HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-06-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CEDUNA QUARANTINE STATION

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (14:58): My questions are directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries:

1. 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?

2. Will the minister give that assurance about the station's future in this council?

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): 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—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: —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.

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.

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.

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.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT