Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that I will support the second reading of the Biosecurity Bill 2014, because our biosecurity framework does need to be revamped. I know enormous work has been done by the previous government and, indeed, by this government and the Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. Barnaby Joyce. I support the second reading stage of this bill being passed, but I still reserve my position in terms of a number of amendments that have been put up by the opposition relating to the framework of this bill and how it would work. I expect that I will be speaking to the agriculture minister later today or this evening—in fact, by tomorrow morning—in respect of those matters.

I have attended a number of inquiries in respect of biosecurity, and a number of my colleagues have been at these inquiries too. The most recent that I recollect was about potatoes. There is a real concern that bringing in fresh potatoes from New Zealand could subject our potato industry to the real risk of zebra chip disease. Zebra chip disease, for those who are not familiar with it, is a pretty nasty disease that can affect potatoes. It is a disease that Australia is free of at the moment, but in New Zealand they have a real problem in managing the zebra chip disease. The disease means that once you cook a potato it has black-and-white stripes like a zebra in the potato. It is rendered inedible because of the high sugar content. That is something that, if it gets into Australia, if it infects our potato crops, will have disastrous implications. It will affect the viability of the potato industry; it will mean enormous costs in dealing with zebra chip disease and the like.

There is another disease from New Zealand—I am not picking on the Kiwis—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not picking on the Kiwis, Senator Moore. The fact is we have close economic relationships with New Zealand. We have deep bonds that were forged in blood from the time of the Anzacs, from the time of Gallipoli, and since then. Fire blight is a disease that affects the apple industry. We do not have it here in Australia. New Zealand apples do have it. It causes enormous damage to the apple and pear industries in that nation. We do not want it here.

What concerns me is that at the potato inquiry—my understanding is that there was a bureaucrat who took one of the witnesses from the potato sector to task. I think Senator Colbeck, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, would be appalled by this. The bureaucrat took one of the witnesses aside and said words to the effect: 'How dare you raise this issue! Do you realise that this sort of inquiry, this sort of evidence, actually damages our reputation internationally in free trade forums?' I am sorry, but if it is the Department of Agriculture involved in biosecurity, then its priority ought to be preventing pests and diseases coming into this country and affecting Australian agriculture. Issues of free trade are not its business; it is the issue of protecting Australian industry from pests and diseases.

An enormous amount of work has been done by the current minister and the previous minister in getting to this stage. This bill is a very comprehensive piece of legislation. It needs to be revamped, I understand that, but there are issues in terms of the degree of supervision of this bill, the degree to which this framework ought to be subject to independent scrutiny in a watchdog or ombudsman type role, and I am sure that will be the subject of vigorous debate in the committee stage.

I just want to raise an issue in relation to my position on this. Unambiguously, I can state what my preferred position is. We ought to look at the matters raised in a bill introduced in this place: the Quarantine Amendment (Disallowing Permits) Bill 2011. What that bill effectively did was insert provisions into the act which:

… effectively make the Biosecurity Policy Determinations legislative instruments and provide that any import or removal permit issued otherwise than in accordance with such a disallowable Biosecurity Policy Determination are themselves disallowable by the Parliament.

That is not about political decisions being made; it is about having an extra level of protection in this nation in respect of biosecurity. Once a disease comes into this country—if it is zebra chip, if it is fire blight, if it is foot-and-mouth—that is it; it irrevocably changes that industry and that sector and it damages our clean, green reputation internationally. And we do not want that. I do not think anyone in this place wants that.

My concern is with the risk matrix that has been applied. I remember the strong advocacy by former Senator Boswell in this regard, for the pineapple industry and for bananas in particular. He expressed those concerns time and time again. Former Senator Boswell was absolutely right in respect of those concerns. We are mugs internationally and we are schmucks internationally when we take such a literal view of free trade. In fact, at international forums Australians have been referred to as a 'free trade Taliban' because we take such a fundamentalist approach to free trade issues and because we do not protect our national interest, which obviously intersects with ensuring a clean, green, disease-free reputation that we have fought very hard to maintain.

So it is my view that the best way of dealing with this is an extra layer of protection. I know that it is opposed by my colleagues—both government and opposition. My preference is to have that extra level of scrutiny, that extra level of safeguard, by allowing for these instruments to be disallowable.

The question that I wish to raise with the government is: will they support such an approach being investigated? If not, why not? At the very least, I want to ask whether they consider that having that extra layer of safeguard would be a preferable approach. In my view it ought to be. In my view, you ought to have it as a disallowable instrument so that there can be a risk analysis tabled in both houses of parliament and cause a motion to be moved to refer it to the relevant committee in each House. That is the sort of thing we ought to be looking at.

My view is that we cannot be too careful in relation to this. I think that there are some in the biosecurity sphere, in the Department of Agriculture, that have confused their roles between looking after the biosecurity of this nation and being tied up with free trade negotiations. We cannot sacrifice just one part of the agricultural sector for another on the altar of free trade. We have to be extremely vigilant about this.

It is not just about whether the disease comes in or not. If New Zealand potatoes are allowed into this country, you actually change the economics of the potato industry, because they must manage that risk. They must factor in future investment decisions and what the potential is for zebra chip disease to come into this country. They make decisions accordingly. It is an investment killer and a job killer, because it is an extra level of risk for that industry. We must avoid that at all costs.

We also need, in the context of our agricultural sector, to look at issues of countervailing duties and to pursue those aggressively. It is related, in the sense that the European Union spend a lot of money supporting their wine industry—for instance, promoting their wine industry. We have a situation where overwhelmingly the wine grape sector and our wineries are doing it very tough because of an unlevel playing field. That is another issue which makes our sectors more vulnerable and less profitable. That lower degree of profitability makes them particularly vulnerable to any biosecurity threats as well.

If this is going to be the ultimate renewable resource—which I believe agriculture is—we cannot afford for anything to go wrong. That is why I support the second reading stage of this bill. I look forward to speaking to the minister and the shadow minister in relation to some of the key amendments in respect of this. I still believe we need to ultimately have a method of disallowing permits and having a degree of parliamentary scrutiny of this so that, if there is a move to bring in New Zealand potatoes with the risk of zebra chip, then the parliament ought to have a role to play. Do not leave it just to the bureaucrats, some of whom have confused their roles in biosecurity with that of being free trade advocates, and that is a very dangerous path to go down.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, there is a second reading amendment that Senator Siewert has put before the chair at the moment, so I cannot ask you to move your foreshadowed second reading amendment at this time. There is also a foreshadowed second reading amendment that Senator Waters had indicated she will move. So, when we get to the point of dealing with the second reading amendment before the chair, I will give Senator Waters or someone on her behalf an opportunity to move that amendment. Once that is disposed of, or if it is moved and disposed of, I will then give you an opportunity to move your amendment if you are in the chamber.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry; we were just waiting for it to be drafted. I seek your guidance on this, Mr Deputy President. I would like to foreshadow an amendment, which would add to the end of the motion: 'But the Senate calls on the government to review the biosecurity framework to provide that biosecurity policy determinations are subject to disallowance and, therefore, parliamentary scrutiny.' As I understand it, that means that it can only be dealt with after Senator Siewert's second reading amendment?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and, as I was saying, there is already another second reading amendment foreshadowed by Senator Waters. So I will go to Senator Waters first, because that was foreshadowed earlier than yours. Once that is disposed of—if it is moved—I will then give you an opportunity to move yours. I am really just saying to everybody now: senators who want to move second reading amendments that have been foreshadowed need to be in the chamber when we dispose of Senator Siewert's amendment, because that is the only opportunity people will have to then move a second reading amendment.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will superglue myself to my seat.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Xenophon.

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

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can advise senators that the earlier advice I gave about how we deal with the second reading amendments is correct, but I understand we are not going to do it today, though.

Debate adjourned.