Mr O'CONNOR (6:16 PM) —The Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 we are debating here today underpins in a legislative sense the government's response to the Nairn committee report on Australian quarantine matters. The bill finally gives legislative effect to a review process that was commenced by the former Labor government in 1996. I pay tribute here to the foresight of the Labor agriculture minister at the time, Senator Bob Collins, in initiating this particular review. Like so many other areas of agricultural policy over the 13 years that Labor was in government, we came to grips with the great process of structural adjustment that was taking place in many rural industries over that period and the big issues surrounding marketing structures and expanded market access for the output of the rural sector.

Part of the great reform process initiated by Labor over that 13 years was the Nairn review of Australia's quarantine service and procedures, a report which was completed in the first term of the coalition and has now been given legislative backing in its second and what we consider to be its final term of office. I must express some concern yet again about the time it has taken to bring this legislation onto the floor of this parliament.

We notice in many areas of government policy, and I refer here to industry policy relating to textile, clothing and footwear and automotive manufacturing, that the government has responded to various reviews and various studies of those industries and yet has taken an inordinate amount of time to put any legislative framework in place to underpin its financial and policy responses to those reports. A similar situation has occurred with regard to Australia's quarantine service. The review was initiated in January 1996. There was a thorough review process and the Nairn committee report was presented to the minister in late 1996. We have had this legislation on the Notice Paper in the parliament throughout 1998 and only now have we had this legislation to debate on the floor of the House.

The degree of public interest generated by the review was gauged by the number of written submissions that were received. There were some 167 submissions made to the Nairn committee. Extensive consultations were held with stakeholders. When the report was tabled, it contained some 109 recommendations relating to all aspects of Australia's quarantine policies, structures and procedures.

The magnitude of the task undertaken by the Nairn committee ought to be understood against the backdrop of significant developments taking place in Australia's engagement with the world in a trading sense, against our international obligations generated by a significant increase in Australia's trade with the rest of the world, and the massive increase in the mobility of citizens around the world. This combination of events had put great pressure on Australia's quarantine service.

Australia, possessing a unique natural environment due to its geographical location, faces a very real challenge in the light of these developments to maintain, through its quarantine policies and procedures, that unique environment free from exotic pests and diseases. Indeed, it has been the pristine nature of our production environment which has delivered us a very strong marketing advantage as a nation in the export of clean foods with a strong, `clean green' image. It is important to the future success of many of those exporting rural industries that our image in this area is retained.

We are not opposing this bill on the floor of the House. We had some reservations about aspects of the bill and we referred those to a Senate committee, which has completed its hearings on the bill. We thought it was an important opportunity at that Senate hearing for interested parties to clarify certain aspects of this legislation and for interested parties to offer comment on the bill as presented by the government.

We did have some concerns about the scope of the government to privatise the quarantine task. That is not a proposition that we in principle support. I think the Australian public demands a strong public presence in quarantine matters. We concede that there are some low level quarantine functions that can be undertaken very successfully in cooperation with industry, but we believe the high level quarantine functions ought to be undertaken by a body which is expert in the task and which is in public hands. We did have some concerns about the delegated powers in this bill, and the Senate process certainly clarified some of those for us.

I will now go through the various provisions of the bill and, if I might, just make some broad comment on the bill and those matters where we are in agreement with the legislation and the intent of the government. The bill enlarges the scope of the quarantine task. There is reference made in the bill—and this is off the back of the Nairn committee recommendations—to the need for the agriculture minister to seek the advice of the environment minister on matters relating to quarantine. Also enshrined in this bill is a stipulation that economic factors relating to the future prosperity of particular regions have to be taken into account when decisions are made in the quarantine area.

There was one area of the Nairn committee recommendations that the government did not pick up, and it was certainly one we would not have moved on either—that is, the committee's recommendation to establish a separate statutory authority for quarantine matters quite removed from the government. We consider that AQIS ought to be in public hands and be quite close to ministerial scrutiny. The government has, in this legislation, not moved along the path that Nairn recommended in this regard.

I will just pick up a couple of other general points in relation to the legislation, and they involve the increased role of industry in quarantine matters. I think industry has come to understand that, if Australia is to maintain its presence as a quality exporter of produce, it must bear its responsibility to make sure that very basic quality assurance regimes are put in place in agricultural and value adding enterprises that export to the rest of the world. Industry has a very significant and central role in the quarantine task, and the object of the Nairn recommendations was to move government agencies into closer consultation with private industry to ensure the integrity of the quarantine task.

My predecessor in this portfolio, the honourable member for Burke, laid down some very important markers in relation to how quarantine procedures should occur and how the quarantine task should be structured. He took the view—and quite rightly so, and I think it is reflected in the government's approach in this legislation—that at the core of the quarantine task must be a very sound scientific assessment and base and that science ought to be in these instances a very strong arbiter when it comes to questions of quarantine and the integrity of the quarantine procedures.

This bill also introduces increased flexibility to the pre-border, border and post-border quarantine arrangements and measures. In the past, we had a fortress mentality as far as quarantine was concerned, and we had a very strong emphasis on border measures and the strength of those border measures in protecting Australia from exotic pests and diseases. I think we have come to understand that the quarantine task is far broader than a series of strong border measures. Those ought to be in place as a natural matter of course, but there is much that can be done in other countries as far as the importation of food and food stuffs to ensure that products coming into Australia meet some very basic standards.

In the post-border arrangements, the bill introduces quite a degree of flexibility into the quarantine task, which I do not think is onerous on industry—in fact, I think it helps us. Carriers will gain flexibility, for example, in the timing of pre-arrival reporting obligations and will be allowed to make their quarantine reports by exception in certain cases, such as for scheduling of international flights. The power of quarantine inspectors to use dogs to assist them in the quarantine task is finalised in this bill as well.

The bill also strengthens the offences and penalties provisions, and I think there would be widespread agreement with this on both sides of the House and in the general public as well. The offences and penalties provisions of the act are brought into line with provisions in the criminal code, and that will bring this legislation into line with other Commonwealth legislation already in place.

The legislation also makes provision for special quarantine zones and introduces a significant element of consistency in the way the quarantine measures apply to special zones throughout Australia. A new definition, for example, of the special quarantine zones is included in the bill. These zones exist primarily to facilitate the movement of traditional inhabitants in areas such as the Torres Strait, while at the same time exerting some control to ensure that exotic pests and diseases are not introduced and spread. Existing powers which can intrude unnecessarily on the lifestyle of indigenous inhabitants of the Torres Strait are replaced by a more flexible approach in dealing with quarantine matters as they arise in these areas. I think that is an eminently sensible position that the government has taken in this legislation.

The issue of quarantine in Australia can never be understated. I would hate to see the government of Australia take any legislative initiative to water down the security of the preservation of Australia's pristine, natural producing environment, if I can call it that. In our recent history significant quarantine issues of very real concern to regional communities have arisen, such as the importation of salmon. The salmon industry in Tasmania has grown enormously in recent years, such that it is now worth in excess of $300 million, generating employment in an area of Australia that is having real difficulty maintaining its employment base. We have had problems in other areas. Quarantine issues have been of real concern not only to producers in industries such as the citrus industry, the apple and pear industry and the meat and chicken meat industry but also to the communities which sustain those producers and which rely very much on the economic activity generated by those industries.

Any quarantine reforms that are undertaken have to be undertaken in a gradual way and they have to have a sound research base. The Nairn committee prepared an excellent report, putting forward a whole raft of recommendations designed quite specifically to improve Australia's quarantine service. Inherent in any quarantine regime should be the protection, in a very real sense, of Australia's unique environment. A quarantine regime ought to be transparent. It ought to be based, as much as it can be, on scientific risk assessment. It must engender confidence on the part of producers and the Australian public in its procedures.

I do not think we ought to walk away from the fact that in the past we have had very real criticism of Australia's quarantine service, especially of the culture that has prevailed within it. But I am of the firm view that over time we can redirect that culture, make it more responsive to the needs of industry and indeed the nation, while preserving public confidence in the integrity of the process.

We do not intend to oppose this legislation. As I have said, there are key elements in this bill that we certainly do support. It was the result of a Labor initiative. The extensive review into this important area of agricultural policy and the sensible recommendations that are enshrined in this legislation have been taken up by the government in a way that we agree with. When the government brought down its response to this report, we did have some questions about whether the financial commitment that was made by the then minister, John Anderson, was sufficient to ensure the integrity of the quarantine task.

I say to the government that there are legitimate areas in which governments can make savings in public expenditure, but when the razor gang casts its eye over this area of policy and administration, I caution that in making savings it does not emasculate and diminish the quarantine task. We must have resources to make sure that Australia's quarantine structures and procedures are the best that they can be. We need to support the bodies to which we entrust the quarantine task with sufficient resources to make sure that they can carry out the assessments that are required in a very professional and expert way.

We ought not to be scrimping in these areas, because they are very important and they do not come cheaply. I am not making a plea for a massive increase in the budget of AQIS. I am merely making an appeal to the government that, when it does cast its eye over its budget and when it has to make very important decisions in these areas, it be mindful of the fact that we are now into more professional risk assessment procedures, and they do not come cheaply, and this particular area ought to be adequately resourced. In conclusion, this is a very important area of policy. We support the major provisions that are enshrined in this legislation.