Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In rising to speak strongly in support of the Biosecurity (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014 and those bills associated with it, it is disappointing to register the contributions by Senator Singh and Senator Cameron before her, two people who have had absolutely and utterly nothing to do with the formulation of the legislation we have before us. I am delighted to be able to record that here in the chamber with me are Senators Heffernan, Sterle and Siewert, who with me have been vitally associated with this legislation and its development over time—the transition to where we are today.

I suppose the best reflection of when you do not know what you are talking about is to spend 20 minutes ignorantly focusing on one or two very, very small areas that, in the overall context of the legislation, pale into insignificance. But, for Senator Singh's interest, the original inspector-general position had its origins as the inspector-general of horse imports as a result of the equine influenza outbreak that we had, which led to the Beale review and to others. Before she goes, I would just like Senator Singh to know that the inspector-general, Dr Michael Bond, is a very close personal friend. We are both Western Australians and were both at Queensland university in the 1960s, and I have maintained a very close association with him since that time. For that position to be belittled and to be focused on for the length of time it has! Dr Bond and the gentleman before him have been—and I am sure inspectors-general into the future will be—fiercely independent. If Senator Singh is in any doubt at all, she need just go back to the questions asked in Senate estimates of the inspector-general and about the role he plays and, in fact, his independence in terms of the questioning.

I did not even want to speak about partisanship, because this has been such a strongly bipartisan move that gets us to where we are today, and it is disappointing when people descend to political partisanship, especially in something of the importance of agriculture. I just reflect that this replaces a bill that came into existence in 1908, some 107 years ago. Senator Singh was going on about Minister Joyce having all these powers, almost as if they are particular to him. Does she think that he is going to still be the minister in 107 years time? Not even Minister Joyce hopes for that outcome.

But let us reflect briefly on what would have been the circumstances in 1908. Exports were of no interest at all. The newly formed states, once the colonies, were desperately trying to feed their populations. The concept of import was almost unknown. We were desperately trying to produce and to sustain those communities as they grew. Also, of course, one of the imperatives for Federation was to be able to try to normalise trade across what became state borders. So the concept of a Quarantine Act in 1908, important and all as it was, of course was totally and utterly different to where we are in 2015. And let us hope that, as a result of the excellence of the work that we are doing here and into the future, this 2014-15 bill will hold good as indeed the original Quarantine Act 1908 did. Of course, it was modified some 50 times. Yes, it was the previous government that introduced the first draft of the Biosecurity Bill that we are discussing, but to minimise, trivialise and simply say it is some failure of an Abbott government that we did not bring the legislation in five minutes out trivialises the importance of the work that has been done by senators in this place, by departments and by ministerial officers to get to where we are today.

And there may be further changes needed. If there are, all well and good, but how important are the agriculture and agribusiness industries of this nation, currently generating in excess of $50 billion a year, more than 77 per cent of which is export? That is a critically important thing for people to understand. We are an exporting nation. From our own home state of Western Australia, as Senators Siewert and Sterle know only too well, we export more than 95 per cent of our grain. We cannot consume it. And so, when people say to us, 'Why is it so necessary that we are trading internationally not only in the Asian region but beyond?' it is because we depend on export trade. As a result of that, we must allow import trade, and so the Biosecurity Bill goes to the issues associated with it.

In 2012-13—and contrast this to 1908—there were some 16 million international passenger arrivals, 186 million international mail items, 1.7 million sea cargo consignments and more than 26 million air cargo consignments. We know that, when the children sitting up in the gallery now are adults, those numbers will have increased exponentially. Therefore, while you are watching this you need to know that legislation we are debating here will have an impact on you as young adolescents and as adults. As you travel overseas, as you study, as you develop your links overseas, everything that relates to this Biosecurity Bill will be critically important to you. When you come back into Australia and wonder why there is quarantine inspection of what you are doing, remember what is being protected here.

We all know the importance of Australia's reputation as a green and safe environmental exporter and producer of foodstuffs. We also know—and again it would be of interest to those who are watching—that we will be feeding 1.9 billion people more in our region alone by 2050. But more importantly than that—the events recently with hepatitis A only serve to emphasise it—is that that community of people to whom we have the opportunity to continue providing foodstuffs want even more security of supply and greater safety of supply when we look at the risks. The Chinese—only one example—say that a hungry man is an angry man, and the government of President Xi is all about making sure his community does not become angry. So the opportunities that we have are enormous.

For me, one of the absolute delights of this legislation found its way as a joint submission in January of last year by the departments of agriculture and health. Why is that so critically important? Simply because we have got to have the world understand the one-health approach, not a health department associated with human health and a department of agriculture associated with animals and plants. It is well known internationally that more than 65 per cent of all human infectious and probably parasitic diseases have their origins in animals, and so therefore this legislation, in my view, is groundbreaking because it combines into the Biosecurity Bill those elements that are required in associating ourselves with the risks to human health and indeed those for which agriculture has responsibility.

The concept is of us joining human health and agricultural responsibilities into the one biosecurity bill to address the risks of pests and diseases that may be coming into this country. We need only think of the risk of the Ebola virus at the moment. We have the Hendra virus, which has killed a number of my veterinary colleagues. That same virus, borne through bats in this case into horses and on to humans, with a mortality rate in excess of 70 per cent is exactly the same virus as the Nipah virus, which in Malaysia, India and Bangladesh has caused and is causing the deaths of children and adults as a result of that virus coming through bats to pigs to humans and indeed directly from bats to humans. So that is just one area of significant importance in this Biosecurity Bill before us. I think that is what made me so disappointed when all I could hear from Senator Singh and Senator Cameron was some mention about an inspector general. Important and all though that position is and occupied though it is by my very close friend Dr Bond, there is far more to it.

I ask you to reflect for a moment on the figure I just gave, which is that agriculture contributes some $50 billion to the Australian economy. It has been estimated by ABARES that, if Australia gets foot and mouth disease,—and as a veterinarian I would extend that comment to 'when Australia gets foot and mouth disease'—if it spreads nationally, the estimated figure of the cost to eradicate foot and mouth disease is the same figure—$50,000 million. If there is one state alone, be it Western Australia, Queensland or the Northern Territory, into which the disease is going to come, the cost estimate is somewhere between $3½ billion and $5½ billion. As, I believe, Senators Siewert, Sterle and Heffernan would know, those are just the direct costs. They are not the costs associated with stopping the movement of people across the north. Imagine that now, in March, at the end of the wet season, we got foot and mouth disease across the north of Australia and we had to put a halt to vehicle movements, in other words, halt tourism across the north of Australia. That $50 billion would be short change compared to the overall impact on the economy of the north. Why do I say 'when' rather than 'if'? I am not suggesting to you that the presence of veterinarians is going to stop foot and mouth disease. Between Geraldton and Darwin we have one Commonwealth veterinary officer for the risk of a disease that would decimate this country's economy. So, there are very, very important elements in this bill associated with the capacity of this country to be able to deal with an incursion.

Of course, because of those figures that I quoted earlier, we have had to move to a risk based approach. In other words, we cannot guarantee that there will be no incursion of any organisms into Australia. Senators Sterle and Heffernan were very much involved when there was a strong request by America, Canada and Japan to allow beef to come into this country. Of course Canada and America did have—and probably in Canada's case it still does have—BSE, mad cow disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy. At the time there was pressure on the then minister, Mr Burke, by the then Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, and the then trade minister, Mr Crean, to allow that beef to come into this country without there being the discipline of an import risk analysis. Senator Heffernan and Senator Sterle would well remember this, and maybe Senator Siewert would remember also. We had a number of hearings into that issue. Japan fell out as an applicant because they got foot and mouth disease. The Americans could not meet what Australia imposes on itself, which is a national livestock identification scheme for cattle. I do recall it was about this time in 2010 when we had what turned out to be the last hearing when I said to the then chief veterinary officer, 'Well, Dr Carroll, are you going to tell us about the seven-year-old Angus cow from Manitoba in Canada that has BSE, or am I?' and that led, of course, to Minister Burke requiring that there be a full import risk analysis. I make that point because the processes in place in this bill will ensure that there is a full biosecurity import risk analysis.

Time does not permit me in this discussion to actually go through all of the safeguards that are in place. Contrary to the comments made earlier about what role the Department of Agriculture might have, or what role the minister might have, it is the parliament that has responsibility to the Australian taxpayer. The reason I used the example of the importation of BSE beef, or beef from countries that have had it, was simply to make the point and to remind the chamber that on that occasion, despite the intense pressure of then Prime Minister and the then trade minister, eventually the then agriculture minister made the right decision. That decision was made as a result of the processes of the Senate, and the processes of the Senate required that there be an inquiry and that there be a number of hearings. The inadequacy of the original decision process was, in fact, exposed and the then minister made the right decision. History records, of course, that the Americans, the Canadians and the Japanese on that occasion all withdrew. It just makes the point that the parliament must always have the right and the role.

There are issues associated with regionality. We have a rich difference regionally in this country. The island state of Tasmania has certain advantages and challenges by virtue of it being insular. Australia, indeed, has certain benefits as a result of being an island continent. We in Western Australia have a whole series of different sets of circumstances, and each state and territory would claim those. I am pleased to see in the legislation that there is acknowledgement of regional differences within the overall capacity to deal.

If I have one concern, it is the question of regulations. The committee, which prides itself on putting policy before politics and has done so for some years, made a number of very, very important recommendations to which the government responded. For those interested, they should get hold of the responses by the government to the recommendations. Many of them are not in the act itself, if proclaimed, but in the regulations. Some of the issues that we have discussed here today are, for example, the demand to obtain independent scientific expertise, the demand and the right of wide consultation, the expectation and the opportunity of those who are likely to be adversely affected by decisions to be given further information prior to a final decision being made, and there are others that relate to the regulations. The point that I want to make, and I would make it whether or not we were in government or in opposition, is that the Senate committee must have the right to review those draft regulations, to examine them and to challenge them, if need be, before they are accepted. That is a normal process.

There are some definitions, for example, associated with external territory. There is some change in definition to the 12-mile limit rather than the 200-mile economic exclusion zone. There are issues associated with ballast water. The 1908 act was silent on ballast water in ships. I do not want to make light of it, except to say how critically important this is. What pleases me about this legislation, which was started by the previous government—to whom I give credit—which is being continued now and which will hopefully be completed by this chamber is the fact that it can be a living document; it can grow as time needs. We are all aware that the future of this country lies in our agricultural production, our agricultural exports and, indeed, our reputation.