STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORTAustralian Quarantine Inspection Service
Discussion

Senator MILNE—I have some questions in relation to product integrity, and honey in particular. They follow from the scandal some years ago of the outcome of the court case, which I will go to with AQIS a bit later. But in terms of product integrity, I want to know whether Australia has any arrangements in place to allow for customers of Australian honey to identify the real product. Do we have any product integrity measures in place to guarantee our customers that what they are getting is genuine Australian product—real honey?
Mr Aldred—It is not specifically a question for us, I guess, in the sense that, if it is a labelling and a country of origin type arrangement it is not a product integrity question; it is more an issue for a body such as the ACCC about honesty and integrity in labelling.
Senator MILNE—The problem is that all these things cross over. In the last year we have imported a substantial amount of royal jelly from China. That has been mixed with fillers in Australia and then labelled ‘product of Australia’. It is not just a labelling exercise; it is about an integrity of the product exercise. Do we regard all these things as open slather so long as it just has ‘product of Australia’ on it?
Mr Aldred—No, but I am not aware of the particular incident that you are referring to. It is not something that we have taken action on. I am not aware of the background.
Mr S. Hunter—I might be able to help you to a degree. The Therapeutic Goods Administration is responsible for regulating complementary medicines such as royal jelly for therapeutic use within Australia.
Senator MILNE—But the problem I have here is that this honey is imported from China, mixed up with all sorts of things and then exported from Australia in a range of goods called ‘product of Australia’. That flows on from the scandal a few years ago when those containers were transhipped from China and out of Australia overseas labelled ‘product of Australia’ with just a change of label. Who guarantees to our customers that what they get is Australian honey?
Mr S. Hunter—I do not know the answer to that in full. I know that from the point of view of the sanitary and phytosanitary status of goods that are exported from Australia AQIS has that responsibility. But that does not go to the question of the origin of the product, as far as I am aware.
Senator MILNE—So it seems there is a big loophole here, from what you are saying.
Mr S. Hunter—I do not have a full picture of the regulatory system so I could not comment as to whether there was a loophole there or not.
Senator MILNE—Nobody has a full picture of the regulatory system though—that is the problem. I will certainly get to AQIS, but I understand that quarantine do not check every batch of Chinese honey coming into Australia, nor is there any arrangement for anyone to be able to identify whether it is real honey, and there is no prosecution for transhipment. It seems like Rafferty’s rules to me.
Mr S. Hunter—When we get to AQIS I am sure we will have an officer who will be able to inform you about the inspection of honey as it comes in, if it is proposed to be used for food in Australia.
Senator MILNE—Thank you. I will wait for AQIS.
Senator McGAURAN—The officer did not answer the question. I do not think AQIS is the right place to ask that question.
Senator MILNE—I will have a few of those questions.
Senator MILNE—I have some questions in relation to product integrity, and honey in particular. They follow from the scandal some years ago of the outcome of the court case, which I will go to with AQIS a bit later. But in terms of product integrity, I want to know whether Australia has any arrangements in place to allow for customers of Australian honey to identify the real product. Do we have any product integrity measures in place to guarantee our customers that what they are getting is genuine Australian product—real honey?
Mr Aldred—It is not specifically a question for us, I guess, in the sense that, if it is a labelling and a country of origin type arrangement it is not a product integrity question; it is more an issue for a body such as the ACCC about honesty and integrity in labelling.
Senator MILNE—The problem is that all these things cross over. In the last year we have imported a substantial amount of royal jelly from China. That has been mixed with fillers in Australia and then labelled ‘product of Australia’. It is not just a labelling exercise; it is about an integrity of the product exercise. Do we regard all these things as open slather so long as it just has ‘product of Australia’ on it?
Mr Aldred—No, but I am not aware of the particular incident that you are referring to. It is not something that we have taken action on. I am not aware of the background.
Mr S. Hunter—I might be able to help you to a degree. The Therapeutic Goods Administration is responsible for regulating complementary medicines such as royal jelly for therapeutic use within Australia.
Senator MILNE—But the problem I have here is that this honey is imported from China, mixed up with all sorts of things and then exported from Australia in a range of goods called ‘product of Australia’. That flows on from the scandal a few years ago when those containers were transhipped from China and out of Australia overseas labelled ‘product of Australia’ with just a change of label. Who guarantees to our customers that what they get is Australian honey?
Mr S. Hunter—I do not know the answer to that in full. I know that from the point of view of the sanitary and phytosanitary status of goods that are exported from Australia AQIS has that responsibility. But that does not go to the question of the origin of the product, as far as I am aware.
Senator MILNE—So it seems there is a big loophole here, from what you are saying.
Mr S. Hunter—I do not have a full picture of the regulatory system so I could not comment as to whether there was a loophole there or not.
Senator MILNE—Nobody has a full picture of the regulatory system though—that is the problem. I will certainly get to AQIS, but I understand that quarantine do not check every batch of Chinese honey coming into Australia, nor is there any arrangement for anyone to be able to identify whether it is real honey, and there is no prosecution for transhipment. It seems like Rafferty’s rules to me.
Mr S. Hunter—When we get to AQIS I am sure we will have an officer who will be able to inform you about the inspection of honey as it comes in, if it is proposed to be used for food in Australia.
Senator MILNE—Thank you. I will wait for AQIS.
Senator McGAURAN—The officer did not answer the question. I do not think AQIS is the right place to ask that question.
Senator MILNE—I will have a few of those questions.
-----------------------------
Senator MILNE—I would like to start by asking some questions on the Eastern Creek quarantine facility. How does AQIS see the role of that facility into the future? Is it true that basically you have a lease over the facility until 2010?
Ms Gordon—We have options for a lease of the facility taking us up to 2015.
Senator MILNE—So you have an option to do that, but there has been no decision to stay there or not stay there, so at the moment we are just talking options. Is that correct?
Ms Gordon—The way the lease was constructed is that, if I remember correctly—and I will confirm if I have not—we have options for five-year periods of time. Prior to a particular period of time we can determine whether we want to take up our option. So the final period of time under which the current lease is operating is up to 2015.
Senator MILNE—In particular I want to ask some questions about the bee quarantine facility. You would be expecting that the bee quarantine facility would stay at Eastern Creek until 2015?
Ms Gordon—There is no proposal not to have the bee facility there while we have the lease at Eastern Creek.
Senator MILNE—In the media recently there was a report from the Honey Bee Industry Council saying that the government has decided to stop funding a program that analyses foreign bees found on boats and shipping containers for disease. Is that true?
Mr S Hunter—That is actually a question for Productivity.
Dr O’Connell—I can probably help you, given that just last week I wrote to or I had correspondence from the Crop Pollination Association and the almond growers asking for clarification of the sentinel hive program going ahead. Their understanding was that the government would not continue to fund that into 2008-09 unless we reached agreement with the industry on the forward years on how to fund it. Given the short time frame, I have written back to them saying we will fund it in 2008-09 and progress consultations with them over that period. So we will be funding it next year.
Senator MILNE—So you will fund it for this forthcoming financial year?
Dr O’Connell—Yes.
Senator MILNE—And be in consultation —
Dr O’Connell—Yes, on the future.
Senator MILNE—Into the future.
Dr O’Connell—Yes.
Senator MILNE—Can I ask on the back of that: what is the risk profile that you have put on the Varroa mite?
Dr O’Connell—The issue of risk profiling is one for Biosecurity Australia, which will be on shortly. So we might pick it up then if that is okay.
Senator MILNE—In terms of AQIS, do you carry out surveillance testing on all containers coming in for bees?
Ms Gordon—We are required under the government’s intervention and effectiveness targets to inspect 100 per cent of the outside of containers to identify whether there are any contaminants materials, insects et cetera.
Senator MILNE—So the answer is, yes, you do carry out surveillance testing on all containers coming in?
Ms Gordon—We inspect the externals of all the containers that come in from international ports.
Senator MILNE—So that performance report last year saying that there was a very poor number of containers inspected into New South Wales, was that referring to the inside of the containers or the outside as well?
Ms Gordon—We do not have mandated intervention targets for the inside of containers. We clear the goods inside containers on the basis of risk assessments and reports and referrals, if there are any discrepancies identified in the sampling, to ensure that our conditions are met. But we do have a mandated requirement to inspect the external surfaces of all containers.
Senator MILNE—Yes, but the report—and you would be aware of the report I am talking about last year—said that AQIS had not achieved anything like its performance target of 100 per cent, and that a large number of containers were coming into New South Wales ports not inspected. Is that the case?
Ms Gordon—I think you are referring to the Ernst & Young report. I think there has been some confusion about what containers we are talking about here. The Ernst & Young report certainly indicated that we were managing to inspect/maintain our intervention rates on sea containers coming into the country.
Mr Chapman—The Ernst & Young report was referring to what we call the ECIR, which is the external container inspection regime, which Ms Gordon just described. That is just the outside of containers. As far as that is concerned, we are required to inspect 100 per cent of containers and have an effectiveness rate of 96 per cent. Over the last 12 months nationally we have had 100 per cent inspection, so we have met that intervention target of 100 per cent. The effectiveness rate is 95.7 per cent.
Senator MILNE—In relation to those container inspections, have any of the bees been carrying any of the exotic diseases, particularly the Varroa mite? Have there been any incursions?
Mr Chapman—As far as I understand, Varroa mite has not been found. The only incursions that I am aware of occurred in Cairns about 12 months ago and it is uncertain where they came from. Some vessels are considered higher risk. As far as I understand it, Varroa mite were not found on any of the hives that were detected and destroyed. We worked closely with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries in the destruction of the hives which were discovered. My understanding is that surveillance was carried out in the surrounding region and no Asian honeybees were found outside the immediate port precincts. In that case my understanding is that containers were not found to be contaminated with Asian honeybees. It is possible that the bees arrived on a vessel.
Dr O’Connell—My recollection is that their original infestation was found on a yacht in a yacht’s mast.
Mr Chapman—Yes.
Dr O’Connell—The containers were not specified as being the source.
Senator MILNE—Have there been any reports of the African killer bee getting in to Australia at all?
Mr Aldred—No.
Senator MILNE—Have there been any incursions of the Apis cerana?
Mr Aldred—That is the Asian honeybee.
Senator MILNE—I wanted to follow up quickly on the court case in relation to the 1.7 million litres of honey in 125 shipping containers that came here from China that were retransported. I understand that that case was resolved earlier this year. Does funding for that case come out of AQIS and Biosecurity funding or did that come out of the Customs Service funding? Who pays for that court case?
Mr Aldred—We are not quite sure about the background of the case that you are speaking of.
Senator MILNE—In 2001-02 or thereabouts 125 shipping containers of honey coming from China to avoid the US anti-doping laws were sent to Australia and the honey was contaminated with chloramphenicol, which is an illegal antibiotic. They sent the honey to Australia to be relabelled ‘Product of Australia’, and sent it to the US. That was detected. As I understand it, AQIS pursued it legally earlier this year, and a couple of people were found guilty of bringing that honey from China via Australia. They were fined in the vicinity of $580,200—and that is all—for 1.7 million litres of honey which went to the US. I am just interested to know who had to foot the bill for prosecution and preparing the case over those years. The point I am getting to is whether AQIS has reviewed the adequacy of the fines in the light of the likelihood that we will be used in that way in the future.
Mr S Hunter—We are not aware of the case that you are mentioning. It may be that it is a matter that Customs was handling. We will need to take that on notice to give what advice we can on the issue. Mr Read may know something.
Mr Read—We do not have any specific knowledge on that. We are aware that it is probably a FSANZ/ACCC issue. They would be the agencies involved in this.
Dr O’Connell—I do not think it is this portfolio.
Senator MILNE—Do quarantine officers check every container or every batch of Chinese honey coming into Australia?
Mr Read—If the question is from a food safety perspective of whether we are testing imported honey, the answer is that we are testing five per cent of imported honey under our imported food safety program.
Senator MILNE—Why only five per cent when there is such a high risk from China, and a proven risk from China, in terms of those contaminants? Who determines the risk profile and testing of five per cent?
Dr O’Connell—We essentially act as agents of FSANZ. FSANZ sets these risk profiles and testing. AQIS here is acting as an agent. I think the question is one you would have to put to FSANZ.
Senator MILNE—Our beekeepers fear the Varroa mite. Are we taking any additional precautions in view of the fact that it is in New Zealand and seemingly wiping out bee colonies everywhere?
Ms Gordon—We explained at a previous committee hearing that we have quite specific conditions for the importation of bees in terms of both the conditions that they have to meet before arrival and periods of time spent in post-arrival quarantine so that any expression of disease can be identified. I might ask my colleague to explain what those conditions are.
Senator MILNE—It was not so much about the official imported queens in quarantine; it is more about whether we are taking any additional precautions in relation to accidental or illegal importation.
Ms Gordon—Our systems are designed to identify importations that do not meet our conditions, including smuggling, so both at airports and through our cargo system our officers would be looking specifically for goods such as bees, which we recognise do carry a high quarantine risk, to ensure that we intercept them to the extent that we possibly can and prevent their entry into the country except under the conditions specified for importation.
Senator MILNE—I might pursue that a bit in terms of risk analysis afterwards.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORTAustralian Quarantine and Inspection Service
Estimates Hearings 18.02.08

Senator MILNE—I would like the department to indicate why the Ernst & Young report into the cost-effectiveness of AQIS has not been made public. When will it be made public and will you now provide a copy of it to the committee?

Mr Hunter—The report was the subject of a freedom of information request. It was released under the FOI Act probably around a month ago and then was the subject of a media story resulting from that. We have under consideration at the moment the release of the report more generally.

Senator MILNE—I am specifically asking: will you provide the report to the committee? I understand that it is a 279-page report and it was on the cost-effectiveness of AQIS. I think this committee has worked very hard on these issues and deserves to have a copy of it. I would like an undertaking that you will provide a copy of that report. Further to that, following on from what Senator Scullion said before, that report is extremely damning if what was in the media is true. So I would like to go through some of the allegations and I would like a yes/no answer as to whether it is true.

In relation to what Senator Scullion raised about the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy, what is alleged is that there are no screening targets or effectiveness benchmarks for the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy, despite the threat posed by illegal fishermen, boat people, free movement from the Torres Strait islands et cetera. Is that true? Are there effectiveness benchmarks and screening targets for that strategy?

Mr Hunter—Senator, to go to the first part of your question, we would be happy to provide a copy of the report to the committee.

Senator MILNE—Thank you.

Mr Hunter—The second part of your question mentioned that you were concerned about some of the allegations in the reporting of that report. Before Ms Gordon answers the specifics of your question in relation to the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy, perhaps I could just quote to you the report’s high-level conclusion, which stated that Ernst & Young analysis ‘indicates that AQIS has implemented the government’s quarantine border security policies, delivered improved results against performance targets and has actively and effectively managed the costs of delivering these services whilst remaining within comparable benchmarks’. That was the broad conclusion.

Senator MILNE—I am very well aware that they are saying that within the resources you have got you are doing a good job, but how effectively you use the resources does not necessarily relate to the outcomes, which goes to the questions I am asking. So that is the first question I am asking. There was also a statement, which I was horrified to see, that New South Wales ports have not met the sea container effectiveness benchmarks at all. I have seen that AQIS has not met the effectiveness targets for screening vessels at seaports since 2003-04 despite the considerable risks associated with biosecurity with those port issues. I will go through them all in a minute. I would like to know about the screening targets and effectiveness benchmarks for the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy and I would like to know what you are doing about the fact that New South Wales ports have not met the sea container effectiveness benchmarks at all.

Ms Gordon—My first comment is on the NAQS performance indicators. One of the reasons I think the conclusion was drawn that NAQS does not have performance indicators is a misunderstanding about the difference between the government’s mandatory performance indicators and performance indicators that have been developed within the program.

The Ernst and Young review was looking at the allocation and the effectiveness of use of the border security funding, and within that program NAQS does not have mandated performance indicators. But I might indicate to you that the report itself actually noted the program does not have mandated intervention or effectiveness targets under the quarantine border security measure. A large component of work undertaken by the program, which is monitoring for quarantine risks facing northern Australia, is undertaken through a program of scientific surveys. Reporting accurately on the effectiveness and efficiency of this type of quarantine surveillance is challenging.

The NAQS program has recently received additional funding for quarantine border security which is largely about Torres Strait interventions, avian influenza and illegal foreign fishing vessel initiatives. Specific performance targets have been provided for the AI and foreign fishing vessel initiatives. The recommendation for AI targets, meaningful and complete sets of performance indicators for the program—

CHAIR—Ms Gordon, I am sorry to interrupt. I will let you continue but I want to urge honourable members and department officials that there are a lot of questions to be asked today. I have noticed a lot of reading. If we are going to read verbatim, can we table it? If we have a question, we will either answer yes, no or take it on notice, because there is a lot to get through. I am aware that you have to be somewhere else at five o’clock.

Ms Gordon—Thank you, Senator. I think, therefore, once we have provided you with a copy of the report you will see that many of the conclusions drawn by the journalists were inaccurate or taken out of context.

Senator MILNE—The second part of my question is: is it true that New South Wales ports have not met the sea container effectiveness benchmarks at all? And, if so, what are you doing about it?

Ms Gordon—It is true that they have had declining levels of performance in recent months, and we are looking at the intervention rates and the effectiveness rates to feed back into our risk assessments, as I was describing before, to ensure that we can allocate resources to where the highest risks are.

Senator MILNE—But doesn’t this mean at the moment that sea containers coming into New South Wales pose a risk every day that they sail in there and nothing is happening?

Ms Gordon—It is not that nothing is happening. It is a matter of identifying where the highest risks are coming from in terms of the contents of sea containers. The government’s mandated performance intervention and effectiveness targets are not related to the internal contents of the containers themselves. We are working with our colleagues in the customs area to identify high-risk containers and to review the sorts of intervention measures we have so that we do have available to us better data on which to identify where the greatest risks are.

Senator HEFFERNAN—All of this is a bit scary, I have to say. Why is it that the business was declining?

Ms Gordon—It is the rapidly increasing amount of trade that is coming into the country.

Senator HEFFERNAN—So it is the increasing trade?

Ms Gordon—We have large amounts of increasing trade coming into the country from a much wider range of countries. Many of the sources of our trade are from countries where there are significant risks, and as we put in place our intervention procedures we are feeding back in the identification or the information—

Senator HEFFERNAN—Does that really mean you just have not got enough people, or what does that mean? How would you fix the problem?

Ms Gordon—It is a combination of having resources available and also being able to identify where the risks are and which particular containers might have goods within them that will constitute a quarantine risk and being able to identify those largely on documentation. It goes to issues of us assessing, for instance, the likely effectiveness of fumigation on contents that are in a container.

CHAIR—So you have to rely on the consignors telling the truth?

Ms Gordon—We rely very much always on documentation. We have procedures in place when we identify that the documentation is not accurate to actually target specifically further containers that have been brought in by those brokers or by those importers. We have put them on lists. We will then target specifically to do physical inspections where we think the risks are until we are satisfied that those brokers and those importers have put in place procedures to address whatever concerns we found.

Senator HEFFERNAN—What is the record of getting a surprise?

Ms Gordon—I would have to come back with the specific details, but most of—

Senator HEFFERNAN—In other words, dodgy paperwork.

Ms Gordon—Most of our physical interventions on containers are random audits. They are not ones where people are advised ahead of time that we are going to open and physically inspect.

Senator HEFFERNAN—So, just roughly, is it one in a hundred? How many have a load of hoochie-coochie or whatever in it?

Ms Gordon—Senator, I think it might be better if I come back with a specific figure on that one.

Senator HEFFERNAN—Okay.

Senator MILNE—Further to that at this moment in time, could you say that Australians should have confidence that AQIS has got the sea containers covered?

Dr O’Connell—I think what Ms Gordon is trying to point to is that we are looking to make sure that high-risk issues are well covered. I will ask Ms Gordon to add to that, but the issue that she is trying to explain is the degree to which we need to make sure we cover the high-risk elements. There is then the issue of the total blanket coverage or not, which is moveable, but what—

Senator MILNE—This report is clearly saying that New South Wales is a big problem in respect of sea containers and it is also saying that AQIS has struggled to reach benchmarks on the effectiveness of its screening of sea containers all up. From what you have said, it does not matter whether it is a question of resources or a huge increase in trade. What I asked is: at this moment in time should I be satisfied that AQIS is protecting Australia from the biosecurity risk with regard to sea containers? From where I am sitting, the answer has to be no.

Ms Gordon—I think we have a couple of things confused here. The specific issue raised in the report was about sea vessels, which also goes to passengers. We intervene on passengers coming off vessels with cruise ships et cetera in the same way as we do with people coming off aircraft. So there is a distinction between our intervention with passengers coming off sea vessels to the containers—

Senator MILNE—I am asking about containers specifically.

Ms Gordon—It is a risk management business. We cannot guarantee that we are capturing 100 per cent of quarantine risk items coming into the country.

Dr O’Connell—But that is true for all quarantine operations. Without stopping trade, you cannot manage a zero risk. You have to manage a very low risk.

Senator MILNE—I know it is not a zero risk but it seems to me from what I am reading here that the report is quite considerable, because it seems New South Wales is a huge gap in this. The final question in relation to this, because I am mindful of the time, is that the report has also said AQIS and Australia Post have struggled to meet screening targets and effectiveness benchmarks for international mail, especially in Western Australia, and consistently failed over Christmas. What is it about Western Australia that makes them less competent than the rest of the country in terms of screening mail? Since there is a huge volume of mail at Christmas, wouldn’t it make sense if you wanted to breach biosecurity to send it in at Christmas?

Mr Hunter—Well, Christmas always is a challenging time in the mail program.

Senator MILNE—We know that. Why Western Australia, and what are you doing about it?

Mr Hunter—I do not have the answer about Western Australia particularly, but in relation to the mail program more generally there are additional resources that have been provided to the mail program in the supplementary budget estimates that you are looking at today which are allowing us to achieve our intervention rates closer to the mark.

Senator MILNE—What about Western Australia? Why is there a failure there on the mail?

Ms Gordon—I think those figures—and I would have to go back and check myself—were largely about the time it was taking to clear mail through the mail centres. Particularly at Christmas, as you would appreciate, with high volumes of mail it is often difficult to clear the mail as quickly as one would hope. As Mr Hunter has indicated, we have recently been given additional resources which we hope will enable us to clear mail in all mail centres much more quickly.

The other thing that we have done with that additional funding is to change the way we work in the mail centres so that we are separating out some roles that can be performed by contractors and then use our quarantine staff for the actual inspection of the mail itself, rather than having them opening and closing parcels or mail products. That in itself, we hope, will ensure that we are meeting our targets more effectively.

Dr O’Connell—We will check for you, but I think there is a distinction being made between how quickly mail gets examined and whether or not it is examined. I think the mail is examined—

Senator HEFFERNAN—Is it a mandatory process?

Dr O’Connell—It is 100 per cent for mail.

Mr Hunter—Perhaps if I could just draw your attention to table 16 on page 153 of the annual report for the year 2007-08. It indicates the target for each of the quarantine programs that we cover and the actual rate of intervention. Then over the page there is the actual quarantine risk effectiveness at the border. You will see from the quarter by quarter figures that in terms of intervention targets we have met the intervention target in every case, I think, at a very quick look. In the case of effectiveness, that is more uneven. Looking at that table, it does show that in relation to international mail we have had difficulties reaching the target. In relation to just about all the other targets we generally meet or exceed them.

Senator MILNE—What is your target for international air passengers? How many do you expect to screen? What is your target?

Ms Gordon—The mandated intervention figure is 81 per cent, but we do 100 per cent of passengers whom we have assessed as coming from high-risk countries or are likely to be carrying risk products. We set the 81 per cent around a mixture of people who perhaps we have assessed as low risk and those who we would want to always specifically intervene with and look more closely at what they might be carrying. Again, it is very much a risk assessment based on the nature of the passenger, where they have come from and what our data tells us about the likelihood that they may or may not be carrying risk products.

Senator MILNE—Did you meet your 81 per cent target?

Ms Gordon—I think we have consistently exceeded it. Again, the annual report has a set of figures which indicates that generally we do meet, and have met for a number of years, the 81 per cent target.

Mr Hunter—The intervention target at airports was exceeded in every quarter.

Senator MILNE—When can we have a copy of the Ernst and Young report? We would like it as soon as possible. I am sure everyone on the committee would like it.

Dr O’Connell—When you have a chance to look at that report, we would be more than happy to go through a briefing with you on what we understand.

Senator MILNE—Thank you for that. I am sure this committee will probably want to take it up in our normal course of business because it has a lot of issues in it. Obviously we have not had a chance to look at it. We are only going on media reports of what it says at this particular time. I am happy to move on from that, but I wanted to ask about some risk assessments.

CHAIR—Senator Boswell is waiting and I know Senator Heffernan and Senator Fielding are also waiting to ask questions. Bear in mind we have afternoon tea at four o’clock. We will keep to a very tight timetable and be back at 4.15. Senator Milne, I will pass over to Senator Boswell.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORTDepartment of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Estimates Hearings 19.02.08

Senator MILNE—Can I just follow up with Dr Robinson on something. In relation to this research, one of the things that is emerging out of all these estimates is that several departments are now rushing to catch up on climate change in all sorts of different ways, and we now have a plethora of programs across government. But I am concerned about the lack of an overarching research strategy and then an allocation of research programs across government to make sure we are not having duplication of effort and so on. We have got the Bureau of Rural Sciences doing its thing with the NAMS site and so on; we have got the CSIRO doing its thing; we have got Land and Water having input to the rural strategy on climate change, and the Bureau of Met as well—and that is just to name a few. Is all this being coordinated in any way? Do you know what people are doing and vice versa? How are we going to make sure that we have an overall strategy to maximise the benefits of all this research rather than everybody doing similar things and no-one quite sure of how it all comes together?

Mr Quinlivan—The department of climate change is getting itself organised and beginning to influence what is happening at the Commonwealth level. Climate change has become a significant standing item on the ministerial council agenda for natural resource management ministers. There are quite a number of activities under way there and the coordination of those is a priority. You said there is a lot of activity. That is true. You said there is a lot of research. I am less sure that that is true. There are certainly a lot of people wanting to do research and most of those have limited funds. We are certainly one of those, and we recognise that what we do needs to be well organised and part of a collective effort rather than done individually. I think you will see quite a lot of collaborative and coordinated work emerge over the next year or so. Emissions trading is obviously going to be a catalyst for a lot of that.

Senator MILNE—How do CSIRO, the Bureau of Rural Sciences, Land and Water and the Bureau of Met work together now?

Mr Quinlivan—I cannot really speak for them now, other than to say that there is a good deal of informal contact. Those who are commissioning work from all of those have a good idea about where their priorities are. The Commonwealth agencies will be organising work around the imperatives of emissions trading and the government’s priorities for investment and adaptation. The funds that are available will be directed to the projects of highest priority. As I say, I expect you will see quite a lot of organised work emerging over the next year or so.

Dr O’Connell—We went through the relevant agency in our portfolio that you mentioned, Bureau of Rural Sciences, yesterday. We do not have them here today to discuss that.

Senator MILNE—I do not want to ask any additional questions of them. What I am saying is: how can the community be confident that there is an overarching body which determines research priorities and then makes it clear who is doing what and how the products that they bring out complement each other and how they are accessible to the community in whatever way that may be appropriate? It is the coordination and cooperation that I am talking about, not the actual programs.

Dr O’Connell—In terms of ensuring coordination and cooperation, that will be the function of the department of climate change. That is explicitly its objective. It will deal predominantly with the domestic and international policy agenda and set the framework under which the rest of the agencies and departments will operate and do their bit. But if you want details on how BRS feeds into that, which is our exercise, we can take that on notice and get Dr Grant of BRS to provide you with his view on how that is well coordinated.

Senator MILNE—The point I am making is that up until now there has been no coordination or overarching body. I am glad there is now a department that may oversee that. Watch this space! I will be asking every time how it fits together and how I can easily access who is doing what.

Dr Robinson—For primary industries, as opposed to the broader community, this is why this national climate change research strategy for primary industries was commenced. It came out of the primary industries standing committee research and development subcommittee meeting in the middle of last year with the research and development corporations to look at a nationally coordinated strategy to address climate change issues specifically for primary industries. We are nearing the end of that process now and over the next matter of months we will need to work out in detail exactly how we will link across state governments, across RDCs, across the federal agencies and with those outside the primary industries sector. It has commenced, but there is a way to go yet with respect to a research strategy.

Senator MILNE—Do you have the same strategy in train for the natural environment, so that we get the same integrated climate approach to ecosystem services across the country?

Dr Robinson—I would say not at this point, but there is some intent there.

Senator MILNE—Some intent by whom?

Dr Robinson—By ourselves, but it is not something that I would say that the steering committee of the climate change research strategy has exclusively discussed.

Senator MILNE—Who is the minister responsible for that strategy or that steering committee?

Dr Robinson—I guess from a federal government point of view it is the minister for agriculture, but all the state governments and all the RDCs are funding this initiative, and CSIRO for that matter, so there are many interested in having a national strategy.

Senator MILNE—Thank you.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORTAustralian Quarantine and Inspection Service
Estimates Hearings 18.02.08

Senator MILNE—I want to ask about the import risk assessment for taro. I understand it was due, or the growers had been promised that it would be completed, more than a year ago and that that has not happened. So I would like to know when you expect to have that import risk analysis assessment ready to be able to provide to the growers.

My second question in relation to that is that during the election campaign the growers say that they were contacted by Norm Blackman, Senior Adviser to Mr McGauran, who told them that DAFF had agreed that illegal taro had come into Australia and that growers would be compensated. The next thing is that when the growers put that out to their membership they were threatened with legal action from the department. Can you go through with me what actually happened and whether that legal action has now been dropped and what action you are currently taking?

Dr O’Connell—On the issue of the suggestion that one of the advisers to Minister McGauran had made some commitments to taro growers and that then there were some issues around the potential for legal action, I would have to take that on notice in terms of what occurred there, because we do not have the information right here.

Senator MILNE—Surely you have the information about the department threatening legal action.

Dr O’Connell—With regard to the legal action I do not want to say anything in case I get it wrong—

Senator MILNE—Could you again take it on notice. Specifically, I want to know whether it is agreed that a phone call was made to the taro growers, what was promised to the taro growers in that phone call, whether there was legal action threatened and if that has now been dropped, and what is happening about this issue of compensation because of the taro coming into Australia. In particular, I want to know about the IRA and where it is up to. Can we have a date on that, because it is more than a year since they were expecting it?

Dr O’Connell—We would obviously have to talk with the adviser to Minister McGauran. We might just take a short time to get that.

Senator MILNE—But what about the import risk assessment—the IRA? Where is it up to?

Ms van Meurs—The review into the conditions for taro have been undertaken over the last couple of years. In fact, based on new information, we have provided various advice to AQIS to change those conditions a number of times since 2005, particularly with regard to the small type of taro that is able to sprout. So that information has been provided to AQIS and the conditions for entry have changed over the last couple of years.

We are continuing to review the information. The biology, or the botanical differences of the two types of corms, is quite complex. We are continuing to review that with the understanding that we will work through some of those issues of the morphological differences between small and large taro. So again those conditions are continuing to be reviewed within Biosecurity Australia. There is not actually an IRA, but there is a review of the conditions. So the risk assessment is still underway within Biosecurity Australia.

Senator MILNE—So you are saying there is not an IRA. Do the growers know that what is going on is not an import risk assessment?

Ms van Meurs—Under the new system, the import risk assessments are slightly different. This is a review of existing policy. So when we undertake a pest risk assessment under the International Plant Protection Convention it is called a pest risk assessment. That is what we are undertaking. So although the administrative approach is slightly different, the PRA, which is the technical side, is exactly the same as an import risk assessment.

Senator MILNE—So when do you expect that you will be finished with that and you can actually talk to the growers about what it is?

Ms van Meurs—As I said, over the last two years we have reviewed these conditions a number of times based on new advice. So we are continuing to look at the literature to see if there is new information. I cannot give an exact time of when the next round of review will be finished. We are still working on that.

Senator MILNE—I am trying to get an answer here for the growers who for the last year have been waiting for what they believed was an import risk assessment. That obviously is not happening. It is happening under another guise. When is the department going to inform the growers about a time frame for an outcome for them at the very least?

Mr Cahill—There is existing trade in taro. So what happens when there is existing trade and new information comes forward or there is a change in circumstances that relates to the pest or disease risk associated with imports is that we review the assessment and provide further advice which may then be translated into changes in import conditions. What Ms van Meurs has said is that that is exactly what has been happening over the last couple of years, and the industry has been advised and has been informed as we have gone along and done that.

As I understand it, they still expect further modifications to be made to import conditions. We have looked at the information that they have provided. We are looking at the science around it and we are taking account of that, and it is almost a continuous process of review based on the new information that presents itself. What we have now is a situation where there have been modifications to import conditions which relate to small-taro imports, which, as I understand it, are no longer permitted. To the extent that there is any further information that relates to the import conditions that sit around continuing imports, we will continue to look at that, but it is not a formal IRA in the sense that we have talked about previously with this committee—for example, in relation to apples, bananas and those sorts of things. So it is a review of existing trade policy, and conditions are modified progressively on the basis of new information as it comes forward.

Senator MILNE—Does AQIS now concede that the growers were right when they were objecting in the first place? AQIS allowed those small-taro imports to come in. Do you concede that the growers were right, and is there a discussion and process around compensation?

Mr Cahill—I am speaking on behalf of Biosecurity Australia in relation to the risk assessment processes that sit around the advice that we provide to AQIS, so I am not in a position to say anything on behalf of AQIS. I can talk about the risk assessment process, which is what I understood your question related to.

Senator MILNE—It does, but if you cannot answer then I will ask anybody on the panel. Is there a concession from AQIS that the growers were right and AQIS were wrong in terms of the import of the small taro in the first place and is there a process now for compensation?

Mr Hunter—My understanding is that all imports of taro met the import conditions that existed at the time. I am not aware of any compensation claims or activities that are underway.

Senator MILNE—I am gobsmacked by the fact that you are not aware because the growers have argued in the first place that the conditions that were set were not adequate. They have been proven to be right and they have suffered accordingly, and the whole issue of compensation is one that they have been discussing at length. I cannot understand why you do not know about it.

Mr Hunter—I will take the question on notice, but I am not aware of it. I am not aware of the requests for compensation.

CHAIR—It is on notice.

Senator MILNE—Thank you.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORTDepartment of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Estimates Hearings 19.02.08

Senator MILNE—Can I follow on from there, Mr Chair, in relation to weeds in particular. We seem to have an awful lot or programs with a lot of bits of funding all over the place. I know Land and Water are contracted to manage the R&D component of the program, complementing other research. Then you have the national weeds management facilitator, who is supposed to be coordinating national action and so on. Do we have an evaluation out of all of this of how we are actually going on weeds in Australia?

Mr Shaw—We had an evaluation of the Defeating the Weed Menace program, which is an overarching program of $44.4 million, finishing in June this year. That has not been finalised yet but it will be finalised shortly, and that is undertaking a review of the program and some of the elements underneath it. That was a national framework for looking at addressing weeds issues.

Senator MILNE—What I am asking is not whether it was administered properly and all that sort of stuff; I am asking about on-the-ground outcomes for ecosystems across Australia. Has all this money succeeded in any way in rolling back the weeds menace across the country? It seems to me the invasives are spreading everywhere you look. You have climate change now, having sleeper weeds turning into active invasives and so on. What is the analysis of this program about all this money? Has it worked? If so, where? If not, what are we going to do about it?

Mr Shaw—The program has only been going for about four years, which is a relatively short period of time in relation to addressing the sorts of issues that you have referred to. Yes, it is a major issue. Obviously, further ongoing work in a more strategic and coordinated way is required, and we would be looking to take a lead in that in the future.

Dr O’Connell—The review that Mr Shaw just mentioned would be a performance review of the program. It is not just, ‘Has the money been spent properly?’ It is a performance review, as I understand it.

Senator MILNE—The CRC for weeds was defunded and then there was an application in for invasive plants, and that did not get up. Land and Water has now got some R&D. What are we doing to replace that capacity and what is Land and Water doing?

Dr O’Connell—We might ask Michael.

Dr Robinson—Can I have you repeat the question, Senator Milne.

Senator MILNE—I am concerned that there are so many programs across Australia on weeds but there does not seem to be very much in the way of leadership and innovative R&D work. I am asking what is the role of Land and Water Australia in R&D on weeds and how is it coordinated across all these other weeds programs?

Dr Robinson—Land and Water Australia is contracted to manage the research and development component of the Defeating the Weed Menace program. That contract is to basically finish in the middle of the year. We are to deliver that R&D component, but part of that within Land and Water Australia, and as part of our commitments, is to think about what comes next. Those discussions are important to Land and Water Australia, and we are having those discussions at this time with the department as to where to next and how we can be involved in that leadership.

Senator MILNE—So basically in the middle of the year the research that you have been undertaking finishes and there is no indication of how that is going to be carried on at this point.

Mr Shaw—Senator, if I could come in at this stage, there was a $15 million election commitment of the government to fund a new national weeds and research productivity program. We are obviously working with people like Land and Water Australia and the current CRC in looking at options for having this national research centre, which could start some time in the next financial year. We are looking at ways to ensure that there is a minimisation of time lapse between the CRC and what might come under this new proposed national weeds research and productivity program. We are consulting with all of the key players in relation to that in looking at what that might result in, and that would provide a national framework.

Senator MILNE—You are worrying me already with the ‘and productivity program’ aspect of it. Is this research just for agricultural productivity or are we actually looking at sustainability in natural ecosystems and things like invasive weeds in Kakadu, for example, the spread of buffel grass, elephant grass and so on through the Territory and elsewhere? Is it related to anything other than just productivity on farm?

Mr Shaw—Absolutely. Of course, weeds are not restricted just to farms. They are an issue for urban people as well and, more broadly, are—

Senator ABETZ—In both heritage areas and national parks.

Senator MILNE—We have just mentioned those.

Mr Shaw—I would see it as more wide ranging, but this would need to be developed as part of the consultation process.

Senator MILNE—What consultation process is there? How can both the civil society community as well as businesses engage with this consultation process? My concern here relates to the fact that the CRC was not funded because they could not demonstrate a dollar value in relation to their research. Yet every farmer you spoke to said it increased their productivity, so there was a dollar value but the way it was structured meant it did not get funded. How do we get the community consultation to make sure that the broader aspects of weeds and ecosystems are taken into account in this research program?

Dr O’Connell—The nature of the program is still under development and the government decision is still yet to be made on how that will be worked through.

Senator MILNE—Well, it is the perfect time, if it is still under development, to consider how the community might be engaged in talking about what it wants from government funded weeds programs. Minister, would you be prepared to convey to the minister that there is a real concern in the community about weeds in an ecosystem context, not just in an agricultural productivity context, and that the community be given some input into helping to frame those kinds of criteria for research?

Senator McLucas—I undertake to do that, Senator.

Senator MILNE—Thank you.