Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee on the administration of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Biosecurity Australia and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service in relation to the final import risk analysis report for apples from New Zealand, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Mr President, in tabling this report, I would like to make a few brief observations. This is a unanimous report, representing the views of all of the members of the committee. This committee has a longstanding interest in the importation of New Zealand apples. This is the committee’s third inquiry into this matter. The first one commenced in November 2000. The committee has grave concerns about the potential impact of the importation of apples from New Zealand on Australia’s competitive edge in the international market. In this inquiry the committee gave particular consideration to the risk of the entry, establishment and spread of fire blight. The committee notes that the proposed protocol for the importation of New Zealand apples is based on the assumption that fruit contaminated with fire blight will be imported into Australia. Despite the claims of Biosecurity Australia, the committee remains to be convinced that the risk of establishment of the disease after the importation of contaminated fruit is ‘low to very low’.

The committee notes that the standard operating procedures currently being developed by New Zealand in consultation with AQIS and Biosecurity Australia are fundamental to containing the risk of fire blight becoming established in Australia. The committee has therefore indicated that it would like to examine the draft operating procedures that will underpin the protocol before they are approved by AQIS. The committee has also indicated that it would like to receive further detail of the scientific evidence and modelling undertaken as part of the IRA process to determine that the risk of establishment of fire blight under the proposed risk mitigation measures is low to very low.

In this inquiry, as in the committee’s previous inquiries, the committee has noted a strong perception within the industry that the risk analysis and appeals processes are not as robust as they could be. In particular the committee notes the limited role played by the Eminent Scientists Group in the apples IRA and appeal processes. The committee notes that these processes have subsequently been revised and that the role of the ESG will be strengthened in future IRA processes. The committee urges AQIS and Biosecurity to draw on the expertise of the Australian apple and pear industry in finalising the protocol for the importation of apples.

Finally, I would like to flag the committee’s intention to consider this matter further once it has received the material it has requested. The committee wishes to satisfy itself that the operating procedures will appropriately address the risks associated with the importation of apples from New Zealand. It is this committee’s clear view that the importation of apples from New Zealand should not commence before the committee has completed its consideration of this matter.

I commend the report to the Senate.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to say that this, again, is a unanimous report from this committee, as Senator Nash has indicated. I think the unanimity of the committee on this issue must be of concern to the government because what the committee is saying is that we are not satisfied that the import risk assessment process in fact leads to the low risk of transmission of fire blight to the Australian industry. In that regard, we agree with the industry and not with the views of the officers of Biosecurity Australia.

As the next phase of this process is the examination of the possible protocols for the importation of New Zealand apples to Australia, the committee has expressed a specific concern that the matter of establishing that protocol not proceed to finality until the committee has had the opportunity to examine any proposal. We do not want to see this matter proceed without proper examination, given the risk to the industry and the fact that the committee is not satisfied, not convinced, that the science underpins the finding made by Biosecurity Australia.

There were concerns expressed about the appeals processes, which clearly limit the ability of industry participants to pursue material that they believe is germane to the consideration of this matter. The committee has expressed a view on that. I would have to say that the opposition’s view remains—in fact, it is strengthened by the view of this committee—that there needs to be a thorough independent review of our import risk assessment process. Indeed, that is a policy that Labor will be taking to the next election, because this is yet another example of a failure of confidence in the process being expressed by members of this committee on a bipartisan basis—or perhaps I should describe it as a ‘multipartisan’ basis because of the structure of the committee and the participation of senators from not just the coalition and the Labor Party but also the Greens and Family First; I know Senator Fielding has some views on this matter as well.

We feel that the time for being satisfied with the performance of our import risk assessment processes is long past. We feel that the time for having a smug acceptance that nothing should change and we should just go ahead the way we have been is long past. This report again highlights the need for the sort of review that Labor believes is absolutely essential. We remain committed to that. In fact, our views are strengthened by this report.

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

I rise today to note the report as well and to note the bipartisan, tripartite or unanimous view of the committee in relation to the import of apples from New Zealand and the threat that is posed to Australian apple and pear growers by the very idea of fire blight. What we have to raise here and face up to is the fact that we are dealing with this through World Trade Organisation procedures and that, increasingly, Australian growers, in order to get access to overseas markets, are in turn having threats imposed upon them by a regime which determines a range of probabilities of risk. In this case, it has been determined on the basis of those World Trade Organisation processes and risk assessments that the risk is low to very low. But in fact the Greens have been working on this for a very long time. I would like to acknowledge the work of Christine Sharp, who is a Greens member in Western Australia and has worked very hard in relation to this matter, and also my colleague on that committee Senator Rachel Siewert, because it is our view that it is time common sense prevailed here.

We have had evidence from Biosecurity Australia that fire blight can travel on a mature apple and that chlorine dips are not effective in killing fire blight in the calyx of the fruit. Biosecurity also explained that its modelling suggests that a low proportion of apples could be carrying fire blight bacteria and there is some risk of contamination but there is a lower risk of the disease becoming established. However, Biosecurity agreed that, once established, the risk of spread of the disease is very high.

Whilst they argue that there is a low to very low risk of establishment, we have to make the point that, should it become established in Australia, it would be an absolute disaster and wipe-out for most of Australia’s apple and pear growers exposed in overseas markets. It would be a disaster for us if this occurred. That is why the Greens say it is time for common sense. If Biosecurity Australia tells us that we will be importing apples with fire blight from New Zealand, and we know that it could easily spread, the question, to me, is not a matter of whether it will become established; it is a matter of when it will become established.

You can go through process after process and, as has occurred, set up as many expert committees as you would like to. Again, the task of the eminent scientists was to determine whether the submissions had been adequately examined and not whether the science actually backed up the conclusions; so it was actually an administrative role rather than a scientific assessment role. The Greens are not satisfied at all with this process, because it just defies common sense. Day after day and week after week, we are told about our great biosecurity and quarantine procedures, yet we have been told that this very day common white snails have entered Tasmania through barley shipments from South Australia. Ten properties are now contaminated—and goodness knows what the compensation will be in that regard. This follows live fruit fly larvae only a couple of months ago coming into Tasmania from Queensland.

How can you be expected to have confidence in all these processes? We also know that, even though your apples can undergo a chlorine dip—which does not affect the calyx of the apple—as is required in the procedures and you can still have the inspection regimes in New Zealand, fire blight can still be brought into Australia. I just think that, as long as we have an understanding that we will be bringing fire blight into the country, the question then becomes whether it will become established, knowing that if it does become established it will wipe out large numbers of apple and pear growers. Our status in Tasmania is particularly important to us because of the ‘disease-free’ opportunities it offers us in global markets. Nevertheless, I return to my original point, which is that the World Trade Organisation’s procedures lock Australia in to a situation that I think is untenable in the long term.

Previously, Tasmania had to fight very hard on the same front over salmon; no doubt, we will be fighting it again in the longer term. But I do appreciate the fact that this committee is taking the issue extremely seriously. The Greens will continue to play a strong role in the committee, as we examine the protocol and the reasons behind it and, in fact, the information coming forward about the scientific basis on which the decision that the risk of establishment is ‘low to very low’ was made. I look forward to the ongoing deliberations of the committee. I certainly hope that the committee’s recommendation that no fruit be imported until the committee has had a chance to look at this further evidence is taken seriously. Tasmanian fruit growers, those in Western Australia and of course in Victoria—right around the country—are watching this very carefully, with the experience of constant breaches of biosecurity around the country. I commend the committee and my colleagues for this report.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Family First is concerned that fire blight could enter Australia following the government’s decision to overturn an 85-year-old ban on the importation of apples from New Zealand, which have been ravaged by bacterial disease. Notwithstanding the recommendations from this committee, the first apples look likely to come from across the Tasman next year, which is a huge concern.

Quarantine watchdog Biosecurity Australia has admitted that it is possible fire blight could come into Australia. While agriculture minister, Peter McGauran, says that the chances of an outbreak are very low, it could still happen. Family First supports fair competition, but the government really must not allow for there to be a risk of fire blight entering Australia. An outbreak could wipe out a reported $4.5 billion apple and pear industry in Australia.

Family First supports Apple and Pear Australia, which wants a tougher inspection regime, with an extra pre-harvest inspection in New Zealand orchards and a particular focus on orchards with a history of fire blight. Everything possible must be done to protect our farmers. Family First also shares the industry’s lack of confidence in the recent import risk analysis process, due to the limited role of the Eminent Scientists Group in assessing scientific data. And Family First agrees with industry that the appeal panel should include independent people, including scientists.

New Zealand growers have complained about the quarantine measures and New Zealand has threatened to take Australia to the World Trade Organisation. So be it. We should fight it all the way and do all we can to protect our industry and our farmers. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.