Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I advise the Senate that the opposition will not be proceeding with opposition amendments on sheet 7671. The opposition will be supporting the government amendments on sheet ES125. The opposition will not be supporting the Greens amendment on sheet 7676.

In concluding the second reading debate on the Biosecurity Bill, Senator Colbeck said:

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.

What Senator Colbeck effectively told the Senate in his summing up was that the government's backdown on its attempt to abolish the Inspector-General of Biosecurity appears complete. It has been executed under the cover of budget week to avoid embarrassment, but it is a backdown that Labor welcomes. There is nothing more important to Australian agriculture than the effectiveness of our biosecurity system. Australia's clean, green and safe food image relies on it.

The great unanswered question is: why did the Minister for Agriculture try to effectively abolish the position of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity in the first place? Answering a question from the shadow minister on the issue in the House prior to his capitulation, the minister said:

… we still have an inspector-general. We will continue to have one. His name is Bond—it is not James Bond; it is Michael Bond. He is still there. I checked his health this morning. He is happy, smiling and continuing on with his job.

This was Minister Joyce in the House of Representatives, in Hansard on 23 February 2015. That was before the government circulated its amendments in this place. While I am not suggesting the minister misled the House, it is curious that the government has seen the need to subsequently circulate its amendments to give legislative effect to the minister's statement to the House in February. While Minister Joyce is yet to explain why he tried to remove the independent oversight of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity, Labor welcomes the government's backdown and Senator Colbeck's assurances in the second reading debate.

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

I thank Senator Cameron for his contribution and particularly the Labor Party for indicating that they will not be proceeding with their amendment. That is quite welcome to the government.

Senator Cameron has repeated a large chunk of what I said yesterday in our discussion in relation to the amendments in the committee stage and which I was going to repeat today, so I do not need to do that. I do need to note, however, that I do not believe that Minister Joyce was being anything other than genuine when he made the comments about the Inspector-General of Biosecurity and the government's initial approach to that position. In fact, in estimates in February Mr Bond, who was there, still is there and is still in good health, indicated that he believed that his powers would be enhanced by—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like James Bond in some of the movies.

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

Not James Bond but Mr Michael Bond. He believed his powers would be enhanced by the government's then approach.

But it is important to note that there was important work done by the committee and also in our communication with other stakeholders in relation to this piece of legislation. I said yesterday that we took the work of the committee seriously. Having been a part of the review process of the initial stages of this legislation in the previous parliament as a member of the committee, I believe it is very, very important that we do so. That is why the government is proposing the amendments that it is proposing, which make changes to the inspector-general's position. But we welcome the opposition's indication that they will not be proceeding with their amendment. At this point, while I am on my feet, I seek leave to move the amendments on sheet ES125 together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (8) on sheet ES125 together:

(1) Clause 9, page 19 (after line 30), after the definition of incoming passenger aircraft or vessel, insert:

  Inspector - General means the Inspector-General of Biosecurity appointed under section 566A.

(2) Clause 9, page 22 (after line 5), after the definition of outgoing passenger aircraft or vessel, insert:

  paid work means work for financial gain or reward (whether as an employee, a self-employed person or otherwise).

(3) Clause 539, page 531 (line 13), omit "reviews by the Agriculture Minister", substitute "the Inspector-General of Biosecurity and reviews by him or her".

(4) Part 6, clauses 567 to 568, page 557 (line 1) to page 558 (line 13), omit the Part, substitute:

Part 6—Inspector- General of Biosecurity

Division 1—Inspector - General of Biosecurity

566A Inspector- General of Biosecurity

(1) There is to be an Inspector-General of Biosecurity.

Appointment

(2) The Inspector-General is to be appointed by the Agriculture Minister by written instrument.

Note: The Inspector-General may be reappointed, subject to subsection 566B(2): see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

(3) The Inspector-General may be appointed on a full-time or part-time basis.

566B Term of office

(1) The Inspector-General holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 5 years.

(2) The Inspector-General must not hold office for a total of more than 10 years.

566C Remuneration

(1) The Inspector-General is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the member is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed under subsection (4).

(2) The Inspector-General is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed under subsection (4).

(3) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.

(4) The Agriculture Minister may, by legislative instrument, prescribe:

  (a) remuneration for the purposes of subsection (1); and

  (b) allowances for the purposes of subsection (2).

566D Leave of absence for full-time Inspector- General

(1) If the Inspector-General is appointed on a full-time basis, he or she has the recreation leave entitlements that are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.

(2) If the Inspector-General is appointed on a full-time basis, the Agriculture Minister may grant the Inspector-General leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on the terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise that the Agriculture Minister determines.

566E Engaging in other paid employment

Full - time Inspector - General

(1) If the Inspector-Generalis appointed on a full-time basis, he or she must not engage in paid work outside the duties of his or her office without the Minister's approval.

Part- time Inspector - General

(2) If the Inspector-Generalis appointed on a part-time basis, he or she must not engage in any paid work that conflicts or may conflict with the proper performance of his or her duties.

566F Other terms and conditions

     The Inspector-General holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Agriculture Minister.

566G Resignation

(1) The Inspector-General may resign his or her appointment by giving the Agriculture Minister a written resignation.

(2) The resignation takes effect on the day it is received by the Agriculture Minister or, if a later day is specified in the resignation, on that later day.

566H Termination of appointment

(1) The Agriculture Minister may terminate the appointment of the Inspector-General:

  (a) for misbehaviour; or

  (b) if the Inspector-General is unable to perform the duties of his or her office because of physical or mental incapacity.

(2) The Agriculture Minister may terminate the appointment of the Inspector-General if:

  (a) the Inspector-General:

     (i) becomes bankrupt; or

     (ii) takes steps to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or

     (iii) compounds with one or more of his or her creditors; or

     (iv) makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for the benefit of one or more of his or her creditors; or

  (b) if the Inspector-General is appointed on a full-time basis—he or she is absent, except on leave of absence, for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months; or

  (c) if the Inspector-General is appointed on a full-time basis—he or she engages, except with the Agriculture Minister's approval, in paid work outside the duties of his or her office (see subsection 566E(1)); or

(d) if the Inspector-General is appointed on a part-time basis—he or she engages in paid work that conflicts or may conflict with the proper performance of his or her duties (see subsection 566E(2)); or

  (e) the Inspector-General fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with the duty to disclose interests) or rules made for the purposes of that section.

566J Acting appointments

     The Agriculture Minister may, by written instrument, appoint a person to act as the Inspector-General:

  (a) during a vacancy in the office of Inspector-General (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or

  (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Inspector-General:

     (i) is absent from duty or from Australia; or

     (ii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office.

Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see section 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

Division 2—Reviews by the Inspector- General

567 Inspector- General may review administration of provisions

(1) The Inspector-General may review the performance of functions, or exercise of powers, by biosecurity officials under one or more provisions of this Act.

Note: A review under this section is different from a review of a reviewable decision under Part 1 of Chapter 11. Although this section lets the Inspector-General review an exercise of power under a provision of this Act that may involve a reviewable decision, the Inspector-General cannot affirm, vary or set aside the decision.

(2) Subsection (1) does not permit the Inspector-General to review only a single performance of a function, or a single exercise of a power, by a single biosecurity official.

Note: A review under this section must be more general.

Report on review

(3) The Inspector-General must publish a report on each review he or she conducts under this section.

Regulations may deal with reviews and reports

(4) The regulations may make provision for or in relation to:

  (a) the process to be followed in conducting a review under this section; and

  (b) the content of reports of reviews conducted under this section.

568 Inspector - General may require information etc. for review

(1) The Inspector-General may, by written notice given to a person who the Inspector-General believes on reasonable grounds has information or documents relevant to a review under section 567, require the person to:

  (a) answer questions, or give information in writing, about the relevant information or documents by the time specified in the notice; or

  (b) produce the documents to the Inspector-General by the time specified in the notice.

Note 1: A person may commit an offence or contravene a civil penalty provision if the person gives false or misleading information (see section 137.1 of the Criminal Code and section 532 of this Act).

Note 2: A person may commit an offence or contravene a civil penalty provision if the person provides false or misleading documents (see section 137.2 of the Criminal Code and section 533 of this Act).

(2) The time specified in the notice must be at least 14 days after the notice is given.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person who is required to answer questions, give information in writing or produce documents under subsection (1) must comply with the requirement.

Civil penalty:   30 penalty units.

Copying documents produced

(4) The Inspector-General:

  (a) may make copies of, or take extracts from, a document produced under subsection (1); and

  (b) for that purpose, may remove the document from the place at which it was produced.

(5) Clause 643, page 631 (lines 6 to 19), omit subclauses (4) and (5).

(6) Clause 644, page 633 (after line 12), after paragraph (6)(d), insert:

  (da) the Inspector-General;

(7) Clause 644, page 633 (line 21), omit "637;", substitute "637.".

(8) Clause 644, page 633 (lines 22 to 24), omit paragraph (6)(l).

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a number of amendments that I will soon seek leave to move, but I want to respond to both Senator Cameron's comments and Senator Colbeck's comments and indicate the Greens' support for the amendments that the government has just moved. We were prepared to support the ALP's amendments when they first brought them into the place, and I had a second reading amendment that likewise called for an independent Inspector-General of Biosecurity. I think the government has made a very wise decision to proceed with the amendments. Again, it did not go quite as far as we would have liked, but they are good amendments to this bill.

We have understood the need to make sure that we progress this biosecurity legislation. It has been a long time coming, but we saw the role of the inspector-general as being very important, which is why we were prepared to move amendments and support the ALP's amendments. When the government saw that there was a need for and strong support for changes to the legislation, I think it was a very good move that they in fact moved amendments themselves. We are supporting those amendments.

However, as I will articulate further when we get to the Greens amendments, we do not think this bill is perfect. You could say that no bill in this place is necessarily perfect, but there are some holes in the legislation that we think need to be addressed and that stakeholders think need to be addressed. So while we are very pleased that the government have proceeded with this particular set of amendments, and we support them in doing that, we will still seek to move some further amendments. But the government does have our support for these amendments.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to endorse the comments that have been made around the chamber. From an industry perspective, in every area I have been in recently—in the east, in the Northern Territory and in WA—there has been a very strong anticipation and, in fact, impatience, by agriculture and related industries for the Senate to come together particularly on this amendment but also on the bill in general. I endorse the comments of Minister Colbeck in appreciating the comments of both Senator Cameron, on behalf of the ALP, and Senator Siewert, and again express how important and bipartisan the discussions leading up to this bill and the amendments have been. I hope that the spirit of goodwill and the recognition of the importance of this biosecurity legislation will continue through to its passage today.

Question agreed to.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1), (2) and (11) on sheet 7676 together:

(1) Clause 5, page 6 (line 16), at the end of note 2, add "However, if there is insufficient evidence to evaluate the level of risk associated with goods, then the precautionary principle will apply."

(2) Page 6 (after line 16), after clause 5, insert:

5A Precautionary principle must be applied when making a decision under this Act

     A person making a decision under this Act must take account of the precautionary principle, to the extent that he or she can do so consistently with the other provisions of this Act.

(11) Clause 9, page 23 (after line 24), after the definition of PPSA security interest, insert:

  precautionary principle means the principle that lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing or limiting cost-effective measures to prevent a biosecurity emergency, or a human biosecurity emergency, or to postpone or limit a response to a biosecurity risk.

I will make a brief overarching statement to put the context for these amendments and then I will move through the amendments. I do look forward to the government's response to the amendments. I have a bit of an understanding of where the government is at with some of them, but I do want to get some of the responses on record because these issues have come directly from the community—from both industry and the environmental organisations that work particularly on biosecurity and environmental biosecurity. I think it is very important that the community and industry understand where the government is coming from on these particular amendments.

As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate and in additional comments to the bill, the Greens feel that by and large the bill builds on the work that was done in 2012 and addresses the issues that were raised at the time. However, we believe that it does not address particular issues around regional differences; the eminent scientists; the Inspector-General of Biosecurity, which we have just dealt with; third-party appeal rights; advisory committee and the issues which I traverse in these amendments.

I am particularly moving the amendments that relate to the precautionary principle. Amendments (1), (2) and (11) seek to insert reference to precautionary principle to include a note that in appropriate level of protection, specifying that if there is insufficient evidence to determine a biosecurity risk or if the available evidence is inconclusive in that regard, then the precautionary principle will apply and require application of the precautionary principle in decision making under the Biosecurity Act in a similar way to the Queensland Biosecurity Act 2014.

The precautionary principle is integral, we believe, to effective biosecurity. It is a fundamental principle in environmental decision making and is required for import decisions made under the EPBC Act. The precautionary principle is particularly important for the environment because of the limited knowledge about many of the potential impacts and the great harm that can result from invasive species—which, of course, is what this legislation is about. The precautionary principle is part of the Queensland Biosecurity Act 2014 and is part of the guiding principles for the implementation of article 8(h) of the biodiversity convention, which was adopted during the 2002 conference of the parties. The principle states:

Guiding principle 1: Precautionary approach

Given the unpredictability of the pathways and impacts on biological diversity of invasive alien species, efforts to identify and prevent unintentional introductions as well as decisions concerning intentional introductions should be based on the precautionary approach, in particular with reference to risk analysis, in accordance with the guiding principles below …

The precautionary approach should also be applied when considering eradication, containment and control measures in relation to alien species that have become established. Lack of scientific certainty about the various implications of an invasion should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take appropriate eradication, containment and control measures.

Although legal opinion may be divided on the precise boundaries between trade laws and the precautionary principle, Australia should still give priority to harmonising biosecurity integrity and environmental protection in a way that incorporates the precautionary principle without bringing such regulation into direct conflict with the rules of the WTO.

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

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his response. Some of the issues that the minister raised obviously relate to other amendments, and I will save my questions on those issues for when we deal with the amendments. I want to go back to the precautionary principle and, in particular, point to the fact that the Queensland act does address the precautionary principle. I ask the government: given the fact that the Queensland legislation addresses the precautionary principle, why can't we address it more fully in this piece of legislation?

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

It is done at a state level because that is where it is appropriately done. That is not possible at a federal level, as proposed, due to our WTO obligations. However, our system does already allow for a precautionary process—for example, if the science is not conclusive on an import risk assessment, we can apply provisional conditions until the science is settled. So, as I indicated earlier, through our import risk assessment process there is capacity to apply that principle. Where the science is not conclusive, we can apply provisional conditions until the science is settled. It can occur at a state level, and that is where it is appropriate for it to occur within the Australian context.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not intentionally trying to prolong this. I just want to make sure that I get things clear and on the record. One of the key things here that I understand you are saying is that our obligations under the WTO undermine Australia's ability to implement more fully the precautionary principle, despite us having signed the biodiversity convention.

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

If I understand your question correctly, I would say that is the case. There is capacity for states to do things that are not possible at a Commonwealth level under WTO provisions.

You mentioned in your initial presentation to the amendments some issues around regional difference. That was a significant issue during the initial discussions on the legislation prior to the election. There has been considerable work done to mitigate those concerns in this piece of legislation. It is effectively dealt with through the capacity of the country to consider Australia or part of Australia—which means a region—and that is then largely managed through the import risk assessment analysis process. As I mentioned before, if the science is not conclusive, it does give us the capacity to apply provisional conditions until that science is settled.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Greens amendments (1), (2) and (11) on sheet 7676 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, my notes are not the same as the running order for the amendments, so I apologise for that.

The CHAIRMAN: You do not need to follow the running sheet if you do not wish to.

I think it is easier for the rest of the chamber. Greens amendment (3) which relates to consultation. I move:

(3) Page 6 (before line 17), before clause 6, insert:

5B Consultation with community in relation to administration

     Chapters 2 to 8 of this Act are to be administered, as far as practicable, in consultation with, and having regard to the views and interests of, the following:

  (a) Indigenous groups;

  (b) industry groups;

  (c) State and Territory governments;

  (d) local governments;

  (e) public sector entities;

  (f) conservation organisations;

  (g) any other interested groups;

  (h) the general community.

This amendment relates to issues around better consultation. There are similar provisions in the Queensland Biosecurity Act, which I think is the most modern of all the states' biosecurity legislation. We think it is particularly important that there is wide consultation through this process. We know the importance of biosecurity and, as the minister just outlined, it is an issue that is pervasive across a number of issues. It does require consultation with a range of bodies, so we felt that the legislation should more clearly point out those bodies that need to be consulted in the process of decision-making and implementation and administration of this particular act.

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

I think the real concern that we have at this point in time is about being prescriptive about who should be consulted. During the development of an import risk assessment, it is an open consultation process. Anybody is free to submit to that process. By prescribing who should be consulted, I think you potentially limit that capacity. We will not be supporting the amendment, because there is already a consultation process considered within the process, and it is open to anyone who wants to make a submission.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would seek the government's assurance with respect to the named particular groups. I understand what the minister has just said in terms of it being open to anybody. We have also included 'any other interested groups' and 'the general community' to cover that, but I think there are some specific organisations and groups—state and territory governments, local governments, Aboriginal organisations or Indigenous groups, industry groups and conservation organisations—that we should fundamentally acknowledge, in the legislation, should be consulted, which is why we came up with that list. Yes, it is more prescriptive than government obviously prefers, but it does include the catch-all that other interested groups can be consulted. Again, I do not think it is adequate to keep it broad. This would mean that if the government has not consulted a particular group, or the process has not consulted a particular group, it does not matter that that they have not been consulted, even where their views may be particularly important—for example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples over whose land decisions may be taken, and whose cultural practices may come into play here as well.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Australian Greens amendment (3) on sheet 7676 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (4), (5) and (13) together:

(4) Clause 7, page 6 (lines 25 to 32), omit the clause, substitute:

7 Extension of Act to external Territories

(1) This Act extends to every external Territory other than the Australian Antarctic Territory.

(2) The regulations may extend this Act or any provisions of this Act, other than Chapter 5 (ballast water), to the Australian Antarctic Territory.

Note: Chapter 5 extends to all the external Territories (see section 259).

(5) Clause 9, page 9 (after line 27), after the definition of associate, insert:

  Australia when used in a geographical sense, includes all the external Territories other than the Australian Antarctic Territory.

(13) Clause 12, page 30 (lines 5 to 18), omit the clause, substitute:

12 Meaning of Australian territory

     A reference in a provision of this Act to Australianterritory is a reference to:

  (a) Australia and any external Territory to which that provision extends; and

  (b) the airspace over an area covered by paragraph (a); and

  (c) the coastal sea of Australia and of any other external Territory to which that provision extends.

Note 1: Under subsection 7(2), the regulations may extend this Act, or any provisions of this Act, to the Australian Antarctic Territory.

Note 2: The definition of coastalsea of Australia or an external Territory in subsection 15B(4) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 includes the airspace over Australia or the external Territory.

These amendments relate to the extension of the act to external territories. It is an area of reform. I know that the government made comment about some of the amendments they would not be supporting because they change the way they have chosen to implement this particular legislation and those amendments are not consistent with their administration of the process. I understand that this is in fact a structural reform issue. We understand that the government has already addressed some of the elements here in terms of applying this legislation to external territories. We agree that there has been some progress here, but we do not think it goes far enough in terms of the ability to apply this law to make sure we have proper control of biosecurity, both from an industry and an environmental perspective, in external territories. That is why we have proposed these amendments. As I said, I understand that it is a more structural reform, but the Greens do think it is important that this legislation is able to be applied, particularly in an environmental context. We do not think that, from an environmental perspective, the legislation does have enough application for external territories.

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

Senator Siewert has just acknowledged that we have made some changes to the coverage of our biosecurity zone. It is the government's view that these changes adequately reflect what is appropriate under the act, so we will not be supporting the amendment.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had understood from both your comments and from feedback that you would not be. One of the issues that I do want to flag is that we will be keeping a close eye on this. We do think it is going to have to be reviewed into the future because we are not convinced. A lot of the issues in our external territories are absolutely environmental issues. Yes, there is potential for some industry issues, but a lot of the invasions and incursions that we are talking about are actually environmental. That is an issue we will continue to monitor. We will ask government to keep an eye on that as well, because we do think that this is particularly important.

I also put it in the context—and I will be very quick here—that some of these islands contain rare and endangered species and threatened species that are found nowhere else on the planet. It is particularly important that we get biosecurity in these places, in these external territories, right. We have some classic examples in Australia already of biosecurity incursions that we can say are leading to extinctions. This is why we think this is so important. I urge the government to continue to review it. We will certainly be reviewing it, and I know environmental organisations will also be keeping a close eye on this.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (12) and (48) on sheet 7676 together:

(12) Clause 9, page 27 (after line 4), after the definition of tank, insert:

  taxon has the same meaning as in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

(48) Page 633 (after line 24), after clause 644, insert:

644A Biennial biosecurity status reports

Biennial report—biosecurity

(1) The Director of Biosecurity must, as soon as practicable after the end of every second financial year, prepare and give to the Agriculture Minister, for presentation to the Parliament, a report on the following:

  (a) the current status of the biosecurity system in Australia, including:

     (i) a baseline assessment of diseases and pests in Australia which have detrimental impacts on the environment, economy or human health against which changes in the risk from these diseases and pests can be measured and progress in biosecurity measures assessed; and

     (ii) changes within the previous 2 years in the status of diseases and pests in Australia, including new incursions detected, new taxa naturalised and eradications;

  (b) Australia's state of biosecurity preparedness, including:

     (i) a baseline assessment of the percentage of permitted species that have undergone risk assessment for import; and

     (ii) risk assessments conducted within the previous 2 years, specifying the goods that have been assessed and the type of risk assessment conducted, and priorities for BIRAs; and

     (iii) monitoring conducted and priorities for such monitoring; and

     (iv) contingency plans prepared and implemented, and priorities for future contingency planning; and

     (v) an assessment of the likely impact of climate change on existing and emerging biosecurity risks;

  (c) Australia's responses to diseases or pests that have entered, or have emerged, established themselves or spread, in Australian territory or a part of Australian territory, within the previous 2 years, including:

     (i) taxa considered for eradication and the results of assessments under any agreements with the relevant States or Territories; and

     (ii) progress in eradication programs;

  (d) performance of other biosecurity functions within the previous 2 years, including:

     (i) enforcement actions; and

     (ii) consultation undertaken with relevant persons or bodies.

(2) The Agriculture Minister must table the report in each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable.

Biennial report—human biosecurity

(3) The Director of Human Biosecurity must, as soon as practicable after the end of every second financial year, prepare and give to the Health Minister, for presentation to the Parliament, a report on the following:

  (a) a baseline assessment of diseases and pests in Australia that may cause harm to human health against which changes in the risk from these diseases and pests can be measured and progress in human biosecurity measures assessed;

  (b) an evaluation of the changes within the previous 2 years in the status of such diseases and pests in Australia;

  (c) performance of other human biosecurity functions within the previous 2 years, including risk identification, risk prioritisation, risk assessments, monitoring, inspections, interceptions, eradications, containment and control;

  (d) emerging human biosecurity risks and preparedness to respond to new incursions;

  (e) an assessment of the impact of climate change on human biosecurity;

  (f) information sharing with biosecurity industry participants, including internationally.

(4) The Health Minister must table the report in each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable.

Meaning of relevant persons or bodies

(5) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(d)(ii), relevant persons or bodies means the following:

  (a) Indigenous groups;

  (b) industry groups;

  (c) State and Territory governments;

  (d) local governments;

  (e) public sector entities;

  (f) conservation organisations;

  (g) any other interested groups;

  (h) the general community.

These amendments relate to reporting to parliament every two years on the state of Australia's biosecurity. Biosecurity has been characterised by a lack of transparency. For example, there is no regular reporting on incursions, priorities or the outcomes of most risk assessments. The ones that are a bit more sensational will get some media. They will be the ones we will hear about most and that this place will pay particular attention to.

A reporting requirement will improve accountability and allow biosecurity participants, members of the parliament and the public to better gauge the state of biosecurity in Australia and identify areas most in need of improvement. We have, in the proposed amendments, a detailed list of things that we believe need to be reported on. I understand that we are asking for a pretty long list to be included in that reporting process. That is because we think this is such an important issue. If we get biosecurity wrong, not only could it have dire consequences for industry—that is why we are here to talk about it—but it could also have dire consequences for the environment. I will comment on some of the issues around the environment a bit more when I deal with those particular amendments.

It is particularly important that there is a regular and proper process for reporting on biosecurity matters, as I have just articulated, so that the community and this place have a clear understanding of where we are up to on biosecurity. Where we know we have had incursions, what are the priorities? In fact, what have been the outcomes of those risk assessments? I understand that risk assessments are very complicated processes. Having sat through a number of committee inquiries not only into biosecurity but also into the risk assessment process, I understand that it is fairly inaccessible to the general community. I think it is a much better process for the government to be required to report on biosecurity and thus increase its transparency and accountability. I think this is a particularly important area where we can make sure that a government, any government—I am not having a go at just this government—into the future is held accountable for biosecurity measures and for the decisions that are taken.

Question negatived.

I move Australian Greens amendment (15) on sheet 7676:

(15) Page 46 (after line 4), at the end of Chapter 1, add:

Part 5—Proposed decisions affecting the environment

32A Requirement to seek advice from Environment Minister where significant risk of environmental harm

     Before making a decision under this Act, the implementation of which is likely to result in a significant risk of harm to the environment, the Director of Biosecurity or the Director of Human Biosecurity (as the case may be) must consult with the Environment Minister.

32B Director to take advice into account

     If the Director of Biosecurity or the Director of Human Biosecurity (as the case may be) receives any advice from the Environment Minister within 28 days after consulting the Environment Minister under section 32A, the Director must:

  (a) ensure that the advice is taken into account in making the relevant decision; and

  (b) inform the Environment Minister, in writing, as to how the advice was taken into account.

This amendment relates to consultation with the Minister for the Environment. I understand the government has responded to the inclusion of the Minister for the Environment. There has been a Senate inquiry into environmental biosecurity. I think the report is due tomorrow, so I am not going to go into the details of the report. I certainly can talk about what is on the public record, on some of the evidence the committee received. There is a great deal of concern in the community that in fact biosecurity has largely been skewed towards industry. I think it would be fair to say that that is a legitimate concern because there is not the same level of resources going into environmental biosecurity. There is not same degree of invested stakeholders. I do not mean that in a derogatory sense at all to industry. Of course, the agricultural industry is focused on production. I am not saying that they do not care about the environment but they are largely focused on production and the economic loss that biosecurity incursions can cause. We only need to look at what has happened in Queensland to see the most recent instance.

The list of costs that invasive species have incurred in this country is as long as your arm. They also have had a significant impact on the environment—myrtle rust is one of those. Many others are having a devastating impact on our natural environment, leading to species extinction. That is why it is so important that we include the Minister for the Environment and have a more defined role for the environment.

These amendments would allow the Department of the Environment and the minister to have a role in biosecurity management and to be delegated powers including issuance of biosecurity guidelines and priorities for BIRAs, delegation of powers to the Minister for the Environment or the department, review and auditing of relevant risk assessments, BIRAs and import decisions, declarations of environmental biosecurity emergencies, provide the Secretary to the Department of the Environment with powers to make biodiversity control orders where there is a biosecurity risk of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act, for decisions resulting in significant harm to the environment and declarations of biosecurity zones for conservation purposes, which the minister touched on in his contribution.

Endangered species, as I articulated, are a large environmental threat. In fact, they are in the top three environmental threats. Improving biosecurity should be a very high priority for the Department of the Environment and for the minister, as well as for the Department of Agriculture. The environment minister and department should have defined statutory roles to ensure that environmental biosecurity receives high priority and is integrated with the environmental biosecurity functions under the EPBC Act. In other words, I acknowledge the minister has referred to the powers under the EPBC Act, but we would like to see them better integrated to ensure that related environmental obligations are part of the biodiversity and conservation strategy. It should facilitate cooperation between the two departments.

There is a statutory role for the health portfolio under the Biosecurity Bill and the Quarantine Act. The previous act required consultation with the environment minister over biosecurity decisions that may involve significant risk of environmental harm. We acknowledge the powers that the minister outlined. We do not think they go far enough, as I said at the beginning. While this bill is a significant improvement and again, as the minister acknowledged, we all in this chamber agree that biosecurity is a huge issue, the areas of disagreement are how far some of the power should extend. We do not think this bill goes far enough to ensure that environmental biosecurity is as high a priority as we think it needs to be.

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

I did largely address this in my comments earlier but I just cannot let the perception go that the system is skewed too much towards industry or trade. Anyone who has filled in an incoming visitor card at the airport would understand that the issues that Senator Siewert has just been talking about are very much top of mind as part of our process. They go through a range of issues, potential biosecurity vectors, which are obviously of concern and are of direct relevance and importance to protecting the environment. It is a significant cost as part of our overall biosecurity system. So I do not think I could let go of the characterisation that it is largely skewed to business and industry because people movement is a significant vector. Senator Siewert mentioned health. It is for that reason and for the reasons I outlined earlier that we will not be supporting this amendment.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think I characterised it necessarily as being skewed. I acknowledge we do do all that. The point is that the resources brought to bear in dealing with environmental biosecurity quite plainly are not as comprehensive as those resources that are brought to bear for industry biosecurity issues for the very nature that often with incursions that affect industry there are resources that the industry itself obviously brings to bear. There is plenty of evidence to show that environmental biosecurity incursions have not had the same level of resources and it is not just about resources; it is also about ensuring that the minister and the Department of the Environment are there as decision makers under the powers I described in the amendment. We believe that would ensure that the environment is given adequate attention in this process.

As I said, it was not a criticism at all of the level of effort that we put into biosecurity to protect industry, to protect agriculture and to protect horticulture. Everybody agrees that we need to be putting in those resources. In fact, in many cases we have argued that more resources need to be put in. This is about the fact that we make sure that the environment gets as much attention and if necessary as many resources but also that it is right up there in terms of the decision making. I do not want anyone saying that we are critical of the fact that resources are spent on agricultural biosecurity.

Progress reported.