Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

The Biosecurity Bill 2014 and related bills implement the reform of our biosecurity regime. As such, this is important legislation. We need to get it right. These bills represent the first root-and-branch overhaul of our quarantine and biosecurity framework in nearly a century. These bills began their life under the former Labor government and we are proud to have shared in their development. On that basis, this legislation is deserving of bipartisan support.

Agriculture is important. Agriculture is so important to our future—and it is complex and involves long-term planning horizons—that we must strive to take a bipartisan approach to agriculture policy. Biosecurity is of paramount importance, yet, as the Beale inquiry—a seminal inquiry into our biosecurity system—noted, biosecurity usually only rates a mention when something goes wrong rather than regularly rating a mention when things are going right, as they almost always do.

The Biosecurity Bill, like the Beale review and other reviews that went before it, was a Labor government initiative. It was an initiative of a Labor government and it was progressed and developed by a Labor government. The Labor government was ready to implement the reform when it lost office 18 months ago.

This bill had its origins with the member for Watson in the other place when he was the minister, and was progressed right through the tenure of Senator Ludwig. It was Labor that recognised the importance of upgrading and modernising Australia's biosecurity laws, and it was a Labor government that first introduced the bill in 2012. In February 2008, the then Minister for Agriculture, the member for Watson in the other place, announced a comprehensive, independent review of Australia's quarantine and biosecurity arrangements to be undertaken by an independent panel of experts and chaired by Roger Beale AO.

The bill now before the Senate is essentially identical to Labor's bill save for a few minor adjustments, which we do not have any great difficulty with, except for a very big departure in the absence of any guarantee that the Inspector-General of Biosecurity will continue to play a role. I will return to this very important point.

These bills are about modernising the now 107-year-old Quarantine Act. As Mr Beale pointed out in his seminal report, the very name change from Quarantine Act to Biosecurity Act in itself reflects changing challenges, aspirations, emphasis and of course methods. The Beale report concluded that we have a very good biosecurity system. Its overwhelming success is testament to that. We have had, by any measure, a very successful approach to keeping disease and pests out of our food chain. Mr Beale also found that the system is not perfect; that is fairly obvious. Sadly and tragically, we have seen examples of failures in recent years including during the equine influenza outbreak and the recent contamination of imported frozen berries with the hepatitis A virus. Mr Beale also reinforced, very importantly, the view that a zero-risk approach to quarantine is not a feasible approach, not one that is likely to lead to success, and certainly not one we can afford to pay for. Rather he reinforced the need for a risk based approach to our quarantine system.

The opposition will be supporting the bill, but I want to express very great concern about the key departure I made mention of,—the decision to deny the very important initiative in Labor's bill—the establishment and ongoing existence of an independent, statutory officer known as the Inspector-General of Biosecurity. Labor will be moving amendments and requests in the committee stage to establish an independent Inspector-General of Biosecurity.

It appears that, as the bill is currently framed, rather than having an independent statutory officer reviewing the performances of our biosecurity system, we will have no less than the minister overseeing these processes—that is, Minister Joyce overseeing biosecurity in this country. It is not something that fills me with great confidence or enthusiasm, I must say.