Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Hansard source

Here we are today agreeing that the amendments passed in the Senate, which restored the inspector-general and all his statutory independence, powers and tenure, is a good thing. So in the beginning when I raised this important issue, the minister tried to make light of it, said I was wrong, said Michael Bond the interim inspector-general was alive and well. But today he is welcoming the Senate amendments. The main point here is that we would not be considering this amendment now if the crossbenchers and the Greens in the Senate had not agreed with my assessment of the minister's bill.

Let's go back in history. Labor's 2012 bill was the manifestation of that Beale review and included an independent Inspector-General of Biosecurity. This minister, for reasons only known to him—and he still has not explained his motivation, only known to him—took those provisions out of the bill. Our bill did not run the course of this parliament because of the intervention of the 2013 election. It took this minister 15 months to bring that bill back to the parliament after the election, 15 months. And when he brought it back, we discovered he had gutted the position of Inspector-General of Biosecurity. He has had to back down because the crossbenchers in the Senate and the Greens sided with me in my attempts to reinstate the inspector-general.

The great unknown here is why this minister sought to gut the position of Inspector-General of Biosecurity. What could possibly be the motivation for a minister of the Crown in the agriculture department, overseeing the most important thing in this country in terms of our agricultural sector and indeed our broader economy, leading the agriculture portfolio, seeking to undermine that position? There has to be a story here. There is no obvious explanation. Before we finish this debate today, I think the minister has an obligation to come to that dispatch box and explain why he changed Labor's original bill.

He can stand up here and nuance, and try to pretend that his amendments—and they were substantial—did not undermine the statutory independence of the inspector-general. He can try to do that. He will be unsuccessful. In fact, if he does so, he will be embarrassing himself because it is simply wrong.

See this speech in context