Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I am not picking on the Kiwis, Senator Moore. The fact is we have close economic relationships with New Zealand. We have deep bonds that were forged in blood from the time of the Anzacs, from the time of Gallipoli, and since then. Fire blight is a disease that affects the apple industry. We do not have it here in Australia. New Zealand apples do have it. It causes enormous damage to the apple and pear industries in that nation. We do not want it here.

What concerns me is that at the potato inquiry—my understanding is that there was a bureaucrat who took one of the witnesses from the potato sector to task. I think Senator Colbeck, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, would be appalled by this. The bureaucrat took one of the witnesses aside and said words to the effect: 'How dare you raise this issue! Do you realise that this sort of inquiry, this sort of evidence, actually damages our reputation internationally in free trade forums?' I am sorry, but if it is the Department of Agriculture involved in biosecurity, then its priority ought to be preventing pests and diseases coming into this country and affecting Australian agriculture. Issues of free trade are not its business; it is the issue of protecting Australian industry from pests and diseases.

An enormous amount of work has been done by the current minister and the previous minister in getting to this stage. This bill is a very comprehensive piece of legislation. It needs to be revamped, I understand that, but there are issues in terms of the degree of supervision of this bill, the degree to which this framework ought to be subject to independent scrutiny in a watchdog or ombudsman type role, and I am sure that will be the subject of vigorous debate in the committee stage.

I just want to raise an issue in relation to my position on this. Unambiguously, I can state what my preferred position is. We ought to look at the matters raised in a bill introduced in this place: the Quarantine Amendment (Disallowing Permits) Bill 2011. What that bill effectively did was insert provisions into the act which:

… effectively make the Biosecurity Policy Determinations legislative instruments and provide that any import or removal permit issued otherwise than in accordance with such a disallowable Biosecurity Policy Determination are themselves disallowable by the Parliament.

That is not about political decisions being made; it is about having an extra level of protection in this nation in respect of biosecurity. Once a disease comes into this country—if it is zebra chip, if it is fire blight, if it is foot-and-mouth—that is it; it irrevocably changes that industry and that sector and it damages our clean, green reputation internationally. And we do not want that. I do not think anyone in this place wants that.

My concern is with the risk matrix that has been applied. I remember the strong advocacy by former Senator Boswell in this regard, for the pineapple industry and for bananas in particular. He expressed those concerns time and time again. Former Senator Boswell was absolutely right in respect of those concerns. We are mugs internationally and we are schmucks internationally when we take such a literal view of free trade. In fact, at international forums Australians have been referred to as a 'free trade Taliban' because we take such a fundamentalist approach to free trade issues and because we do not protect our national interest, which obviously intersects with ensuring a clean, green, disease-free reputation that we have fought very hard to maintain.

So it is my view that the best way of dealing with this is an extra layer of protection. I know that it is opposed by my colleagues—both government and opposition. My preference is to have that extra level of scrutiny, that extra level of safeguard, by allowing for these instruments to be disallowable.

The question that I wish to raise with the government is: will they support such an approach being investigated? If not, why not? At the very least, I want to ask whether they consider that having that extra layer of safeguard would be a preferable approach. In my view it ought to be. In my view, you ought to have it as a disallowable instrument so that there can be a risk analysis tabled in both houses of parliament and cause a motion to be moved to refer it to the relevant committee in each House. That is the sort of thing we ought to be looking at.

My view is that we cannot be too careful in relation to this. I think that there are some in the biosecurity sphere, in the Department of Agriculture, that have confused their roles between looking after the biosecurity of this nation and being tied up with free trade negotiations. We cannot sacrifice just one part of the agricultural sector for another on the altar of free trade. We have to be extremely vigilant about this.

It is not just about whether the disease comes in or not. If New Zealand potatoes are allowed into this country, you actually change the economics of the potato industry, because they must manage that risk. They must factor in future investment decisions and what the potential is for zebra chip disease to come into this country. They make decisions accordingly. It is an investment killer and a job killer, because it is an extra level of risk for that industry. We must avoid that at all costs.

We also need, in the context of our agricultural sector, to look at issues of countervailing duties and to pursue those aggressively. It is related, in the sense that the European Union spend a lot of money supporting their wine industry—for instance, promoting their wine industry. We have a situation where overwhelmingly the wine grape sector and our wineries are doing it very tough because of an unlevel playing field. That is another issue which makes our sectors more vulnerable and less profitable. That lower degree of profitability makes them particularly vulnerable to any biosecurity threats as well.

If this is going to be the ultimate renewable resource—which I believe agriculture is—we cannot afford for anything to go wrong. That is why I support the second reading stage of this bill. I look forward to speaking to the minister and the shadow minister in relation to some of the key amendments in respect of this. I still believe we need to ultimately have a method of disallowing permits and having a degree of parliamentary scrutiny of this so that, if there is a move to bring in New Zealand potatoes with the risk of zebra chip, then the parliament ought to have a role to play. Do not leave it just to the bureaucrats, some of whom have confused their roles in biosecurity with that of being free trade advocates, and that is a very dangerous path to go down.