Joe Bullock (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I start, given that Senator Ruston was just referring to the fruit fly problem, it would be remiss of me as a Western Australian not to express my great disappointment in the effective banning of fenthion in Western Australia, which is a known and effective method of combating Mediterranean fruit fly. Orchardists in Western Australia deeply regret no longer being able to use it, given that it never caused any known human side-effect, and it has been removed from their arsenal in combating the fruit fly which is peculiar to Western Australia.

I was asked earlier today to share a few thoughts on the Biosecurity Bill, and I only had a few. I have now had a look at this bill and I may have some concerns that others may have not picked up. It may be that at least a couple of the things I say in this debate will not have been referenced before, and that gives us an opportunity to look at some of the provisions in some detail.

The first issue I want to raise relates to the declaration of a biosecurity emergency. To put that in context I want to start by referring to the scope of the application of the bill to invasive pests. At section 25 it says:

(1) This Act (other than Part 1 of Chapter 8 (biosecurity emergencies)) applies in relation to a pest only if:

(a) the pest is capable of:

(i) infesting humans, animals or plants; or

(ii) acting as a vector for a disease; or

(iii) causing disease in any other way; or

(b) the pest is an invasive pest.

To know what an invasive pest is you have to go to the definitions. An invasive pest:

… means a pest that:

(a) is an alien species (within the meaning of the Biodiversity Convention); but

(b) is not capable of:

(i) infesting humans, animals or plants; or

(ii) acting as a vector for a disease; or

(iii) causing disease in any other way.

So it would seem that the bill sets out to cover the field in dealing with pests, and to look at pests that are and are not capable of infesting humans, acting as a vector for disease, or causing disease in any other way.

When we go to the relevant section dealing with a declaration of a biosecurity emergency, which is section 443, we find:

(1) The Governor-General may declare that a biosecurity emergency exists if the Agriculture Minister is satisfied that:

(a) a disease or pest is posing a severe and immediate threat, or is causing harm, to any of the following on a nationally significant scale:

(i) animal or plant health;

(ii) the environment;

(iii) economic activities related to animals, plants or the environment; and

(b) the declaration is necessary to prevent or control the establishment or spread of the disease or pest in Australian territory or a part of Australian territory.

All of that is subject to note 2, which states:

This Part does not apply in relation to invasive pests …

All of those invasive pests are excluded for the purposes of declaring a biosecurity emergency. I think this is a serious deficiency in the bill. There are many alien invasive pests that are not capable of infesting humans, animals or plants and acting as a vector for disease or causing disease in another way which could well and truly constitute an emergency. The example that comes immediately to mind is our new visitor to Western Australia, the cane toad, which the good people of Queensland brought to our shores, and it has been making its way westward, seeking a better place to live, ever since. It seems to me that some future invasion of a pest like that of the cane toad should rightly be regarded as an emergency, yet this bill specifically excludes invasive pests from being defined as a biosecurity emergency. This seems to me to be a rather serious shortcoming in this bill.

The next thing that attracted my attention as I flicked through the bill were the provisions dealing with entry requirements to the country. When dealing with entry and exit requirements, section 44 provides:

(1) This section applies for the purpose of preventing a listed human disease from entering, or establishing itself or spreading in, Australian territory or a part of Australian territory.

(2) The Health Minister may determine one or more requirements for individuals who are entering Australian territory at a landing place or port in accordance—

in accordance with provisions within the act. It goes on in a few subsections later to say:

… Without limiting subsection (2), the determination may specify one or more of the following requirements: (a) a requirement for an individual to provide either:

…   …   …   

(b) a requirement for an individual to complete a questionnaire on his or her health, which may include confirmation of whether the individual is undergoing or has undergone specified treatment within a specified previous period;

(c) a requirement for an individual to provide a declaration in relation to a specified listed human disease;

(d) a requirement for an individual to provide a declaration or evidence of where the individual has been before entering Australian territory;

It goes on with all the requirements that the health minister may determine. That is all good and well. I think it is appropriate that the health minister should determine requirements along those lines. Let us turn to section 46, which deals with civil penalties for failing to comply with certain entry or exit requirements. These are the requirements that the minister has determined under section 44, and if you fail to comply with them you are subject to penalties. It states:

An individual to whom a requirement determined under section 44 4 (entry requirements) applies must comply with the requirement.

There is no discretion there. It is a requirement and it must be complied with. Subsection (2) and (3) go on in the same vain that the requirements must be complied with.

And then there is this section, which attracted my attention. It states:

(4) To avoid doubt, an individual may contravene subsection (1) or (3) of this section even if the individual is not able to comply with the requirement.

This section concerns me a great deal. It is one thing to say that requirements must be complied with—they are requirements, so one would presume that they must be complied with—but I can envisage a range of circumstances in which a person might not be able to comply. The person might be desperately ill. The person might be disabled. The person might be from a non-English speaking background with regard to the completion of a form that the minister might require. I am concerned about subsection (4). It says that even if you are not able to comply—and the bill presumes that the person concerned just cannot; they are not putting it on, they cannot comply—they will be deemed to have contravened the section and be subject to a civil penalty of 30 penalty units. I am not sure how much 30 penalties is when you translate it into dollars, but I am sure it is not an insignificant amount.