Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On this side of the House, there are 58 members of the coalition. Fifteen members are from metropolitan areas and 43 are from rural and regional areas. Those 43 members on this side have a significant depth of expertise and lived experience, but I'm not one of them. I'm one of the 15. So I rise here grateful for the input and advice that have been given from my side, but also, having sat through the contributions that have been given, I acknowledge there is clearly depth, interest and expertise on the other side, so I thank you for your contributions.

When I first came with my family as a migrant to Australia, I was struck by all of the videos we saw and the forms that we had to fill in to make sure that we weren't carrying things we weren't allowed to, and I'm reminded of that every time I get the chance to go overseas—which hasn't been for a while. When we do that, we realise that we are so blessed here as a country to have the geography that we do and that we get to protect our biosecurity in this country. Of course it is about our agriculture sector, but it is also about our natural environment. That is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't happen by accident. In the age of globalisation, there are enormous risks that threaten what we have, and it's only because of our laws and regulations, and our wonderful departments and public servants who enforce those, that we have the gifts that we have in this nation.

The Biosecurity Act is an act that probably very few Australians could have named a few years ago, but, since COVID, it has become probably one of the top three acts that Australians now know exist, because it loomed large over their lives, the economy and where we were going as a country. Many Australians, including me, weren't quite aware of the extraordinary powers—the emergency powers—contained within this act. And I know that's not what the Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Biosecurity) Bill 2022 is about, but we have just come out of that period—although COVID's not gone —when the act was doing its work. It was only in March this year that the term of those powers ended, and they weren't renewed. There is a time and a place for us to review those.

When we look back at the history of this act, we see that it's an act that has had a long history that started with the Department of Health forming after the Spanish flu in 1918. Prior to 1918, all health and biosecurity issues resided with the states, but I think we could quickly realise that, when there are global threats to our health and our biodiversity at our borders, there needs to be a national approach. The Spanish flu was the great catalyst for that to happen. The Department of Health expanded into many other areas, but, through this act in its various forms, there has always been a focus on the borders and protecting what we have.

Through the COVID period there were many assertions made by various people about whether the Commonwealth could intervene to stop what was being done in Victoria or in other states, and the Biosecurity Act was our 'saviour'. Some would even quote certain sections of the Biosecurity Act as a silver bullet to get what they wanted from a policy perspective.

This hasn't been raised much. But I remember at the time looking at the Biosecurity Act. It's almost 700 pages, but quite early on in the Biosecurity Act, after the objects, it is quite clear that it is an act that has its foundation in the quarantine power—section 51(ix) of the Commonwealth Constitution. We should always remember that this little document, which I have here in my desk, is our guiding document and that the Commonwealth parliament can only exercise powers that are given to it in sections 51 and 52. Section 51(ix) talks about the quarantine power. That hasn't been formally defined by the High Court in any key cases, but it is not a provision for the Commonwealth to do every task. Its focus is on protecting our borders. This bill goes to the heart of that.

The Biosecurity Act is our regulatory framework for managing the risk of pests and diseases entering Australian territory. In particular, it outlines our international rights and obligations. We will be supporting this legislation, as the other speakers have said, but I would like to talk about a few of the points that the bill will achieve. It will allow for new measures to manage the biosecurity risks coming from travellers, which is specifically mentioned given the foot-and-mouth disease risk from Indonesia. I compliment the 43 coalition rural and regional members who were red-hot on this issue as soon as it happened. I am pleased to see that the government has responded.

In preparing for today, I was reading some of the commentary on the bill. There was a word in there that I actually had to look up. Then I noticed that there was a footnote for it. It is a key part of protecting our borders. It is this. The bill makes amendments to 'pratique'. 'Pratique' means permission granted to a ship to have dealings with a port. It's given after quarantine or on showing a clean bill of health. The bill makes amendments to pratique and pre-arrival reporting requirements of inbound aircraft and vessels and increases penalties and the scope of powers for officers. We all remember the footage of the Ruby Princess. We have had a royal commission. Commissioner Bret Walker and his team did an enormous amount of work. I think there is now a class action underway which I won't comment on. This point of entry and the practice of pratique is an important thing that protects us, whether it is a ship, plane or parcel coming here. That's contained in schedule 2. The reform for pratique provisions was about making it easier for human biosecurity officers to withhold pratique in circumstances where they suspected that a vessel had been exposed to a listed human disease. There were a number of recommendations, and I won't go through each of those, but this bill addresses that one and it is an important one.

The bill will also allow for better information sharing between government agencies and other bodies. I remember watching movies in the 1980s where you would see different departments arguing with each other and saying, 'It's our turf.' It's only when you work in government—and I did in Defence and overseas—that you discover that is a real thing. It's very easy for departments to look inwards and protect their turf and have conflict with others. So wherever we as a parliament and as a government can encourage information sharing it should always be done. It's about reducing red tape. It's about putting the national interest before a department's or an institution's self-interest, and that's very important.

The bill also raises civil and criminal penalties for breaches which deal with managing risks relating to goods and conveyances. It increases transparency around the process by which risk assessments are conducted. It increases efficiencies and transparency of expenditure. Finally, it improves the operation of provisions relating to approved arrangements and compensations. These are all commonsense measures, and the coalition is always been prepared to support practical and sensible legislation that strengthens our biosecurity system, particularly when it resembles a bill that the former government introduced.

If I could briefly talk on the increased protections from diseases and pests, many speakers have spoken about foot-and-mouth disease and they have spoken about other areas. But it is good that protections are now in place. We note the government flip-flopped about whether to put the mats in place, and that was a practical measure that was suggested by coalition rural and regional members from the Nationals and Liberal Party, again from lived experience. That's something that many farmers know exists as an option that is available to protect our agriculture sector. In the weeks it took for Labor to make up their mind and take action, 79,374 international travellers arrived from Indonesia, without having to disinfect their shoes. The point here is that, when a risk is developing and it has been identified, we have to move quickly because time is not on our side. The more we delay, the more we dillydally, the greater the risk for our country and our economy.

Our biosecurity system is a crucial pillar of our national defence. It helps us to prepare for, mitigate against and respond to risks to our environment, our economy and, indeed, our way of life. Australia has enjoyed a reputation for clean, healthy and disease-free agriculture through our natural advantage of geographic isolation. This has also given Australian producers an edge in a competitive international environment. I was struck by the percentages and overall numbers for our economy, and I'll give some of them. In 2020 the value of Australia's biosecurity system was estimated to be at $314 billion over 50 years. Many of the things that we take for granted as constants in our lives are at greater risk than ever before. Again, we have lived through recent risks, but there will be others that we don't know about, and we must be prepared to act quickly on them.

Responding to a rapidly changing environment requires controls, partnerships, tools, processes and networks, and we do need a strong biosecurity system. I spoke about the estimated value over 50 years, but there are other interesting numbers. Australia's environmental assets were valued at a staggering $5.7 trillion over 50 years and are irreplaceable. Whatever side of politics you're on, we can all agree on that. Agricultural production has reached nearly $87 billion, supporting 1.6 million jobs through the supply-chain system. Before COVID, tourism contributed $50 billion to Australia's GDP, and we would all like to see tourism numbers go back up to where they were before COVID. The health of these sectors relies on a strong and robust biosecurity system. I commend the bill.

See this speech in context