EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Issued by the authority of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Quarantine Act 1908

Quarantine Amendment Proclamation 2004 (No. 5)

Subsection 13(1) of the Quarantine Act 1908 (“the Act”) provides that the

Governor-General may, by proclamation, declare or prohibit a range of matters for the purposes of the Act, including: the introduction or importation into Australia, or the Cocos (Keeling) Islands (“the Cocos Islands”), of any disease or pest or any substance, article or thing containing or likely to contain any disease or pest; the importation into Australia, or the Cocos Islands, of any articles or things likely, in his or her opinion, to introduce, establish or spread any disease or pest; and the importation into Australia, or the Cocos Islands, of any animals or plants or any parts of animals or plants. 

Subsection 13(2) of the Act provides that the power of prohibition under section 13 of the Act extends to authorise prohibition generally, or as otherwise provided by the instrument authorising the prohibition, including either absolutely or subject to specified conditions or restrictions.  Subsection 13(2A) of the Act provides that a proclamation made under subsection 13(1) of the Act may provide that the importation of a thing is prohibited unless a permit for its import is granted by a Director of Quarantine.  In addition, subsection 13(2B) of the Act states that an import permit granted pursuant to a proclamation may be granted subject to compliance with any conditions or requirements set out in that permit.

The Quarantine Proclamation 1998 (“the Proclamation”) provides the legislative basis for controlling the entry of vessels, animals, plants and other goods of quarantine concern into Australia and the Cocos Islands, and for controlling the movement of animals, plants or other goods of quarantine interest between different parts of Australia.  The Proclamation also declares quarantinable diseases of humans, quarantinable diseases of animals and quarantinable diseases and quarantinable pests of plants for Australia and the Cocos Islands. 

The purpose of the Quarantine Amendment Proclamation 2004 (No. 5 ) (“the Amendment Proclamation”) is to revoke the declaration of the quarantine station on the Cocos Islands and to remove all prohibitions and declarations in relation to the Cocos Islands prior to the creation of a separate proclamation for the Cocos Islands. The proposed Amendment Proclamation also updates the Reader’s Guide to reflect the extension of the Act to Christmas Island and to reflect the creation of separate proclamations for the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island.  

A place on West Island of the Cocos Islands was appointed as a quarantine station by proclamation by the Governor-General on 29 October 1981.  The purpose of the quarantine station was to facilitate the importation of live animals to improve the genetic stock.  However, this function has been superseded by advances in technology that made it cheaper to import semen and embryos instead.  The quarantine station has ceased operations and is no longer required.

The decision to create a separate proclamation for the Cocos Islands was taken following the extension of the Act to the other Indian Ocean Territory, Christmas Island by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 2004 (“the Amendment Act”). The Act already extends to the Cocos Islands.

With the extension of the Act to Christmas Island, the choice was to expand the Proclamation to include Christmas Island or to create separate proclamations for each of the Indian Ocean Territories.  In the interests of transparency and ease of use, it was decided to create separate proclamations.   In relation to the Cocos Islands, to achieve the creation of a separate proclamation for the Cocos Islands involves two steps.  The first step is to delete existing declarations and prohibitions relating to the Cocos Islands in the current Proclamation.  The second step is to create a separate proclamation for the Cocos Islands.  The Amendment Proclamation achieves the first step.  A separate piece of legislation, the Quarantine (Cocos Islands) Proclamation 2004 achieves the second step.

Details of the amendments are set out below:

Section 1 provides that the name of the Amendment Proclamation is the Quarantine Amendment Proclamation 2004 (No. 511.

Section 2 provides that the Amendment Proclamation commences on 1 January 2005.

Section 3 provides that Schedule 1 amends the Quarantine Proclamation 1998.

Schedule 1 - Amendments

Items 1 to 11 amend the Reader’s Guide to reflect the amendments made by the Amendment Act to provisions in the Act that are quoted in the Reader’s Guide, to reflect the removal of the Cocos Islands declarations and prohibitions from the Proclamation, to reflect the creation of separate proclamations for each of the Indian Ocean Territories and to make some minor stylistic changes. The Amendment Act extended the Act to Christmas Island.  The Reader’s Guide does not form part of the Proclamation.  It is explanatory material designed to help readers understand the Proclamation.  

Item 12 amends the definition of “Australia” for the purposes of the Proclamation.  The effect of this item is to exclude both the Territory of the Cocos Islands and the Territory of Christmas Island from the definition of “Australia” when the word is used in a geographical sense in the Proclamation. This amendment reflects the fact that the Proclamation is concerned with declarations and prohibitions concerning Australia excluding the Indian Ocean Territories.  

Item 13 inserts a definition of Christmas Island.  The term “Christmas Island” is defined for the purposes of the definition of “Australia” (see item 12 above).   

Item 14 omits Part 2, Division 2 of the Proclamation.  Part 2, Division 2 declares for the Cocos Islands first ports of entry for vessels other than aircraft, first ports of entry and landing places for overseas aircraft, ports where animals, plants and other goods may be landed and a quarantine station for animals or goods.   All of these matters, except the declaration of a quarantine station, are now dealt with in a separate proclamation for the Cocos Islands.  The separate proclamation for the Cocos Islands does not declare a quarantine station for the Cocos Islands as the quarantine station on the Cocos Island has ceased operations and is no longer required.   

Item 15 clarifies that the quarantinable diseases of humans declared in section 21 of the Proclamation are quarantinable diseases for the purposes of Australia.  The same diseases are declared for the Cocos Islands in the separate proclamation for the Cocos Islands.

Item 16 omits Part 3, Division 3 of the Proclamation.  Part 3, Division 3 prohibits the importation into the Cocos Islands of corpses and human body parts unless certain conditions are met.  These matters are now dealt with in the separate proclamation for the Cocos Islands.

Item 17 makes a minor technical amendment to provide the correct scientific reference to “ganoderma”, a type of mushroom, in subparagraph 28(2)( c)(iv).  Section 28 deals with the importation of biological materials.   

Item 18 omits Part 4, Division 3 of the Proclamation.  Part 4, Division 3 prohibits the importation into the Cocos Islands of biological materials or of substances or articles containing or likely to contain a disease or pest unless certain conditions are met.  These matters are now dealt with in the separate proclamation for the Cocos Islands.

Item 19 omits Part 5, Division 3 of the Proclamation.  Part 5, Division 3 prohibits the importation into the Cocos Islands of an article or thing likely to introduce a pest or disease unless certain conditions are met.   These matters are now dealt with in the separate proclamation for the Cocos Islands.

Item 20 inserts a reference to “Australia” in section 36 of the Proclamation.  Section 36 declares quarantinable diseases for both Australia and the Cocos Islands.  The effect of this amendment is to make the list of quarantinable diseases of animals declared in section 36 of the Proclamation specific to Australia.  The same diseases are declared for the Cocos Islands in the separate proclamation for the Cocos Islands. 

Item 21 omits Part 6, Division 3 of the Proclamation.  Part 6, Division 3 prohibits the importation into the Cocos Islands of animals, animal parts or animal products unless certain conditions are met.   These matters are now dealt with in the separate proclamation for the Cocos Islands.

Item 22 inserts a reference to “Australia” in subsection 58(1) of the Proclamation.  Subsection 58(1) declares quarantinable diseases of plants for both Australia and the Cocos Islands. The effect of this amendment is to make the list of quarantinable diseases of plants declared in subsection 58(1) of the Proclamation specific to Australia.  The same diseases are declared for the Cocos Islands in the separate proclamation for the Cocos Islands. 

Item 23 amends the note at the end of subsection 58(1) of the Proclamation to make a stylistic change.  A note is explanatory and is not part of the Proclamation. 

Item 24 inserts a reference to “Australia” in subsections 58(2) of the Proclamation.  Subsection 58(2) declares quarantinable pests that are pest plants of plants for both Australia and the Cocos Islands. The effect of this amendment is to make the list of quarantinable pests declared in subsection 58(2) of the Proclamation specific to Australia.  The same pests are declared for the Cocos Islands in the separate proclamation for the Cocos Islands. 

Item 25 omits Part 7, Division 4 of the Proclamation.  Part 7, Division 4 prohibits the importation into the Cocos Islands of soil or plants unless certain conditions are met.   These matters are now dealt with in the separate proclamation for the Cocos Islands.

Item 26 omits the reference to “the Cocos Islands” in section 70 of the Proclamation.  Section 70 sets out the things that a Director of Quarantine must take into account when deciding whether to grant a permit for importation into Australia or the Cocos Islands.  A provision that mirrors section 70 is located in the separate proclamation for the Cocos Islands.

Item 27 substitutes a new note immediately below section 70.  The effect of this new note is to update section 5D of the Act.  Section 5D has been amended by the Amendment Act.  The Amendment Act extended the Act to Christmas Island.  A note is explanatory and is not part of the Proclamation.   

Item 28 substitutes a new savings provision for permits.  The effect of the item is to save any permits granted that are in force immediately before the commencement of the Amendment Proclamation.  

Item 29 omits Schedule 1, Part 3 of the Proclamation.  This Schedule describes the location of the quarantine station for animals or goods in the Cocos Islands for the purposes of section 20 of the Proclamation.  Section 20 declares the quarantine station for the Cocos Islands.  As a result of item 14 (above), the declaration in section 20 is revoked. This item removes Schedule 1, Part 3 as a consequence on the revocation of section 20.   

REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT

This Regulation Impact Statement relates to proposed changes to the quarantine regimes for Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands (the Indian Ocean Territories) arising from a review of the quarantine needs of the Indian Ocean Territories.  The review has been conducted over the last couple of years and has included scientific surveys, extensive consultation with the inhabitants of the Indian Ocean Territories and an analysis of the extent to which legislation needs to be amended to reflect quarantine needs.

These changes will be reflected in amendments to the subordinate legislation under the Quarantine Act 1908 (the Act). 

The driver for the review of the quarantine needs of the Indian Ocean Territories arose from the proposed extension of the Act in response to the Australian Government’s mainstreaming policy for the Indian Ocean Territories.  Although the Act has applied to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands (the Cocos Islands) since 1981, the proposed extension of the Act to Christmas Island also provided an opportunity to review the quarantine needs of the Cocos Islands.

THE PROBLEM

The problem is to identify a suitable quarantine regime for each of the Indian Ocean Territories that recognises their unique pest and disease status.

A suitable legislative framework needs to be implemented to ensure that a quarantine regime for the Indian Ocean Territories that minimises the potential threat of additional exotic pests and diseases establishing on the Islands.  The risks of quarantine incursions on Christmas Island by serious exotic pests and diseases and their consequential risks of transmission to mainland Australia are of major concern.  For example, we understand that construction materials, used construction equipment and workers (all of higher potential quarantine risk) may be sourced from both adjacent Asian countries and Australia for these major works, with the used equipment returning to the countries of origin.  Quarantine treatment facilities on the Island are minimal and the Island already has a substantially different pest and disease status to that of mainland Australia.

Due to the isolation of the territories there is a different pest and disease status on each Island.  Subsistence farming plays a major role in providing fresh fruit and vegetables as a food source to the Cocos Islanders.  An introduction of harmful exotic pests and diseases that may be damaging to these subsistence crops could severely jeopardise Island life in respect to a constant food supply.

In developing these regimes, AQIS notes that Australia must take particular care with settling the quarantine regimes for Cocos and Christmas islands because of its obligations under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to which it is a signatory.  Broadly this requires that Australia’s quarantine regimes, including those for the Indian Ocean Territories must be based on sound science with a consistent approach to the management of risk.  Also the quarantine regime applied to incoming goods is an important determinant of Australia’s success to export markets and the form of the certification that it can offer to Governments in importing countries.  The same point holds for Indian Ocean Territories own export economies, both actual and potential, to mainland Australia and elsewhere.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of these new quarantine regimes are to minimise the risk of introduction of any exotic pests and diseases onto the Islands, at the same time minimising any adverse economic and environmental impact to the Islands.

The Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) administers the current quarantine legislation for Christmas that is based on anachronistic ‘Quarantine and Prevention of Disease Ordinance’ and is quite unsuited to the purpose.  Additionally, in use is a set of work instructions, devised several years ago by the Western Australian Department of Agriculture who were contracted by DOTARS to provide quarantine services on the Island.  The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) took over responsibility for quarantine service delivery on Christmas in June 2001 with the task of developing and introducing a suitable legislative framework.

The Act currently extends to Cocos and is administered by AQIS.  In the 1980's AQIS became responsible for delivery of quarantine services on the Island with the establishment of the secure government animal quarantine station based there.  The current legislation reflects a quarantine regime based on maintenance of an operational animal quarantine facility. This establishment is no longer in use for this purpose.

OPTIONS

Several approaches to address the issue of implementing and maintaining a new quarantine regime on the Indian Ocean Territories have been considered:

(a) No Regulation combined with an Education Program

Although education is an essential component of any effective regulatory approach, it is unlikely to achieve the desired objectives.  There are very real and significant agricultural and environmental pest and disease risks that must be effectively minimised.  No regulation would pose an unacceptable risk to the community and the environment.

(b) Self Regulation

Self-regulation is not considered sufficient given that the introduction of exotic pests and diseases will have an adverse effect on both of the islands and in particular have severe agricultural consequences on the Cocos Islands.  Given the diverse nature and limited size of the economy of the Indian Ocean Territories Islands it is unlikely that market forces by themselves would achieve management of the regime proposed.  No cohesive representation exists in the Indian Ocean Territories for a self-regulated approach.

(c) Quasi-regulation

As considered with self-regulation, there does not exist a singular cohesive society, motivated to achieve the same goals.  The new regime is intended to focus on a long-term approach for the quarantine protection of the Indian Ocean Territories.  Currently  established quarantine systems are in place.  The Christmas Island regime operates under the Quarantine and Prevention of Disease Ordinance and the Cocos Islands operate under the Quarantine Act.  There is no uniform community on the Indian Ocean Territories with sufficient expertise to be able to minimise the introduction of harmful exotic pests and disease onto the Islands.

(d) Government regulation

To continue government regulation of quarantine management on the Islands is considered the most effective and appropriate option.  AQIS considers the potential introduction of exotic pests and disease to the Indian Ocean Territories to be a significant risk to the community in respect to human and agricultural health and the environment (animal, plant and aquaculture).

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Both Island communities need a level of quarantine protection against the introduction of exotic pests and diseases that will adversely affect their environment, lifestyle and employment.  The proposed regimes are intended to be the minimum necessary to maintain an appropriate level of quarantine protection and intervention having regard to the pest and disease status of each of the Islands.

Importers specifically responded that compliance with proposed and current regime adds to their inconvenience and cost.  However, given that the introduction of exotic pests and diseases would adversely affect the economies of the Indian Ocean Territories, the maintenance of an effective quarantine regime benefits importers through stabilisation of the economies on the Islands.  Controls over importations will be managed through the proclamations made under the Act which will detail the specific requirements that must be met before goods identified by the proclamations can be imported.  The proclamations may state that goods are prohibited from entry onto the Islands and/or that particular conditions must be met prior to permission for the goods to be landed on the Islands.  In the case of food and other products a treatment may be required prior to the products entry to ensure that they do not bring pests or diseases onto the Islands.  For example, the importation of certain crustaceans will be prohibited if uncooked, however, if cooked (treated) they will be allowed entry. 

The restrictions on importations imposed through the proclamations have been developed having regard to the unique pest and disease status of each of the Indian Ocean Territories and also to the fact that the ability of the Islands to provide post entry treatment of imported goods is very limited.   

In respect to vessel and aircraft operators, the regulations being proposed are consistent with and the reporting and quarantine clearance regimes imposed for vessel and aircraft operators arriving in Australia and are the minimum necessary to ensure quarantine protection of their borders.  As an example, in the case of vessels and aircraft, the regulations will prescribe what information is required to be provided to AQIS prior to entry, when the information is required by and in what form it is required.  For instance, if a vessel intends to arrive at one of the Indian Ocean Territories Islands, the Master would be required to notify AQIS within 12-48 hours prior to arriving at the port.  The initial notification would be by way of answering questions on a ‘Quarantine Pre-arrival Report’.  The questions as specified in the regulations allow an early risk assessment of the vessel to be conducted, and mitigation strategies put in place if risks are identified (eg death of a person from a suspected quarantine illness).

There may be limited inconvenience to arriving passengers who will benefit from the maintenance of the Territories’ environmental and economic base that will be supported by an effective quarantine regime on both Islands.  Arriving passengers will be asked to complete incoming passenger cards so that an assessment can be done by the quarantine officer at the barrier about the quarantine risk of the items they are bringing into the Island.  The Quarantine Infringement Notice Scheme, which allows on the spot fines to be issued to passengers who provide false or misleading information on the card will be applied to the Indian Ocean Territories.  This Scheme already applies to Australia.    

There are various benefits to be gained by the stakeholder groups mentioned above.  Due to their isolation from mainland Australia and overseas countries, the Islands are free from many harmful exotic pests and diseases.  The benefits to be gained from the proposed quarantine regime are the:

• Protection and maintenance of their flora, fauna and marine environment.  Both Islands have a unique environment with species of fauna rarely found in other parts of the world.

• Maintenance of human and agricultural health.  As mentioned earlier, the reliance of subsistence farming as a regular supply of food products cannot be understated.  Any further degradation of the current human and agricultural pest and disease status could put at risk the Islands reliance on subsistence farming and environmental tourism.

• Support of the economy and well being of the Islands.  If through imports, the introduction and establishment of harmful exotic pests such as the red fire ant (RFA) – known to have killed young children, and/or borers able to destroy homes were occur, the resulting effect would be catastrophic on the life of the Island Communities.  Pests such as these would have a direct impact on human health of the Island (i.e. humans are unable to cohabitate with such pests) and could lead to a downturn in population, and in turn, affect the Island importers and economies.  Additionally, with the proposed quarantine regime introduced, there would be benefit by those local industries (eg honey exports) to retain their quarantine status.

There are limited impacts to the restrictions of the regime.  These restrictions, however, are considered the necessary minimum to provide an appropriate level of quarantine protect to the Islands.

A risk management approach to assess and determine the appropriate level of protection when developing the quarantine regime has been drawn from scientific reports, consultation with agencies responsible for the Island and advice from officers based on Island confirming the absence of quarantine pests.

In 2000, officers from AQIS’s Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy (NAQS) program undertook an extensive survey of the pest and disease status of Cocos and Christmas Islands’ animal and plant life to provide a clearer view of the pest and disease status of the Island.  This report highlighted that the quarantine status of Christmas Island was different from that of the Cocos Islands and that the quarantine status of each of the Islands was different from mainland Australia.  Based on this evidence the regime has been developed to maintain the mainland and the Islands as separate quarantine entities under the Quarantine Act.  It is assumed that not to do so would pose a real danger of transferring exotic pests, diseases and weeds between all three localities.  Additionally, it was imperative that Christmas Island be treated as a separate entity from both Australia and Cocos under the quarantine legislation due to its implications for Australian market access.

Both Commonwealth and State agencies responsible for Christmas and Cocos have been widely consulted for their views and policies on the proposed regime (eg Department of Health and Ageing provides policy advice on appropriate health measures relating to quarantine).

As noted above, the Governments decided to mainstream all government services to the Indian Ocean Territories.  This directive and the absence of a uniform cohesive body on the Islands with the expertise to develop and maintain a risk based quarantine system to minimise the introduction of exotic pests and diseases onto the Island, a government regulated approach (no too dissimilar to that currently in place) is the preferred long-term option.

CONSULTATION

As stated above, there are several main parties affected by the introduction of a new quarantine regime.  The Island communities themselves recognise the benefits of a quarantine regime designed to protect their human and agricultural health.  Consultations have been occurring with the Islanders for over 12 months.

The Cocos Islands are based approximately 2768km NW Perth and 1000km of the Javanese cast.  The community consists of 600 Malay and 100 Europeans.  Similar to Cocos, Christmas Island is quite remote being 300km SE of Asia with 1200 residents, primarily Malay, Asian and European decent.  Due to the unique diversity of cultures and interest groups, an extensive consultation program occurred on both Islands.  These consultations included several visits to the Islands where a face-to-face program with the varying importers, vessel and aircraft operators, and the different social and ethnic groups was conducted.

Along with the visits, three rounds of draft consultation papers describing the current quarantine regime on each Island and further clarifying the proposed changes were widely circulated to the various parties for comment.  These papers were developed for both Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands by a legislative working party within  DAFF.  Recognising that English is not the first language of many of the Island residents, the papers were translated into Cocos Malay, Bahasa Malay and traditional Chinese to ensure that the greatest opportunity for comment could be made.  Comments could be made to AQIS either in writing (any language) and/or verbally to AQIS’s representatives on the Islands.

AQIS met and consulted through the following groups:

Cocos Islands:

• Cocos Congress (including 7 members)
• Cooperative/Stevedore Management
• Cocos Islands Administration – Official Secretary
• Tycraft Pty Ltd (John Clunies Ross)
• Coconut Honey – Exports
• Cocos Island Airport Management
• Australian Federal Police

Christmas Island:

• Wah-Hoo for Kids – Trader
• Administrator, Indian Ocean Territories
• Christmas Island Parks Australia (Government Conservator and 3 officers)
• Ec Oz (Environmental Officer contracted through DOTARS)
• APSC
• Christmas Island Airport Management
• Christmas Island Tourism Association
• Australian Customs Service
• Australian Federal Police
• Christmas Island Islamic Council (approx 9 attendees)
• Acker Trading
• Christmas/Cocos Island Harbour Master
• Christmas Island Phosphate (5 attendees)
• Christmas Island Chamber of Commerce (4 attendees)
• Metro Supermarket – trader
• Shipping Agent
• Shire of Christmas Island and Community Consultative Committee (16 attendees)
• Asian Business Council (approx 45 attendees)
• Christmas Island District High School Administration
• Christmas Island Hospital (12 attendees)
• National Jet Systems
• Christmas Island Removals
• Christmas Island Women’s Association (approx 30 attendees)

In general the various parties indicated support for a quarantine regime on the Islands. The retail importer representatives on Christmas Island expressed concerns that any quarantine regime should have the minimum possible economic impact on their operations.  Every effort has been made to ensure that any quarantine regulation is the minimum possible required, whilst providing the Islands with an appropriate level of quarantine protection.

In addition to the consultations on the Islands, both Commonwealth and State agencies responsible for Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands have been widely consulted.  Commonwealth agencies include the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS), the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA), Australian Customs Service (ACS), Environment Australia (includes Parks Australia), the Department of Health and Ageing (DHA), the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR), the Department of Finance and Administration (DOFA) and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).  Feedback received was generally positive, and comments were considered in developing the final consultation papers.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION OPTION

Although the options of No-regulation, Self-regulation and Quasi-regulation were explored, government regulation is considered the only option that can provide an effective and appropriate level of protection to the Islands.  As there exists no cohesive industry or body with the competent expertise to manage a science/risk based quarantine regime, options other than government regulation are considered high risk.  The entry of harmful exotic pests and diseases onto the Islands may lead to a devastating effect to the current human, agricultural and environmental health status.

Continuing the current management of quarantine on the Islands by government regulation is the preferred option.  This is considered to be the most effective means of delivery of a quarantine regime that not only minimises the potential threat of exotic pest and disease entry, but also considers the wider implication of Australia’s obligations under the WTO in respect to managing the regime.

This conclusion is based on the assumption that current government policy for AQIS’s role to maintain the responsibility for quarantine in Australia will remain.  This includes AQIS maintaining separate regimes on the mainland and on the two Islands in order to meet WTO and SPS obligations.

It is also assumed that current funding provided by DOTARS to support the quarantine regime on the Island would continue.  If funding arrangements by Government were to cease, AQIS as a fully cost recovered organisation, would need to consult the Government and Islands to consider the full impact on the Islands under a separate consultation process.

The new regime and option of government regulation provides for an effective balance between environmental issues, cost effectiveness and a science based risk management approach.  The other options explored cannot provide the relevant expertise to balance these issues and provide effective management of three separate regimes.

IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW

As part of the Government’s policy to mainstream services, amendments to the Quarantine Act, 1908 have been passed through Parliament and received Royal Assent in April 2004.  The current quarantine legislation for Christmas Island is based on the Quarantine and Prevention of Disease Ordinance and the new regime will take effect 6 months after the date of Royal Assent.  Consultations regarding the proposed quarantine regime for Christmas and Cocos Islands have drawn to a close with a final copy of the consultation papers to be circulated to stakeholders for their information.

The following table represents the implementation plan:

• Circulation of the new regime in its final form to stakeholders.
• Seek the formal agreement of the Director of Human Quarantine, and the Director Plant and Animal Quarantine.
• Draft amendments to the Quarantine Proclamation and Regulations.
• Gazettal of changes to Act, Proclamation and Regulations and implementation of the revised regimes.

For over 12 months, AQIS has held several formal consultations with relevant State Agencies, the Administrator of the Island, the various councils, traders and residents.  This has been in the form of both visits to the Island where extensive discussions were held, and through consultation papers, including translations into several local languages.  Additionally, a web-link has been provided for those people wishing to access the consultation documents via the Internet.

During this time, AQIS representatives have been discussing the intended changes with the various parties and providing advice on the new regime and what it means for individuals.  Over the next 6-12 months, education and public awareness campaigns will be implemented by AQIS public relations utilising various extension/media tools.  The changes to the Island are not considered radical as there currently exists a formal quarantine regime on both Islands - the focus of education will be on the ‘refinement of existing regulations’.

The paperwork requested from businesses, predominantly vessel and airport operators and retail traders is considered the minimum documentation required by AQIS to maintain an effective quarantine regime. Forms design and related questions will appear to be very similar to those currently used in mainland Australia with a view to cause less disruption to vessels, aircraft and passengers, and provide consistency between the two Islands and the mainland.

In respect to importation of products, the use of import permits (documentation stating conditions to be met prior to entry) will be kept to a minimum.  It is envisaged that conditions of importation, when applicable, will be included within the proclamations.

The AQIS representatives based on the Islands will provide regular reporting and feedback to AQIS’s WA Regional office through established mechanisms.

It is envisaged that a Post Implementation Review would be undertaken to determine the success of the new regimes, including the effectiveness of exclusion of new pests and diseases from the Island.  This review would commence not less than 12 months after implementation.