Senator FORSHAW (4:02 PM) —by leave—I move opposition amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 4213, which have been circulated in the name of Senator O'Brien:

The Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2003 is an important piece of legislation because it goes to the heart of the integrity of Australia's quarantine regime. It is for that reason that Labor sought to amend this bill when it was first before the Senate, to ensure that we continue to enjoy the highest level of protection from the threat of imported pests and diseases. When this bill was last considered by the Senate, the government proposed two changes to our quarantine regime. The first change was to make provision to allow for the appointment of state quarantine officers to perform functions within the meaning of the Quarantine Act. Labor were very happy to support that first change. The second proposal was to extend quarantine powers to contract pool staff. We opposed that proposal and our opposition was supported by the Senate by virtue of the amendment that we moved. The government have chosen to reject the Senate's amendment. They have chosen to do that in the other place and they have moved a number of new amendments which have now come before us.

What the government are proposing to do with these new amendments is add three new categories of persons able to perform quarantine functions within the meaning of the act. The first category is police officers, including members of a police force or police service of a state or territory. The second category to be given these powers to perform quarantine functions within the meaning of the act is protective service officers as defined under the Australian Protective Service Act. The third category is employees of a body corporate established or continued in existence for a public purpose by or under a Commonwealth law. We are happy to accept the first two categories but we do have grave reservations about the third category of employees identified in the government's amendments. It is a very general category and it is certainly not clear to us just what the implications of such a provision might be.

We have been provided with a draft schedule of organisations that may fall under this clause but we have not had sufficient time to consider how appropriate those organisations might be as providers of quarantine services. Let me give a couple of examples. Firstly, the minister's draft schedule of organisations that may fall into this category includes the Wheat Export Authority. That organisation is based in Canberra and has around 12 staff with skills that relate to the monitoring of the single export desk for wheat. Therefore I am not sure, frankly, just what role the Wheat Export Authority would be expected to play in terms of, for instance, being given powers to search property and seize material in enforcing our quarantine laws. Similarly, another authority that is on the minister's list is the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. That organisation already draws on state police forces for much of its compliance work, so one can conclude that logically AFMA may well be an organisation on the list that would largely be redundant when it came to actually implementing what the government seeks to do.

We would also be interested to hear from the minister what level of consultation has taken place with these organisations prior to the government putting forward these proposals through the amendments that were moved and carried in the other place. I suspect, given the time frame, that there has probably been very little, if any, consultation. The minister has argued that he needs flexibility in the quarantine system in order for it to do its job properly. We believe that there is already considerable flexibility under the existing arrangements. That flexibility is extended by adding police officers and protective service officers to the groups which can use quarantine powers. We are quite willing to support the government in relation to those categories, but no case has been made out, at this stage, for putting in place an almost open-ended arrangement where, I suspect, tens of thousands of people would be given specific powers under the Quarantine Act.

The opposition amendments require the government to bring to the parliament a regulation that lists those bodies that it proposes to give the quarantine powers to under the third category. Of course we support any improvement in our quarantine arrangements but we cannot support splashing those powers around willy-nilly to all sorts of groups and organisations simply for the sake of it. We must be more rigid and certain in ensuring that those persons or bodies that enforce quarantine laws and powers, and utilise the powers of search and seizure under them, are appropriately qualified and are appropriate organisations to use those enforcement powers. Requiring the government to bring forward a regulation will allow this place, in future, to consider in detail what is being proposed and if necessary use its power to disallow any such regulation.