Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to pay a particular thanks to your own role, Mr Acting Deputy President Back, in all matters pursuant to biosecurity over the time that I have been in the Senate. I have seen your involvement in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee and Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee where we have discussed this numerous times. Your leadership in this area given your background has been significant. I would also like to pay similar respects to Senator Siewert, who, with her agricultural science background, has similarly made a contribution over a long period of time. And obviously Senator Nash as Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate has been a strong proponent of stronger borders when it comes to all things nematode. Sorry—those in the room who know what we are talking about found that joke quite interesting!

It gives me great pleasure to stand today to address the Biosecurity Bill 2014 and related bills. This is a bill that has been a long time in the drafting. I think that in 2012 we had Senator Ludwig begin the process with the Quarantine Act 1908—a fledgling young nation decided to have its own quarantine act—to turn that into a modern-day biosecurity bill that actually addresses all the challenges that an island nation such as ours and an agricultural-producing nation such as ours face. We are a destination for many tourists and travellers, whether by boat or by plane, who can bring significant risk to one of the key economic underpinnings of our nation, and that is our agricultural industry. I like to think that there is a bipartisan approach to ensuring that our borders are safe from disease risks from overseas.

Let me please turn to the bill in front of us. As I said, it is actually built on a long period of work by the Rural and Regional Affairs Committee under the former government. I remember that one of the first inquiries I arrived at when I arrived in this place was around fire blight and the apple industry, which is so important to my home state—in the Goulburn Valley and Shepparton area. We grow a lot of the apples. There were issues around the former risk assessment model that was being used to assess the risk of the trash of apples coming in from New Zealand. It was a severe concern for local growers right throughout the Goulburn Valley.

I remember attending a very large gathering of angry growers and also angry processors and community members in Shepparton, where the local member, Dr Stone, was very loud and passionate in her defence of the local industry. Indeed, I and the then member for Indi, Sophie Mirabella—who was then the shadow industry minister—spoke to the crowd about the risks posed by the importation of apples from New Zealand and that we needed to be forever vigilant in our quarantine and biosecurity measures and in our risk assessment.

The risks are significant. As an island nation we have seen what happens with the Hendra virus, for instance—a disease that attacked our equine industry. That affected millions and millions of dollars and jobs, not to mention the human and animal impact that virus had right throughout the north-east seaboard. So it is a significant issue.

Right now in the modern era it is not a couple of wooden boats that make their way over here from the motherland with some convicts and some brave settlers, but rather 16 million international passengers arriving here every single year, wearing clothes and having walked in dirt, bringing all manner of potential risks with them. That is something that a modern-day biosecurity system actually needs to address. One hundred and eighty-six million mail packages arrive. You can find Glocks mailed from overseas. Any manner of plant or animal material can be mailed and we need a system that can actually assess appropriately the risks contained in those 186 million packages.

In terms of shipping, we have 1.7 million cargo movements and 26 million container consignments. This is a lot of stuff. We are a trading nation. There are a lot of people, a lot of packages and a lot of potential for risk to damage our very clean, green image internationally. Our disease-free status underpins so many of our trade negotiations, which Senator Rhiannon made reference to. It has just been so fantastic, I think Mr Acting Deputy President Back, that the current government has built on that strong trade relationship and the capacity for free trade agreements—and bilateral agreements in the absence of multilateral agreements—to actually develop and grow our regional economies and contribute to the national economy.

The free trade agreements with South Korea, with Japan and with China will absolutely deliver; the opportunities are just so exciting. But we must be very careful that the risks they pose are adequately dealt with; that we do have a system that can ensure confidence for consumers here and, obviously, buyers overseas, that the products they are purchasing—whether locally in supermarkets or overseas as part of an export consignment—are actually disease-free and continue our great reputation internationally.

This is providing the primary legislative means and modern regulatory framework for biosecurity in Australia. It was first introduced in 2012 and referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs Committee, which is a fabulous bipartisan committee which does some really great work. Obviously, that inquiry was put on ice while parliament was prorogued for the last election. So many areas of concern that were raised by that committee, chaired by Senator Heffernan, are identified within this new legislation.

A number of significant reviews have been held of the biosecurity system. Most recently, the review of Australia's quarantine and biosecurity—the Beale review—has outlined opportunities to improve the system, and we have taken the opportunity to do that. I think we have heard numerous senators over today and yesterday outline the many benefits that the new legislation will provide.

The import risk analysis review was crucial, and it really did arise from the fact that the matrix used in the previous risk assessment was not appropriate and we needed to review its applicability. We took on board stakeholder concerns around many of the issues that were raised through the fire blight issue with the apples and also zebra chip in our potato industry. There is a great potato industry down in Victoria, down at Koo Wee Rup and across in Ballarat. We grow some of the best potatoes in the land—sorry, South Australia and Tasmania, but I do believe that Vic potatoes are the best!

There were some significant issues with the zebra chip virus, so we need to ensure that the risk assessment is actually adequate. There were significant issues with the old one. So some stakeholders expressed the importance of considering regional differences in biosecurity legislation, and that is another thing that our legislation takes into consideration.

So there has been a wide consultation process. Since 2009, I think, we have been talking about how we can make that 1908 Quarantine Act more functional. We have consulted with over 400 stakeholders to ensure that. It is not just the government; it is primary producers; it is all state and territory governments; it is importers and exporters; it is the wider Australian community. We have had Senate inquiries; we have independent inquiries. The department has been on the ground consulting. So I think the Senate can rest assured that the minister has brought to this place a bill that reflects the concerns, and indeed the solutions, that the community broadly sees that we need in a 21st century biosecurity bill. Over 440 organisations have been included in terms of actually being able to facilitate and develop this bill.

In terms of a deregulatory impact, I know our government is absolutely committed to reducing red and green tape and reducing the regulatory burden on farmers, on communities, on small businesses, on exporters and on importers. Part of that means that our economy is more productive, and that is exactly what this nation needs. I look forward to the Labor Party, and indeed the Greens, supporting us in our efforts to streamline those processes around environmental tape and red tape—processes that have put a stranglehold on the capacity of our small businesses, in particular, to employ more Australians and to get on with doing what we do best, which is growing fabulous, clean, green produce to send overseas. The legislation will have a deregulatory impact of approximately $6.9 million per annum. It is anticipated that the bill will commence 12 months after royal assent, and we are hoping that that can occur by early to mid-2016.

What is the purpose of the Biosecurity Bill? I have touched on a couple of key issues for me as a Victorian senator, and that has been the zebra chip virus, fire blight with our apples. There has also been the issue of the entire Queensland citrus industry being wiped out. This is big stuff. There is the risk of foot-and-mouth disease entering this country and wiping out significant producer holdings and key underpinnings of our rural sector in one fell swoop.

The bill includes managing 'the risk of listed human diseases entering Australian territory or a part of Australian territory, or emerging, establishing themselves or spreading in Australian territory or a part of Australian territory'. Also it deals with the management of risk of causing harm to human, animal or plant health, the environment or the economy; because this government cares about the environment. We want to ensure that our human animal or plant biosecurity framework actually protects our environment. I think our environmental credentials are unparalleled.

It also looks at the management of the risk of ballast waters. When we think about the shipping industry, there are fewer and fewer Australian flagged ships entering our ports. Ballast water can come from far away, and contains many, many risks to our local environment, and it is just being pumped out into our ports. We need to be sure that we have a legislative framework that ensures we can have confidence that that ballast water will not infect and degrade our marine and land environments.

The bill also seeks to remove current complex regulatory requirements and administrative practices in an effort to streamline processes. It is designed to provide greater flexibility for the Commonwealth to manage our biosecurity risks—as I have said—in a much more modern and flexible way. It is designed to have compliance tools which are much more reflective of how best practice exists in today's modern environment.

I did want to touch on a couple of issues, such as how the Biosecurity Bill addresses environmental biosecurity. In this bill we specifically ensure that the environment is protected from biosecurity risks; the same weight is given to that as is given to the harm posed to human, animal and plant health and the economy. So we are actually taking a triple-bottom-line approach to biosecurity risk. How does this risk affect the environment, the economy and our citizenry? And that is actually viewing our nation as a whole and all its components. And I think clause 9 deals with how we are going to do that.

Biosecurity risk is a core concept of the legislation and part of the threshold test for the use of the powers throughout the bill. The bill provides powers to assess these risks where there is an unacceptable level of biosecurity risk and allows measures to be imposed to manage that risk. It is designed to work in conjunction with other Commonwealth state and territory marine protection and conservation legislation, regulations and policies.

The definition of environment in the Biosecurity Bill is consistent with the definition provided under the EPBC Act. And the Commonwealth powers as reflected in the bill have been extended to allow for the management of invasive pests consistent with articles 7 and 8 of the international convention of biological diversity.

I just want to briefly touch on an issue that Senator Rhiannon mentioned, and that is how the Biosecurity Bill gives effect to Australia's international rights and obligations. We talk about FTAs and the importance of having biosecurity measures in our national interest. That is what we are all here to do, to ensure that Australia's best interests are protected by the federal government. We should all be putting our shoulders to the wheel in that effort. I am very proud of our government's efforts in this regard.

The bill allows for the management of biosecurity risk in a manner that is consistent with our international obligations. This includes our obligations under the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, the International Health Regulations 2005 and the Convention on Biological Diversity. When we talk about how this interacts with other nations, those other nations that are signatories to those international agreements will find great sympathy with the legislation before the Senate today. We look forward to the support of the opposition, both in the form of the Labor government and the Greens, as this bill will ensure that as an international community we can start to manage some of the global biosecurity risks and ensure that those nations that are disease free continue to maintain that status.

I want to briefly touch on what the process will be for biosecurity import risk analysis. That is contained in chapter 3 of the bill and it is intended to replace the import risk analysis process currently prescribed in the quarantine regulations. As I said, I think that was as a result of very direct feedback from producers, exporters, industry bodies and, indeed, Senate reference committees—of the time—that there was an issue with the matrix. I do not want to get all Neo on everybody, but there was a significant issue with how we were assessing risk under the former process—hats off for actually dealing with this issue. I think our producer bodies will take great confidence from the fact that our government has done the hard thinking, because it is not easy. We had to go international to get expertise in this area and to get some evidence to ensure that we came up with a system that works for us, for our producers and for the type of nation that we want to be in the international environment. We are an island nation. The systems and processes that other countries have in place are not for us. I think it was entirely appropriate that we completely reviewed the IRA—so thank you. We now have the BIRA. It assesses the level of biosecurity risk posed to Australia if a specific good is imported and it considers what conditions, if any, might be needed to meet Australia's appropriate level of protection.

The bill sets out the broad principles and states the powers and obligations relevant to managing our biosecurity risk. It is largely administrative in nature and for this reason the details are to be included in regulations and supporting guidelines rather than in the bill. Earlier, I heard Labor Party senators decrying the fact that the regulations were not in the bill. There is a reason for that: they are heavy to carry around and regulations need to be flexible enough to allow for significant changes without having to come back and re-prosecute the whole bill. I think it is absolutely imperative that ministers and departments have the discretion that the regulatory environment allows them. It is completely appropriate that that level of detail is not contained in the bill. The details that are intended to be included in the regulations and supporting guidelines include the use of independent scientific expert advice. I love that . Every single time we must be using independent scientific expert advice even if we do not like it. Even if you do not like what they choose to put in front of you, you can absolutely have the public debate, but do not hide behind the veil—

Senator Waters interjecting—

Senator Waters, you are here and I know we can have a coal seam gas argument any time—