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

Pursuant to the provisions of standing order 74(5), I seek an explanation from the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation for the failure to provide the answers to questions on notice Nos 2039, 2040, 2043 through to 2047 inclusive and 2049 through to 2063 inclusive within 30 days.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Due to the complexity and the number of questions raised, the department have taken longer than anticipated in collating the information to adequately respond to the questions. They have also had to liaise with other departments and agencies in sourcing some of the information for some questions. The department advise me that all efforts are being made to respond to the questions as quickly as possible, given these constraints. I understand in general terms—and Senator O’Brien might, with a polite interjection, correct me if I am wrong—that the categories of questions to which he refers fall into two broad categories. One relates to grants, and various clarifications are being sought in relation to that category of question. In relation to the other category, which is dealing with the illegal fishing issue and the money spent in our northern waters—no, Senator O’Brien is politely indicating to me that that is not the case. I invite Senator O’Brien to make contact with my office in relation to the other category, and I will seek to get him an explanation as expeditiously as possible.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

The outstanding answers—there obviously are a number of them—all relate to an Australian company called Marnic Worldwide Pty Ltd and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. My office has contacted the office of Senator Abetz in writing on two occasions seeking answers to these questions. My office also contacted Senator Abetz’s office before question time today to advise that I proposed to seek an explanation for the failure to provide a response.

The responsibility for the preparation of answers to these questions rests with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in the other place, Mr McGauran. Nevertheless, Senator Abetz represents Mr McGauran in this place and cannot avoid his responsibility in this chamber under the Senate standing orders. The explanation we heard today for the failure to provide a response I find hardly satisfactory. The Prime Minister’s code of conduct refers ministers to the relevant standing orders and requires ministers to respond to questions in a timely manner. The code of conduct has been debased so many times that it probably has about as much credibility as the constitution of the old Soviet Union, but that does not mean that ministers should not be held to account for breaching it.

The unanswered questions I am concerned about relate to yet another major mistake by AQIS. Senators on both sides of the chamber are well aware of the unfortunate record of this organisation. There have been a number of inquiries by Senate committees into its performance over the years, some initiated by this side of the chamber and some by the other side. The approach taken by this chamber to AQIS’s performance has, with few exceptions, been a bipartisan one. We have had the single aim of protecting the integrity of Australia’s quarantine status. It is a status that is worth billions of dollars to Australia’s economy.

The questions to which I seek answers relate to an application by Marnic Worldwide to import marine worms into Australia for use in the recreational fishing sector. In the main, the questions seek clarification of evidence given by senior AQIS officers to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee during the last estimates round. On the face of it, much of the evidence from these officers was confusing. Some of it was contradictory. I assume the officers knew what they meant, but some of it was unclear to me. Having read the Hansard, some of it is still unclear.

I do not think it stretches the bounds of accountability for me to seek clarification through questions on notice and to expect an answer to those questions within a month. I believe that it was not unreasonable to ask that the answers be available in a month, much less two. I regret that it has been necessary for me to seek an explanation in this chamber. I have just been given a note by the minister that those answers are now in the Table Office. Nevertheless, that is not good enough and it should not have come to this. I do not often seek an explanation in this way, notwithstanding the fact that many of the questions I ask are not answered within the 30 days provided for in the Senate standing orders. That I have done so on this occasion is an indication of my concern about the way the government has handled the Marnic Worldwide fiasco. It is no surprise to me that the government wants to avoid this scrutiny, but it is not acceptable.

Marnic Worldwide was—and I stress ‘was’—a significant business. Its business involved a commitment to millions of dollars of investment in Australia and the countries where it sourced its marine worms. The company sought approval from AQIS to import these worms, as it was obliged to do. It appears that the company did everything it was asked to do. In some cases, it provided more information than was required. Having done what it was asked to do, the company received permission from AQIS to import marine worms. Importantly, Marnic Worldwide maintained meticulous records relating to its permit application. It appears to me that Marnic Worldwide was acutely aware of the need to protect Australia’s marine environment.

There were considerable costs for the company associated with the approval process. Marnic Worldwide and the companies associated with it committed additional resources when the permit to import marine worms was granted. The company assumed, not unreasonably, that once it worked its way through the assessment process and received an import permit from AQIS it could confidently go about building its business. It is worth noting that it took AQIS four goes to get the final paperwork right—that is, three amendments to the initial permit were required, due to errors by AQIS officers. If they were the only errors, the government would not be trying to avoid scrutiny of its actions.

Having provided Marnic Worldwide with a permit to import marine worms and having allowed the company to progress the development of its business on the basis of that permit, AQIS withdrew the import permit at the eleventh hour. In fact, the permit was withdrawn within hours of the first commercial shipment of worms arriving in this country. At this point, the situation became one of high farce. The withdrawal of the permit exposed significant problems in the whole import risk assessment process. Problems were exposed not only in AQIS but also in Biosecurity Australia and within Mr McGauran’s department.

There are significant matters relating to the administration of our quarantine system at stake here. My unanswered questions on notice go to these matters. There is a separate matter related to Marnic Worldwide’s compensation claim against AQIS. The compensation claim is important but it should not be used by government as a device to withhold from this chamber details of the process that led to this mess. As I have noted, the Senate has had a long interest in the administration of AQIS and Biosecurity Australia. I still have clear in my mind the process surrounding the compensation claim against AQIS by the Hewett brothers. The Hewett brothers were forced to fight for many years before justice was done. I do not intend to allow that farce to repeat itself.

AQIS has investigated this matter and has conceded it has been at fault. Marnic Worldwide and AQIS are now locked into the process of determining the extent of the financial loss caused by the withdrawal of the import permit. But that process does not disabuse the government of its responsibility in this chamber. It does not diminish the accountability of the executive of the parliament. I have previously pursued this matter through the estimates process. The answers to some questions that I have received to date have advised me that the information I seek is central to the fact-finding and quantum consideration process of the Marnic Worldwide compensation claim. I have been told that in some cases the answers I seek could prejudice the process of assessing damages and the quantum of the compensation. That response is of concern. I reject its premise. I have not sought to interfere in the process of assessing the extent of the damage to the company caused by AQIS. What I want to do is get an understanding of how this catastrophic failure of public administration occurred. This case involves the importation of marine worms. The bigger issue here is the confidence that Australia’s business owners, primary producers and consumers alike can have in the government’s ability to administer Australia’s quarantine regime.

The Senate is entitled to have the facts put on the table. Confusing and contradictory evidence from officers is not acceptable, nor is obfuscation from the responsible minister and his representative in this chamber. I conclude with a plea to the government to lift its game with respect to accountability in this matter. I am pleased to hear—since I got to my feet—that finally the answers that I requested are at the Table Office. I hope that means the entirety of the answers that I mentioned are available; there were quite a number. I advise that I did place those questions on notice on 14 July and answers to those questions are well overdue as of today.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always to be regretted when answers come back after the time limits. I apologise to the honourable senator for that; but I respectfully suggest to him and to others in these circumstances: when you are told that the answers are available at the Table Office there is no need to read from a prepared script to say that the government is seeking to avoid scrutiny or that it is not providing answers to questions. The senator knows that the process has worked, albeit unfortunately in a delayed way, for which I apologise.

Question agreed to.