Chapter 3
Issues Considered by the Committee
Privatisation of quarantine stations
3.1 Given that the Second Reading Speech indicated that the changes in the Act will give effect to the
Governments Response to the Nairn Report, it was initially assumed by the Committee that the Bill had
some bearing on the issue of the Nairn Report's recommendation concerning privatisation of
Commonwealth quarantine stations.
3.2 The Nairn report recommendation 82 gave in principle support to the concept of privatising
Commonwealth quarantine stations. The Government's response to the recommendation was:
Accepted in principle. The operation of existing stations will be reviewed within existing
resources. [1]
The Government's Response to the Nairn Report does not specifically discuss this recommendation. A
general mention is made, in the chapter relating to Quarantine Policy, of reducing the size of government,
while maintaining Ministerial accountability. However this is made in regard to the specific proposal to
establish a statutory authority and also the maintenance of the relationship between the Minister and
Departmental responsibility.
3.3 In their submission AQIS addressed the issue of privatising the quarantine stations:
These stations remain Government owned and operated and thus are not commercial
premises at this point. AQIS is about to publicly distribute a discussion paper on their
future before taking any further steps down the identified path of privatisation. AQIS
would see any new arrangements being made the subject of stringent compliance
agreements. [2]
3.4 During the Committee's hearing the privatisation of Commonwealth quarantine stations was
discussed. In answer to the Committee's questions concerning the affect of the Bill on recommendations
82 and 83, Mr Hickey, Executive Director, AQIS indicated:
We have got a small number of animal quarantine stations in Australia, including the high
security station at Cocos which we are in the process of closing down because there is
simply no demand for it. We have got three animal quarantine stations which we primarily
use for importing cats, dogs, horses and the like, and we have got a couple of avian
facilities.
The Nairn committee said, `Look at the privatisation of those stations.' Apart from the
closure of Cocos, we have not taken any steps to sell off the premises that are currently
used for those purposes, nor is there any immediate intention on our part to do so. Those
stations at the moment serve a purpose in relation to public health issues like rabies, or
animal disease issues, and any move to privatise them would only be done progressively
after a proper consultative process. The legislation does not alter our capacity in any way
to close or approve private arrangements. [3]
3.5 Based on this evidence it is the Committee's opinion that the Bill has no bearing on the powers of the
Government to privatise Commonwealth quarantine stations. The power to privatise quarantine services,
according to the evidence, currently exists and will continue to exist if the amendments are accepted by
the Senate.
3.6 During the course of the hearing, the Committee raised with AQIS the concerns expressed by the
National Farmers Federation (NFF) in their submission over the privatisation of high risk quarantine and
onshore Government owned quarantine facilities. AQIS indicated that the issue of privatisation was
subject to consultation of stakeholders, and that they would shortly be releasing a discussion paper on
their future. In answer to questions concerning the feasibility of privatising nearly all of AQIS's functions,
AQIS indicated that:
It would depend on government policy of the time. If the government was to authorise
the use of private premises for high risk areas, that could conceivably be the case. The
recommendation the Nairn Committee made was to progressively introduce these
arrangements in areas of low quarantine risk, and that is the policy we are in the process
of implementing in the future. [4]
Commercially operated premises
3.7 Particularly pertinent to this inquiry is item 200 of the Bill, which make changes to the
Commonwealths approach to the approval and management of commercial premises undertaking
quarantine functions. In particular, section 46A, which currently permits the approval of places for the
performance of quarantine by goods, is replaced with a new section 46A which sets out a new
framework and criteria for approving and managing commercial quarantine premises for goods of a
particular class.
3.8 According to the evidence provided by AQIS, the new sections proposed in item 200 of the Bill do
not change the Commonwealths ability to approve commercial quarantine premises. Mr Hickey indicated
that approval of commercial premises has been going on for some time:
Going back 10 or 15 years, we have had these sorts of systems that have evolved under
the current provisions of the Act. As I said at the outset, what we are trying to do here is
not change the fundamental purposes of the act but make the system more systematic
and more objective and transparent, if you like, and to regularise what have grown up in
the past as disparate sorts of arrangements into a more standard framework. The act
itself will not change the directions that have been followed for a number of years. It just
provides a better legal framework on which to approve those arrangements. [5]
3.9 The view that these arrangements have been in place for some time is supported by the submission
provided by the AQIS/Industry Consultative Committee (AICCC), who represent the cargo handling
and importing industry:
A regime has been in place in excess of 30 years for commercial premises such as
container depots, air cargo bond stores and the like to be approved for the performance
of quarantine functions. The operations of these facilities have been and are subject to a
range of barrier control measures for both import and export cargoes. [6]
The AICCC indicate support for initiatives being undertaken concerning compliance agreements and
arrangements for low risk quarantine goods, stating:
This, to our mind, strengthens rather than weakens quarantine control in commercial
premises and operations. [7]
3.10 AICCC submission supports to some extent AQIS's statement:
It is expected that the amendments to section 46A and section 66B proposed by the
Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 will facilitate the role of industry in the performance of
quarantine activities in accordance with the directions recommended in the Nairn Report
and endorsed by Government, whilst maintaining appropriate controls and sanctions to
ensure that quarantine risks are effectively managed. [8]
3.11 AQIS also indicated in both their submission and evidence that there would be no immediate impact
on users of its services, as the proposed changes would be implemented over time as it re-negotiates
existing agreements. [9]
3.12 Based on the evidence provided the Committee is of the view that the changes in the Bill, with
regard to commercially operated premises, will not alter the existing power of the Commonwealth to
approve commercial premises for the quarantine of goods. Instead the Bill appears to lay out more
clearly the criteria and framework for approving commercial quarantine premises. If AQIS is correct in
their assumptions concerning the changes, the end result may be a reduction in administration costs and
an improvement in the transparency for commercial operators.
Footnotes
[1] Australian Quarantine – A shared Responsibility: The Government Response. Appendix 1. P.
54.
[2] Submission, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, p. 9.
[3] Evidence, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, p. 159-160.
[4] Evidence, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, p. 163.
[5] Evidence, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, p. 159.
[6] Submission, AQIS/Industry Cargo Consultative Committee, p. 1.
[7] Submission, AQIS/Industry Cargo Consultative Committee, p. 2.
[8] Submission, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, p. 8.
[9] Submission, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, p. 8.