<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2012-06-12" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>52</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="1435" />
  <endPage num="1466" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Ceduna Quarantine Station</name>
      <text id="2012061228d6763d312e426780000147">
        <heading>CEDUNA QUARANTINE STATION</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="599" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <questions>
          <question date="2012-06-12">
            <name>CEDUNA QUARANTINE STATION</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2012-06-12T14:58:00" />
        <text id="2012061228d6763d312e426780000148">
          <timeStamp time="2012-06-12T14:58:00" />
          <by role="member" id="599">The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (14:58):</by>  My questions are directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries:</text>
        <text id="2012061228d6763d312e426780000149">1.&amp;#x9;Given that the minister felt unable to rule out a relocation of the Ceduna Quarantine Station in this house on Tuesday 29 May, why is it that she was able to guarantee the future of the Ceduna facility via an email to ABC regional radio the following day?</text>
        <text id="2012061228d6763d312e426780000150">2.&amp;#x9;Will the minister give that assurance about the station's future in this council?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1821" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <electorate id="">Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women</electorate>
        <questions>
          <question date="2012-06-12">
            <name>CEDUNA QUARANTINE STATION</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2012-06-12T14:58:00" />
        <text id="2012061228d6763d312e426780000151">
          <timeStamp time="2012-06-12T14:58:00" />
          <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (14:58):</by>  I thank the honourable member for his questions. By way of background, very briefly, the previous minister for agriculture, food and fisheries, Minister O'Brien, announced in April 2011—</text>
        <text id="2012061228d6763d312e426780000152">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="52">The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1704">
        <name>The President</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="2012061228d6763d312e426780000153">
          <by role="member" id="1704">The PRESIDENT:</by>  Order!</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1821">
        <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="2012061228d6763d312e426780000154">
          <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO:</by>  —that Biosecurity SA would engage with the Western Australian government on the viability of shifting the quarantine inspection duties currently undertaken at Ceduna to a shared operation at the quarantine checkpoint at Border Village on the WA/SA border. The notion was that it might not be entirely sensible to continue to operate two separate quarantine facilities 500 kilometres apart on the same highway. The intention of the assessment was to identify potential for better collaboration and operational efficiencies while providing the same level of biosecurity and quarantine inspection.</text>
        <page num="1445" />
        <text id="2012061228d6763d312e426780000155">A feasibility assessment has subsequently been completed by Biosecurity SA in association with Western Australia. The assessment tested the feasibility of relocating quarantine inspection operations from the current Ceduna site to the Border Village, Western Australia, quarantine office. There were considerations of the associated costs, including infrastructure and staff accommodation. Biosecurity SA also sought advice from the South Australian Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure on capital costs that would be required to provide the necessary site improvements for the South Australian highway side of the Border Village facility.</text>
        <text id="2012061228d6763d312e426780000156">The assessment found that there would be no operational efficiencies associated with relocating the Ceduna quarantine inspection operations so, as I said, the assessment demonstrated that there were really no operational efficiencies to be made with sharing a facility. The assessment found that the annual recurrent funding would need to be increased and that a significant capital investment would also be required to cover site improvements and staff accommodation. I do not think that result is surprising, considering the established facilities already at both sites. However, I think this option was worth investigating, as the costs of maintaining the two facilities are significant.</text>
        <text id="2012061228d6763d312e426780000157">I have subsequently noted the findings of that feasibility assessment and have agreed that there is, in fact, no value in the proposition to relocate our roadblock activities from Ceduna to Border Village. It was after I had received a question in this place that I requested information on where the feasibility assessment report was up to. The report had been completed, and it was furnished to me within a very short period of time after I requested it. The results were obvious to me, and having read that report I was able to make the decision that there was no advantage to proceeding with the option of relocating. I was able to assure myself there was nothing to be gained by that, and I made the announcement accordingly.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>