Australian Quarantine Review Secretariat Australian Quarantine a shared responsibility

Download 1.49 Mb.

Page	14/62
Date	05.05.2018
Size	1.49 Mb.
	#47737

1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 62

3.3 CONSULTATION

A common theme throughout written and public submissions to the Review was concern at what was regarded as a lack of meaningful consultation by AQIS with each element of the Australian community. Although most concern centred on consultation associated with the risk analysis process, there remains a strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction with consultation processes in general. This section deals with the broader issue of consultation, while Chapter 7 deals with consultation on risk analysis.

3.3.1 Principles of Consultation

As the Nursery Industry Association of Victoria commented in its written submission, for a quarantine authority 'to provide an effective service it must be a highly targeted operation, well resourced technically and an effective communicator with its clients ¾ domestically and internationally'.

Effective consultation is an integral part of developing partnerships in quarantine and establishing community ownership. The principles and objectives of effective consultation should be to :
· increase transparency of quarantine policy and operations;
· improve relationships and communications with stakeholders;
· increase community intelligence and feedback on quarantine policy, operations and issues of concern;
· enhance policy development by taking account of community views; and
· increase ownership of quarantine decisions.

3.3.2 Industry and Agency Consultative Arrangements

AQIS currently holds regular (generally six-monthly) meetings with a number of organisations that it regards as major clients ¾ including the National Farmers' Federation, the Australian Poultry Industry Association, the Australian Livestock Exporters Council, the Pork Council of Australia, and the Australian Animal Health Laboratory. AQIS also consults regularly with plant industries through the Australian Horticultural Corporation's Market Access Committee. In addition, the concerns of agricultural industries are discussed during regular meetings of AQIS with State departments of agriculture (e.g. via Animal Health Committee and Plant Health Committee) that cover a broad range of animal and plant health issues. The full range of consultative or advisory groups that AQIS has with industry are listed in the 1996 Senate Committee 's report (Senate 1996, pp. 187–188).

AQIS has also established Industry Charging Review Committees (ICRCs) with several industry sectors, including those involved in biologicals, horticulture, grains, live animals, import clearance, seaports entry and airports entry (although consultations with this group have moved to an informal basis since introduction of the Passenger Movement Charge). However, discussion within the ICRCs has tended to centre on costs and charges of quarantine services rather than on the broader aspects of quarantine policy development. The Review Committee's view of ICRCs is supported by the Quarantine and Inspection Advisory Council (QIAC), which in its written submission noted that consultative committees 'have been relatively successful in communicating technical matters, but from QIAC's perspective they have limited effect in building meaningful relationships with those industries until relatively recent times'. The one notable exception is the AQIS-Industry Cargo Consultative Committee (AICCC). AICCC is the peak consultative body for all issues arising from the management of Australia's quarantine strategy and the relationship between the cargo handling industry and AQIS. The objective of AICCC is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of border control, and wherever possible coordinate the functions of all concerned to avoid duplication and enhance the smooth flow of cargo in and out of ports. More recently, the AICCC has developed industry-funded initiatives such as the Import/Export Cargo Clearance Study (AICCC 1996) to provide input to border program development.
The Review Committee believes that the role of ICRCs should be expanded to provide for meaningful consultation on policy and strategic issues relating to their respective programs. For example, these ICRCs could be effectively used to discuss and revise views on pests and diseases of quarantine concern, to discuss industry positions on international developments and the role to be played by industry in progressing these issues, or to share government and industry survey results of Australia's and neighbouring countries' animal and plant health status. However, the expanded areas of dialogue should not extend to risk analysis, which would be covered by specific consultative mechanisms (see Chapter 7 on Risk Analysis).
The consultation process should also be broadened to include other industry groups that do not have access to ICRCs. In this regard, the Review Committee notes the comment of the report of the National Task Force on Imported Fish and Fish Products that 'there is no specific industry group which provide [sic] AQIS with a ready mechanism for dealing with aquatic animal imports. While regular meetings are held with the Fishing Industry Advisory Committee, the focus is fish processing, food standards, inspection policy and related issues' (NTFIFFP 1996). The 1996 Senate Committee's report also stated that 'it is imperative for an organisation such as AQIS to have vigorous consultative processes ... founded on a collaborative effort between AQIS and the industry. However the Committee is concerned that effective channels of communication have not been established with some industries and also smaller producer groups' (Senate 1996, p. xviii). In the view of the Review Committee it is the quality of consultation that is important, not merely the quantity or process of those consultations.
Mention was also made to the Review Committee of the unrealistic timelines sometimes allowed for the consultative process. One example cited by the Australian Food Council and the Australia New Zealand Food Authority was the limited time often given for parties to respond to matters relating to Codex committees. Although it was acknowledged by the parties that 'unrealistic time constraints may sometimes be dictated by Codex itself ... there must be substantial improvements in the consultative mechanism if the interest of Australian food and beverage processors are to be taken into account'. The Australian Horse Council and the Australian Veterinary Association also expressed concern that inadequate time was provided for industry to comment on new import protocols or on often complex amendments to protocols.
Recommendation 6: The Review Committee recommends that the present Industry Charging Review Committees become Industry Consultative Committees that are:

– re-formed to include consultation on policy and strategic issues relating to quarantine programs; and

– expanded to include other relevant industry groups.

3.3.3 State Governments

During the course of the Review, those States (the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria) that had transferred responsibility for delivery of national quarantine to the Commonwealth expressed concern at a sense of isolation from the quarantine-decision making process that now existed. These States felt doubly disadvantaged as the Commonwealth has maintained formal lines of communication on quarantine with the States (the Northern Territory, Tasmania and Western Australia) that retained responsibility for delivering quarantine services. In its submission to the Review, the Queensland Department of Primary Industries stated that 'the process of consultation is a means to rectifying discrepancies in policy formulation. With the transfer of quarantine and export inspection functions back to the Commonwealth, AQIS has lost the direct link with the local level. State officers continue to work in critical geographic areas but no longer participate in the quarantine function. Therefore, there needs to be a forum to re-establish this link through the use of State agencies'. Similarly, Primary Industries South Australia argued that 'it is important that the States' consultative input on animal disease issues such as import protocols is maintained. This is because much of the technical expertise and experience with specific disease issues lies with the State animal health authorities'.

Although it is natural for some confusion and inconsistency when any new organisational arrangements are being put in place and the expectations of each of the parties are being clarified and addressed, it is important that relevant communication linkages that existed before the transfer be retained. The Review Committee is strongly of the view that the Commonwealth should re-establish meaningful quarantine communications links with all States. In the first instance, this could be achieved through formal meetings of the chief veterinary and the chief plant officers, or their equivalents, from the Commonwealth and from each State. Maintaining this contact and dialogue is important for the effective implementation of the continuum of quarantine, particularly as most pest and disease monitoring programs and emergency response strategies are delivered through State legislation.
The Review Committee also noted that a number of the regular meetings that previously took place between State and Commonwealth technical quarantine specialists (e.g. entomologists and taxonomists) were no longer occurring. Regular meetings of specialist staff provide the opportunity for significant exchanges on quarantine policies and procedures, and generate a collective and consistent approach to quarantine issues. Although the Review Committee is pleased to learn that a national meeting of quarantine entomologists took place in mid-July 1996 (the first such meeting since 1994), it is strongly of the view that regular meetings between specialist quarantine staff across all disciplines need to be formalised. These formal gatherings should occur at least once a year.
Recommendation 7: The Review Committee recommends that Government re-establish formal communication links on quarantine policies and programs with States including through:

– formal meetings of the chief veterinary and plant officers, or their equivalents; and

– regular meetings of specialist quarantine staff across all disciplines.

3.3.4 Community Consultation

Because quarantine decisions have a community-wide impact, the consultation process must include all stakeholders, not just the fee-paying clients of the quarantine service. All government organisations have a fundamental responsibility to establish and maintain effective systems of communication with the community. Quarantine decisions affecting industry and the general public should not be made in isolation. In the Review Committee's opinion, there is a need for a more active process of wider community consultation and information dissemination and collection.

The Review Committee was advised that there was no easily identifiable process by which 'on-the-ground' intelligence from the community could be effectively communicated to quarantine authorities. A number of submissions suggested the establishment of clearly defined and readily accessible channels of communication between the community, representative organisations, and AQIS to improve the quarantine service's responsiveness to quarantine concerns. The Review Committee is aware that an internal 'subject-service' contact list currently exists within AQIS. Wide dissemination of this contact list ¾ including relevant Commonwealth, State and industry quarantine contacts in the regions ¾ would help in addressing this issue. The compilation of such a comprehensive contact list reflects the shared community responsibility for quarantine.
Consultation and communication must be a two-way process. The community has a responsibility to initiate meaningful contact and consultation with quarantine authorities on issues of importance or where there is a perceived lack of information or knowledge. As highlighted in the 1996 Senate Committee's report, 'it is the primary responsibility of AQIS to develop and maintain consultative links with its clients, recognising that consultation is an integral part of its operations, and not merely an adjunct to it. However, the Committee also clearly asserts that industry must play its part in developing an appropriate consultative relationship with AQIS' (Senate 1996, p. xviii). The Review Committee is also strongly of the view that because quarantine is a partnership, responsibility for effective and meaningful consultation and communication rests with all members of the partnership.
The Review Committee believes that consultation and communication are fundamental to the required shift in the culture of quarantine in Australia. The effectiveness of consultation and communication will ultimately be judged by the credibility and ownership of quarantine policies, programs and decisions.

3.3.5 Registered Stakeholders

Consultation must be representative and meaningful if there is to be community ownership of quarantine. In this regard, the formal consultative base has to be broader than the client list and the committee and advisory structure operated by AQIS. Formal consultative arrangements need to be established for the wider community, including with environmental representatives and consumer bodies. However, the consultation process should not be so exhaustive that it is ineffective.

To ensure that the consultative process is effective, the Review Committee believes that there is a need for a register of relevant stakeholders that represent the quarantine interests of the Australian community. Where appropriate, peak organisations should represent the interests of their constituents. Local, regional and State issues should be channelled through the appropriate national representative organisation. Once developed, the list of registered stakeholders would be publicly gazetted by the Government for comment. New organisations, bodies or representative groups could also apply for consideration to be included in the register.
The Commonwealth quarantine authority would be required to ensure that all registered stakeholders are regularly consulted and kept fully informed of significant developments in quarantine policies and programs. It would be the responsibility of registered stakeholders to ensure that their members were informed of issues emerging from consultation. The Commonwealth quarantine authority would continue to keep the general public and interested individuals informed through the various media discussed in Section 3.2.3. With respect to specific quarantine issues such as individual import protocols, detailed consultation would be held with the relevant subset of the registered stakeholders, as discussed in Chapter 7 on Risk Analysis.

The Review Committee believes that the register of stakeholders should include:

· national producer bodies representing agriculture, aquaculture and forestry (e.g. National Farmers' Federation and other peak bodies);
· national import bodies (e.g. Customs Brokers Council of Australia, Australian Timber Importers Federation, Importers Association of Australia);
· State departments of agriculture;
· relevant Commonwealth agencies (e.g. Australian Nature Conservation Agency);
· regional authorities (e.g. Torres Strait Regional Authority);
· national conservation and environmental bodies (e.g. Australian Conservation Foundation);
· national consumer bodies (e.g. Australian Consumers Association);
· national peak scientific bodies in animal and plant health (e.g. Australian Veterinary Association);
· national representative and advisory groups (e.g. Australian Animal Health Council, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Tourism Council Australia);
· national processor bodies (e.g. Australian Food Council); and
· national service bodies (e.g. Board of Airline Representatives in Australia, Australian Chamber of Shipping, Australian International Movers Association).
The role of registered stakeholders is discussed further in Chapter 4 on Quarantine Australia and Chapter 7 on Risk Analysis.

3.3.6 Role of Indigenous Peoples and Remote Local Communities

Remote parts of Torres Strait, Cape York Peninsula, the Northern Territory and the Kimberley region ¾ as well as Australia's distant island territories such as the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island ¾ have become more accessible to both local inhabitants and visitors as communications and transport have improved. Cultural interaction between indigenous people in these areas and with neighbouring societies has traditionally occurred, as has trade in commodities. In some regions, this traditional interaction has been specifically protected by formal instruments ¾ such as the Torres Strait Treaty between Australia and PNG. External commercial interest in these areas is also expected to increase, particularly from the ecotourism industry. The proximity of these regions to neighbouring countries and their sheer remoteness present added quarantine concerns that to date have been addressed through such measures as the establishment of special quarantine zones, special management strategies such as NAQS (see Sections 6.2.2.2. and 9.5.1.1), or exclusion of the territory (such as Christmas Island) from the Quarantine Act 1908.

The Review Committee is conscious of the extremely important role that Australia's indigenous peoples and remote local communities play in quarantine and in the protection of its natural environment. However, it is the Review Committee's view that indigenous peoples and remote local communities can play an even greater role in the development and implementation of quarantine programs.
Recommendation 8: The Review Committee recommends that Government undertake appropriate consultation with indigenous peoples and remote local communities in the development and implementation of quarantine policies and programs that affect their communities.

PART III: A NEW ORGANISATION
4. QUARANTINE AUSTRALIA

Download 1.49 Mb.

Share with your friends:

1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 62