for our Country. I will simply give an example which, while it is probably not of great concern to the Victorian end of the country, is one of the great examples of the extraordinary damage that is done by an invasive species, and that is the damage currently being caused across the north of Australia in the rangelands by camels. One of the biggest projects that Caring for our Country has ever undertaken was $19 million to deal with the problem of camels across the country. One of the challenges is that whenever we act we need to do it at the same time as the states are acting. (Extension of time granted) Otherwise, all you do is keep trimming the numbers rather than making a real impact. When it can be coordinated, and from time to time it is done, there is an opportunity to be able to have a very direct impact on invasive species. The member for Calare also asked about the Export Certification Reform Package and specific undertakings which were given by me at the time. I will try to get more information during the course of this session—or, if not, provide it subsequently—on the independent auditing. I do remember dealing with the issue at the time. I just want to make sure that my recollection matches the most up-to-date advice. If you can bear with me, I will seek further information on that; hopefully, we can get that information. The information I have deals with the implementation of a number of issues but not specifically the audit that the member for Calare referred to. I do not want to waste your time with the other parts of it.
The issue of New Zealand apples was also raised. I do not yet have information on that here, which is probably as you would want it. That will also arrive shortly. I will move to the issue of biosecurity reforms, which was raised by the member for Makin, but, firstly, I flag for the member for Calare that the issue of the National Skills Needs List would, I suspect, be better directed to a different section of the estimates process. I am not sure of the extent to which we will be able to get direct information on that tonight. I suspect that is a list maintained through a different portfolio and the question may well be best asked of that portfolio.
On the issue of apples, a science based review is being conducted by Biosecurity Australia of Australia's import policy for New Zealand apples. The question was asked in terms of why New Zealand is responsible for a lot of these decisions. The information that I have is that Biosecurity Australia is conducting the science based review of Australia's import policy for New Zealand apples. The review is being conducted because the World Trade Organisation found that our import policy for New Zealand apples was not supported by the science. We fought that in the international court, as growers and all Australians expected us to, but we now have to deal with the decision as it came down. As I say, it is Biosecurity Australia that is conducting that review on Australia's import policy as a result of that decision.
I now turn to the question from the member for Makin on biosecurity reforms generally. We need to remember where the biosecurity reform process came from. Members—fewer on the Victorian side of the border, I have to say, but everybody north of that—will very much remember the impact that equine influenza had across much of the east of Australia.
No comments