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

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in March 2007:

The administration of quarantine by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and its ministers, with particular reference to:

(a)

the effectiveness of current administrative arrangements for managing quarantine, including whether the community is best served by maintaining the division between Biosecurity Australia and the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS);

(b)

whether combining Biosecurity Australia and the AQIS would provide a better structure for delivering the quarantine outcomes that Australia requires;

(c)

the legislative or regulatory underpinning of the import risk assessment process, including the status of the current AQIS Import Risk Analysis Process Handbook;

(d)

the methodology used by Biosecurity Australia for determining appropriate levels of protection;

(e)

the role, if any, of ministers in making final decisions on import risk assessments; and

(f)

any related matters.

One of the most important duties for any government, and certainly the most important duty for any agriculture minister, is to safeguard our primary industries and our native flora and fauna from incursions by exotic pests and diseases. To do this a government must always be watchful for the changing nature of threats to Australia’s quarantine integrity and be prepared to review and modify, where necessary, our quarantine arrangements to meet these threats. When flaws in the system have been exposed a government should be prepared to make changes. It is not a government’s role to merely defend the status quo. A government should welcome an opportunity for a thorough review of important policy areas, particularly one as important as quarantine.

A government should grasp an inquiry as a real opportunity to make improvements where they are needed and, in the case of the management of quarantine by this government and this minister, it is clear that improvements are needed. The performance of our quarantine agencies has been called into question through a series of incidents: the Brazilian beef found at the Wagga Wagga tip that, in the worst case, could have potentially exposed Australia to foot-and-mouth disease; the serious scientific flaws found in the import risk assessment for bananas; the Marnic affair I referred to earlier today in this chamber and exposed in budget hearings, which detailed numerous instances of poor practice by Australia’s quarantine authorities that potentially could leave the Commonwealth and taxpayers with a substantial compensation liability; and the introduction of citrus canker to the Emerald region of Queensland and the subsequent mismanagement by AQIS of the investigation as to how it got there in the first place.

The list of quarantine failures is much longer than that and it continues to grow. Every time the list grows, Australian farmers become more and more concerned about the capacity of current quarantine arrangements to protect their industries and their livelihoods from the ravages of imported pests and diseases. No wonder farmers at last month’s annual conference of the New South Wales Farmers Association voted unanimously to call for an inquiry into quarantine by a committee of the Senate. This is the motion supported unanimously by the New South Wales farmers:

That the Association seek as a matter of urgency a Senate inquiry through the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee into AQIS, Biosecurity Australia and the Australian quarantine system including the accompanying legislation.

The minutes of the conference record 17 pages of motions that were considered by New South Wales farmers. The minutes record that that motion calling for a quarantine inquiry was one of only two motions that were carried with unanimous support of those present. I assume that those in this place who claim to be here representing the farming community are aware of the level of support for this motion from the farming community. Given the strong support from the farming community for an inquiry, farmers are entitled to expect that senators who claim to represent them will be supporting this motion, because it does just what the New South Wales Farmers Association calls on the Senate to do.

I will be interested to see how much support this motion gets from National Party senators and rural Liberal senators. If they need further evidence of the need for an inquiry, I would direct senators to the report commissioned by the New South Wales Farmers Association into Australia’s quarantine arrangements. The report was prepared by respected barrister Tom Brennan. In this very detailed report Mr Brennan says there are structural flaws in the current quarantine system that are in need of remedy. According to Mr Brennan, these flaws include:

Effective, efficient and transparent development of policy has been compromised by the failure to develop effective stakeholder relationships and the structural divisions between policy development and operational functions.

He says:

The establishment of Biosecurity Australia ... as a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act has financially separated policy development (done by BA and the Department of Health) and operations (done by Australian Quarantine Inspection Service AQIS) leaving no capacity for flexible allocation of resources between the two.

He says that the:

Quarantine Act does not support the policy mechanisms for AQIS control of the border as there is no recognition in the Act for the ICON database or Import Risk Analyses ... This exposes the Australian Government to extremely high levels of risk of legal challenge by an importer denied a permit and by Australian producers affected by an import. The lack of legal standing under domestic legislation for a scientific assessment which is required under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary agreement also leaves the Government exposed to challenge by members of the World Trade Organisation ...

That is not a report commissioned by the Labor Party. This is not a proposal that comes from some unknown and insignificant organisation. This is a report which was commissioned by the New South Wales Farmers Association. This is a report which supports the New South Wales Farmers Association’s call for an inquiry. As I said, it will be very interesting to see how the government responds to a call made by an association which is normally a lot closer to the Liberal and National parties than it is to the Labor Party, the Democrats or, indeed, the Greens.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

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

Senator Heffernan interjects: ‘What is their proposal?’ I just put it on the record.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The NFF opposes the proposal.

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

The interjection apparently is that the NFF opposes this proposal. Frankly, it is interesting if that is the case, and no such indication has been drawn to our attention. If it is the case one wonders why the NFF opposes a proposal by a constituent part of that organisation and a very important one. I will be interested to hear from the National Farmers Federation—and I will be interested to hear it very publicly if that is the case, as suggested by Senator Heffernan—why they would oppose an investigation into quarantine when they have had many concerns about the quarantine system in this country and have submitted to inquiries a great many proposals critical of the current Biosecurity and AQIS system. It will be very interesting if we are going to get some bush law interpretation of a view about a particular proposal, as distinct from a proposal which is in line with the resolution of the New South Wales Farmers Association.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

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

The flavour that I am getting from the interjections of Senator Heffernan is that the coalition is not intending to support this proposition. Those senators who purport to represent the farming community will not be supporting this proposal. It is very interesting, because—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Heffernan, refrain from interjecting.

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

It is interesting that the letter that was emailed to me and a number of my colleagues from the New South Wales Farmers Association says this:

Senator Marise Payne supports the Association’s request for an Inquiry and a recent letter the Senator has written to the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Hon Peter McGauran states that, ‘Senate Committees are an effective method of investigating matters of community concern, and I believe that the significance of this matter’—

that is, quarantine—

‘requires the most accountable method of inquiry’.

It will be very interesting to see if Senator Marise Payne votes on this matter and, indeed, whether she supports the opposition’s proposal. It will also be interesting to notice what other myths and legends are promulgated in support of a position which clearly does not have the support of farmers in the state of New South Wales and, I suspect, all around the country.

Maybe the administration of this portfolio is the reason that we can expect opposition from the government. You would have to say that this government is captive in terms of portfolio allocation to arrangements between the Liberal Party and the National Party, and I know that Senator Heffernan is privately critical of the fact that the National Party gets the primary industries portfolio despite the lack of talent—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re a troublemaker.

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

Senator Heffernan suggests I am a troublemaker. I suggest that, if I am, it is certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and Senator Heffernan’s reputation precedes him in that regard. In terms of the jealousies between the two parties, I am not surprised that, given the allocation of the portfolio to Mr McGauran, the conservative side of this chamber wants to protect him from an inquiry, knowing the lack of competence that exists in the portfolio. Even his brother, Senator Julian McGauran, had the decency to leave the National Party, noting that it was irrelevant. Of course, if Mr McGauran were to leave the National Party, there is no way he would be a minister, let alone the minister for agriculture, within the Liberal Party. There is no way that the Liberal Party would allocate the portfolio to him. There is no way that he would even be a parliamentary secretary. Senator Heffernan knows that very well, and I bet that is exactly what he is saying to his rural constituency as he goes around. That is another subject. One day we will have a debate about Senator Heffernan’s role in undermining the National Party in seats in New South Wales, and it will be a very interesting debate, but it is not the debate for today. I fully realise that. According to Mr Brennan, there are substantial flaws—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Another lawyer!

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

‘Another lawyer,’ he says. There are substantial flaws—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

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

I cannot help but take that interjection. I would have thought that there were two or three or more lawyers who sit in front of Senator Heffernan on the government ministerial benches and who ought to be gotten rid of, so perhaps we will start there. Mr Brennan has, quite differently, a very good reputation, an eminent reputation, and there is no indication from reading his report that he brings any particular bias to it. His report, independently commissioned by the New South Wales Farmers Association, clearly depicts problems that need rectification, but we should not take his word for it. I am suggesting not that we take his word for it but that that should form the basis of a decision to make our own inquiry and for this chamber to authorise the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—there will be only one committee shortly, so it does not matter which one we refer it to, but we are proposing to refer it to the legislation committee—to conduct an inquiry into these matters and to give members of the public, the farming community, academics, lawyers and farmers the opportunity to express their points of view.

Why would the government oppose that? Why would the National Farmers Federation oppose an inquiry to get at the facts? I do not believe that they would, but I do believe that, if someone said to them that there is a witch-hunt going on and that they want to go after people rather than the issue, they might be opposed to that. That is the reason we have couched our proposal in the language that we have and the reason that we want a thorough investigation of these issues, which relate to the department, Biosecurity Australia and AQIS, how the system is working, what breakdowns are occurring within the system, whether that is causing a problem, what those problems may be and how they are manifesting themselves, and what we should do to correct those problems. Frankly, this is an opportunity that the Senate ought not miss. This is an opportunity where the Senate has a chance to pick up an issue, to do its job, to take this issue to the people who are concerned about it, to conduct hearings here and in other parts of the country, to take written submissions, to hear evidence and to present a report.

This committee has a history of presenting unanimous reports. This committee goes beyond the politics of an issue on more occasions than not. This committee examines the issues relevant to the areas of its portfolio, if I can put it that way, and presents a united view to the parliament. So why not support it? I will be interested to hear the answer to that question when listening to the submissions against this reference so that I can understand, if I take the tenor of the interjections the way that I do—that is, that the government will be opposing this reference—just why that opposition occurs. It seems to me that the only logical basis for opposing this is that you have something to hide or that you have a minister you have no confidence in. It is probably the latter; it may be both, but we will judge that on the comments that are made in this debate. I thank the Senate for the opportunity. I look forward to hearing from those who are interested in this matter. I will be watching the vote very carefully.

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have listened very carefully to Senator O’Brien’s contribution today, and some of the points that he raised I agree with. The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee is very much a committee that takes its work seriously and looks at the overall range of issues that apply to regional and rural Australia, including the transport issues. In the past there have been a number of inquiries carried out by this committee that have had bipartisan support, and this is one of the rare occasions on which the government disagrees with an opposition motion. I think it is important to say at the outset that the National Farmers Federation does not support a Senate inquiry into quarantine such as Senator O’Brien has outlined today. The National Farmers Federation, of which I was once a very proud staff member, is the peak farm body in this country. As a matter of fact I had discussions with the National Farmers Federation about this matter just yesterday to clarify why they were not supporting the call by New South Wales farmers for an inquiry, and I am led to believe that the president of the New South Wales Farmers Federation does not support the call for the inquiry either. So I do not think it is fair or true to say that the New South Wales farmers support this inquiry. The government also does not believe that a Senate inquiry is needed to bring about further improvements to our quarantine and biosecurity arrangements.

Australia’s strong and consistent quarantine policies have been vital in maintaining our high standard of animal and plant health, and it is critical that this situation continues. Australia already has one of the most scrutinised quarantine systems in the world. In fact, since 2000, elements of the system have been subject to several Senate committee inquiries of which I and Senator O’Brien have been members. There has also been scrutiny of the system as a whole, including two audits by the Australian National Audit Office and a review by the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit. All of these inquiries have been thorough; they have examined matters of policy and operations beyond the issues at hand. The government is working closely with the National Farmers Federation and other industry organisations to identify improvements to our quarantine and biosecurity arrangements. These improvements can and should be achieved without a lengthy Senate inquiry.

The National Farmers Federation hosted an industry forum on biosecurity just last month, on 14 July 2006. It was held in Canberra, and it included representation from 35 industry organisations. That forum provided an opportunity for the government to hear industry views on the quarantine system, particularly the import risk analysis process. The majority industry view presented at the forum was that, while improvements can and should be made, Australia’s quarantine system is fundamentally sound and is serving our national interests well. The National Farmers Federation is currently analysing the outcomes of the forum and will advise the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of the priorities that are determined by the forum.

Over recent years the government has made progressive increases to quarantine funding. Since 1996 these increases have totalled more than $1.3 billion and have been directed towards maintaining and, where necessary, strengthening our stringent quarantine regime. Nevertheless, the system is not perfect. We found that during the inquiry most recently into the outbreak of citrus canker in Queensland, and the committee made some very stringent recommendations as a result. The government has made, and continues to make, changes that will strengthen its operation of the quarantine structure and build stakeholder confidence. The government has commenced a process to deliver more refinements to our quarantine system, drawing on industry views of what needs to be done to continue to deliver high-quality, science based quarantine policy for Australia.

Let me reiterate and emphasise some of the more interesting facts about the government’s commitment to quarantine. Since 1996 the government has made progressive increases to funding which, as I said before, have totalled $1.3 billion to maintain and strengthen our regime. What could be clearer than that? Since 2001 AQIS has employed an additional 1,200 staff. It has deployed new technologies and significantly increased intervention levels across import pathways, including international mail, from less than five per cent to 100 per cent; containers, from five per cent to 100 per cent; airports, from 35 per cent of passengers to 95 per cent of passengers; and seaports, from 30 per cent of passengers and 70 per cent of vessels to 100 per cent intervention in both. It is a very strong record of increased scrutiny at our borders. Biosecurity Australia has received $6 million from the budget to strengthen arrangements for assessing quarantine risks through on-the-ground inspections in overseas countries and to develop systems to improve data and information management.

Senator O’Brien made some comments before—and I said I agreed with them and I know that other members of the committee do as well—about the system still not being perfect. While ever we have a high number of visitors and ships coming in and out of our country—and we are an island continent—of course it is going to be difficult to maintain perfect quarantine arrangements. We agree that the system is not perfect.

The government has and will continue to make changes to improve stakeholder confidence. Of course, industry views are a key input into this process. There have been a large number of them, as recently, as I said, as last month. We are working with industry to make sure that those views are presented and considered. The government is also investigating other options for reform but, importantly, we will do nothing that compromises the integrity of our system.

I will take Senator O’Brien’s proposed reference points one at a time. In response to the first point, the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit, the JCPAA, conducted a review of Australia’s quarantine function and delivered its report in February 2003. The terms of reference were broad ranging and encompassed the issues identified in this reference. The review took public submissions and held public hearings in a number of locations. The review followed the report of the Auditor-General, Managing for quarantine effectiveness. Given the nature of this and earlier reviews and the ongoing scrutiny of the quarantine system, another inquiry along these lines is unnecessary at this time.

It is also important to note that the JCPAA found that Australia’s quarantine function ‘is in good shape and the additional funding is being appropriately used’. Any areas identified for improvement have been, and are being, followed up by the government. The Auditor-General conducted a follow-up report as recently as December 2005 and concluded that overall, since the last audit, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and Biosecurity Australia have made substantial improvements in the area and in the administration of quarantine.

In response to Senator O’Brien’s second point, the government is aware of a view that Biosecurity Australia and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service should be merged, again, into one institutional structure, such as a statutory authority. We understand that this view is currently a minority one in industry circles, and the government, like most stakeholders, believe it is more important to get on with improving the delivery of our overall quarantine system than to tinker unnecessarily with institutional structures.

During the last election the government gave an undertaking to reinforce Biosecurity Australia’s independence by making it a separate agency within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Biosecurity Australia became a prescribed agency in December 2004. While Biosecurity Australia has financial autonomy as a prescribed agency, it remains part of the department in an administrative sense. Consultative structures between Biosecurity Australia and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service ensure that close communication occurs.

The 1996 report Australian quarantine: a shared responsibility, known as the Nairn report, recommended a statutory authority model. The government rejected this recommendation in 1997 on the basis that quarantine policy and programs are essential elements of the business of government and should operate under the framework of ministerial responsibility and departmental accountability. The government did not want to sever links with other parts of government that are central to the operation of an efficient and effective quarantine service. These arguments, first expressed in 1997, still stand today. We are also not persuaded that the significant cost, disruption and delay in the progress of Biosecurity Australia’s work that would result from the restructure of Biosecurity Australia and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service into a statutory authority are warranted at this time, particularly since the benefits that a statutory authority might provide to our quarantine system are not clear.

In response to Senator O’Brien’s third point, the government is currently reviewing the import risk analysis process, including an examination of whether the process could be improved or enhanced through existing legislation. Expert government legal advice is being drawn upon in this review process. It is worth noting that the full bench of the Federal Court recently found that Australia’s import risk analysis system is not legally flawed.

In response to point 4, Australia’s appropriate level of protection, known as ALOP, is expressed as ‘providing a high level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection aimed at reducing risk to a very low level but not zero’. All Australian governments, through the Primary Industries Ministerial Council, have agreed that Australia’s needs are met by this definition of the ALOP. Biosecurity Australia’s role is to undertake risk assessments and recommend measures to the Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine that achieve Australia’s ALOP. Biosecurity Australia does not determine Australia’s ALOP. Recent Senate committee inquiries into the draft risk analyses for apples from New Zealand and bananas from the Philippines both examined BA’s risk assessment methodology in some detail.

In response to the fifth point raised by Senator O’Brien, Australia’s quarantine regime reflects a system of managed risk based on science. This approach is universally supported. Final decisions on imports are made under the Quarantine Act 1908 by the Director of Quarantine or the delegate. Tens of thousands of decisions on import permits are made every year. Direct ministerial involvement in import risk analysis decision making is impractical. Assessment of risk and the recommendation of measures on imports to meet Australia’s conservative quarantine policy outcomes must be science based in accordance with our international WTO obligations and therefore can only be made or overturned on that basis. That role sits more appropriately with Biosecurity Australia, an independent, science based organisation.

Let me reiterate some of the points I have made this afternoon in opposing Senator O’Brien’s motion. Australia’s quarantine decisions will continue to be based on robust scientific assessments and will not be influenced by trade considerations. Let us use the information and views gathered in the numerous inquiries, consultations and reviews that have already been held, including some that have been held by the committee on which Senator O’Brien and I serve, and let us get on with the job of delivering a science based quarantine system that, to the best extent possible, protects us from human, animal and plant disease incursions.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In recent years, the conference of the parties to the convention for the protection of biodiversity concluded that the two greatest threats to global biodiversity at the beginning of the 21st century are habitat loss and alien invasive species, both accelerated by human induced global warming and globalisation—in particular, globalised trade. We know, as Tim Low said in his book Feral Future, that people and their products are crisscrossing the world as never before and, on the new global highways so created, plants and animals are travelling too. On top of this, domesticated plants and animals are escaping our control on an unprecedented scale. A globalisation of ecology is under way, with profound implications for us all. Just as American pop music, blue jeans, burgers and coke have displaced Indigenous cultures and foods in every land, so too are vigorous, exotic invaders overwhelming native species and natural habitats. Some biologists warn of a ‘McDonaldisation’ of world ecology. The earth is hurtling towards one world culture and maybe one world ecosystem.

That is the context in which I rise today to support the motion by Senator O’Brien to refer for inquiry this matter to the Senate Rural and Regional and Transport Legislation Committee to look at the effectiveness of our administration arrangements for managing quarantine and to look specifically at whether it is appropriate to split up the people who are looking at keeping alien invasive species out of Australia and others who are looking at trying to contain and eradicate within Australia’s borders. Also, we are trying to look at whether we have the right legislative and regulatory unpinning of import risk assessment. We should be looking at the whole issue of appropriate levels of protection and the role, if any, of ministers in making final decisions.

I am not in any way influenced by the New South Wales Farmers Federation, the National Farmers Federation or any other particular interest group. I am motivated by the fact that week by week we see scientific and media reports of yet more species in Australia—the mix of Australia’s biodiversity—going to extinction because of the impact of alien invasive species. I talk to farmers who are really worried about the spread of alien invasive species and the seeming inability of authorities to control them. That is why we should be having another look at it, because circumstances have changed dramatically. There is no doubt about world trade and globalisation. That is obvious to all. You only have to look at the number of containers on Australian wharves to see the bulk freight that is going around, not to mention a whole range of other pathways into the country.

But, also, the situation has changed. My view is that at the moment we have a system which is too reactive. We need a much more precautionary approach, a much more preventative approach, an approach based on biointelligence. We talk about security intelligence—that is, that we need to be out in the world and the region looking for intelligence. Yet we do not have the same approach with our whole biosecurity quarantine system. I would argue that the system as it currently is focuses way too much on a trade and primary industry priority when it should be looking at the whole of biodiversity conservation, because in that context you will capture primary industry as well. We also need the capacity for cost-effective and timely intervention. We have seen, as I will outline in a moment, that that has not occurred with a number of issues.

I will start by talking about fire blight and Tasmanian apples and the threat to the apple industry in that state if we import apples from New Zealand. The issue is that it has been going on for so long that we are now into the third review and there is no analysis yet of the submissions that have been put in—or at least no consideration of those submissions, at this point, has been made public. But the point is that this has been going on for a very long time, and it has been up to growers to point out the problems with the modelling. Time and time again, what has emerged is that there has been a failure to take into account regional differences in a country the size of Australia. That is an issue that the growers are incredibly frustrated about. My colleague Senator Siewert will take that up in a minute, because the same thing applies in her state of Western Australia. A combined effort between growers and industry groups, particularly in Western Australia and Tasmania, has got it to the point that it is at now.

But I also want to talk about the fact that we have a situation where in April 2005 the Taiwanese announced that they would not be taking Australian fruit because of the Queensland fruit fly and that all Australian fruit would be banned from export to Taiwan in the period after that. Australia secured an exemption from that—or at least a delay until January 2006—in which time our quarantine authority, AQIS, were meant to provide the technical information to Taiwan to demonstrate those areas that should be exempted from the ban. It did not happen. We have growers all over Australia frustrated that it took so long to get the technical information to give Australian growers—who ought to have still had access to the Taiwanese market—that ability.

Tasmania since then has been able to get the exemption. But there are growers in other areas in Australia, apart from the Riverland and Tasmania, who would desperately like to access the Taiwanese market. They complain that there has not been a proactive effort to secure access to that market, because the response was not timely and certainly has not been cost effective for the growers. There are many growers out there who are concerned at the moment that they still will not be able to get their harvest into the Taiwanese market this year, and that is weighing heavily upon them. They not only have to deal with the worst drought we have had in a very long time, with issues about water and other matters, but also do not feel that they have been adequately responded to on their demand that this matter be expedited.

We also have the situation at the moment of the closure of the wild abalone fishery in Bass Strait as a precautionary measure. That is because of the discovery in Victoria of a particular herpes virus. And this is where I come to this issue of biointelligence. We know that in 2003 this virus was particularly bad in the southern part of China, in Taiwan and in California. Why, at that point, did we not look at whether we were importing into Australia, as fish food, bycatch from those areas that could well have been affected by this virus? Now we are in the situation where quarantine authorities are saying, ‘We cannot be sure whether the virus came to the fish farms from the wild or vice versa.’ But what we ought to have done, after seeing that this disease had broken out—recognising that we farm abalone and that we bring food into this country for those abalone farms—was pre-empt this issue and get out there with some proactive what I would call biointelligence.

We had the same issue with the mass mortality of pilchards when bycatch from overseas was brought in and fed into the tuna farms at Port Lincoln. From there it escaped into the wild fishery. As a result of that, we now have a situation where every few years there is a mass death of pilchards. In Tasmania, we are seeing our amphibian population wiped out by chytrid fungus. We think that that most likely came into Tasmania from the mainland on bananas. And now our green and gold frog and probably another two species in Tasmania are endangered and facing extinction because of that chytrid fungus.

It may shock the Senate to know that our quarantine arrangements are working. For example, a cane toad was found in Devonport. We know that they are in northern New South Wales, but we know that the bioclimatic changes occurring will make it possible for them to survive much further south than previously. So we need to really strongly consider climate change, and I do not see that happening as a preventative approach, in the manner that I am speaking about. We need to recognise that the climatic zones have changed so that, for example, diseases that previously could not survive in Tasmania or southern Australia, because of weather patterns, now can. We need that kind of assessment to be worked out between Biosecurity Australia, AQIS, the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and so on. We need to start looking at the impacts of climate change. We are seeing it already in Tasmania: the sea urchin, which previously could not live in Tasmanian waters, is now moving strongly into the east coast of Tasmania, eating into the giant kelp beds which are the nursery for our rock lobster fishery.

So we have all sorts of problems because of alien invasive species coming from either outside the country or other parts of Australia, plus we have that expanded habitat range for disease that we can now expect because of climate change. That is why I am suggesting that we strongly need to look at this issue again—because, as times change, the focus has to change.

The Tasmanian devil is likely to be extinct in the wild in Tasmania in the very foreseeable future, which is an absolute tragedy. No-one ever thought that, after the thylacine, that would be the situation with another iconic creature, but it has occurred in relation to the Tasmanian devil. That comes around again to the lack of an adequate surveillance pattern, a lack of adequate communication between the federal and state authorities, and a lack of adequate funding. We have differential processes between the states and we do not have adequate surveillance.

Overseas, for example, you have to have evidence of absence of disease. Because of cutbacks in funding in recent years, we have shifted to a focus where, if there is an absence of evidence that a disease exists, that is enough to say that you are disease free—and that is completely the wrong way of looking at it. If we had had evidence of absence of disease as a priority in Tasmania, we would have had public testing and public awareness of the devil disease back in the mid-nineties and we would not have had the delay that we have had in recognising the severity of the disease. That is the difference that has occurred in recent years.

That devil disease is going to have a major impact, because it comes with proof of the introduction of the fox into Tasmania. Again, this is where science and politics come together. We know that a fox escaped from Agfest in 2001—there were two people who came forward with a statutory declaration saying they saw it—and one was seen on the Illawarra Road, five kilometres from the Agfest site, at the time. The action that was taken then was to almost dismiss that as proof. Whatever you want to say about the introduction of the fox into Tasmania, it is a failure of our quarantine service. And now we have a situation where the Tasmanian devil is in decline. The devil was previously a predator and has, one would hope, been a predator of baby foxes. Now, with the devil being wiped out, the fox is likely to breed up as a predator. That would go hand in hand with feral cats, which not only are predators of our small mammals but also carry toxoplasmosis into the wild, and we are finding more and more native animals that are blind because of that toxoplasmosis.

We have a report—we know it is true—of feral ferrets in the penguin community on the Neck at Bruny Island. We have tourists turning up to the Neck at Bruny Island and we know that we have a feral ferret population there. The thing I cannot understand is why we cannot eradicate them. There is a defined penguin colony area; I do not see why we cannot go in and eradicate that feral ferret population right now. But that is not happening.

My motivation in supporting this reference is to be able go back and have a look at what is going on and say, ‘What is it that leads us to be too slow and to not look at the cost-effectiveness of investment in this area in terms of a preventative approach so that we do not lose millions of dollars in lost exports, animals, plants, crops and so on?’ That question—the big picture—is not being considered a lot of the time.

I think we need to be identifying new pathways. Antarctica is a new pathway for the introduction of disease to Tasmania. We are going to see more and more people coming via Antarctica into Tasmania because of the air link and more cruise ships. Cruise ships are another pathway that has not really been looked at as seriously as it might be. A few years ago a lettuce aphid came into Tasmania from New Zealand. At that time, a cruise ship was docked in Devonport, having come from New Zealand. Many of us believed that the aphid came from the kitchen refuse from that cruise ship. The official explanation at the time was that it had come here on the wind from New Zealand. The problem is that the wind blows in the opposite direction—and I doubt the ability of an aphid to fly against the prevailing winds all the way from New Zealand to the north-west coast of Tasmania.

That is what I mean about science and politics. Sometimes the threat of trade sanctions and the worry about the impact on trading partners may well prevent the publicity, the public education and so on that are needed. We need to have a much greater public awareness of the importance of alien invasive species in destroying our biodiversity and our primary industry sector. I do not think we are well served by the split that has occurred with Biosecurity Australia and AQIS. I would really like to hear evidence about that split and any effect there may have been since those changes. I do not think we are acting quickly enough. I think that has been demonstrated by the Tasmanian example with fire blight, by the case of the Queensland fruit fly and by the impact on growers around Australia of the Taiwanese ban. Those examples show me that we are not reacting quickly enough.

But, overwhelmingly, my issue is that we need a bigger picture approach. We need a biointelligence approach. We need to be out there looking at where the possible threats are coming from. We need to be assessing changes due to global warming and the likely changed habitats of disease and invasive species. That is why I think it would be a really good thing if this Senate committee had a look at the big picture once again and the Senate stopped taking a very defensive approach. I am disappointed that the government has taken a defensive approach. If there is one thing that this parliament ought to be doing it is protecting Australia’s biodiversity as much as possible by having a risk assessment process that is rigorously science based but takes into account the new science, the new threats, the emerging disease threats and the new pathways and looks at whether our processes are adequate to the task.

You only have to look at this week’s Weekly Times cover, headed ‘Diseases slip through lapsed quarantine nets’, to see the kind of concern that is out there in the farming community. I urge the government to reconsider its position on this matter. This is not about playing politics; this is about making sure we protect Australia, Australian primary producers and our biodiversity—both marine and terrestrial—into the future in the face of one of the greatest drivers of extinction and loss, and that is alien invasive species.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to take a few minutes to look at this issue from a Western Australian perspective and to support the referral of this issue to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. I think there are a number of problems with the current situation both in terms of the structures and the implementation of biosecurity in Australia, particularly as it relates to Western Australia. In Western Australia, our agricultural industry is relatively free from pests and diseases. In fact, our agricultural industry is one of the cleanest industries in the world. In Western Australia we take quarantine very seriously.

I understand the issues of sensitivity around maintaining our high standards and our international trade relationships. However, the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the International Plant Protection Convention provide that countries may exercise their sovereign right to impose appropriate sanitary and phytosanitary measures. The SPS agreement, as it is commonly known, recognises that risk may not be evenly distributed across the country. This is very important in Australia, as there are a lot of regional differences across this huge country.

When Australia joined the WTO an MOU was entered into between the Commonwealth and state governments. However, this is a relatively small document and it does not give any consideration to the necessary working principles used in the new and now standard practice of the so-called scientific import risk analysis determined by Biosecurity Australia. Of particular concern is the lack of adequate recognition of the significant variation throughout Australia—that is, the freedom from particular pests and diseases and the different level of risk depending on whether important regional agricultural produce is involved.

I will turn to how this applies specifically to Western Australia and Western Australian apples. In Western Australia we are free from three of the most major pests and diseases affecting apples—those being codling moth, fire blight and apple scab. It is said that we in Western Australia have the cleanest apples in the world. Because we have the cleanest apples in the world, we need stronger quarantine protocols than, for example, other eastern states. This is in fact permissible under WTO rules in general and, in particular, the SPS rules.

In Australia, as Senator Milne outlined, we are up to the third import risk assessment on apples. It has been a very frustrating process for us all, with the first and second IRAs missing and ignoring regional differences or not dealing properly with regional differences. We are dealing with an irreversible biological threat to the cleanest apples in the world. We believe that the precedents being set under the new system will probably determine the outcome with regard to countless pests and diseases from which we are currently free.

The first IRA was torn up, basically, after a nationwide uproar in regional communities because of its inadequacies on the problem of fire blight, which is often referred to as the worst apple problem in the world. In the second IRA the additional biosecurity problems faced in WA from New Zealand apples in particular at the time—and we are talking about codling moth and apple scab, which are already present in the east—were ignored to all intents and purposes. Our triple freedom in Western Australia was at risk of being lost. It was the most extraordinary denial of WA’s regional difference. And that was just several weeks after WA had signed an agreement with the Commonwealth on quarantine controls and handed over 230 quarantine controls to the Commonwealth. I understand that, at the time, WA agencies had not even been consulted prior to the release of the second IRA.

Now, of course, we are on the third one. That, as Senator Milne pointed out, is just being assessed. The point here is that this was after we ran a huge campaign across the country and in Western Australia to get regional differences considered. From my point of view, the protection of our quarantine standards in Australia should not be dependent on us—the community—having to run such a strong campaign.

There is a tension between science based quarantine arrangements and the least restrictive trade measures, and this is of concern to growers. Growers are concerned that the science based quarantine decisions may be subordinated to the requirement to resolve trade related quarantine disputes. Growers are concerned that, in effect, reports are being written so that they will not be challenged. The concern is that perhaps they are being too cautious in the application of our quarantine rules.

As I said at the start, this points to some concerns about our current structures and the way they are being implemented. That is why from a Western Australian perspective we strongly support a review of the way that our quarantine measures are being implemented and of the structures which support them in order to ensure that they are protecting the cleanest agriculture in the world.

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

As there are no more speakers, I will now exercise my right to close the debate. I thank Senator Milne and Senator Siewert for their support in this debate. I really have to say that I am most disappointed with the contribution of Senator Ferris. I am disappointed that Senator Heffernan’s contributions were not on the record, as they were interjections. There are some matters in that disappointing contribution by Senator Ferris that I want to address. I am disappointed because I know that Senator Ferris does not believe what she said.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Joyce interjecting—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to 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.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind honourable senators that, if a division is called on Thursday after 4.30 pm, the matter before the Senate must be adjourned until the next day of sitting, at a time to be fixed by the Senate. The debate will be adjourned accordingly.