STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT
(Senate-Monday, 20 October 2008)

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY PORTFOLIO - Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service 

 Senator MILNE» -I would like to start by asking for an update on the ganglioneuritis virus in abalone. Can you tell me where that is up to, particularly in relation to the Tasmanian experience? We received a briefing note recently, but there was only a passing reference to the fact that it had been found in the wild fishery in Tasmania, not just in the processing plant. If you could give me some information about that to start with I would appreciate it.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORTAustralian Quarantine Inspection Service Discussion Senator MILNE—I just wanted to have an update on where we are with the New Zealand government and the WTO process. I understand that the option of negotiating it is gone and that New Zealand has made a second complaint, or whatever, which locks in the system. Can someone just tell me where it is up to and what it means? Mr Burns—I think you have summarised it pretty well, really. We are in the process of a dispute with New Zealand. We have not met as a panel in Geneva yet. That will happen in September and we will see what happens. Senator MILNE—There is no mechanism now, it is a locked-in international process? I just think the apple and pear growers would appreciate any detail you can give us, notwithstanding that you are obviously preparing your case so you are not going to talk about that in any detail, but I would like to have as much detail as you can provide about where we are up to. Mr Burns—One point I would make initially is that the industry is briefed regularly by DFAT, which runs the case, on where the case is up to so they are briefed on that. But the way the WTO process works is that a dispute panel will meet twice. The first meeting is, as I said, in September. The time frames on how that plays out from there we could provide in writing, if you like, because there is a very set process for that. Senator MILNE—I would appreciate that. Mr Burns—But as I said, the panel will meet twice and then there will be a period of consideration. They will issue a report. Depending on what the report says there could be an appeal and normally we would not expect to see an outcome probably for at least another 12 months, at the least, more like 18. Senator McGAURAN—At the last meeting we were informed that you were in a dispute resolution, or in out-of-court discussions with New Zealand. What point are you at there? Mr Burns—I think last time we indicated that ministers had indicated that they remained open to finding a mutually agreed solution to this dispute, and that remains our position, but those informal discussions with the New Zealanders have not borne fruit. They seem to want to have their day in court, if you like. Senator McGAURAN—Is it not a requirement of the WTO that you undertake those discussions? Mr Burns—We have had those consultations, yes. Senator McGAURAN—So you have had the formal and the informal discussions? Mr Burns—Yes. Senator McGAURAN—And they have broken down? Mr Burns—I would not say ‘broken down’, but we have not reached a resolution. Senator HEFFERNAN—Bloody lawyers, they should shoot all lawyers. Is part of the logic behind the protocol for the importation the acceptance, which this committee was given at an earlier hearing, that indeed we will import fire blight as part of the reasoning and logic behind it—I still recall those words—but that it will not get out there into the field? Are we still agreeing to a protocol, or fighting a protocol, which has as the main beam the fact that we will probably import fire blight but that it will not get into the field? Is that still part of the thinking? Mr Burns—I would not comment on the import risk assessment. I am just handling the WTO’s side of it. Senator HEFFERNAN—You can see why it is a conundrum when you can escape that. I just cannot believe that the Australian government, whoever is in government, would be stupid enough to agree to a protocol that actually says, ‘We probably will import the disease but for some miraculous reason it is not actually going to get out of the fruit shop or the garbage can, or wherever.’ We still do not know how it got into the gardens down there in Melbourne. And, of course, the pear industry are tearing their hair out over this stuff, besides the fact that they have not got any water. You just flick it to someone else? Mr Burns—It is not a matter of flicking it. It is just not an issue that I would comment on. Senator HEFFERNAN—If you are taking a thing to the WTO, are you in charge of that? Mr Burns—DFAT is in charge of the legal— Senator HEFFERNAN—What are you in charge of? Mr Burns—I am in charge of the international division. Senator HEFFERNAN—Surely you would want to know what the logic of the argument is that is being presented that you are in charge of? Dr O’Connell—If you are interested in pursuing the content of the import risk assessment and the outcome there, Mr Burns is not an expert in that area. We can provide— Senator HEFFERNAN—Are you another broken-down lawyer, or what are you? Dr O’Connell—A broken-down teacher. Mr Burns—A broken-down economist. Senator HEFFERNAN—Surely to God Mr O’Connell, and I still do not know what your PhD is all about, it does not make commonsense for Australia to agree to an import risk proposition which on the advice of your people says, ‘We will indeed accept this part of the protocol that will probably bring fire blight to Australia.’ You would agree that your officer said that here at a recent hearing? Let us just tick it off. That was said here, you agree? Dr O’Connell—I think probably this would be better left until we get Biosecurity Australia in order to discuss the content rather than— Senator FIELDING—Have we determined who is actually going to front up to the World Trade Organisation and actually work out who is going to have this detailed information to make sure that Australia is defended well? Senator MILNE—DFAT. Senator FIELDING—We have got someone here saying that they do not know, ‘That’s not me. That’s someone else.’ I hope we do not get lawyers over there to say the same thing. Senator Sherry—I think the point is that at this stage of the process, now it has gone to a formal tribunal, it is the Department of Foreign Affairs. They are now handling the presentation of the case. Senator McGAURAN—What is their expertise? Senator Sherry—Hang on a second. CHAIR—This witness is half-way through answering the question. The minister has the call. Senator Sherry—Assuming the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is receiving some input from this department, the officers may be able to outline in great detail the assistance they are providing if they have got some information about their liaison and who is liaising with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and who is helping prepare the case, et cetera. I am sure they can give you a rundown. Senator FIELDING—The apple and pear industry would be pretty keen to know who is actually going, because this is their livelihood. Senator Sherry—The officer can go into this but he did indicate—I am not sure whether you were here—that the industry itself is being kept informed about this process and the timelines and the Department of Foreign Affairs— Senator HEFFERNAN—They are spewing. Senator Sherry—Whether or not they are spewing, they have been kept informed— Senator HEFFERNAN—That is small comfort. Senator Sherry—I agree. So, if the officer has got anything further to add about who is providing backup and support and research to foreign affairs, who is presenting the case in foreign affairs and who will be representing us at the tribunal and who from the department will be liaising and providing any technical advice as required, et cetera, et cetera, I am sure— Senator HEFFERNAN—Are you happy to have all those questions you have just kindly put to us on notice? Senator Sherry—Yes, of course. Senator HEFFERNAN—You will put them on notice for us? Senator Sherry—Yes. Senator HEFFERNAN—God bless you. Senator Sherry—I do not really think it is my job to give you the question that you put on notice to me— Senator HEFFERNAN—No, you are doing really well. Senator Sherry—but I do recall some discussion about these issues when we were last in government, which is— Senator HEFFERNAN—Yes, it has been going on for a while. Senator Sherry—twelve or 13 years ago, so they are not new questions to me. CHAIR—Thank you. In all fairness, Senator Milne did start off with the question. Senator MILNE—I wondered if Mr Bowen could perhaps answer some of those questions to save them going on notice, if he has any of that information with him now. Mr Burns—Before Mr Bowen answers, to get back to the issue that was just discussed of how it is being done, there is a taskforce that is being set up. It is led by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade because they have competency in this matter across government. Any dispute on any issue is led by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade— Senator HEFFERNAN—Technical or legal? Mr Burns—Both. And the Attorney-General’s department is also part of that group as is a taskforce that is being set up within DAFF which Mr Bowen is leading on the DAFF side. That includes people from the international area but also from BA and AQIS. The role of DAFF is that we provide the technical support to the legal debate which is run from DFAT and the Attorney-General’s Department. Senator MILNE—I thought Mr Bowen was going to add something. Mr Bowen—I think Mr Burns covered the fact that there is a whole-of-government approach here for our defence of the case. The only thing extra I would add to the information is that we have also hired the Chief General Counsel from the Australian Government Solicitor’s Office to provide advice to the team that has been put together for the defence. Senator HEFFERNAN—Is this a court that uses court rules? Mr Bowen—It is a mixture of the courts. It is a trade organisation which has a panel which has been appointed and has people required to make submissions and— Senator HEFFERNAN—What is the driver? Is it the law? Mr Bowen—The driver is a WTO agreement called the Sanitary Agreement, and New Zealand has alleged that Australia has broken some of the rules under the WTO SPS agreement in regard to the conditions, or measures, set out for imports for apples and they are challenging those conditions. Senator HEFFERNAN—But there is a codified law. The difficulty with the courts, as you would be aware, is that they are absolutely about the law and not necessarily about the truth. That is just a fact. If you are guilty of something and you go to court and you get a QC or SC to take your case, his job is to avoid the truth to get you off the hook and he will use every trick in the law to do that. In terms of quarantine issues, certainly terrorism issues and the issue we are confronted with today, fire blight, people can use the law to dud Australia’s farmers. The protocol clearly says that, as part of the acceptance—and everyone just nodded their head and went to sleep—yes, we will bring fire blight but we will not infect Australia’s farms. That is crazy. Senator Sherry—But I think the point you are making goes to the legal basis apparently in international law for the handling of disputes like this. I am sure we can find a paper that would outline that for you with some case precedent and what has happened and previous disputes to respond to your question. Senator HEFFERNAN—But the difficulty, with great respect, is that that is what I am frightened about, because that will fail the practical test—the reason they did not kick down the door at Emerald that time. This is a thing that keeps apple and pear growers awake at night when they are reminded about it, and they will be reminded about it as a consequence of today’s hearings. Senator Fielding, you are right: it is a very serious issue for Australia for us to be playing around with the law. The venerable scientists have said, ‘Yes, we will bring it in but we will not infect anyone.’ If that all goes to custard, no-one will get the sack, but a lot of Australia’s apple and pear growers will grow broke. Senator Sherry—You have made your point very forcefully and frequently. As to the debate around the adoption of an international quarantine protocol, and whatever the processes are, I am not familiar with when that occurred, but I am sure that there were some internal discussions, debates in government and in the community at the time. If it is any help, we will not only get a copy of the treaty, protocol, or whatever the particular technical legal term is, and also the background for signing of such an approach and any debate that occurred at the time. Senator FIELDING—When is the hearing for the WTO? What is the date of that again? Mr Bowen—The first panel hearing is 2 and 3 September. Senator FIELDING—That is not that far away. I know DFAT is taking the lead role, but who is taking the lead role AQIS? Is there some representative here who is taking the lead role in helping DFAT mount the case? Mr Bowen—There are officers from the department, AQIS and also Biosecurity Australia involved in a group working across government to prepare the defence for the case. Senator FIELDING—Has there been a project manager or leader or manager who has been assigned from your area to be the lead person to mount this case with DFAT? Mr Bowen—My role is the head of the Apple Dispute Task Force. Senator FIELDING—Could you outline what you have been doing so far in preparation for this big challenge that Australia faces at the WTO? Mr Bowen—Yes. The department has been working closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney-General’s Department to prepare our case. New Zealand has set out a claim of what they are challenging. Their first submission is due on 18 June. From when we see their first submission, we will have about four weeks to prepare a first submission on our behalf to counter their points. The other development that has occurred is that we have challenged the procedures that New Zealand has raised, the nature of their request, and questioning whether it meets the law set out by the WTO. We are waiting for the panel to give a preliminary ruling on the scope of their claims. Senator FIELDING—Can you outline the experience you have had with the WTO before with these types of things? I am trying to get a bit of a feeling for this. The public would like to know how we have handled these things before. In other words, have we run a case with the WTO before? Mr Bowen—Australia has been involved in a number of dispute cases in the WTO before. As Mr Burns said, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade obviously runs on those and they cover issues other than agriculture. I am not sure what specific thing you are asking. Senator FIELDING—For example, have you had experience in mounting a case before the WTO? Mr Bowen—I have been involved personally myself, yes, in the case against the EU on the sugar regime. Mr Burns—Which we won. Senator FIELDING—So, 18 June is obviously an important date. That is only a few weeks away. Mr Bowen—Yes. Senator FIELDING—Who else is working on it? Is it you and a whole group of people? Mr Bowen—I have a team of three people working with me in the international division. There are two or three people in Biosecurity Australia working on it and two or three people in AQIS working as part of this team with, as I said, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney-General’s Department. We have been trying to prepare for this case for, off the top of my head, probably three or four months already. Senator FIELDING—Who is the link with the apple and pear industry? Is it through you or is there a single point of contact? That case is important to them. Is there a link? I know you say you are frequently in touch with them and whatnot. I am just trying to work out who is in touch with that particular case. Mr Bowen—The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade calls consultation meetings with the industry. Our records show that six consultations with the industry have occurred since September last year. Senator FIELDING—Have you met with the industry? You are the lead person covering the case. Have you heard it firsthand from the apple and pear industry? Mr Bowen—Since the task force has been formed I have participated in a teleconference that has been held. Senator HEFFERNAN—Could you inform us as to who represents the industry in these consultations with DFAT? Mr Bowen—Yes. The consultations have been held with Horticulture Australia Limited, Apple and Pear Australia Limited and the National Farmers Federation. Senator HEFFERNAN—The individual person. A lot of these people are golliwogs. CHAIR—That is a new one. Senator HEFFERNAN—Who are the individuals, so we can ring them up? Mr Bowen—If you are interested in Apple and Pear Australia Limited, Darryl Ashton, and John Corboy is the head of their Fire Blight Task Force, and Tony Russell. Those are the names that come to my mind at the moment, but I would have to get a complete list. Senator HEFFERNAN—You can take that on notice. CHAIR—Take it on notice. It is five minutes until the dinner break and staff has been working very hard all day. We will not keep them from their dinner break. Senator Fielding, you have the call. If there is time, I will ask one question. Senator FIELDING—Will this committee be meeting after 18 June? I would like a private meeting with this department after 18 June to find out about the case being mounted. CHAIR—This was an issue raised with our committee but certainly not in estimates. Senator FIELDING—Could you take that on notice? It is very important to have a briefing after 18 June, maybe within that week after 18 June. I do not know what the formal process is, but I think it is important. Senator McGAURAN—Senator Fielding, it is more than one day. Senator FIELDING—Yes. Senator McGAURAN—You would like an ongoing briefing. CHAIR—Any other questions? Senator O’BRIEN—I was not sure if we had been made fully aware of exactly who the parties are to the New Zealand dispute and what positions they are taking in the matter. Senator HEFFERNAN—Yes, what is their brief? Mr Burns—You mean the panel members? Senator O’BRIEN—No, I mean those who may have joined the dispute in some form or other. Mr Bowen—The third parties to the dispute are the United States, the European Commission, Chile, Japan, Taiwan and Pakistan. Senator HEFFERNAN—Are any of those people fire blight free? Mr Bowen—That is a— Senator HEFFERNAN—They are not. Senator O’BRIEN—Japan? Mr Bowen—I think Japan would say they probably were. Senator O’BRIEN—We are not sure about Taiwan? Mr Bowen—I am not sure about Taiwan. We would have to check what their conditions are, but they are third parties. Senator O’BRIEN—Do we know whether they are supporting or opposing the New Zealand position? Mr Bowen—At this stage we do not know. They have an opportunity to put submissions to the panel as well. There is a timeline for that. When they put their submissions in we will obviously see their position. Senator O’BRIEN—Have no submissions been made yet by those parties? Mr Bowen—No, there is a time line. The third parties can put in their first written submission on 23 July. They obviously see the submissions from New Zealand and Australia before they put their submissions to the panel. CHAIR—I have one very brief question before the break. Did you say Biosecurity is leading the defence argument? Mr Bowen—There are officers from Biosecurity Australia on the team that Australia has to defend the case. DFAT is leading the case but they are part of the team. CHAIR—I fully understand. Senator HEFFERNAN—Where does all that happen? Mr Burns—The actual hearings happen in Geneva. You raised an issue before about the rules. In addition to the fact that this is being challenged under the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, there is a dispute settlement understanding which, if you like, is the rules around how these disputes happen, which are exactly the same rules that we used when we won the lamb case again the United States and the sugar case against the European Union. Everybody plays by the same rules. Senator McGAURAN—Who does make up the panel? Mr Burns—The panels are drawn from WTO members. They are individuals who are regarded as having some expertise in WTO legal issues. Mr Bowen has the names of the individuals. Senator McGAURAN—From which countries? Mr Bowen—The chair of the panel comes from South Africa. The other two panel members come from Uruguay and Canada. Senator HEFFERNAN—Have they all got fire blight? Mr Bowen—That is a technical question and I do not know the answer to that. Senator HEFFERNAN—We need to know the answer. This committee has had lots of experience where other countries have tried to get our status to their status. BSE is a really good example of that. It evens the trading. This is a marketing edge for us; we simply do not have fire blight. All those lawyers and all those gladhanders and lunchers and professional holidaymakers that will go to Geneva will not give a rats about the fact that the protocol actually says and accepts that we will import fire blight under that protocol. I just think every person concerned with that ought to be absolutely disgusted. Mr Burns—The people going to Geneva would be going there to win the case. Senator HEFFERNAN—Yes. CHAIR—Thank you very much. We will be back at 7.30 on the dot, continuing about apples and pears I have no doubt. Thank you.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORTBiosecurity Australia Discussion Senator MILNE—I just wanted to ask some questions in relation to atrizine and simazine. Can you tell me whether there is any ongoing review or has there been a conclusion of the work that you have been doing on either or both? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—Certainly. With regard to atrizine, we completed the review that was ongoing in April this year. What is happening at the moment is that any new evidence we are forwarding to our advisory agencies and asking them to review the new information and new research that is ongoing with regard to atrizine and simazine. Specifically, we have asked the Department of Health and Ageing to look at the whole triazine herbicides, which includes atrizine and simazine, and particularly the new information with regard to their mode of action. So that is some work that they will be doing and reporting to us about. Senator MILNE—Have you asked anyone from Land and Water or DPI or anyone else to report to you on the impacts of the drought and the likely increased toxicity? After a long period of dry when you get rain, you will get bigger run-off into your storages. Are you aware that the Tasmanian Director of Public Health has advised that Gunns cannot use simazine or atrizine in the Macquarie River catchment in Tasmania, for example? Are you getting any advice about impacts of what might have been regarded as traditional use and how that is impacting now that there is a different rainfall regime? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—Yes. I am aware of the activities in Tasmania and of the director-general of health and his recent actions with Gunns. We certainly are aware and we have acknowledged that atrizine and simazine are susceptible to run-off. So the regulatory approach we take is that in any situation—and it does not matter what type of climate—what you need to do is minimise the run-off. So all our regulatory actions have been in relation to making sure that the agricultural practices that must be followed are to minimise run-off. They should be irrespective of what the weather conditions are. Senator MILNE—So how does that play out with regard to the plantation industry sector in Australia? What are you advising them about run-off? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—Well, they must observe the label instructions. We have very extensive label instructions that relate to minimising the run-off. They must observe them. We have asked through the review period to conduct some monitoring. They have also implemented some best management practices that have been part of the package that they are implementing in order to be able to continue to use these chemicals. Senator MILNE—So have all plantation companies in Australia been asked to self-monitor and report? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—We do not have the authority to ask the plantation companies to do the monitoring. That was part of the review, where we requested through our registrants. We regulate the chemical suppliers and not the users, so it is through the registrants that we actually required some monitoring to be done as part of the review process. In that process, the registrants and the user industries often will get together and collect such data together rather than in isolation. Senator MILNE—So just explain to me how it would work in Tasmania. The registrant is who? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—The chemical company. And the chemical company markets the product, which has extensive label directions that relate to minimising the run-off. Senator MILNE—That is right. Go on. And so what do they then have to do with the plantation or anyone buying it? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—They do not have any conditions. Our authority stops at the point of retail sale. We regulate up to the point of retail sale. It then becomes the responsibility of the state to control the use of that chemical. Senator MILNE—Okay. So in terms of this information that is being fed back because of monitoring, that is the state government’s responsibility to require the companies to monitor. Have you got any information on how many samples or how extensive the monitoring has been in a state like Tasmania? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—Because we work with our colleagues in the state departments, we certainly are aware of the monitoring and are in constant contact with them when they have conducted another round of monitoring. So it is simply an information feedback between the two agencies. Senator MILNE—So can you provide details of the monitoring in Tasmanian catchments for the last 12 months? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—We certainly have access to that information. It is largely the department that publishes that on its website. But it also gives us the results to feed into our processes. Senator MILNE—I would like it if you could make that available, because I would be very surprised if the Tasmanian government published all that information on any website. But I would be keen to see what monitoring has gone on in Tasmania. Whilst the Director of Public Health can only act if it is above the drinking water standards, obviously our concern is about the health of the ecosystem and the fauna as well as health in communities. When are we expecting to get some resolution of this triazine review that is currently going on? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—We have not had feedback from the department of health as to how long they expect this review will take. They have certainly started on that work. We are aware of that. More publications are coming out almost every day, so I guess it depends on when you are going to draw the line in the sand when we are going to finish that review. Senator MILNE—The latest US study showed that atrizine could cause damage to human cells at levels half the Australian drinking water guideline limits. You would expect the department of health to access that information? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—Indeed. That is one of many studies that we have asked them to reassess. Senator MILNE—So have you done any preliminary analysis, or have you just collected the data and it is up to the health department to do the analysis? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—It is up to Health. We really rely on the experts within the Office of Chemical Safety to provide us advice on human health matters. Senator MILNE—But my concern here is, given the time delay, you have obviously collected the data. It is with the health department. There is increasing material coming out from several studies showing that public health is at risk with the current drinking water standards in Australia. Is there anything that you can do to alert the registrants about the need to enforce? Who does the enforcement? Only the state authorities? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—The state authorities are responsible for water. Mr Aldred—We spoke about this last time under the ag and vet chemical Australian system. The demarcation for control of use is with the states and territories. Senator MILNE—Yes. But your outcome 1 is to protect the health and safety of people, animals and the environment in respect of these chemicals. My concern here is that there is no follow-up. You can finish at the point of sale, but if the states are not doing the enforcement, people’s health is not being protected and the environment is not being protected. Mr Aldred—It is the nature of the federation that we have split responsibilities. While that is our outcome, we have issues in terms of responsibility and authority and regulatory power that simply mean we have a demarcation. Senator McGAURAN—But there are forums where you can raise the issue, certainly, are there not, with the states? Mr Aldred—As Dr Bennet-Jenkins has advised, there are continuing discussions that go on. I think the point I am making is that responsibility for on-ground control of use rests with the state and territory governments. Senator McGAURAN—But you can enforce through many different ways the concerns that Senator Milne is raising with the states, can’t you, or are they limp discussions, given the seriousness of the matter? Mr Aldred—I think we have run through the structure. We can certainly talk, but we do not have the regulatory power to affect the on-ground application of chemicals. Where we do have control is over the registration and the labelling. Dr Bennet-Jenkins is continuing with a series of questions that started last estimates which outlines an ongoing review or a series of reviews. So these sorts of chemicals are always under review in terms of application rates, labelling and those sorts of things. But once we get to on-ground, it is the states and territories. Senator MILNE—How many years has this review been going? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—We commenced the review in 1997 and finished the major component of it in 1995. We finished the review in 1997 and we have been reviewing it ongoing—as new information comes in, we pick it up and we assess it and make a determination as to whether we need to take any further regulatory action. Senator MILNE—So can I ask: who makes a determination at federal level as to the adequacy of the enforcement? Given the data that you are getting coming through of the contamination in catchments and so on, who ultimately determines whether your regulatory arrangements are satisfactory if there is no enforcement? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—We can only make decisions based on the issue of compromise of safety. We can only take the chemical away. The data that we receive through this ongoing monitoring does not indicate that there is an ongoing concern for human safety. The levels that are detected are very low and they are rare occurrences, when you look at the number of monitoring samples that have actually been measured. So, from our perspective, the only reason we could take the chemical away is if the human health standards were being compromised, and to date we have not had any evidence that those human health standards are being compromised. Senator MILNE—But you have just told me it is the responsibility of the states to do the sampling and the adequacy of the monitoring. Whilst the samples you get back might say that, we have no sense of which catchments they are monitoring, where they are monitoring it or who is doing the monitoring. It is a self-regulation set-up here, I assume, by the forest industry companies and the seller of the chemicals. Is that correct? Mr Aldred—Again, I guess I would have to say it is an issue for the state and territory governments to determine that sort of activity. Senator McGAURAN—But we have just had some value judgements with regard to the levels. Mr Aldred—I do not think they are value judgements, Senator. Senator McGAURAN—Well, judgements. How have you come to those conclusions? Have you received the information from the states? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—Yes, indeed. We do look at the information from the states and we look at the levels. There are drinking water standards. It is only when those standards are compromised and we can actually link it to a safety issue that we can remove a chemical. Senator MILNE—But it is the health department’s responsibility to determine whether the standards are adequate to protect human health and that is presumably what they are looking at now. Dr Bennet-Jenkins—They are. Senator MILNE—Can you give me any indication of when there is likely to be an outcome from this current review of the use of triazines? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—As I have said, we have not had feedback from the Office of Chemical Safety when precisely they will have finished this re-review. I know they are working on the project right now, and we would hope to get a report from them this year. Senator MILNE—This year? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—As part of that assessment, we are awaiting the publication of a WHO-FAO report that is a very extensive monograph on atrizine and a toxicological assessment of atrizine. It will be very useful to have the preliminary report. The summary report was published in February. The full monograph will be published later this year. It would be very useful to have that to feed into the whole process. The summary document very much agrees with our current assessment for that chemical in that there are no human health issues. So it would be good, when we get our report from the Office of Chemical Safety, that they include the consideration of the more detailed assessments from that international expert group. Senator MILNE—Just in answer to my question about the consultation you have had with anyone in the department of agriculture, in Land and Water Australia or anyone else, whilst it may be arguable that the chemical is applied in the manner in which it is required to be applied, if there is a changed rainfall and run-off scenario that will alter how it can be used. That is my concern here. Is there any consultation going on about that? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—That is part of the original assessment and that is where the label instructions are quite extensive—to actually advise the user and in what situations they might have to observe some additional restrictions or not use the chemical if the climate suggests that there may be increased potential for run-off. Senator MILNE—And in terms of the volumes of triazines that are used, is that the same as in answer to Senator Siewert’s question—that it is simply a dollar value, we do not have any volumes of the amount of this chemical that is applied to Tasmanian catchments? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—No, we do not. But I do understand— Senator HEFFERNAN—I do. I will give you the answer in a minute. Dr Bennet-Jenkins—I do understand that Tasmania has conducted a pilot study on how the state might more usefully collect such information. Senator MILNE—And where is that pilot study? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—That is being conducted by the Department of Primary Industries and Water in Tasmania. Senator MILNE—And will that be made public, do you know? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—I cannot answer for that department. Senator MILNE—Have you received that pilot study? Dr Bennet-Jenkins—We are aware of it and we receive regular updates. Senator MILNE—Could I ask for a copy of it through you, please. As soon as it is concluded, I would very much like to see a copy of that pilot project being conducted in Tasmania. Dr Bennet-Jenkins—Yes. Senator MILNE—Thank you.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORTAustralian Quarantine Inspection Service Discussion Senator MILNE—I wanted to ask about the abalone virus. Is it appropriate to do so now? CHAIR—Yes. I am sorry, Senator Milne, it was a bit hard to hear. What virus? Senator MILNE—Ganglioneuritis, or the abalone virus, in Bass Strait. I have had quite a lot of correspondence from the abalone divers around the country, who are very unhappy with the lack of intervention from the Victorian government in relation to containing this virus. They have asked the Commonwealth to take over the management and all ongoing management of the disease on the basis that it is likely to go beyond state boundaries and that aquatic diseases should be regarded as a national issue and we need to move quickly to close some areas because they say it is clear that human intervention is essentially leading to the spread of the disease through recreational fishery and other things. I would like to know why the Commonwealth has been reluctant to get involved in stopping the spread of this disease and is leaving it to Victoria. Mr Aldred—First and foremost, it is a jurisdictional response issue with Victoria. I think it has been indicated previously that under the national arrangements it is a Victorian responsibility to manage it, which they have been doing. Secondly, we have had recent discussions with a range of representatives from the wild capture abalone industry to try to kick start, or get some more communication around, the sorts of activities that are being carried out. That has only just happened recently, but I am hopeful that the industry will appreciate that support. One of the key parts, though, is the difficulty of controlling a virus such as this. A couple of the suggestions have been put up to quarantine the coastline and stop all commercial and recreational activity on it, which is impractical. We believe the virus can potentially spread in a number of ways. In an aquatic environment that is very difficult to control. Senator MILNE—I am well aware of that. Mr Aldred—As to the key things to be done, other jurisdictions should be having a look at the nature of checks. For example, some of the Tasmanian crews are worried. Again, it becomes a jurisdictional issue to look at control activities. Senator MILNE—I have difficulty with the jurisdictional issue when we are talking about a disease that can wipe out this industry essentially, and one state is held ransom to another if that state is not adequately dealing with the disease. Surely the Commonwealth has a responsibility if a disease is going to spread beyond a state boundary, which it clearly will at the rate it is going. Why should the Commonwealth not review whether the state response is adequate? If it is not, it should come in over the top. Surely we are not going to leave it up to Victoria to let this disease get away from us. Mr Aldred—Our officers are having discussions with their state colleagues but it is not one where we come in over the top. As to emergency arrangements in handling this sort of outbreak, we have a role of national coordination, and states and territories are responsible for the control activities. The Victorian government has been active certainly in looking at abalone farms, destocking and cleaning the farms and re-establishing. It is difficult in the wild environment. Senator MILNE—Yes, but there has been no attempt to stop the dumping of untreated effluent from abalone processes into the marine environment. There have been no areas closed to recreational fisheries et cetera. As far as I can see, there has been no epidemiological review into Victoria’s handling of this escape. Will the Commonwealth conduct such a review of the adequacy of the Victorian response? Mr Aldred—We will work with our colleagues but, as I have indicated, it is not our position to come in over the top and to try and force or regulate the Victorian state government. Senator MILNE—Even if the disease gets away and then wipes out the abalone fishery in Bass Strait for the Tasmanian fishery as well? Mr Aldred—I have covered the arrangements as they operate. Senator MILNE—I do not find the arrangements satisfactory. You have a disease in the marine environment, and the marine environment covers South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania in terms of the fisheries, and the Victorian government is more or less just saying, ‘Well, that’s it. It’s in the marine environment and it’s moving.’ The divers tell me that you can trace the spread of it by essentially the human movement. They say that it travelled 100 kilometres along the coast very rapidly at one stage and broke out somewhere else, and you would have to put that down to human movement because that is not the normal pattern for the spread of the disease and so on. Will the Commonwealth undertake any reviews? Are you satisfied that Victoria is doing everything it can—that everything that can be done is being done—in relation to stopping the spread of this disease? Mr Aldred—As I have indicated a couple of times, we will continue discussions with our state colleagues. I will not make a statement about whether we are satisfied. We are continuing those discussions. As I have indicated, we have recently met with industry representatives, and I do hope that cooperative arrangements and some further discussions with the Victorian government will move things forward. Senator MILNE—Have you put to the Victorians that they should be quarantining areas known to have active virus from all human activity? Mr Aldred—I would have to take that on notice. I do not know that we have provided any specific advice of that nature. Senator MILNE—What advice have you provided to them about your views on what they should be doing? Mr Aldred—I will take that on notice. I will need to get records of the meetings. I was not part of the meetings. Senator MILNE—I would specifically like to know whether you have asked them to quarantine areas with the active virus from all activity, whether you have asked them to stop dumping untreated effluent from licensed abalone processors into the marine environment, and whether there has been any discussion about having a Commonwealth review of the abalone aquaculture industry with a view to developing a management response that might be consistently applied regardless of where any disease might break out in the future. It seems to me that is what we need, a uniform set of responses that must be brought into play whichever jurisdiction it happens to be in. Mr Aldred—I will take that on notice. Senator MILNE—As I have said, people are very unhappy that there seems to be more respect for jurisdictional responsibilities than there is for the fact that this disease is spreading and people seem to be wringing their hands. Senator Sherry—I will take that on notice and I will see whether the minister has anything further to add given the situation. Senator MILNE—Thank you. Senator HEFFERNAN—Isn’t it stupid not to do anything? Wouldn’t you make a declaration? It could well wipe out the industry. As Senator Scullion pointed out, do they really know what is causing this? Senator MILNE—No. Senator HEFFERNAN—Do you want to let the abalone industry be wiped out and just sit around and have another meeting to look at the rules? Mr S Hunter—As Mr Aldred has said, we have been engaged with Victoria in discussions around the issue. The arrangements that we have nationally to manage animal and plant diseases in this country, whether they relate to this particular disease or more generally, are built upon a cooperative structure, which we have seen work very well in a number of cases. We invest a great deal in this as a department, and it depends greatly on us not standing in judgement of other states and territories. Senator HEFFERNAN—Someone has to be in charge of the whole show. Why can’t you appoint a task force to deal with this issue, which overarches the Commonwealth and the three states, including Tasmania, and approach it like it is an Army operation, otherwise you are just going to watch on as bit by bit they destroy the industry. Mr Aldred—There are consultative arrangements in place. Senator HEFFERNAN—Who is in charge of this? Mr Aldred—The point that I have made is that the Australian government will not come over the top and enforce or direct the Victorian government. Senator HEFFERNAN—With great respect, is that because the states are sooking? Why wouldn’t you? It is like fires. These days we have bigger fires because some galoot 50 miles from the fire at headquarters tries to tell the people at the fire how to fight the fire. Mr Aldred—The arrangements cross-border in dealing with fires are similar. The state and territory governments have— Senator HEFFERNAN—This is crazy stuff. Senator Sherry—I will pass on your obvious concern and Senator Milne’s concern to the minister. At the end of the day, if it does require greater Commonwealth action it would obviously involve the minister, and I will pass that on to her. CHAIR—Thank you for that. I heard a comment that this is the third time it has been raised. It has been. This government has been in power for six months and it is not the first time it has been raised. I remember it being brought up on this committee the first time we had discussions. The minister has said that he will raise it and come back to us. Senator HEFFERNAN—As you know, Mr Chairman, we do not care who is in government in this committee. CHAIR—I understand that this is not the first time it has been raised. It was raised under the previous government as well. Senator Milne, have you finished your questions, seeing that the minister has agreed to take it on board and come back to us? Senator MILNE—Yes, on the abalone virus. CHAIR—You still have the call. Senator MILNE—That is all right. You can come back to me in a minute. I want to go on to apples and pears. CHAIR—In all fairness to this committee, is there anything else on the abalone virus, considering the minister’s statement? Senator McGAURAN—Yes. Just going back to the minister, could you find out, or let us know even now: there must be some legality with regard to national interest where you can intervene and take over as a matter of national interest. Senator Sherry—You are seeking a legal basis for taking control of this situation? Senator McGAURAN—Yes. In fact, I am certain there is. Senator Sherry—Is that a question? Senator McGAURAN—It is a question. Senator Sherry—We will take that on notice and see if we can find a legal basis on which the Commonwealth can take over control of the fishery. Senator McGAURAN—I know there are differences, but certainly the EI outbreak gave us the best example of where the Commonwealth did take control, with the cooperation of the states, and had the authority to do so. Given the slight differences, isn’t that model one we should follow? Senator Sherry—Horses and abalone? Senator McGAURAN—Yes. Senator Sherry—There is just a slight difference. Senator McGAURAN—If you are going to compare them that way there is a big difference, but I am talking about the model of intervention. Senator Sherry—The principle of urgency and national interest—albeit that it is Tasmania and Victoria, the principle of national urgency. As I say, I will raise it with the minister and we will see if he wants to treat the issue differently than it has so far been treated. CHAIR—Are there any other questions re the abalone virus? If not, Senator Heffernan?

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORTAustralian Quarantine Inspection Service Discussion Senator MILNE—I have a few questions. The first one relates to pandemic influenza preparedness. I notice in the budget statements that you say that funding for these measures will be met from within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s existing resources. Can you explain to me what kind of in-house support this program will get and what will it mean in terms of a relative cut from previously? Mr S Hunter—At this time we are working through existing departmental resources to see how that activity might be supported. There are a couple of elements to the equation. One is the extent of funding that is necessary in order to maintain the appropriate level of readiness for those teams that have been trained under that program. The other part of the equation is, if funding is required to maintain that level of readiness, how much and from where. We have started that process but we have not completed that. Senator MILNE—What did you spend on that previously? Mr S Hunter—Principally for training of staff at airports to be able to detect symptoms on people coming into Australia using thermal scanning. Ms Gordon—We received $2.8 million to, as Mr Hunter said, train staff to effectively operate thermal scanners for passengers coming into the country and to talk to them or interview them if they thought they were exhibiting symptoms or reported symptoms, and then to refer them appropriately to Department of Health nurses and others for medical assessments and management. Our staff are there basically carrying out the role that they normally play in respect of human quarantine, which is to identify passengers and then refer them appropriately. The funding itself, as Mr Hunter has indicated, was largely to enable us to take people offline to train them so that we maintained a ready pool of people with the knowledge and experience to undertake this sort of work. For the moment, we have fully trained people available to do that work, and we would expect that we would be able to maintain our capacity for some time to come. We have fulfilled the training requirements of the people who are currently at the airport. Senator MILNE—That requires that you have a relatively stable staff, and maintaining people in the places they currently are with that level of preparedness. Presumably each year you would need to do some kind of refresher and/or emergency procedure. Will that cost money? Or are you suggesting that people will just be able to do it as part of their day-to-day activities? Ms Gordon—Yes, it is true that as staff move or as time passes, if there is no particular call on those skill sets, people lose their currency of those skills, and they will require upgrading training, as will new staff coming through. As Mr Hunter has indicated, we are still assessing which is going to be the best way to maintain those skill sets. We obviously train our airport officers in a whole range of skills and we are looking, among other options, at how we might integrate that into that sort of training as well. Senator MILNE—Perhaps you might report some time later in the year. Could you take this on notice? When you do an assessment of what it is going to cost, I would be interested to know what you estimate will come from somewhere else in the department. The other thing I want to ask you about is Ug99, wheat rust, which people are very concerned about coming out of Africa. Are we doing anything in terms of special surveillance in relation to that? Ms Gordon—We might have to take that one on notice, unless Mr Lehne can help you. Mr Lehne—I will take that on notice. The importation of wheat is highly restricted. We only allow wheat in from certain countries and under certain conditions. They normally go for processing in metropolitan areas. It is highly contained in that sense. We do import seed wheat for genetic purposes, but that has grown under quarantine conditions and it is the progeny of that which is released. In that period in quarantine it is tested for diseases such as rust, et cetera, to ensure that we do not bring in any material of that sort. Senator MILNE—Are you confident that we can keep Ug99 out of Australia? Mr Lehne—We have systems in place that are specifically designed to ensure that those sorts of diseases are not imported on seed that is brought into the country. Senator MILNE—Presumably Uganda is one of the places we do not import it from? Mr Lehne—I would need to take that on notice. Senator MILNE—The final question I have is in relation to the red fire ants and the progress in terms of eradication. I am interested in an update from anyone as to how we are going towards eradication, whether we are winning the battle and where we are up to. Mr Aldred—Yes, I would like to say we are winning the battle. The program has been highly successful. There have been a couple of reviews done of the program. It is moving forward. The Primary Industries Ministerial Council, at the end of April, agreed to continue funding the program for a further two years. There is an issue that, as with a number of the tramp ants, as you get down to the final nests it is difficult to be sure that you have got them all. Occasionally they pop up, and you need to keep people vigilant. But at the moment we are on track and we expect it to keep going for a couple of years. Senator MILNE—What are we down to in terms of a physical area? Mr Aldred—I would have to take the area on notice. Senator MILNE—Have you any sense of how many active nests you have still to deal with? Are we talking a few square kilometres now? Mr Aldred—I would not like to guess, frankly. In terms of active nests, we had a situation where a while ago a number of additional nests—I think a couple of hundred—were found in a quarry or something of that nature. Essentially, when you find the active nests they get dealt with pretty swiftly. It is very much a matter of surveillance and knocking them on the head one at a time. Senator MILNE—Given our experience and how much it has cost to actually manage this and try and eradicate it, what actions are we taking with our Pacific island neighbours and around the Pacific to raise awareness of the problems and so on to attempt to sort out these issues before we get them again? Mr Aldred—I would have to take that on notice. We have a number of programs around on a whole range of pests and diseases, but I do not know the specific answer in terms of red imported fire ant. Senator MILNE—Which department does the educative work in the region? Mr Aldred—It would be us. We would work with the department of the environment because a number of these pests are not strictly what you would call production pests; they are pests of the environment or social amenity. With a number of the educative activities that we look after, we work with AusAID. Senator MILNE—I am trying to get a handle on where I get a picture of the work Australia does on alien invasive species, both marine and terrestrial, in the region. Is it through AusAID? Is that mainly the delivery source? Mr Aldred—I will take that on notice and provide you with a collation of information. Senator MILNE—It seems to me that would be a productive use of our time and money. Mr S Hunter—We do some work through the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy in countries such as Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste, working with the quarantine administrations in those countries to lift their capacity and preparedness to deal with quarantine diseases in those places. While I am speaking, can I advise you that Ms Gordon wants to clarify some figures she gave you about the rapid deployment teams. Senator MILNE—Just before we go off the regional involvement, does the Australian government contribute to GISP, the Global Invasive Species Program? Mr S Hunter—I do not know the answer to that. I think that is probably something that would occur through the environment department, if it did. Mr Aldred—Again, I will take that on notice. Ms Gordon—I would like to clarify the figure of $2.8 million I gave you for the rapid deployment teams. It was the funding that we had available in this financial year. Overall, the budget measure was $10.8 million over four years. Senator MILNE—And is that now nothing? Ms Gordon—That funding has been withdrawn and we will incorporate the activities into our ongoing funding for our airport staff. Senator MILNE—That was basically training and now we are into maintenance? Ms Gordon—Yes. Senator MILNE—Thank you. CHAIR—Thank you, Senator Milne. Senator MILNE—I just wanted to ask a follow-up from Senator McGauran on this issue of consistency and people understanding what they have to declare. There seems to be real inconsistency in airports about chocolate. People line up for ages because they have ticked a box saying they are bringing in a food item when they are bringing in a box of chocolates that is packaged and is not a raw food as such. Frequently I have ticked that as well because I have packaged chocolate, but I know they are going to say to me, ‘Oh, that is not what we mean. We mean salamis and da, da, da’, which I know. But it is not clear on the forms what you are doing about chocolate, and yet half the people in the queue are wasting people’s time essentially by ticking chocolate as a food. Is there anything specific you can do to say which chocolates are quarantined, which ones you have to declare—if they are not packaged or they are from certain countries or something—or do you just want everybody to declare chocolates and fill up the queues? Ms Gordon—You raise a very good point. I think there are two issues sitting behind that. The form, as you know, is quite small and so we have to be very sparing with the language that we use. In regard to chocolates, largely what we would be concerned about there is some of the milk product. To try to distinguish different categories of chocolate or where it was produced, et cetera, on a form of that size is probably not going to be very easy, so it is our preference that people declare anything that they have got any doubts about so that we can at least talk to them. And, yes, it does mean that for many people who have just got Lindt chocolate from Switzerland we can say, ‘Sorry. That is fine. You can go through.’ But it does give us the opportunity to assure ourselves that people do not have something that would be of greater concern to us. Senator MILNE—It is quite inconsistent. Sometimes they just say, ‘Keep going.’ And other times you are sent through the other queue. I just wanted to get some consistency on that. Senator HEFFERNAN—Do these people from the department moonlight on this show? Do they get paid for their appearance or, if they do appear, do they get paid? CHAIR—It is all right. You can say ‘no’ in one word; that is easy. Thank you, Ms Gordon. Senator Milne, there are five minutes to go. Senator Siewert has not had a go yet, so do you want your colleague to go? You can sort it out between yourselves. Senator MILNE—On notice, when you come back on the national fruit fly strategy, I am interested to know whether the increased minimum temperatures in parts of Australia where fruit fly was never a risk before are now being identified—whether you are cross-checking with the climate data on changed minimum temperatures. Mr Aldred—Some of the work that is being done or envisaged over the next 12 months or so is essentially setting baselines for us to do just that work.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT
Product Integrity, Animal and Plant Health Division
Discussion

14 Feb. 2007

Senator MILNE-I wanted to ask about the Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease. I have asked a few questions about this in the past and specifically of AQIS. I raised this from the point of view that AQIS supported the Commonwealth giving an export permit for devils to be sent to Denmark for the felicitation and facilitation of joy for the royal family. At the time there was considerable concern about exporting animals from a state that still had no diagnostic test for the disease or any surety about how the disease is passed on, yet AQIS supported that permit. I wrote to you about that and got an answer saying that they were taken from a wildlife park and that the ‘facility is located in a region well away from the area where the disease has occurred'. That was your advice to me. In fact that was quite wrong.