❓ WA Minister for Agriculture addresses concerns about Biosecurity Australia's decision to lift import restrictions on Philippine bananas, focusing on the risk of Moko disease and WA's ability to act independently. The Minister acknowledges scientific concerns and commits to exploring all options before defying the ruling.
AnsweredQoN 74Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Is the Minister aware of concerns regarding the scientific validity of the main findings by Biosecurity Australia in justifying its recommended lifting of the import restrictions on bananas from the Philippines; and, if so, what are those issues? (2) Given concerns from WA banana growers that moko disease could be spread in Australia with the lifting of such restrictions, can WA defy Biosecurity Australia’s finding? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question and note that it relates to an issue that was raised by Hon Paddy Embry, although in different terms. I advise the honourable member that I also have the answer to his question. Hon Paddy Embry: For tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. (1) I am aware from a report on page eight of today’s The Australian Financial Review that an independent expert from Queensland has raised a number of scientific question marks over the draft import risk analysis - IRA - conducted by Biosecurity Australia. According to this report, a Dr Fegan from the University of Queensland’s cooperative research centre for tropical plant protection said problems in the Biosecurity Australia report included misusing an estimate on the proportion of infected bananas in Philippine plantations that would not show symptoms; underestimating the length of time before infected banana plants will start showing; failing to cite scientific evidence to back its conclusion that the risk of introducing the disease to Australia can be managed; failing to take into account that moko can be transmitted by insects; wrongly concluding that the risk of moko spreading in Australia can be managed by restricting imports to southern States. I am not an expert on any of the points that have been raised by this independent scientist. However, our recent experience in trying to stop the spread of black sigatoka in bananas by restricting it to the southern parts - this is an endemic not an imported disease - is that it proved extraordinarily difficult in packaging at least, if not worse, and was turning up in places such as Carnarvon and Kununurra, even through that period. All of us who have been following the black sigatoka issue would understand what Dr Fegan was saying in the fifth point, if not the other four. (2) This is a very difficult question because it asks whether WA can defy Biosecurity Australia’s ruling. Yes, it can, but had I been able to answer Hon Paddy Embry’s question first I could have then gone through what we need to do to try to reach an accommodation within the IRA, because clearly the Western Australian Government will always try to cooperate with the Commonwealth on our joint responsibilities for meeting our World Trade Organisation obligations. The IRA specifies our obligations in that regard. Although there is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State on regional freedom - if anyone wants to follow that through I have the papers on it, which includes the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the State and then an exchange of letters between Minister Truss and me to define the extent of the regional freedom question - with great regret, in this case the MOU and the subsequent agreement on protocol between the Commonwealth and the State was not followed. In this instance Biosecurity Australia has acted unilaterally. That is the word I used in respect of the honourable member’s earlier question. What can I do to be more specific about answering Hon Jon Ford’s question about whether WA can defy the ruling or the finding? Yes, it can, but it would not want to do that until it had exhausted all legal and scientific options available to it and had fulfilled its obligations under the IRA. How can it do that? It can use the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act simply to ban the entry of that particular fruit. The question of regional freedom has been strenuously followed up by the Government in an exchange of letters and finally reaching agreement with the Commonwealth. We will be reviewing how the unilateral decision of Biosecurity Australia was allowed to happen, given the most recent undertakings that were made in negotiations with the Commonwealth on both the MOU and the letters of agreement subsequent to the MOU. I hope I have answered both questions, but I welcome Hon Paddy Embry’s question tomorrow.
(2) Given concerns from WA banana growers that moko disease could be spread in Australia with the lifting of such restrictions, can WA defy Biosecurity Australia’s finding? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for the question and note that it relates to an issue that was raised by Hon Paddy Embry, although in different terms. I advise the honourable member that I also have the answer to his question. Hon Paddy Embry: For tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. (1) I am aware from a report on page eight of today’s The Australian Financial Review that an independent expert from Queensland has raised a number of scientific question marks over the draft import risk analysis - IRA - conducted by Biosecurity Australia. According to this report, a Dr Fegan from the University of Queensland’s cooperative research centre for tropical plant protection said problems in the Biosecurity Australia report included misusing an estimate on the proportion of infected bananas in Philippine plantations that would not show symptoms; underestimating the length of time before infected banana plants will start showing; failing to cite scientific evidence to back its conclusion that the risk of introducing the disease to Australia can be managed; failing to take into account that moko can be transmitted by insects; wrongly concluding that the risk of moko spreading in Australia can be managed by restricting imports to southern States. I am not an expert on any of the points that have been raised by this independent scientist. However, our recent experience in trying to stop the spread of black sigatoka in bananas by restricting it to the southern parts - this is an endemic not an imported disease - is that it proved extraordinarily difficult in packaging at least, if not worse, and was turning up in places such as Carnarvon and Kununurra, even through that period. All of us who have been following the black sigatoka issue would understand what Dr Fegan was saying in the fifth point, if not the other four. (2) This is a very difficult question because it asks whether WA can defy Biosecurity Australia’s ruling. Yes, it can, but had I been able to answer Hon Paddy Embry’s question first I could have then gone through what we need to do to try to reach an accommodation within the IRA, because clearly the Western Australian Government will always try to cooperate with the Commonwealth on our joint responsibilities for meeting our World Trade Organisation obligations. The IRA specifies our obligations in that regard. Although there is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State on regional freedom - if anyone wants to follow that through I have the papers on it, which includes the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the State and then an exchange of letters between Minister Truss and me to define the extent of the regional freedom question - with great regret, in this case the MOU and the subsequent agreement on protocol between the Commonwealth and the State was not followed. In this instance Biosecurity Australia has acted unilaterally. That is the word I used in respect of the honourable member’s earlier question. What can I do to be more specific about answering Hon Jon Ford’s question about whether WA can defy the ruling or the finding? Yes, it can, but it would not want to do that until it had exhausted all legal and scientific options available to it and had fulfilled its obligations under the IRA. How can it do that? It can use the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act simply to ban the entry of that particular fruit. The question of regional freedom has been strenuously followed up by the Government in an exchange of letters and finally reaching agreement with the Commonwealth. We will be reviewing how the unilateral decision of Biosecurity Australia was allowed to happen, given the most recent undertakings that were made in negotiations with the Commonwealth on both the MOU and the letters of agreement subsequent to the MOU. I hope I have answered both questions, but I welcome Hon Paddy Embry’s question tomorrow.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for the question and note that it relates to an issue that was raised by Hon Paddy Embry, although in different terms. I advise the honourable member that I also have the answer to his question. Hon Paddy Embry: For tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. (1) I am aware from a report on page eight of today’s The Australian Financial Review that an independent expert from Queensland has raised a number of scientific question marks over the draft import risk analysis - IRA - conducted by Biosecurity Australia. According to this report, a Dr Fegan from the University of Queensland’s cooperative research centre for tropical plant protection said problems in the Biosecurity Australia report included misusing an estimate on the proportion of infected bananas in Philippine plantations that would not show symptoms; underestimating the length of time before infected banana plants will start showing; failing to cite scientific evidence to back its conclusion that the risk of introducing the disease to Australia can be managed; failing to take into account that moko can be transmitted by insects; wrongly concluding that the risk of moko spreading in Australia can be managed by restricting imports to southern States. I am not an expert on any of the points that have been raised by this independent scientist. However, our recent experience in trying to stop the spread of black sigatoka in bananas by restricting it to the southern parts - this is an endemic not an imported disease - is that it proved extraordinarily difficult in packaging at least, if not worse, and was turning up in places such as Carnarvon and Kununurra, even through that period. All of us who have been following the black sigatoka issue would understand what Dr Fegan was saying in the fifth point, if not the other four. (2) This is a very difficult question because it asks whether WA can defy Biosecurity Australia’s ruling. Yes, it can, but had I been able to answer Hon Paddy Embry’s question first I could have then gone through what we need to do to try to reach an accommodation within the IRA, because clearly the Western Australian Government will always try to cooperate with the Commonwealth on our joint responsibilities for meeting our World Trade Organisation obligations. The IRA specifies our obligations in that regard. Although there is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State on regional freedom - if anyone wants to follow that through I have the papers on it, which includes the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the State and then an exchange of letters between Minister Truss and me to define the extent of the regional freedom question - with great regret, in this case the MOU and the subsequent agreement on protocol between the Commonwealth and the State was not followed. In this instance Biosecurity Australia has acted unilaterally. That is the word I used in respect of the honourable member’s earlier question. What can I do to be more specific about answering Hon Jon Ford’s question about whether WA can defy the ruling or the finding? Yes, it can, but it would not want to do that until it had exhausted all legal and scientific options available to it and had fulfilled its obligations under the IRA. How can it do that? It can use the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act simply to ban the entry of that particular fruit. The question of regional freedom has been strenuously followed up by the Government in an exchange of letters and finally reaching agreement with the Commonwealth. We will be reviewing how the unilateral decision of Biosecurity Australia was allowed to happen, given the most recent undertakings that were made in negotiations with the Commonwealth on both the MOU and the letters of agreement subsequent to the MOU. I hope I have answered both questions, but I welcome Hon Paddy Embry’s question tomorrow.
I thank the member for the question and note that it relates to an issue that was raised by Hon Paddy Embry, although in different terms. I advise the honourable member that I also have the answer to his question. Hon Paddy Embry: For tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. (1) I am aware from a report on page eight of today’s The Australian Financial Review that an independent expert from Queensland has raised a number of scientific question marks over the draft import risk analysis - IRA - conducted by Biosecurity Australia. According to this report, a Dr Fegan from the University of Queensland’s cooperative research centre for tropical plant protection said problems in the Biosecurity Australia report included misusing an estimate on the proportion of infected bananas in Philippine plantations that would not show symptoms; underestimating the length of time before infected banana plants will start showing; failing to cite scientific evidence to back its conclusion that the risk of introducing the disease to Australia can be managed; failing to take into account that moko can be transmitted by insects; wrongly concluding that the risk of moko spreading in Australia can be managed by restricting imports to southern States. I am not an expert on any of the points that have been raised by this independent scientist. However, our recent experience in trying to stop the spread of black sigatoka in bananas by restricting it to the southern parts - this is an endemic not an imported disease - is that it proved extraordinarily difficult in packaging at least, if not worse, and was turning up in places such as Carnarvon and Kununurra, even through that period. All of us who have been following the black sigatoka issue would understand what Dr Fegan was saying in the fifth point, if not the other four. (2) This is a very difficult question because it asks whether WA can defy Biosecurity Australia’s ruling. Yes, it can, but had I been able to answer Hon Paddy Embry’s question first I could have then gone through what we need to do to try to reach an accommodation within the IRA, because clearly the Western Australian Government will always try to cooperate with the Commonwealth on our joint responsibilities for meeting our World Trade Organisation obligations. The IRA specifies our obligations in that regard. Although there is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State on regional freedom - if anyone wants to follow that through I have the papers on it, which includes the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the State and then an exchange of letters between Minister Truss and me to define the extent of the regional freedom question - with great regret, in this case the MOU and the subsequent agreement on protocol between the Commonwealth and the State was not followed. In this instance Biosecurity Australia has acted unilaterally. That is the word I used in respect of the honourable member’s earlier question. What can I do to be more specific about answering Hon Jon Ford’s question about whether WA can defy the ruling or the finding? Yes, it can, but it would not want to do that until it had exhausted all legal and scientific options available to it and had fulfilled its obligations under the IRA. How can it do that? It can use the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act simply to ban the entry of that particular fruit. The question of regional freedom has been strenuously followed up by the Government in an exchange of letters and finally reaching agreement with the Commonwealth. We will be reviewing how the unilateral decision of Biosecurity Australia was allowed to happen, given the most recent undertakings that were made in negotiations with the Commonwealth on both the MOU and the letters of agreement subsequent to the MOU. I hope I have answered both questions, but I welcome Hon Paddy Embry’s question tomorrow.
Hon Paddy Embry: For tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. (1) I am aware from a report on page eight of today’s The Australian Financial Review that an independent expert from Queensland has raised a number of scientific question marks over the draft import risk analysis - IRA - conducted by Biosecurity Australia. According to this report, a Dr Fegan from the University of Queensland’s cooperative research centre for tropical plant protection said problems in the Biosecurity Australia report included misusing an estimate on the proportion of infected bananas in Philippine plantations that would not show symptoms; underestimating the length of time before infected banana plants will start showing; failing to cite scientific evidence to back its conclusion that the risk of introducing the disease to Australia can be managed; failing to take into account that moko can be transmitted by insects; wrongly concluding that the risk of moko spreading in Australia can be managed by restricting imports to southern States. I am not an expert on any of the points that have been raised by this independent scientist. However, our recent experience in trying to stop the spread of black sigatoka in bananas by restricting it to the southern parts - this is an endemic not an imported disease - is that it proved extraordinarily difficult in packaging at least, if not worse, and was turning up in places such as Carnarvon and Kununurra, even through that period. All of us who have been following the black sigatoka issue would understand what Dr Fegan was saying in the fifth point, if not the other four. (2) This is a very difficult question because it asks whether WA can defy Biosecurity Australia’s ruling. Yes, it can, but had I been able to answer Hon Paddy Embry’s question first I could have then gone through what we need to do to try to reach an accommodation within the IRA, because clearly the Western Australian Government will always try to cooperate with the Commonwealth on our joint responsibilities for meeting our World Trade Organisation obligations. The IRA specifies our obligations in that regard. Although there is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State on regional freedom - if anyone wants to follow that through I have the papers on it, which includes the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the State and then an exchange of letters between Minister Truss and me to define the extent of the regional freedom question - with great regret, in this case the MOU and the subsequent agreement on protocol between the Commonwealth and the State was not followed. In this instance Biosecurity Australia has acted unilaterally. That is the word I used in respect of the honourable member’s earlier question. What can I do to be more specific about answering Hon Jon Ford’s question about whether WA can defy the ruling or the finding? Yes, it can, but it would not want to do that until it had exhausted all legal and scientific options available to it and had fulfilled its obligations under the IRA. How can it do that? It can use the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act simply to ban the entry of that particular fruit. The question of regional freedom has been strenuously followed up by the Government in an exchange of letters and finally reaching agreement with the Commonwealth. We will be reviewing how the unilateral decision of Biosecurity Australia was allowed to happen, given the most recent undertakings that were made in negotiations with the Commonwealth on both the MOU and the letters of agreement subsequent to the MOU. I hope I have answered both questions, but I welcome Hon Paddy Embry’s question tomorrow.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. (1) I am aware from a report on page eight of today’s The Australian Financial Review that an independent expert from Queensland has raised a number of scientific question marks over the draft import risk analysis - IRA - conducted by Biosecurity Australia. According to this report, a Dr Fegan from the University of Queensland’s cooperative research centre for tropical plant protection said problems in the Biosecurity Australia report included misusing an estimate on the proportion of infected bananas in Philippine plantations that would not show symptoms; underestimating the length of time before infected banana plants will start showing; failing to cite scientific evidence to back its conclusion that the risk of introducing the disease to Australia can be managed; failing to take into account that moko can be transmitted by insects; wrongly concluding that the risk of moko spreading in Australia can be managed by restricting imports to southern States. I am not an expert on any of the points that have been raised by this independent scientist. However, our recent experience in trying to stop the spread of black sigatoka in bananas by restricting it to the southern parts - this is an endemic not an imported disease - is that it proved extraordinarily difficult in packaging at least, if not worse, and was turning up in places such as Carnarvon and Kununurra, even through that period. All of us who have been following the black sigatoka issue would understand what Dr Fegan was saying in the fifth point, if not the other four. (2) This is a very difficult question because it asks whether WA can defy Biosecurity Australia’s ruling. Yes, it can, but had I been able to answer Hon Paddy Embry’s question first I could have then gone through what we need to do to try to reach an accommodation within the IRA, because clearly the Western Australian Government will always try to cooperate with the Commonwealth on our joint responsibilities for meeting our World Trade Organisation obligations. The IRA specifies our obligations in that regard. Although there is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State on regional freedom - if anyone wants to follow that through I have the papers on it, which includes the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the State and then an exchange of letters between Minister Truss and me to define the extent of the regional freedom question - with great regret, in this case the MOU and the subsequent agreement on protocol between the Commonwealth and the State was not followed. In this instance Biosecurity Australia has acted unilaterally. That is the word I used in respect of the honourable member’s earlier question. What can I do to be more specific about answering Hon Jon Ford’s question about whether WA can defy the ruling or the finding? Yes, it can, but it would not want to do that until it had exhausted all legal and scientific options available to it and had fulfilled its obligations under the IRA. How can it do that? It can use the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act simply to ban the entry of that particular fruit. The question of regional freedom has been strenuously followed up by the Government in an exchange of letters and finally reaching agreement with the Commonwealth. We will be reviewing how the unilateral decision of Biosecurity Australia was allowed to happen, given the most recent undertakings that were made in negotiations with the Commonwealth on both the MOU and the letters of agreement subsequent to the MOU. I hope I have answered both questions, but I welcome Hon Paddy Embry’s question tomorrow.
(1) I am aware from a report on page eight of today’s The Australian Financial Review that an independent expert from Queensland has raised a number of scientific question marks over the draft import risk analysis - IRA - conducted by Biosecurity Australia. According to this report, a Dr Fegan from the University of Queensland’s cooperative research centre for tropical plant protection said problems in the Biosecurity Australia report included misusing an estimate on the proportion of infected bananas in Philippine plantations that would not show symptoms; underestimating the length of time before infected banana plants will start showing; failing to cite scientific evidence to back its conclusion that the risk of introducing the disease to Australia can be managed; failing to take into account that moko can be transmitted by insects; wrongly concluding that the risk of moko spreading in Australia can be managed by restricting imports to southern States. I am not an expert on any of the points that have been raised by this independent scientist. However, our recent experience in trying to stop the spread of black sigatoka in bananas by restricting it to the southern parts - this is an endemic not an imported disease - is that it proved extraordinarily difficult in packaging at least, if not worse, and was turning up in places such as Carnarvon and Kununurra, even through that period. All of us who have been following the black sigatoka issue would understand what Dr Fegan was saying in the fifth point, if not the other four. (2) This is a very difficult question because it asks whether WA can defy Biosecurity Australia’s ruling. Yes, it can, but had I been able to answer Hon Paddy Embry’s question first I could have then gone through what we need to do to try to reach an accommodation within the IRA, because clearly the Western Australian Government will always try to cooperate with the Commonwealth on our joint responsibilities for meeting our World Trade Organisation obligations. The IRA specifies our obligations in that regard. Although there is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State on regional freedom - if anyone wants to follow that through I have the papers on it, which includes the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the State and then an exchange of letters between Minister Truss and me to define the extent of the regional freedom question - with great regret, in this case the MOU and the subsequent agreement on protocol between the Commonwealth and the State was not followed. In this instance Biosecurity Australia has acted unilaterally. That is the word I used in respect of the honourable member’s earlier question. What can I do to be more specific about answering Hon Jon Ford’s question about whether WA can defy the ruling or the finding? Yes, it can, but it would not want to do that until it had exhausted all legal and scientific options available to it and had fulfilled its obligations under the IRA. How can it do that? It can use the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act simply to ban the entry of that particular fruit. The question of regional freedom has been strenuously followed up by the Government in an exchange of letters and finally reaching agreement with the Commonwealth. We will be reviewing how the unilateral decision of Biosecurity Australia was allowed to happen, given the most recent undertakings that were made in negotiations with the Commonwealth on both the MOU and the letters of agreement subsequent to the MOU. I hope I have answered both questions, but I welcome Hon Paddy Embry’s question tomorrow.
(2) Given concerns from WA banana growers that moko disease could be spread in Australia with the lifting of such restrictions, can WA defy Biosecurity Australia’s finding? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for the question and note that it relates to an issue that was raised by Hon Paddy Embry, although in different terms. I advise the honourable member that I also have the answer to his question. Hon Paddy Embry: For tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. (1) I am aware from a report on page eight of today’s The Australian Financial Review that an independent expert from Queensland has raised a number of scientific question marks over the draft import risk analysis - IRA - conducted by Biosecurity Australia. According to this report, a Dr Fegan from the University of Queensland’s cooperative research centre for tropical plant protection said problems in the Biosecurity Australia report included misusing an estimate on the proportion of infected bananas in Philippine plantations that would not show symptoms; underestimating the length of time before infected banana plants will start showing; failing to cite scientific evidence to back its conclusion that the risk of introducing the disease to Australia can be managed; failing to take into account that moko can be transmitted by insects; wrongly concluding that the risk of moko spreading in Australia can be managed by restricting imports to southern States. I am not an expert on any of the points that have been raised by this independent scientist. However, our recent experience in trying to stop the spread of black sigatoka in bananas by restricting it to the southern parts - this is an endemic not an imported disease - is that it proved extraordinarily difficult in packaging at least, if not worse, and was turning up in places such as Carnarvon and Kununurra, even through that period. All of us who have been following the black sigatoka issue would understand what Dr Fegan was saying in the fifth point, if not the other four. (2) This is a very difficult question because it asks whether WA can defy Biosecurity Australia’s ruling. Yes, it can, but had I been able to answer Hon Paddy Embry’s question first I could have then gone through what we need to do to try to reach an accommodation within the IRA, because clearly the Western Australian Government will always try to cooperate with the Commonwealth on our joint responsibilities for meeting our World Trade Organisation obligations. The IRA specifies our obligations in that regard. Although there is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State on regional freedom - if anyone wants to follow that through I have the papers on it, which includes the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the State and then an exchange of letters between Minister Truss and me to define the extent of the regional freedom question - with great regret, in this case the MOU and the subsequent agreement on protocol between the Commonwealth and the State was not followed. In this instance Biosecurity Australia has acted unilaterally. That is the word I used in respect of the honourable member’s earlier question. What can I do to be more specific about answering Hon Jon Ford’s question about whether WA can defy the ruling or the finding? Yes, it can, but it would not want to do that until it had exhausted all legal and scientific options available to it and had fulfilled its obligations under the IRA. How can it do that? It can use the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act simply to ban the entry of that particular fruit. The question of regional freedom has been strenuously followed up by the Government in an exchange of letters and finally reaching agreement with the Commonwealth. We will be reviewing how the unilateral decision of Biosecurity Australia was allowed to happen, given the most recent undertakings that were made in negotiations with the Commonwealth on both the MOU and the letters of agreement subsequent to the MOU. I hope I have answered both questions, but I welcome Hon Paddy Embry’s question tomorrow.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for the question and note that it relates to an issue that was raised by Hon Paddy Embry, although in different terms. I advise the honourable member that I also have the answer to his question. Hon Paddy Embry: For tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. (1) I am aware from a report on page eight of today’s The Australian Financial Review that an independent expert from Queensland has raised a number of scientific question marks over the draft import risk analysis - IRA - conducted by Biosecurity Australia. According to this report, a Dr Fegan from the University of Queensland’s cooperative research centre for tropical plant protection said problems in the Biosecurity Australia report included misusing an estimate on the proportion of infected bananas in Philippine plantations that would not show symptoms; underestimating the length of time before infected banana plants will start showing; failing to cite scientific evidence to back its conclusion that the risk of introducing the disease to Australia can be managed; failing to take into account that moko can be transmitted by insects; wrongly concluding that the risk of moko spreading in Australia can be managed by restricting imports to southern States. I am not an expert on any of the points that have been raised by this independent scientist. However, our recent experience in trying to stop the spread of black sigatoka in bananas by restricting it to the southern parts - this is an endemic not an imported disease - is that it proved extraordinarily difficult in packaging at least, if not worse, and was turning up in places such as Carnarvon and Kununurra, even through that period. All of us who have been following the black sigatoka issue would understand what Dr Fegan was saying in the fifth point, if not the other four. (2) This is a very difficult question because it asks whether WA can defy Biosecurity Australia’s ruling. Yes, it can, but had I been able to answer Hon Paddy Embry’s question first I could have then gone through what we need to do to try to reach an accommodation within the IRA, because clearly the Western Australian Government will always try to cooperate with the Commonwealth on our joint responsibilities for meeting our World Trade Organisation obligations. The IRA specifies our obligations in that regard. Although there is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State on regional freedom - if anyone wants to follow that through I have the papers on it, which includes the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the State and then an exchange of letters between Minister Truss and me to define the extent of the regional freedom question - with great regret, in this case the MOU and the subsequent agreement on protocol between the Commonwealth and the State was not followed. In this instance Biosecurity Australia has acted unilaterally. That is the word I used in respect of the honourable member’s earlier question. What can I do to be more specific about answering Hon Jon Ford’s question about whether WA can defy the ruling or the finding? Yes, it can, but it would not want to do that until it had exhausted all legal and scientific options available to it and had fulfilled its obligations under the IRA. How can it do that? It can use the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act simply to ban the entry of that particular fruit. The question of regional freedom has been strenuously followed up by the Government in an exchange of letters and finally reaching agreement with the Commonwealth. We will be reviewing how the unilateral decision of Biosecurity Australia was allowed to happen, given the most recent undertakings that were made in negotiations with the Commonwealth on both the MOU and the letters of agreement subsequent to the MOU. I hope I have answered both questions, but I welcome Hon Paddy Embry’s question tomorrow.
I thank the member for the question and note that it relates to an issue that was raised by Hon Paddy Embry, although in different terms. I advise the honourable member that I also have the answer to his question. Hon Paddy Embry: For tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. (1) I am aware from a report on page eight of today’s The Australian Financial Review that an independent expert from Queensland has raised a number of scientific question marks over the draft import risk analysis - IRA - conducted by Biosecurity Australia. According to this report, a Dr Fegan from the University of Queensland’s cooperative research centre for tropical plant protection said problems in the Biosecurity Australia report included misusing an estimate on the proportion of infected bananas in Philippine plantations that would not show symptoms; underestimating the length of time before infected banana plants will start showing; failing to cite scientific evidence to back its conclusion that the risk of introducing the disease to Australia can be managed; failing to take into account that moko can be transmitted by insects; wrongly concluding that the risk of moko spreading in Australia can be managed by restricting imports to southern States. I am not an expert on any of the points that have been raised by this independent scientist. However, our recent experience in trying to stop the spread of black sigatoka in bananas by restricting it to the southern parts - this is an endemic not an imported disease - is that it proved extraordinarily difficult in packaging at least, if not worse, and was turning up in places such as Carnarvon and Kununurra, even through that period. All of us who have been following the black sigatoka issue would understand what Dr Fegan was saying in the fifth point, if not the other four. (2) This is a very difficult question because it asks whether WA can defy Biosecurity Australia’s ruling. Yes, it can, but had I been able to answer Hon Paddy Embry’s question first I could have then gone through what we need to do to try to reach an accommodation within the IRA, because clearly the Western Australian Government will always try to cooperate with the Commonwealth on our joint responsibilities for meeting our World Trade Organisation obligations. The IRA specifies our obligations in that regard. Although there is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State on regional freedom - if anyone wants to follow that through I have the papers on it, which includes the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the State and then an exchange of letters between Minister Truss and me to define the extent of the regional freedom question - with great regret, in this case the MOU and the subsequent agreement on protocol between the Commonwealth and the State was not followed. In this instance Biosecurity Australia has acted unilaterally. That is the word I used in respect of the honourable member’s earlier question. What can I do to be more specific about answering Hon Jon Ford’s question about whether WA can defy the ruling or the finding? Yes, it can, but it would not want to do that until it had exhausted all legal and scientific options available to it and had fulfilled its obligations under the IRA. How can it do that? It can use the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act simply to ban the entry of that particular fruit. The question of regional freedom has been strenuously followed up by the Government in an exchange of letters and finally reaching agreement with the Commonwealth. We will be reviewing how the unilateral decision of Biosecurity Australia was allowed to happen, given the most recent undertakings that were made in negotiations with the Commonwealth on both the MOU and the letters of agreement subsequent to the MOU. I hope I have answered both questions, but I welcome Hon Paddy Embry’s question tomorrow.
Hon Paddy Embry: For tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. (1) I am aware from a report on page eight of today’s The Australian Financial Review that an independent expert from Queensland has raised a number of scientific question marks over the draft import risk analysis - IRA - conducted by Biosecurity Australia. According to this report, a Dr Fegan from the University of Queensland’s cooperative research centre for tropical plant protection said problems in the Biosecurity Australia report included misusing an estimate on the proportion of infected bananas in Philippine plantations that would not show symptoms; underestimating the length of time before infected banana plants will start showing; failing to cite scientific evidence to back its conclusion that the risk of introducing the disease to Australia can be managed; failing to take into account that moko can be transmitted by insects; wrongly concluding that the risk of moko spreading in Australia can be managed by restricting imports to southern States. I am not an expert on any of the points that have been raised by this independent scientist. However, our recent experience in trying to stop the spread of black sigatoka in bananas by restricting it to the southern parts - this is an endemic not an imported disease - is that it proved extraordinarily difficult in packaging at least, if not worse, and was turning up in places such as Carnarvon and Kununurra, even through that period. All of us who have been following the black sigatoka issue would understand what Dr Fegan was saying in the fifth point, if not the other four. (2) This is a very difficult question because it asks whether WA can defy Biosecurity Australia’s ruling. Yes, it can, but had I been able to answer Hon Paddy Embry’s question first I could have then gone through what we need to do to try to reach an accommodation within the IRA, because clearly the Western Australian Government will always try to cooperate with the Commonwealth on our joint responsibilities for meeting our World Trade Organisation obligations. The IRA specifies our obligations in that regard. Although there is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State on regional freedom - if anyone wants to follow that through I have the papers on it, which includes the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the State and then an exchange of letters between Minister Truss and me to define the extent of the regional freedom question - with great regret, in this case the MOU and the subsequent agreement on protocol between the Commonwealth and the State was not followed. In this instance Biosecurity Australia has acted unilaterally. That is the word I used in respect of the honourable member’s earlier question. What can I do to be more specific about answering Hon Jon Ford’s question about whether WA can defy the ruling or the finding? Yes, it can, but it would not want to do that until it had exhausted all legal and scientific options available to it and had fulfilled its obligations under the IRA. How can it do that? It can use the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act simply to ban the entry of that particular fruit. The question of regional freedom has been strenuously followed up by the Government in an exchange of letters and finally reaching agreement with the Commonwealth. We will be reviewing how the unilateral decision of Biosecurity Australia was allowed to happen, given the most recent undertakings that were made in negotiations with the Commonwealth on both the MOU and the letters of agreement subsequent to the MOU. I hope I have answered both questions, but I welcome Hon Paddy Embry’s question tomorrow.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. (1) I am aware from a report on page eight of today’s The Australian Financial Review that an independent expert from Queensland has raised a number of scientific question marks over the draft import risk analysis - IRA - conducted by Biosecurity Australia. According to this report, a Dr Fegan from the University of Queensland’s cooperative research centre for tropical plant protection said problems in the Biosecurity Australia report included misusing an estimate on the proportion of infected bananas in Philippine plantations that would not show symptoms; underestimating the length of time before infected banana plants will start showing; failing to cite scientific evidence to back its conclusion that the risk of introducing the disease to Australia can be managed; failing to take into account that moko can be transmitted by insects; wrongly concluding that the risk of moko spreading in Australia can be managed by restricting imports to southern States. I am not an expert on any of the points that have been raised by this independent scientist. However, our recent experience in trying to stop the spread of black sigatoka in bananas by restricting it to the southern parts - this is an endemic not an imported disease - is that it proved extraordinarily difficult in packaging at least, if not worse, and was turning up in places such as Carnarvon and Kununurra, even through that period. All of us who have been following the black sigatoka issue would understand what Dr Fegan was saying in the fifth point, if not the other four. (2) This is a very difficult question because it asks whether WA can defy Biosecurity Australia’s ruling. Yes, it can, but had I been able to answer Hon Paddy Embry’s question first I could have then gone through what we need to do to try to reach an accommodation within the IRA, because clearly the Western Australian Government will always try to cooperate with the Commonwealth on our joint responsibilities for meeting our World Trade Organisation obligations. The IRA specifies our obligations in that regard. Although there is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State on regional freedom - if anyone wants to follow that through I have the papers on it, which includes the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the State and then an exchange of letters between Minister Truss and me to define the extent of the regional freedom question - with great regret, in this case the MOU and the subsequent agreement on protocol between the Commonwealth and the State was not followed. In this instance Biosecurity Australia has acted unilaterally. That is the word I used in respect of the honourable member’s earlier question. What can I do to be more specific about answering Hon Jon Ford’s question about whether WA can defy the ruling or the finding? Yes, it can, but it would not want to do that until it had exhausted all legal and scientific options available to it and had fulfilled its obligations under the IRA. How can it do that? It can use the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act simply to ban the entry of that particular fruit. The question of regional freedom has been strenuously followed up by the Government in an exchange of letters and finally reaching agreement with the Commonwealth. We will be reviewing how the unilateral decision of Biosecurity Australia was allowed to happen, given the most recent undertakings that were made in negotiations with the Commonwealth on both the MOU and the letters of agreement subsequent to the MOU. I hope I have answered both questions, but I welcome Hon Paddy Embry’s question tomorrow.
(1) I am aware from a report on page eight of today’s The Australian Financial Review that an independent expert from Queensland has raised a number of scientific question marks over the draft import risk analysis - IRA - conducted by Biosecurity Australia. According to this report, a Dr Fegan from the University of Queensland’s cooperative research centre for tropical plant protection said problems in the Biosecurity Australia report included misusing an estimate on the proportion of infected bananas in Philippine plantations that would not show symptoms; underestimating the length of time before infected banana plants will start showing; failing to cite scientific evidence to back its conclusion that the risk of introducing the disease to Australia can be managed; failing to take into account that moko can be transmitted by insects; wrongly concluding that the risk of moko spreading in Australia can be managed by restricting imports to southern States. I am not an expert on any of the points that have been raised by this independent scientist. However, our recent experience in trying to stop the spread of black sigatoka in bananas by restricting it to the southern parts - this is an endemic not an imported disease - is that it proved extraordinarily difficult in packaging at least, if not worse, and was turning up in places such as Carnarvon and Kununurra, even through that period. All of us who have been following the black sigatoka issue would understand what Dr Fegan was saying in the fifth point, if not the other four. (2) This is a very difficult question because it asks whether WA can defy Biosecurity Australia’s ruling. Yes, it can, but had I been able to answer Hon Paddy Embry’s question first I could have then gone through what we need to do to try to reach an accommodation within the IRA, because clearly the Western Australian Government will always try to cooperate with the Commonwealth on our joint responsibilities for meeting our World Trade Organisation obligations. The IRA specifies our obligations in that regard. Although there is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State on regional freedom - if anyone wants to follow that through I have the papers on it, which includes the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the State and then an exchange of letters between Minister Truss and me to define the extent of the regional freedom question - with great regret, in this case the MOU and the subsequent agreement on protocol between the Commonwealth and the State was not followed. In this instance Biosecurity Australia has acted unilaterally. That is the word I used in respect of the honourable member’s earlier question. What can I do to be more specific about answering Hon Jon Ford’s question about whether WA can defy the ruling or the finding? Yes, it can, but it would not want to do that until it had exhausted all legal and scientific options available to it and had fulfilled its obligations under the IRA. How can it do that? It can use the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act simply to ban the entry of that particular fruit. The question of regional freedom has been strenuously followed up by the Government in an exchange of letters and finally reaching agreement with the Commonwealth. We will be reviewing how the unilateral decision of Biosecurity Australia was allowed to happen, given the most recent undertakings that were made in negotiations with the Commonwealth on both the MOU and the letters of agreement subsequent to the MOU. I hope I have answered both questions, but I welcome Hon Paddy Embry’s question tomorrow.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.