Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Hansard source

Those opposite can take objection, but my experience of Senator Ferris is that she is much more concerned about quarantine than her contribution today reflected. Sometimes we have obligations to present arguments in this place that we may not be altogether comfortable with. I do not say anything more than that this was not a contribution that I found consistent with the strong position that Senator Ferris has taken in relation to quarantine in many debates and in the many committee proceedings that I have been involved in. But I understand the process. Senator Ferris was charged to represent the government view, and she did.

What I found very interesting was that references to the involvement of the minister and to new staff, more staff and more money in this process did not allow Senator Ferris to talk about things being right. On at least two occasions, Senator Ferris said, ‘Nevertheless, the system is not perfect.’ Perfection is something that we probably ought to aspire to. But I thought that in the context of the presentation it was interesting that Senator Ferris was prepared to concede that there were problems in the system.

Senator Ferris did try to introduce what I regard as a confusion into the argument when she talked about the fact that, because we are an island nation and people travel here, there is necessarily risk. Of course, there is inherent risk for any nation. Our risk is greater because we have fewer of the pests and diseases of the world and therefore we have more to lose. So what should we be aspiring to—what we have, the less than perfect or the best system that we can have?

Our proposal for an inquiry was to test just how good our system is. It was not on the basis of a whim but on the basis of a request from an important farming organisation. That request was based on an independent report which made significant criticisms of the existing system. We did not come here on a whim to propose an inquiry; we came here at the request of an important farming organisation and based upon an important report into deficiencies in the system.

Another committee in 2003 were prepared to make a finding generally in favour of the quarantine arrangements that we have. I very much doubt that they were not in some way critical of the quarantine arrangements given that this committee—the committee we are proposing to refer this matter to—has been critical of a number of aspects of the performance of AQIS and Biosecurity Australia since that time. Be that as it may, even if they were totally uncritical, the fact is that four years would have elapsed since the conducting of that inquiry and from the time the inquiry concluded. That, in my view, renders the JCPAA findings obsolete.

They are obsolete in terms of some of the events that have occurred since that time. They are obsolete in terms of the observations of this committee regarding the performance of AQIS and Biosecurity Australia in relation to citrus canker. They are obsolete in terms of the performance of AQIS and Biosecurity Australia in the importation of Philippine bananas. Indeed, they are obsolete in relation to the problems we have perceived with Brazilian beef being dumped at the Wagga Wagga tip. If the article in the Weekly Times is any indication, there are other matters that render the findings of the JCPAA obsolete.

I did not think that the office of the Auditor-General looked at scientific issues in its inquiries but, rather, at economic and procedural performance in accordance with the guidelines set down, so I would not have regarded the Auditor-General’s findings relevant as to whether the inquiry that we propose should be conducted. I am surprised that that matter was raised.

The fact that the government decided back in 1997 that it did not want to have a statutory authority in the quarantine area is entirely irrelevant to whether the Senate thinks we should look at that proposition again now. What the contribution of Senator Ferris suggested to us is that, because the government and the minister have decided that that is what they decided back in 1997 and they do not want it explored, we should not have an inquiry. Frankly, that is not a basis for the Senate to make a decision. It might be the basis for government senators directed on this matter, but it is not a basis for this chamber to make a decision.

When it all boils down, what do we have as the basis for the proposal that the government will not support this inquiry? It is the suggestion that the National Farmers Federation are opposed to the conduct of the inquiry. I find it remarkable that that was suggested to be the case, given that there has been no communication to anyone else in this parliament that they are opposed to it. I just wonder at what level such a decision was taken within the National Farmers Federation. They are an organisation with many constituent parts. I wonder whether someone has taken authority beyond their power and acquiesced perhaps to a request from government for the NFF to say that they do not support the inquiry. I would be very interested in the answer. I will be asking the National Farmers Federation just how it came about that they were in the ear of government, acquiescing to what was no doubt a government proposition that they disagree with the proposition that we hold an inquiry. I would be very interested to know who was involved in that decision and how widely consultation was taken before the decision was made.

What I do know is that the New South Wales Farmers Association took their decision at a properly constituted meeting to request the Senate inquiry. They put it to a vote. The minutes of that meeting, copies of which I have been given, indicate that the proposition that there be an inquiry was supported unanimously. That was one of only two motions at that conference—which lasted a couple of days—which were supported unanimously. To me, that indicates that there is widespread concern, at least in the New South Wales farming community, about the issues which we propose be examined in this inquiry.

So all that I can conclude is that the government has decided that it must shield its minister, its agencies and its department from such an inquiry because it could be embarrassing. That is what government senators will be voting to support. We are under no illusions. There are not many motions for inquiries that succeed in this chamber now that the government has the numbers, but I really think that government senators ought to have a hard look at themselves in the context of this inquiry. This is an inquiry about an important issue for Australia. This is not an inquiry about politics, but if it is defeated it will be defeated because the government politically does not want it, not because it is not needed.