Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Hansard source

I think it has already been acknowledged through this debate that Australia has a world-class biosecurity system. I acknowledge the work that was done by the previous government in commencing the development of this biosecurity legislation. I did have the opportunity to sit on the Senate inquiry that was not completed prior to the 2013 election but did raise a number of the issues that were subsequently dealt with in the final drafting of this legislation.

I commend the work of our officials in the Department of Agriculture who have put a lot of work into this. This is extremely important legislation for Australia. The protection of our biosecurity status is something that we all hold extremely dear. That was demonstrated quite clearly through the Senate inquiry that occurred in the previous parliament and through the Senate inquiry that occurred in this parliament. I know the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee are red-hot when it comes to biosecurity issues and how they might impact on Australia environmentally and from an agriculture perspective.

I refute Senator Xenophon's comments that the parliament does not have an opportunity to scrutinise import risk assessments. I understand where he is going in wanting to make an import risk assessment a disallowable instrument. I have sat on many inquiries in this place, including Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiries into biosecurity matters, and I know that the work of those committee inquiries has made a difference. It has changed the outcome of the import risk assessments for the better. Those committees have brought down recommendations that have been useful as part of the process. While we might agree to do a review, Senator Xenophon, we already know the outcome of the review and it is effectively not possible to make an import risk assessment a disallowable instrument. So, while we might agree to do a review, we effectively know the outcome.

The work that was done by the committee, particularly the review of the risk matrix, needs to be recognised. It did some very good work. We as a government have also set up the national centre of risk assessment at the University of Melbourne, which makes a significant contribution as well. We need to recognise the work that has gone on in the past in developing our biosecurity system. We made a number of commitments going into the last election around a review of the import risk assessment process. That work is being done. There is consultation occurring nationally on that because we understand it is a very important element in ensuring our biosecurity status, it is very important to the Australian farming sector and, as I indicated before, it has a very important role in protecting our broader environment. We have seen some examples of incursions into Australian native bushland, and they can be quite devastating. We do understand the importance of this legislation.

I am appreciative of the approach that the previous government took when there were some concerns raised about the drafting of this legislation. They basically said to the committee, 'You take as long as you like to review this, because we understand it is important.' The previous government and certainly this one appreciate the work that the committee in the previous government did in identifying the issues that needed to be resolved and then going about doing it, which is what we have done in government.

We have continued to consult with industry during the finalisation of the legislation and bringing it to the parliament. We have consulted very broadly because that has been an important part of ensuring broad confidence in the legislation. During the finalisation of the bills we consulted with the NFF and the NSW Farmers biosecurity committee and quite closely with senators, particularly those engaged in the Senate inquiry process. We made changes where we had recommendations that made sense and it was reasonable to do so. This will be demonstrated by the introduction of an amendment to establish a statutory Inspector-General of Biosecurity, which we know is a concern for the opposition and for some of our stakeholders.

The inspector-general will be appointed by the agriculture minister and report directly to the minister, ensuring the position remains independent from regulatory functions of the Department of Agriculture. The government amendment also provides that the inspector-general may compel a person to provide information and documents or to answer questions relevant to a review. This is crucial to the inspector-general's ability to review the performance of functions and the exercise of powers by biosecurity officials. The Director of Biosecurity would also be required to comply with any reasonable request from the inspector-general for assistance for the purpose of conducting a review.

The government can assure stakeholders that the regulations will state that the inspector-general is to set an annual review program in writing in consultation with the Director of Biosecurity and the minister. The review program will be publicly available to stakeholders so stakeholders are aware of review topics in advance and, importantly, the inspector-general will not be subject to the direction of either the minister or the Director of Biosecurity, so reviews will be independently conducted

The inspector-general will be empowered to invite submissions, from stakeholders generally and from particular organisations, in relation to a review. Such submissions may be made public unless the submission is made in confidence or withdrawn. The inspector-general will also be required to consider all evidence provided. After conversations with key stakeholders like the National Farmers' Federation and the NSW Farmers Biosecurity Committee, the government would also like to assure the Senate and stakeholders that regulations concerning the biosecurity import risk analysis process will include requirements around expert scientific advice, stakeholder engagement and reasons for conclusions. I know that there has been some concern expressed over a period of time, particularly to the Senate committee, around reasons for conclusions.

The biosecurity regulation will require the Director of Biosecurity to appoint external persons to an expert scientific advisory group and allow the director to request that this group examine and provide comments on a biosecurity import risk analysis. As this is a procedural requirement relating to the process for conducting a biosecurity risk analysis, it is appropriate to include it in the regulations rather than in the primary legislation. All policy development, decision making and service delivery undertaken by the agriculture department is underpinned by science. The government has complete confidence in the skill and expertise of its officers, employing some of Australia's most knowledgeable and experienced plant scientists, veterinarians and medical and clinical experts. All import risk analyses are conducted by officers with relevant technical and scientific expertise, and expert scientific advice is sought to supplement this internal expertise if it is required.

Regulations and administrative guidance will also require each biosecurity import risk analysis report to set out the scientific findings and assessments made during the process and all of the information and evidence that led to the conclusions reached in the report, as recommended by the Senate committee. During key industry consultation for examination of the import risk analysis process, a key government election commitment, we heard about the importance of all stakeholders being given reasonable opportunity to comment on a biosecurity import risk analysis report. This was also raised by the Senate committee. The government can assure both the Senate and industry stakeholders that the regulations will include a period of at least 60 days for stakeholders to comment on draft reports—a period that can be extended if required.

As is currently the case, stakeholders will always be welcome to provide information at any point before, during or after a biosecurity import risk analysis process. The biosecurity regulation will allow for people who believe their direct interests have been adversely affected by a failure to conduct a biosecurity import risk analysis in accordance with the regulated process to request a review of that process. This review will be undertaken by the Inspector-General of Biosecurity, ensuring an independent examination of the process.

The opposition has also proposed an amendment which is drawn substantially from the former Inspector-General of Biosecurity Bill, which was introduced into parliament in 2012 and lapsed with the change of government. This bill was always a separate piece of legislation and was never proposed to be integrated into the Biosecurity Bill. If the opposition's amendment were adopted, changes to the Biosecurity Bill would be needed and the entire bill would require careful review, resulting in a substantial diversion of resources to determine if the amendment causes any unintended consequences. The opposition has criticised the government for taking time to further consider and consult on the bill prior to its introduction, yet its amendment would cause further delays in the implementation of this crucial legislation.

The proposed opposition amendments do not repeal powers for ministerial review, creating duplicate powers to review the biosecurity system, with the potential to cause confusion and further waste of resources. The proposed opposition amendments remove the privilege against self-incrimination. This important privilege protects an individual's right to freely give information pertinent to the inspector-general's review without fear of incrimination. The abrogation of this privilege, as proposed by the opposition, is neither appropriate nor necessary. The proposed opposition amendments give the inspector-general the power to seek a warrant to enter premises when the owner of those premises does not consent. The current inspector-general does not have that power and has never needed it. This power is not required in order for the inspector-general to fulfil their function. Proposed opposition amendments do not take into account legislative developments that have taken place since 2012—in particular, the passage of the regulatory powers act—which results in the duplication of powers and provisions. This proposed amendment may result in significant redrafting of the Biosecurity Bill and would provide the inspector-general with unnecessary coercive powers. As such, the government will not support the opposition amendment should it be brought forward.

We have said a number of times how important this piece of legislation is. We are confident the bill has been drafted using the best advice and represents best legislative practice. In the context of Senator Xenophon's comments around trade and biosecurity: I do not believe that any government, of any colour, has ever traded off Australia's biosecurity for trade. It is never on the table, but we do push hard for free and open markets. There is no question about that. In fact, I had the opportunity to again push for free and open trade at the G20 Agriculture Ministers Meeting only last week. It is very important. Australia relies enormously on its export markets. We export 60 per cent of what we grow, so, if we do not have free and open trade, it is our farmers who are going to suffer because they will not have access to those important international markets. We work very hard to gain access to those international markets, but we do not put biosecurity on the table. I know that because I have had the conversations, and I know that governments do not put biosecurity on the table as part of any negotiating process. I have not seen it happen on either side of politics. I applaud that approach. We cannot trade off our biosecurity. We have a very strong, appropriate level of protection, and we do not apologise for that, nor should we; we need to maintain the strength of our biosecurity system. It is what gives us access to those important international markets. It is what gives us respect globally when we are looking to trade into some of those new and emerging markets, because people understand our systems and the efficacy of those systems ensuring that the product that we produce is not only clean but also safe. So it is very vital that we maintain that.

I do not want any suggestion to stand that we in any way as a country trade our biosecurity status off for free and open trade. They are two separate things. They are treated in that way. Countries might like to criticise us for our strong biosecurity system and our very strong appropriate level of protection, but we do not apologise for it, and we are quite frank with anyone who wants to go down that path. Our biosecurity system is not up for trade.

I table two addenda to explanatory memoranda, responding to the concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, and I commend the bills to the Senate.