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

Before giving an overview on this suite of Greens amendments, I need to table a supplementary memorandum relating to government amendments moved to the bill today. I table those.

I think it is worth acknowledging everyone's contribution to this debate, as Senator Back did a few moments ago. I agree with Senator Siewert and her discussion around the work that has been done by all parties in relation to this legislation. I know that we all regard this as an important piece of legislation not just in the context of agriculture but more broadly for the broader environment. Quite often, agricultural or food products that are brought in end up having an environmental impact. I mentioned things like myrtle rust and Asian bees yesterday, and I know this chamber has debated that recently, and fire ants can also have a broader environmental impact. I think that does go to demonstrate that this is an important part of the legislation and it is something that is considered part of the legislation.

Part of conducting an import risk assessment assessing potential risks of disease incursions from products into the country. That is the point of the process: we want to be able to trade without having those incursions. The only way to have zero risk is to have zero trade—I think we all understand that. That is why the appropriate level of protection is being set as strongly as it is. It so important.

I can indicate, as the opposition has, that the government will not be supporting the Greens amendment. I will just run through a few of the reasons, in no particular order, why we will not be doing that. To bring the environment minister into the process that is currently run through the Department of Agriculture requires a significant change to the government's administrative arrangements. The amendment that the Greens are moving is not consistent with the government's administrative orders. The amendment provides the environment minister or the Secretary of the Department of the Environment with a number of specific decision-making roles under the biosecurity act—for example, in declaring a first point of entry or in the management of the biosecurity agency. The bill as it stands is consistent with current arrangements whereby the agriculture minister, not the environment minister, is responsible for biosecurity, including environmental biosecurity. I want to make that point because I think it is important.

We all value the broader biosecurity implications for this country which this act provides. The government can assure the Senate and the Greens that, while the current drafting of the Biosecurity Bill does not confer specific powers to the environment minister, administrative arrangements already exist for the ongoing collaboration and consultation between the agriculture and environment portfolios to ensure that there is a whole-of-government approach in the management of any matters of environmental significance. I think that is an important point to make. The agriculture department works closely with the environment department to ensure that, where possible, biosecurity risk management aligns with environmental conservation and protection. This is facilitated, for example, with the endorsement by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of decisions made under the Quarantine Act in relation to the importation of a plant specimen. This will continue to be the case under the Biosecurity Bill.

The agriculture department is also subject to the EPBC Act in managing biosecurity risks. The environment department is also an observer on a number of forums on biosecurity—for example, the National Management Group committees. The government believes that the Biosecurity Bill, as it is currently drafted, has the capability of achieving many of the policy outcomes sought in the amendment, and the government will address them either in the regulations or through its administration of the bill. For example, the government acknowledges the benefit of having external scientific advice in the biosecurity import risk analysis process and supports the establishment of an eminent scientist group or a similar body with a role in this process. However, as the process for the establishment of an external scientific group is largely procedural, this is more appropriately contained in the regulations.

Whilst not diminishing the importance of the consideration of the environment and conservation, the focus of the Biosecurity Bill is the management of biosecurity risks. The definition of biosecurity risk clearly includes a reference to the environment. There are more appropriate Commonwealth acts which support environmental conservation, and many of the ideas put forward by the Greens in this space are best placed in such legislation. For example, the proposed conservation zones relate directly to matters that are established and already regulated under the EPBC Act. There are a number of provisions within the amendment relating to technical drafting issues, issues of law or amendments which do not align with the government's international trade obligations. The government can, however, assure the Senate and the Greens in particular that bills have been drafted in accordance with best legislative practice. The Biosecurity Bill relies on a broad range of constitutional powers for legislative support. Reliance on a broad range of powers ensures that the bill is given the widest possible operation, consistent with Commonwealth legislative power.