Senator O'BRIEN (5:16 PM) —I know that I am speaking to another amendment now, but I just want to put my amendment in context. The opposition has proposed an amendment to this legislation that will have the following effect: if the government does not reach agreement with all the states and territories on guidelines for a cooperative approach in relation to the control and eradication of epidemics and the removal of the danger of epidemics, including guidelines for the exercise of a quarantine measure or measures incidental to that purpose, then the provisions of the bill which go to those measures will cease to have effect in 18 months.

I am not certain whether the intent of these provisions that may be amended goes to the issue that Senator Brown raises. In relation to the inclusion of the words `ecological community of national significance', I really am uncertain whether the intention of the bill goes to the same extent as this amendment proposes. It may be that these matters will be considered in discussions between the Commonwealth and the states and territories about the guidelines for the implementation of these provisions, but it is my understanding that that is not the intention of the Commonwealth. Although I do not know at this stage, I suspect that it is not the intention of the states either in relation to these matters.

Senator Brown might say, `Of course it would be if this amendment were carried.' I guess that begs the question as to whether it is intended that these sorts of powers be included in this legislation or whether it might be more appropriate to consider them in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. That is a matter which, in the context of dealing with this legislation in the very short time that we have had to consider it, causes the opposition some concern. The reason for that is that it is stepping beyond what we understand to be the area of intention of the act. We would not be minded to support this. However, I do think it is incumbent upon the government, in discussion with the states, to consider the ramifications of this legislation. For example, one of the actions which might be authorised and put beyond law in relation to the activities of authorised persons might be the destruction of communities of native animals because their presence might cause the dangerous spread of an epidemic.

I think it is appropriate to consider those factors and deal with them in the guidelines which I understand the Commonwealth intends to develop with the states. There is no doubt that, if that were to occur—and I hope that nothing occurs under these provisions and that they are never used, because we do not want to have an epidemic which would warrant a declaration by the Governor-General and the actions envisaged by this legislation—those sorts of consequences may well be considered. I would strongly urge the Commonwealth to contemplate those in any discussions it has with the states. It may well be—I suspect that it is, but I am open to argument that it is not—that actions which might be in breach of, for example, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act would be put beyond breach by virtue of the operation of these provisions.

In my speech during the second reading debate—which I have tabled and so people have not read it; but if they do ever bother to, they will see that we have only had since last Thursday to consider this legislation—I talked about the passage of this bill. It needs to be pursued so that, in the unlikely event that something does happen, there are these provisions available. When I come to our amendment I will explain why we are proceeding down that path to ensure that the bill is immediately available but subject to some constraint.