Senator FORSHAW (11:52 AM) —I commence my contribution to this second reading debate on the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 by noting that this legislation seeks to implement many of the recommendations of the committee of inquiry into Australia's quarantine arrangements. That committee of inquiry has become known as the Nairn committee because it was chaired by Professor Malcolm Nairn. The committee was established by the Labor minister for primary industries, Senator Bob Collins, a number of years ago, during the period of the Keating government.

The Nairn committee issued its report, entitled Australian Quarantine: A Shared Responsibility, in October 1996. It is now April 1999, 2½ years after that very important, very thorough committee inquiry handed down its report and we are now dealing with the legislation that seeks to implement many of the recommendations of the report. I certainly recognise that a report of such a nature required some time for the government to consider its response, but it should not take 2½ years, particularly when the government's response to the committee's recommendations was published by the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Anderson, in August 1997. So it took from October 1996 to August 1997 for the government to consider the report and issue its response but it has taken until April 1999 for the government to bring in this legislation.

The only reason this legislation is before the Senate today is that this government has adjourned debate on the GST legislation. As I am sure every Australian knows by now, the Senate is sitting this week and next week to deal with the GST legislation. We are sitting at a time when the House of Representatives is not sitting. We are having special sittings to deal with the GST. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer claim that this is the most important piece of legislation that has to be dealt with by this parliament. Those gentlemen are out there in the community urging the Senate, telling the Labor Party, to get on with the job and pass the legislation. Well, we are here waiting for you to bring it on, and what do you do? You squib it. You can't get your act together.

I am quite happy now to deal with the Quarantine Amendment Bill. Indeed, I have had my contribution to this debate prepared for some time. We are not about delaying important legislation that needs to be dealt with by the Senate. This is a most important piece of legislation. The Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 seeks to implement many of the recommendations of the Nairn committee, which I will come to shortly. I wish to pay tribute to the former minister, Mr Bob Collins, for his initiative in establishing this committee of inquiry to broadly look at the important issues of Australian quarantine arrangements.

As people are aware from the recent reports regarding an outbreak of Newcastle disease in the poultry industry, quarantine issues are becoming more and more important. Australia can no longer rely upon the fact that it is an island continent, that it has natural boundaries, to maintain its reputation and its status as essentially disease free with respect to many of its agricultural industries. The world today, particularly with respect to international trade and travel, means that we are becoming more exposed to the problems of diseases and pests that exist in other countries. We have to be increasingly vigilant to protect our industries, our agricultural industries in particular, our food industries and our public health.

This legislation, I am pleased to say, goes a long way towards enhancing that protection by improving our quarantine arrangements. I must point out, however, that there was one recommendation of the Nairn committee that the government has not agreed to and that we likewise do not support. That was the recommendation of the committee to establish a separate authority which would be largely independent of government to look after quarantine issues. We believe that recommendation was not appropriate. We are glad to see that the government didn't pick it up because ultimately the buck stops with the government on quarantine issues. It is essential that we have a properly resourced public body such as AQIS, staffed by experts, to oversee quarantine in this country.

The bill picks up many of the recommendations of the Nairn committee. I will deal with a few of the issues covered by the bill and then move on to some issues that were specifically looked at by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. There are a number of definition changes in the legislation, particularly with respect to the use of the terms `disease' and `pest'. Without going into those in detail, we note that they are more extensive and appropriate to today's environment of greater international trade and travel.

One particular amendment to the act is the inclusion of the reference to ballast water. Whilst this may appear to be a technical issue, it is in fact a very important issue, as we know. Australia—particularly the state of Tasmania where you come from, Mr Acting Deputy President—is facing a major problem in its seafood industry as a result of ballast water from ships bringing in organisms and pests, particularly the starfish that can attack the shellfish industry. That is one matter that has become increasingly important in recent years and is covered in this legislation.

Another provision of this legislation requires greater consultation between the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage when looking at quarantine issues and in particular when exercising powers under the legislation. The bill also provides for greater flexibility in pre-border, border and post-border quarantine arrangements. By that I mean that we have moved from the traditional approach of just using border controls to handle many quarantine arrangements and extended that, for instance, by requiring pre-entry reports from vessels so that the quarantine risk is reduced even further.

There is much work that can and should be done beyond our immediate border points with respect to ensuring adequate quarantine arrangements within this country. Of course, that is particularly important with respect to the importation of food from other countries.

The bill also significantly strengthens the penalties for offences against the quarantine requirements. There are also changes which will bring about greater consistency in the special quarantine zones that exist, such as in the Torres Strait. Special quarantine zones are designated particularly in that area because the traditional inhabitants move from island to island within that region. Whilst that should be facilitated, we need to ensure that exotic pests and diseases are not introduced as a result of the movement of goods or people within those areas.

The existing powers which can intrude unnecessarily on the lifestyle of indigenous inhabitants of the Torres Strait have been replaced in this legislation by a more flexible approach in dealing with those quarantine matters. We support the government on that proposal and think it is eminently sensible.

As I said earlier, this bill, which was passed by the House of Representatives with the support of both the government and the opposition, was referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. That action was taken to enable AQIS, the department and such other groups as the National Farmers Federation who have an interest in this issue to appear before the Senate committee to provide more information regarding the legislation.

There are two areas of concern I wish to quickly refer to on which we sought information in that inquiry. One was with respect to the privatisation of quarantine stations. The opposition has a concern to ensure that we do not move down the road of the privatisation of quarantine matters, thereby reducing its effectiveness, and move too far away from the public responsibility that rests on government in respect of quarantine.

There was a recommendation in the Nairn report that supported the concept of privatising Commonwealth quarantine stations. During the inquiry evidence was given by AQIS. I will quote from their submission. They said:

In addressing this issue of privatisation, these stations—

that is, the quarantine stations—

remain government owned and operated, and thus are not commercial premises at this point. AQIS is about to publicly distribute a discussion paper on their future before taking any further steps down the identified path of privatisation. AQIS would see any new arrangements being made the subject of stringent compliance agreements.

We are most concerned as an opposition to ensure that any proposals which involve the greater use of commercially operated premises—if they are to be put forward—are clearly put on the table for the parliament to consider. As I said, we are concerned to ensure that the primary responsibility for quarantine, particularly in respect of high-risk quarantine issues, is retained within a public authority such as AQIS.

We do note that this legislation encourages greater interface and cooperation between quarantine services and industry, and that is something that we strongly support. Whilst some low-level quarantine functions can be undertaken by industry successfully, that should not become the hallmark for the future of quarantine across the board in this country.

Another issue that the committee addressed in our inquiry—and I urge senators to have a look at the committee's report because, as I said, this is a most important issue for Australian industry, for our economy and for public health as well—is a proposal in the legislation to remove the privilege against self-incrimination. Essentially, this legislation removes the right of persons who have information which should be available to AQIS officers in carrying out their duties of quarantine to rely upon the privilege against self-incrimination in declining to provide such information. The corresponding arrangement is, however, that any evidence obtained by using that provision is not permissible in subsequent criminal proceedings, except in certain limited circumstances. We were naturally concerned to ensure that removal of the right to answer questions on the grounds of privilege against self-incrimination was not being removed without good cause. As we note in the committee's report, AQIS were somewhat unclear regarding the implications of this proposed section of the bill, which is section 79A.

Senator O'Brien —You are being very kind.

Senator FORSHAW —I am being kind to AQIS. The committee report notes that clarifi cation was provided by the Attorney-General's Department and, indeed, this issue was looked at by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee noted that, on balance, they were prepared to accept the proposal as being one which strikes a reasonable balance between the requirements of law enforcement and the protection of individual rights. Having had that assurance by the eminent chair of the scrutiny committee, Senator Barney Cooney, I think all senators would at least be willing to accept the proposal on that ground.

There is a range of other issues dealt with in this legislation, such as the delegation of powers by the minister, the question of ministerial responsibility and the liability of the Commonwealth, the Crown and the minister in areas where quarantine issues arise. I am sure that my colleague Senator O'Brien will take up those issues in his remarks following my comments.

In conclusion, I indicate that the opposition supports the passage of the legislation, but we do so recognising that we have to be ever vigilant in this area. I express our particular concern that we do not wish to see further privatisation in this area. (Time expired)