Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Biosecurity Bill 2014 as a cognate bill. As the previous speakers mentioned, this is a bill that is replacing a bill that is almost 100 years old; it was enacted in 1908. There is no doubt of the importance of ensuring the sustainability of Australia's biosecurity, particularly as Australia moves forward into a new era. The proposed legislation protects a range of stakeholders—agricultural stakeholders, businesses and every single individual who enjoys a life relatively free from arange of exotic diseases. These amendments are critically important to ensure that legislation is current and equipped to cope with modern challenges faced by modern Australia.

The coalition seeks to make improvements in four key ways. They are protecting our agricultural industry , increasing efficiency , improving compliance , and further protecting the Australian people from public health risks. By maintaining and improving current protections, we will be ensuring that Australia stays competitive in the current export market while also pro viding a simpler, more effective way of doing business with our import market. We want to be able provide a safety net for all Australians in the event of a communicable disease outbreak, such as the Ebola pandemic that was witnessed last year. We also want to ensure that compliance with biosecurity measures is as high as possible . S o we are creating a number of tools that can be used to assess applications, administer legislation and provide for penalties that reflect the risks Australia i s exposed to.

Ongoing management of biosecurity risks, including that of human disease, is not only an environmental concern but also an economic requirement. This is highlighted by the fact that, in 2013-14, the gross value of Australian production to the Australian economy was some $53 billion.

In my electorate of Canning, I have had the pleasure of working with a group called HOIG, the Hills Orchard Improvement Group. The organisation represent $40 million worth of farm-gate industry in the Perth Hills, in Western Australia. I have spoken a number of times in this parliament about HOIG and the work that they do both in and out of my electorate, but I feel as if I need to mention them once more to our Minister for Agriculture, because I do not think he has still got it in relation to HOIG. I just want to remind him that they would also benefit from improved biosecurity measures, particularly against Mediterranean fruit fly, known scientifically as Ceratitis capitata.

Once upon a time, they had an efficient and effective protection to adopt called fenthion, which eradicated the Medfly from larvae. However, a series of unfortunate decisions led to this protection being banned due to concerns around the safety of its usage. The APVMA, or Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, felt that a 30-year-old report containing questionable data at best—in fact, back to the 1970s, as I understand—was enough to ban the use of fenthion, which was the only mechanism to stop the Mediterranean fruit fly. That was all because the APVMA does not, and is not required to, consider studies undertaken by other international bodies. This was the best it could source. This was looked at during the Senate inquiry, and the Senate inquiry found that there was no valid reason to ban fenthion, because there was no example anywhere in Australia or the world which justified that.

The disappointing fact of the matter is that they still saw fit to import fruit from overseas sources that use fenthion as a matter of course. This seems to contradict the APVMA's argument that fenthion, used in low dosages to prevent Medfly, poses a substantial enough risk to the consumer that it is justified in causing such havoc to the livelihood of my constituents who grow pome and stone fruit for domestic and international consumption. This is particularly true when considering the fact that Vietnam has since stopped issuing import permits for fresh Australian fruit, much as Japan did with Australian blueberries in 2011. The spokesman for HOIG, Brett DelSimone, in my electorate, has informed me that this decision could effectively close the gate on this $40 million worth of exports. I am certain that growers in my electorate would rather have enjoyed the benefit of ensuring their own biosecurity through the very moderate use of fenthion spray.

It has already been stated by the minister that Australians enjoyed the company of 16 million international passengers during the 2013-14 year. Also in my electorate of Canning, I am fortunate enough to have the Mandurah and Peel region, an area which provides so many examples of what makes Western Australia such a unique place to live. It is referred to by the Peel Development Commission as one of the fastest-growing regions in WA, and it is expected to have a population of some 300,000 people by 2050. In 2013, approximately two million people embarked on a day trip to the Peel region. I would imagine that, with the increasing accessibility of the area, this number will continue to grow. By speaking in support of strengthening biosecurity measures, I hope to continue to assist in protecting not only the beautiful environment and the local fauna but also the approximately 113,000 people who currently call Peel home. Around 65 per cent of this number resides within the boundary of the City of Mandurah itself.

Much of the current legislative framework was established in a very different society that faced exceptionally different challenges. I am talking about the historical legislation. It was developed in a time where international travel was so arduous that it was sometimes only undertaken once in a person's lifetime. The import-export market was virtually nonexistent. Communicable diseases that have since been mostly eradicated through immunisation and the Quarantine Act were at the forefront of policymakers' minds, and the entire population of Australia was just under double that of Western Australia's present population.

This is not to undervalue the current act. It has served us well for an exceptionally long time and has been used as the framework to establish Australia's current unique biosecurity status. This is not a case of replacing something that is broken; it is a case of updating something that will increasingly struggle to keep up with modern demands—in other words, modernising it. The bill is an update that takes into account modern technology and reflects the capabilities of that technology.

Almost 50 amendments over the course of the act's lifetime mean that the legislation has become difficult and incompatible with global demands. Overlapping provisions and powers have made the Quarantine Act and its accompanying regulations unnecessarily very complicated to administer. A more streamlined approach, as this bill has, is needed.

This bill has been designed to manage biosecurity risks, including those of human diseases, which may enter or emerge in Australian territory and to prevent their establishment or spread in Australian territory. This bill is the culmination of 100 years of experience and extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders such as primary producers, importers, exporters, state and territory governments, environmental groups, the general public and our international trading partners. They are all having an input. This bill seeks to ensure that legislation is clear and laid out in a way that makes provisions easy to find. This allows for clear definition of the role of those being regulated as well as the roles of those administering the regulations.

This is what the coalition is all about: streamlined processes, increased efficiency and cutting away unnecessary red tape, as is always called for. This is an example of how we are doing it. This bill is a reflection of those principles. It seeks to reduce the impact of regulation while still achieving the best outcomes for the future of our biosecurity. Estimates show that deregulation can save up to something like $6.9 million a year, just in those small areas. This is done by reducing unnecessary duplication and allowing businesses to come to a single arrangement with the Department of Agriculture in the management of biosecurity risks. The current system requires a single business to enter into multiple arrangements with the Department of Agriculture. To remedy this, there are provisions for a broader range of activities allowed under one agreement with the department—so not what we experience now.

Presently the act prevents goods, despite not posing a biosecurity risk, from being unloaded automatically when they arrive in Australia. In the new biosecurity bill,    unnecessary delays for importers are avoided by allowing a business to apply for a standard permission of entry into Australia ports only when it is known that goods being transported do not pose a threat to Australian biosecurity. This is another unnecessary delay which has been avoided in the day-to-day operation of business. So rather than sitting on the ports, we can actually get an arrangement in place on goods that we know, or have a precedent almost, are coming into this country without any problems.

As is the case with any legislation, its level of success is directly proportional to its level of compliance. This bill includes a number of arrangements that allow effective and efficient targeting of those who do not comply with biosecurity arrangements. One of the many ways this is done is by applying a fit and proper person test, taking into account an applicant's or business's history of compliance and whether any known business associates have breached this compliance at any time.

Biosecurity is everyone's responsibility, and the measures in this bill reflect that. The bill also allows the Commonwealth to exercise penalties based on the level of risk that Australia was exposed to. Penalties include, but are not limited to, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings, or civil or criminal proceedings. It is very well known that prevention is better than cure. By having provisions which allow biosecurity officers to enter premises and manage an identifiable risk, potential issues are mitigated before they cause irreversible damage to the Australian environment, economy and/or its citizens.

Despite the prevalence of the medfly, which I mentioned earlier, within my electorate, there are many pests and diseases that are quite common around the world but are absent within Australia's borders. As the only registered beekeeper in this parliament, I want to talk about the Varroa mite. It has not reached Australia, and we need to continue to make sure that does not happen. This is an example of what I am talking about today. This bill protects this status, which will hopefully maximise Australia's agricultural output. There are also provisions for a wider range of pests and diseases already in Australia, such as medfly, again, which poses threats to industry, our environment and our agricultural produce. The bill extends existing powers, in conjunction with current arrangements with state governments, so that these pests can be effectively managed.

Provisions regarding communicable diseases take into account individual liberties as well as the responsibility of the government to ensure all risks to the greater population are minimised. The bill ensures that the management of any risks also reflects Australia's international obligations. While I am sure we all hope that these provisions are rarely needed, no-one can argue against the importance of such provisions in this day and age where venturing overseas has never been easier.

In conclusion, as I have stated previously, this is simply a case of making sure the legislation can be modernised. Our friends in the opposition, as we know, would be jumping for joy, as this is one of the few pieces of legislation that is not being fixed due to their need to regulate and legislate. We know that we have bipartisan support. It makes the good better.    The purpose is clarity, efficiency and effectiveness. In encouraging compliance, we create a safer environment for our agricultural industry, our unique environment and the broader community, as I have mentioned.

This legislation makes it clear to those who are bound by it what is expected of them and what biosecurity officers are authorised to do.    It also makes penalties fairer by ensuring that the punishment fits the crime and that the level of risk is reflected in all sanctions. The bill ensures that individual rights are respected when managing human disease but also that unnecessary risk is not tolerated.

I cannot stress the importance of this legislation enough in terms of Australia being seen with its clean, green image. When I was on a delegation to Japan and Korea, Australia is seen as a country of great health, and we are lauded for our clean status. Just to give you an example: in the hotels of Japan and Korea they describe Australian beef as 'free range', because they are out in the paddocks rather than in feedlots. They see it as a big plus for us, and we need to maintain this positive image in the light of all the competition that we are getting from everyone else.

We do not need another medfly in this country or, dare I say, a cane toad. We do not want an outbreak of Ebola, bird flu or swine flu on Australian soil, or foot-and-mouth disease or anything like that—equine influenza for our race horses, those sorts of things. Australia has been too well quarantined to take a punt on those issues.

We want the freedom to travel. We want our agricultural industry to be competitive, successful and the best. This is why the coalition seeks to pass this biosecurity bill and its accompanying amendments. I recommend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context