This bill is seeking to provide biosecurity officers with increased powers. With everything we’ve been through over the past few years, I decided to ask for clarification on the bill. I questioned how these new powers could be used and whether there was a risk of discrimination against arrivals into Australia, particularly those who have chosen not to receive medical procedures such as the COVID-19 injections.
I am concerned these amendments would ensure the collection of data from all incoming travellers to support intelligence-gathering and evidence-based predictions of potential biosecurity risks.
Minister Watt offered assurances in the Senate Chamber that there is no intention of using the bill to discriminate against people based on medical status or ethnicity. He also assured me that this bill did not allow for collecting or retaining health information.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I have two questions. The first is of the minister: could this bill be used to discriminate against arrivals who have chosen not to receive injections related to COVID-19 measures? As part of that, does this bill allow travel documents to include information based on vaccine status?
Senator Watt: I’m just seeking some further advice on that, Senator Roberts, but I’m certainly not aware of any intention to use these powers in that way or even whether the powers could be used that way. I know that there were some concerns raised by a couple of the parliamentary committees about how these powers might be used and the risk of discrimination that might be posed. I think we were certainly able to persuade those committees that there would be no such ability to discriminate. You may have seen, Senator Roberts, that one of the things this bill is doing is providing biosecurity officers with increased powers to seek passports from people, but that’s really about trying to check where they have been and whether they’re repeat offenders when it comes to biosecurity risks rather than checking on people because of their particular racial background, their COVID vaccination background or anything like that. It’s more about, as I said, allowing biosecurity officers to trace when people have been to very high-risk locations or if they’re repeat offenders with biosecurity, in which case I’m sure you’d agree that they’re the people who we really need to focus our biosecurity efforts on.
Senator Roberts: Minister, have you received that advice yet about my specific question?
Senator Watt: The proposed amendments are intended to ensure that the data collected in relation to biosecurity interventions with all incoming travellers can be recorded and analysed consistently to support a more intelligence- and evidence-based approach to predicting and managing the biosecurity risk posed by future traveller cohorts. As such, the requirement to provide a passport or other travel document to a biosecurity officer upon request would apply to all persons regardless of their ethnicity, their national or social origin or their vaccination status. The powers that are being granted here cannot be, or are not intended to be, used to go after particular people based on any characteristic about them. They can be applied to all people, regardless of their vaccination status, their ethnicity or anything like that. I think that you can be confident that your concerns would not be carried out as a result of these powers.
Senator Roberts: You said ‘could’ and then hesitated. So that means these powers cannot be used to discriminate against arrivals who have chosen not to receive injections for COVID-19?
Senator Watt: That’s right. The powers cannot be used to discriminate against anyone for any reason, including their vaccination status.
Senator Roberts: My second question is: should there be time limits on the time which health information about an individual is retained?
Senator Watt: In fact, Senator Roberts, this bill does not provide for the retention of data at all. That being the case, the concern that you have does not even arise. It’s not a matter of—sorry, I’ll just clarify this. There’s nothing in the bill that allows data to be retained for health purposes and so the issue of how long data could be retained for health purposes doesn’t arise, because it can’t be retained for that purpose at all.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/JiJwE9TSfqU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-05 08:52:032023-09-14 10:46:37Amending the Biosecurity Act — What Does it Mean?
The PM has made a mistake in giving the Agriculture ministry to an accountant and lawyer from the Gold Coast. Even so, the country still needs to be ready for the worst. Our agriculture and economy depends on it.
Transcript
In serving the people of Queensland and Australia, my intention in advancing this motion was to protect the people’s interests from the economic devastation that will result from foot-and-mouth disease if it enters Australia. There is no time to waste. It is a distinct possibility that, given the substandard response from this government, foot-and-mouth may be in Australia before the next sitting. Suspending standing orders to debate this matter today was essential, and I thank Senator Gallagher and the government for this.
Senator Whish-Wilson yesterday suggested that this matter could wait for discussion at the inquiry into the government’s foot-and-mouth response. No, it can’t. That’s weeks away. We need to act now to get these vaccines into Australia.
I know the minister appeared on radio earlier this week and alluded to the ‘scaremongering’ coming from some people around this issue. It is not scaremongering to want to save the life blood of hundreds of communities in rural Australia. It is not scaremongering to want to preserve $80 billion in exports. It is not scaremongering to want Australia to provide our beautiful red-meat protein into the international market to feed the world. It is not scaremongering to want to protect the thousands of jobs, including union jobs in transport, that the livestock industry supports.
Why on earth did the Prime Minister give the job of agriculture minister to an accountant and lawyer from the city? That decision was a gross insult to the Australian agriculture sector. The minister’s actions in his very first test show that the minister hasn’t a clue. The minister misleads and uses false slurs to cover up his own deficiencies and to divert attention from his deficiencies. The minister misled the Senate and the public when he answered my question on bringing vaccines to Australia just in case. The minister replied that this would cause Australia to be considered as ‘having foot-and-mouth disease’—rubbish! Having the vaccines here is not considered having foot-and-mouth. Using them is, and clearly these vaccines would not be used unless we had an actual outbreak. I’ve repeatedly called on the minister to correct his reply, and he continues to ignore that request. Truth doesn’t matter.
The minister misled the Senate when saying vaccine production had to wait until we knew the strain that had arrived in Australia. That specious reply ignores the likelihood that the strain we could have in Australia is going to be the same strain present now in Bali. If we’re making vaccines for Bali, make some more for us and store those vaccines in Australia, ready for any outbreak that comes here from Bali. Minister Watt’s answer ignores the simple question: if we need to know the strain before making a vaccine, what are the million doses of foot-and-mouth vaccine Australia is storing in the UK right now that he told us about?
The minister called into question my support for vaccines yesterday in another diversion. The minister was clearly not listening. In my question last Thursday, I did reassure the public that these vaccines are safe. The first thing I did in drafting my questions was to check that and to add the fact that it does look after people’s safety. I have never spoken against vaccination. I have spoken strongly against, and will continue to speak strongly against, experimental gene based treatments for humans, with grossly inadequate safety testing. Experimental vaccine injections have caused so many horrendous human injuries and deaths the government has had to implement a compensation scheme. In contrast, the foot-and-mouth vaccine is not an mRNA gene based vaccine. It is a normal vaccine, a real vaccine. According to New Zealand health authorities, it’s safe to consume meat and milk from a vaccinated animal.
So once again for clarity, before the minister misrepresents me again, I’m suggesting we get these one million doses of vaccine that we already own, and any others we need to produce for this strain, stored here in Australia, ready to vaccinate 48 hours after a foot-and-mouth outbreak occurs, should one occur. Taking this precaution will meet the procedure in the minister’s own manual. It’s on page 18 of the foot-and-mouth AUSVETPLAN edition 3 manual, in case the minister wants to look it up.
I asked the minister to explain why these vaccines are being stored in the UK rather than Australia. The minister has failed to explain this very strange decision, despite repeated requests. In the event of an outbreak, it will take seven days to get the vaccines here from the UK. Yet vaccination is supposed to start after 48 hours. After one week it will be too late. The livestock industry will be done for. He said he had tabled a response. He did, but it was scant and did not answer my basic questions. Was he really badly advised or did he lie? We need the truth. People need the truth. There are two issues now thanks to Senator Watt: foot-and-mouth and trust and truth, because of what he has done and not done and what he’s said and not said.
The minister’s briefing on foot-and-mouth last Tuesday appears to have made a factual error. It was in a casual reply, so I’m only going to mention this in passing. The comment was made that foot-and-mouth disease stays resident on hard surfaces for hours. The American College of Veterinary Pathologists briefing sheet on foot-and-mouth puts the residence period at one month. Between hours and one month, there is a hell of a difference—a huge difference. If it’s indeed one month then the protocols we’re following for foot-and-mouth need to be much stronger, more like the disinfectant protocols the government rushed to implement for COVID.
Some of these issues can be covered during the Senate inquiry. Vaccines, though, cannot wait. We must have them here now. We must have stronger airport screening now. How can it be that, after all these weeks the virus has been in Indonesia, we still have several international flights arriving directly from Indonesia all at the same time and then no flights for hours? If you do not have the staff to check every passenger from infected areas, Minister, here’s an idea: work with the airlines to stagger their arrivals so we can screen every single person.
I have no confidence that this minister, in being in charge of the department, is working from a set of protocols that are designed to stop foot-and-mouth. Rather, these protocols seem to be about looking as if government tried to stop foot-and-mouth. Perhaps this has something to do with the Left’s policy to reduce livestock to save on carbon dioxide production. A 43 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide output below 2005 levels by 2030 must include substantial reductions from agriculture. I’ll speak to this absolute nonsense, this garbage, on many occasions in the years ahead. For today, let me say that cows are not climate vandals. Graziers are wonderful custodians of the land, as Senator Nampijinpa Price just pointed out. The government is not a wonderful custodian of the land.
I’m aware there is work that suggests that foot-and-mouth will not spread amongst feral pigs and other feral animals that can get foot-and-mouth because of the sparse population. What utter rubbish! These researchers-for-hire clearly have not been to the national parks I’ve have been to. Nobody in the government seems to care that infestations of pests in national parks encroach on farmland, putting hardworking farmers under enormous strain, when all they want to do is grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. Why the political Left want to stop farmers feeding and clothing the world is beyond me—and it’s clearly beyond Senator Nampijinpa Price. I know your climate gods need the ritual sacrifice of farmers to reach a target that makes no scientific sense, no moral or ethical sense, no human sense. And, really, how can rewilding productive farmland be more desirable than feeding and clothing the world and the people on our planet?
This agenda dovetails very nicely with Premier Andrews’s recent agriculture bill, which allows the Premier to declare quarantine on part or all of rural Victoria based on the threat of a disease outbreak. Animals can be culled on the threat of getting a disease. Farmers can be told what they can and can’t produce. Lockdowns can be hard border lockdowns extending for years. Victoria is coming for their graziers in the name of sustainability. All it will take is one disease outbreak. What could that outbreak be? If every rural media outlet in the bush is not getting onto their local Labor member or Greens candidates and asking them, ‘What is the go here?’ then I don’t know why they’re not doing it.
There’s a story here. It’s a story that is so much more than an inexperienced minister with no knowledge of his portfolio tripping over the first hurdle. It’s more than a minister who refuses to accept he’s made a mistake and, as a result, refuses to fix it. That’s not honest. It’s more than Australian farmers being thrown under the sustainability bus by wealthy city dwellers anxious to make others pay for their climate religion. It is about the very future of our Australian agricultural sector, and that’s terrifying.
Minister Watt made this an issue by misleading the Senate. Quoting others about foot-and-mouth disease does not change a thing with what’s happening with the government. Continually derailing the discussion and diverting the discussion onto what other people are doing or not doing does not answer questions. It shows the man lacks accountability and responsibility. And I will continue to do my job for the people. I’ve been elected by the people—not the people that Senator Watt quoted. It’s easier to get a human being vaccinated in this country than to get a cow vaccinated. We have one flag above this parliament. We are one community and we are one nation. Labor, in its policy on foot-and-mouth disease, is a clear and present danger to agriculture.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/lsI_ddWTz_8/mqdefault.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-08-04 15:06:562022-08-04 15:07:01Minister Watt continues to duck and weave on Foot and Mouth Disease
If Foot and Mouth disease enters Australia it will cost the industry an estimated $80 billion. Minister Watt’s response to foot-and-mouth disease has been half-baked and dangerous.
Transcript
I move:
That—
(a) the Senate requires the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to attend the Senate at 9.30 am on Thursday, 4 August 2022 to provide an explanation of not more than 10 minutes as to:
(i) answers provided to Senator Roberts after question time on Thursday, 28 July 2022 which appear to have misled the Senate, as detailed in Senator Roberts’ letter hand delivered to the Minister on Friday, 29 July 2022,
(ii) the failure by the Minister to bring foot and mouth disease vaccines to Australia ready for an outbreak should one occur, and
(iii) the failure by the Minister to provide suitable biosecurity precautions at Australian airports to prevent foot and mouth disease entering Australia;
(b) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (a); and
(c) any motion under paragraph (b) may be debated for no longer than one hour, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.
Motion moved by Senator Roberts 3 August 2022 and agreed to by the Senate
Foot-and-mouth disease is a clear and present danger to the Australian livestock industry. If foot-and-mouth disease enters Australia, our exports will be suspended for several years, which will cost the industry $80 billion. This will be devastating to rural communities. Farmers will not survive. Regions will be decimated. The country will suffer as a whole. The federal government will be on the hook for huge social security and assistance packages, as well as for compensation for culled animals. The animals would like to express their desire to not be shot and burned.
This will not only bankrupt farmers; it will negatively impact the affordability of meat protein. If you think meat is expensive now—once we destroy a large part of the Australian beef industry, prices will go beyond the means of everyday Australians to afford meat. This is not a rural issue. Foot-and-mouth disease will affect every Australian through the cost of meat and dairy and through the additional burdens on the taxpayers to meet compensation and social security expenses.
Minister Watt’s response to foot-and-mouth disease has been half-baked and, quite honestly, dangerous. He has also, I believe, misled the Senate. I gave the minister a chance to correct and clarify his remarks, in a letter hand delivered to the minister last Friday requesting an attendance by close of business last Monday. The minister ignored that letter. The minister must attend the Senate to explain answers that he has given to my question without notice; they could constitute a misleading of the Senate.
Last Wednesday, 27 July, in questions without notice, my first question was in respect to the foot-and-mouth disease vaccine being held in the UK and read, in part: ‘If foot-and-mouth disease arrives in Australia, the short-term response would be to start vaccination.’ The minister’s reply included the statement: ‘The reason you don’t vaccinate is that you are then deemed by the rest of the world as having foot-and-mouth disease.’
As a result of that misleading reply from Minister Watt, I have had to contend with suggestions on social media that I was advocating for a measure that would destroy our beef industry. I said no such thing. The minister was given an opportunity to correct the record, and he has not.
Minister Watt also stated that ‘what we are actually prioritising in relation to the supply of vaccines at the moment is providing them to Indonesia to keep the disease out, and that is why we want to support the vaccine rollout in Indonesia’. I of course support assisting Indonesia with their foot-and-mouth disease response. They’re neighbours of ours. We need to support them. We also need to support them for humanitarian reasons. However, I might make the observation that this response presupposes that we know the strain in Indonesia and can access that vaccine if suitable. If we know the Bali strain, then why are we not placing the same vaccine we are giving to Indonesia here in Australia right now, in case one of the travellers returning from Bali has brought foot-and-mouth disease with them?
Minister Watt went on and made the statement that ‘we don’t necessarily know what strain of disease we would have in Australia’ and that we need to know the strain before we order the vaccine. If we need to know the strain before ordering the vaccine, then what about the million doses we already have in the UK? What strain do they protect us against, and at what cost? I received a call from the minister’s office last Thursday advising that we would receiver an answer to the question the minister took on notice regarding how many vaccines Australia has stored in the UK, to which the minister gave an indicative answer of one million. That answer did not arrive, and it’s been a week now.
Why are these vaccines being stored in the UK? How much are we paying to store them in the UK, when they should be stored here in Australia? Page 18 of the foot-and-mouth disease AUSVETPLAN, edition 3, states that vaccination is recommended to start within 48 hours of the first detected case, and this may include protective vaccination of livestock in the area surrounding the infection. In question time Minister Watt suggested that the vaccines could be here from the UK in seven days and that this was sufficient. However, the government’s own manual indicates that vaccination would be an appropriate response after just 48 hours. Australia is currently holding tens of millions of vaccines for COVID in complete safety. If we are unable to hold foot-and-mouth vaccines in a similar way, then why not? It seems to be proving easier to get a human vaccinated in this country than a cow.
I’d just consider some other points as well. I note that the briefing last week by Minister Watt’s staff said that the virus stays for just hours on surfaces. Other sources in the United States reliably say that the virus stays on surfaces for a month. Therefore, if quarantine measures are not adequate—and it means they are not—then we need the protection of a vaccine. This is about food security for the people in this country—fellow Australians. It is about food prices and cost of living. It is about humanitarian support for the Indonesians. It is about support for our farmers, for our whole agricultural sector. As I said, if foot-and-mouth disease breaks out here it will cost us a suspension that is estimated to be around three years, costing $80 billion in lost exports. It also will gut our agricultural sector and tarnish our reputation—all because we are not being told the truth and we are being misled, and that compares with a few million dollars on a vaccine, which is the lowest-cost option for us to protect our farming industry and our farmers.
How much does it cost us to store these vaccines in the United Kingdom? This is about Minister Watt looking good, not doing good—all mouth and no substance.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/SkE4j44_wcw/mqdefault.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-08-03 14:58:372022-08-04 07:58:10Minister to front up and explain potentially misleading the Senate – Foot and Mouth Disease
The Senate this morning has voted in favour of my motion requiring Senator Murray Watt, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to explain how he hasn’t misled the Senate in answers regarding foot and mouth disease.
The Minister must attend the Senate at 9:30am Thursday to explain.
In a hand delivered letter which he did not respond to, I asked the Minister to consider how his answers were not misleading the Senate. Official Government biosecurity measures state that vaccination of affected and proximate livestock should occur within 2 days of an outbreak.
Despite this, Minister Watt appears to maintain that holding 1 million non-mRNA cow vaccines in the United Kingdom, which would take 7 days to get here, is good enough. It isn’t.
It begs the question, why does it seem to be easier to get a human vaccinated in this country than a cow?
We also have to ask, why is the Government colluding with the Greens to keep a non-mRNA vaccine for Foot and Mouth disease out of the country? Why is Labor being so slow to act on keeping Foot and Mouth out of the country?
Do they want a Foot and Mouth disease outbreak in the country to destroy our livestock industry so we all have to eat the bugs?
Minister I am writing to ask you to reconsider answers given during question time on Wednesday July 27th and ask you to consider how your answers were not misleading the Senate.
Last Wednesday July 27th in questions without notice, my first question was in respect of the Foot and Mouth Disease vaccine being held in the UK and read in part “If foot and mouth disease arrives in Australia the short-term response would be to start vaccination”.
Your reply included the statement “the reason you don’t vaccinate is that you are then deemed by the rest of the world as having foot and mouth disease”.
I did not say vaccinate livestock now, I said IF foot and mouth does arrive then start vaccinating.
As a result of your reply I have had to contend with suggestions on social media I was advocating for a measure that would destroy our export industry. I said no such thing.
Please correct the record.
Minister my first supplemental question went to the adequacy of the vaccine stockpile. Your reply included the statement “what we are actually prioritising in relation to the supply of vaccines at the moment is providing them to Indonesia, to keep the disease out and that is why we want to support the vaccine rollout in Indonesia.”
I of course support assisting Indonesia with their Foot and Mouth disease response. However I might make the observation this response presupposes we now know the strain in Indonesia and can access a vaccine that is suitable.
If we know the Bali strain then why are we not placing the same vaccine we are giving Indonesia here in Australia in case one of the travellers returning from Bali has brought FMD with them?
If we ultimately do not need those vaccines I am sure Indonesia will be appreciative of receiving our stockpile to assist with their outbreak. One Nation are happy to be good neighbours.
Minister your reply to my second supplemental, which asked why the FMD vaccines could not be stored in Australia ready for an outbreak, included the statement “we don’t necessarily know what strain of the disease we would have in Australia and (paraphrasing), we need to know the strain before we order the vaccine”.
If as you said, we do need to know the strain before making the vaccine what are the million doses we already have in the UK?
I acknowledge the call from your office on Thursday advising we would receive an answer to the question you took on notice regarding how many vaccines we have in the UK – to which you gave an indicative answer of one million.
This response has not been received yet and I would ask that it contains details of strains for which we have completed vaccines stored in the UK together with respective quantities.
On page 18 of the FMD AUSVETPLAN Edition 3 it states that vaccination is recommended to start within 48 hours of the first detected case, and this may include protective vaccination of livestock in the area surrounding the infection;
Minister why did you suggest the vaccines could be here from the UK in 7 days and this was sufficient, when your own manual indicates vaccination would be an appropriate option after just 48 hours?
Australia is currently holding tens of millions of vaccines for COVID in complete safety. If we are unable to hold FMD vaccines in a similar manner please provide an explanation as to why.
Minister, I make the observation that it is proving easier to get a human vaccinated in this country than a cow.
I thank you for your attention to this matter and would request a response by COB Monday 1st August 2022.
https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.png00Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-07-29 19:06:002022-08-03 11:09:49Letter to Minister Murray Watt: Potentially misleading the Senate on Foot and Mouth
Farmers at Gatton and beyond are petrified of the spread of destructive fire ants. Fire ants ravage crops and if they get into animals, they drive them crazy with pain. Left unchecked, they’ll turn productive areas effectively barren.
I asked the Department of Agriculture about what we are doing to eradicate them. Unfortunately, it looks like there isn’t enough money allocated to eradicate the destructive fire ants.
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts] How much is it costing Australia in funding the fight against spread and ultimate eradication of fire ants?
[Mr Tongue] Senator, it’s approximately $450 million dollars. I’ll defer to my colleague Ms Laduzko.
[Mr Metcalfe] These are red imported fire ants?
Yeah, red imported fire ants.
[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve got domestic fire ants?
[Mr Metcalfe] No, we’ve also got the yellow crazy ants as well.
[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve got a lot of ants.
[Mr Ludisco] The red imported fire ants particularly which are a particular problem in the Brisbane Valley.
[Malcolm Roberts] 400 million over what period?
[Ms Laduzko] Sorry, Senator Roberts, we have a ten year funding programme currently agreed across all States and Territories in the Commonwealth and the budgeted allocation for that current ten year programme, about which we’re nearly halfway through is 414 million.
[Malcolm Roberts] So about 41 million a year.
[Ms Laduzko] Yeah, roughly speaking.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. How successful is the management and eradication programme?
[Ms Laduzko] We are four years into a sustained effort at eradicating an invasive ant that has got quite a wide spread. I think and I think I might’ve given this evidence last time to the committee which is we have been learning a lot more about the ant. It’s a very large scale eradication so we’ve been making progress but in the meantime, the programme which is actually led by the Queensland government has been trialling different ways of killing the ant through different bait combinations and technology so I’d have to say we’ve seen some positive signs and there are some learnings around eradication but the actual size of the task and whether it’s sufficiently funded are matters for current discussion.
[Malcolm Roberts] So you haven’t got any concrete measures other than that, you’ve just making progress? Not trying to be cheeky, I just would like to have something quantified. How do you assess progress? Because that’s an awful lot of money.
[Ms Laduzko] Yes, assessing progress is an interesting question and partly we go through cycles of eradication and surveillance so we eradicate to a programme and then we go back and do surveillance to see how effective those measures have been. If you want specific information, I’d probably prefer to take it on notice because that would be what I would source from the program-leading Queensland government to make sure I’m accurate.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you.
[Mr Tongue] And Senator, just to describe there is the programme is run by an independent committee chaired by Wendy Crake who is a very distinguished authority in natural resource management matters.
[Malcolm Roberts] Queensland or Australia?
[Mr Tongue] Australia, Australia and as Ms Laduzko said, jointly funded and there is quite a significant amount of detail that we can provide you on notice about the roll out of the programme, how they’re measuring effectiveness, etc. It is just a very big eradication programme, that’s all.
[Malcolm Roberts] That would be useful because I’ve attended a meeting at Gatton, in the heart of the Valley, and the residents there were pretty upset that they don’t trust what the Queensland government is doing so yeah, I’d like to learn more about it, thank you.
[Mr Tongue] Certainly.
[Malcolm Roberts] How effective are similar overseas eradication programmes?
[Ms Laduzko] I think that it’s true to say, Senator, that nowhere has anyone successfully eradicated red imported fire ants. In fact, Australia is the only successful eradication outcomes and they were on smaller incursions that were, we were able to contain to port environments so we have successfully eradicated small outbreaks but it’s not my understanding that any other country has ever managed to eradicate.
[Malcolm Roberts] So is that ominous for the Valley?
[Ms Laduzko] Well, I think it gives us pause for thought around the size of the eradication and the funding commitment and what our long term strategy is but we do have it, you know, it’s, I think, there’s some stats that suggest if we’d done nothing from when we first saw it, it would already have largely covered the entirety of Australia by now and we have managed to keep it to a defined region.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay so in that sense, it’s effective.
[Ms Laduzko] In that sense, it’s effective.
[Malcolm Roberts] Or it may have delayed the overrun of Australia? We don’t really know yet.
[Ms Laduzko] That’s probably a fair call.
[Mr Tongue] Red imported fire ant is viable in 99 per cent of the Australian continent, Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s actually being done on this in Australia? Are you just containing it or you’re trying to eradicate it? Sounds like you’re trying to eradicate it.
[Mr Tongue] It is an eradication programme. It has been going under various guises for a number of years now. In fact, this is a ten year programme. Prior to that, I think we’ve done a seven year programme ahead of that so it’s an eradication programme.
[Malcolm Roberts] How far are we into the ten years? Excuse me for interrupting.
[Mr Tongue] We would be between year four and year five.
[Malcolm Roberts] So we’re halfway through.
[Ms Laduzko] A little less than halfway.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, okay. So what’s being done in terms of the actual on the ground, what’s happening? I know the Queensland government is…
[Mr Tongue] Sorry, it’s quite a complex programme and it’s very large. The nuts and bolts part of it is we’ve agreed a programme for how we approach the eradication efforts so we have zoned certain areas and they’ve embedded a sentiment of moving from west to east with rolling eradication efforts and suppressing in those other areas. I haven’t got to so hard eradication, suppression, suppression, rolling forward but we also have to put a lot of investment in the edge to make sure it doesn’t further escape. The west to east model goes from rural land through to urban environments and that changes the nature of how you do eradication and how you engage the community.
[Malcolm Roberts] And it makes it difficult.
[Ms Laduzko] It does make it a bit more difficult, yes.
[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s hard to tell where are we. At the moment, we seem to be stabilising in your opinion?
[Ms Laduzko] I think at the moment we have certainly, you’d have to say we haven’t allowed it to become worse and we’ve managed, I think, some success in the semi-rural areas. The question will be, as we get closer to those urban environments.
[Malcolm Roberts] What else needs to be done? What more needs to be done?
[Ms Laduzko] I think that’s an open question. You know, the scale of the response is enormous and it often comes down to funding and commitment of participants. Once you’re in an urban environment, everyone needs to be willing and engaged.
[Malcolm Roberts] So are there enough resources to achieve eradication?
[Ms Laduzko] Not something I’d like to comment on right now, Senator, we’re going through a bit of a review. Part of the resourcing question goes to what other strategies we can adopt. Is the technology moving ahead of us? Is the baits, are the baits becoming more effective? A few things like that so I think that’s probably a question perhaps you might like to pose in maybe next session when we’ve done a bit of our own efficiency review.
[Mr Tongue] And I should add, Senator, that it is a science-driven programme so we’re drawing on the best possible science we can. We’re trying to do something, as you’ve alluded to, that hasn’t been done anywhere else in the world. It is success to contain it at some level, it is success to contain it because it is a uniquely adapted little ant that really can move quite swiftly if left uncontained. The challenges around the urban areas, you know, baits, poisons, schools, backyards, you know, those sorts of things are quite difficult. We are also finding, I think in the programme, that the cycle of wet and dry, particularly in that kind of area of Southeast Queensland, can frustrate efforts, you know, lay baits, it rains, all of that work is lost. You go back again. So finding the kind of rhythm, the drum beat that will beat it is something that’s just under constant review. It is an enormous eradication programme and as Ms Laduzko says we’re re-looking at it at the moment and governments will need to make decisions.
[Mr Metcalfe] Not with a view for stopping it.
[Mr Tongue] Not with a view for stopping it.
[Mr Metcalfe] But with a view of how we do it, can we do it better?
[Mr Tongue] Can we do it better? If we up the cash burn rate, would we go faster? If we slowed the cash burn rate, will we do better? Some of those questions, you know. What is the right modality to get rid of it?
[Malcolm Roberts] Before I ask you my next question, it probably is associated with the next question, but just make the comment, not having a go at you but when people use the word ‘science’ around here, I usually start digging because it’s just usually opinion and no science. And in Queensland, farming is being devastated by the Queensland Labour government, citing science but being nowhere near science and they’re destroying whole communities, whole regions and farms so I just make that point. I’d like to see the science rather than believe it.
[Mr Tongue] Sure.
[Malcolm Roberts] So moving on that, on what basis are federal monies provided to the States to assist in these programmes? Because listening to a forum at Gatton, people seem be questioning the Queensland State government’s motives. Is there a different formula, for example, for stabilising and containing versus eradicating?
[Mr Tongue] There is a couple of ways to answer that. In the environment we work in when we do eradication responses, like for things that aren’t yet established, we have agreed deeds where States and Territories and the Commonwealth and industry, where relevant, have an approach they use for eradication and how they cost share that. The Reefer eradication programme we’re talking about started in advance of us having an appropriate deed structure to use so it’s run a little bit differently to other eradication responses but in essence, for us, we have a partnership agreement with the Queensland government that sets out milestones that need to be met in order for us to provide funding to a schedule.
[Malcolm Roberts] So there are conditions attached?
[Ms Laduzko] Yes, yep but consistent with many of these what are largely termed environmental eradication responses, the Commonwealth is contributing 50 per cent of the cost.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. So is this in any way an enduring money spinner for the States?
[Ms Laduzko] A money spinner? No, I wouldn’t characterise it that way.
[Malcolm Roberts] Could they manipulate it by taking various strategies, for example containment versus eradication, just to prolong it? That was a concern of constituents in Gatton area.
[Ms Laduzko] Yes, you can see how that comes ’cause it gets to a point where in all eradications, this applies in small ones, large ones, you have to make a concluded position about whether you think eradication remains feasible and cost-effective. At the moment, we are signed up to an eradication programme.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.
[Mr Tongue] And because of the structure of it, I would argue, Senator, how would I put this? All the jurisdictions involved, other than Queensland, have a huge interest in ensuring that the programme is running well because they’re all on the hook to fund it and so it would be very difficult for Queensland to manipulate a circumstance with the gaze of all the other jurisdictions upon it as well as the community where, if you like, they were turning this into some sort of money spinner.
[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s different about Queensland?
[Mr Metcalfe] That’s a very open question, Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] Apart from the fact that we win State of Origin very often.
[Mr Metcalfe] Well, that’s right, yeah. You’re talking to a Queenslander here, of course.
[Mr Tongue] So this eradication is just, is different because of scale and it’s different because it’s outside what we know as the deed structure. So what we have is risk sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth, the States and Territories and industry, in the agricultural industries, they’re known as the plant deed and the animal deed, and they set up arrangements where we share risk and depending on the nature of the effort that needs to go into deal with a response to some pest or disease or weed, the scale of Commonwealth investment changes and those arrangements are managed by Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia and they’re bodies that, if you like, sit outside government and outside industry but they work across to manage those deeds. In this instance, we don’t have that arrangement so we’ve set up this independent style committee.
[Ms Laduzko] Just a slight qualification, we do but that arrangement came into place after we started.
[Mr Tongue] After we started this. This one’s slightly unusual and also scale, it’s vastly different.
[Ms Laduzko] And sorry, Senator, can I just correct something? I said 414 million, it’s 411.4. I think I was just truncating numbers.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, I appreciate the accuracy. And you’re going to send us some details on how you’re assessing progress? In a quantified way.
[Ms Laduzko] Yes, if you’d like to put them through on notice and we’ll answer to that.
[Malcolm Roberts] Quantified.
[Mr Tongue] Yep.
[Ms Laduzko] Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ususjGouvSo/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-27 13:06:452024-07-10 08:55:06Department of Agriculture Questioned at Estimates on Fire Ant Eradication Program
