Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports the Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017 to ensure that Australia is fully legislatively compliant with the ballast water convention when it comes into force internationally on 8 September 2017. Each year, around 200 million tonnes of ships' ballast water is discharged in Australian ports from 13,000 ship visits from some 600 overseas ports. Australia is particularly vulnerable to biosecurity incursions, as many cargo ships arrive here without cargo, meaning that they require large quantities of ballast water to stabilise the vessel. Labor understands the importance of our biosecurity systems and that a strong biosecurity regime will contribute to our economy. Australia's reputation as a clean, green and safe producer of food is due to our strong biosecurity systems.

In 2008, Labor commissioned an independent review of Australia's quarantine and biosecurity arrangements. One biosecurity: a working partnership, the report of what was also known as the Beale review, found that Australia's biosecurity system operated well but could be improved. The Beale review proposed significant reforms to strengthen the system by revising legislation; targeting resources to the areas of greatest return from a risk management perspective; sharing responsibility between government, businesses and the community; and improving transparency, timeliness and operations across the continuum. It also recommended that the Commonwealth should extend its legislative reach to cover the field with respect to international and domestic ballast water regulation. In 2012, Labor introduced a new biosecurity bill to replace the century-old Quarantine Act to ensure that Australia was able to deal with new biosecurity threats. It included legislative changes with respect to the management of international and domestic ballast water. Sadly, the bill lapsed at the dissolution of the 43rd Parliament.

When the current government re-introduced the Biosecurity Bill in the 44th Parliament, it excluded the requirement to ensure that Australia was fully legislatively compliant with the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, or the ballast water convention. The government's reasoning was that, until the ballast water convention comes into force on 8 September 2017, a more flexible transitional scheme should be in place to allow vessels to meet the requirements of the proposed biosecurity legislation through ballast water exchange without making it mandatory for all vessels to have a ballast water treatment system. This gave businesses the flexibility to choose their most cost-effective option to meet the requirements.

However, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources stated in his speech on this bill that, in addition to the risks posed by recent outbreaks of zika virus, there is also the potential that 'invasive and harmful aquatic organisms, such as white spot in prawns, can be transported in ballast water'. On the basis of the agriculture minister's reasoning, the current government's decision that it was better to give businesses more flexibility to choose their own most cost-effective option in meeting requirements of the ballast water convention may have caused the prawn industry irreparable damage. The Department of Agriculture is investigating the current outbreak of white spot disease in prawns that has destroyed the prawn industry in the Logan River area, and the Senate inquiry will further investigate the biosecurity failings.

The government has also come to the opposition with some eleventh-hour amendments to the bill. The minister's office has provided clarification regarding this amendment, and Labor accepts that it is a small drafting error that removes any doubt about the intent of a provision that exempts Australian and foreign vessels from committing an offence of discharge of ballast water in Australian waters if certain conditions are fulfilled, mainly that the discharge is part of an acceptable ballast water exchange and there is an approved discharge to the ballast water reception facility.

Schedule 2 of the bill relates to additional vector management powers that are needed under the Biosecurity Act to ensure Australia is not left vulnerable to significant human health risks. The need for these powers is demonstrated by raising global detections of mosquito-borne zika virus. The bill seeks to reduce the likelihood of incursions of vectors that could pose a human health concern and provides powers to manage potential incursions when they are detected. The Department of Health has worked with state and territory counterparts and communicable disease experts to ensure the amendments address contemporary public health concerns posed by exotic mosquitoes. These amendments will be supported by nationally consistent arrangements to support collaboration across different levels of government.

When ballast water is taken up, as I have mentioned, the marine organisms can be picked up with it and then released when the ballast is discharged, and, because of this, ballast water is recognised as a major source of the spread of marine pests around the world, including pests such as bacteria, small invertebrates, eggs, cysts and larvae of various species. It has been estimated that 10,000 different species are moved around the world in ballast water tanks each day. Introduced marine pests can cause serious environmental and economic damage—for example, an invasion in Australia of the Northern Pacific seastar was introduced to my home state of Tasmania through ballast water from Japan in the 1980s and to Victoria through ballast water in the 1990s. It has reduced shellfish production in Tasmania and has damaged marine ecosystems in both locations.

I want to take a few moments of the Senate's time to read an article from Dr Louise Goggin. Dr Goggin began her career as a marine biologist, and I quote from an article that she has written about the seastar:

From my window in Hobart, I look out over the Derwent River. It's a fantastic view across the slate-grey sea. But below the tranquil surface of the Derwent, there is a battle raging between the locals and some aggressive new arrivals - northern Pacific seastars. The first of these seastars probably arrived as stowaways on ships from Japan about 20 years ago. They thrived in the cool Tasmanian waters and bred so furiously that there are now almost 30 million of them in the estuary.

The seastars could not have made the trip unaided because currents do not carry them this way. They were brought here in ships. The young seastars, swimming near the surface, were probably sucked up with tonnes of water, used as ballast to stabilise empty vessels. A single vessel can take 70,000 tonnes of ballast water - enough to fill 32 Olympic swimming pools and carry millions of young seastars.

The seastars would not have been alone - each day, around 3000 marine organisms are transported around the globe in the ballast water of ocean-going vessels. These invaders, along with the ballast water, are dumped at their destination to make way for precious cargo. In 1993, 121 million tonnes of ballast water were dumped into Australian ports - equal to one quarter the volume of water in Sydney Harbour. That's a lot of stowaways. Many of them will not survive the voyage, but those that do can settle in their new homes and, if conditions are right (as they were for the northern Pacific seastars), form plagues.

The northern Pacific seastars flourished because they left behind their natural predators, parasites and competitors. And they aren't fussy eaters.

The Labor Party will be supporting this bill that we have before us today, and we do so to ensure that Australia is fully compliant with the ballast water convention, which, as I have said, comes into force on 8 September this year. We also do so because the Labor Party supports strengthening ballast water management. The definition of ballast water management is that it provides that ballast water management has the same meaning as it does in the ballast water convention, which currently provides:

… mechanical, physical, chemical, and biological processes, either singularly or in combination, to remove, render harmless, or avoid the uptake or discharge of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens within Ballast Water and Sediments.

As I have said, each year around 200 million tonnes of ballast water is discharged into Australian ports by over 13,000 ship visits from over 600 overseas ports. Australia is particularly vulnerable to biosecurity incursions, and I have outlined some of those. The story about the sea star and what has happened in Tasmania is of particular concern, and also, of course, there is what happened in Victoria.

Labor support this bill because we understand the importance of our biosecurity system and that strong biosecurity will contribute to our economy. Australia's reputation as a clean, green and safe producer of food is because of our strong biosecurity systems. However, we always have to be vigilant, and Labor will always support legislation that provides for a strong biosecurity system. I mentioned the Beale report, which was commissioned by a former Labor government. The Beale report recommended that the Commonwealth should extend its legislative reach to cover the field with respect to international and domestic ballast water regulation. We are very pleased to be able to support this bill. We ask that the Senate consider the bill and support it, as the Labor Party is doing here today.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Food quality in particular and our biosecurity in general are extremely important to the people of Australia and the people of Queensland. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to make some comments in support of the Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017, but also to raise a significant issue that we have learnt about. Our rural sector is under pressure, so we need this biosecurity bill to provide some security for the rural sector in particular and for Australians in general. Our serious concerns refer to item 6, to change section 9 of the Biosecurity Act, which changes the definition of 'ballast water convention'. The proposed amendment adds the words 'as enforced from time to time' to the convention definition. I must say that alarm bells rang for us in One Nation when we read that amendment as we have a fundamental distrust for United Nations conventions and agencies. The idea of supporting a bill that prospectively binds Australia to future amendments to a United Nations convention is enough to give us serious doubts.

Honourable senators will not be surprised to learn that we immediately sought advice from Minister Joyce's office about the provision. The advice we received is that section 9 means what it says, namely that if the ballast water convention is amended in the future then that amended convention is the one to which the Biosecurity Act will refer. Of course, any amendment to the convention must, however, be ratified by Australia before it becomes binding on our country, and this is the reassurance I have received from Minister Joyce's office. No changes will be made to the convention without the proposals being agreed to by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, following a detailed inquiry and analysis of the implications of the changes.

I am further advised by the minister's office that no changes to the ballast water convention will be made without Australia's approval, and those changes will then be incorporated into Australian law by legislation passed by this parliament. The legislation currently before the Senate, and which One Nation senators are intending to support, cannot be altered by the United Nations without the approval of the Australian parliament. Our senators will not tolerate giving the United Nations a blank cheque on any matter, especially one as important as seawater ballast, nor will it cede sovereignty of our country to the United Nations. On this basis alone, One Nation senators will support section 9 of the bill. As I said, we had serious concerns about the automatic amendment provision in item 6, section 9, but we have been reassured by the minister that it will still need to be passed through and ratified by this parliament independently.

We are particularly concerned about the United Nations. I have said in the past, on repeated occasions, that we need to exit from the United Nations. We are concerned because the United Nations has become a trojan horse for destroying national sovereignty around the world. One Nation senators were in unity when we toured the Murray-Darling Basin last week. We learned a lot and we saw the impact of United Nations regulations being pushed through the Murray-Darling Basin, driving the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, along with the grubby interstate politics that is pushing that plan. We will be having much more to say about the Murray-Darling Basin in coming weeks, once we complete our research. We know that farmers in particular are under threat from having their property rights seized and removed. We know that they are under pressure from overregulation and energy prices, as is small business in our country. We also know that farmers are facing pressure from banks. Yet we have apparently signed more than 7,000 treaties! And we know that the United Nations' Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, or the 'Agenda 21' as it is known, which was signed by Paul Keating's government in 1992, is undermining the sovereignty of this country.

We support the government in its bill to improve biosecurity. This is needed to protect the key competitive advantage we have in the rural sector—the quality of our rural products. But we make it clear that we do not accept any ceding of our country's sovereignty to any foreign body. It would be ironic indeed, would it not, if we protected the biosecurity and then failed to protect the security of the people of Australia. So, with our qualification on item 6, section 9, we will be supporting this bill.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017 amends the Biosecurity Act 2015 to further strengthen Australia's biosecurity system and grant further powers to manage biosecurity risk. This bill is consistent with the Australian government's commitment to ensure biosecurity risks are fully managed and biosecurity systems remain effective to changing biosecurity and human health risks.

Protecting our enviable pest and disease status is an ongoing challenge. Biosecurity risks are changing significantly and growing in complexity. In 2014, the CSIRO identified megatrends expected to impact biosecurity in the future, such as growth in global food demand and markets, and increased movement of goods, vessels and people around the world. The government is responding to this challenge. Agricultural industries are a large contributor to the Australian economy and it is essential to protect them and our export markets by keeping them free of pests and diseases. We cannot afford not to.

Commonwealth funding for biosecurity has increased since 2012-13. The total expenditure this financial year for biosecurity is $749 million. This is an increase of $145.5 million, or 24 per cent, since 2012-13. The total investment in biosecurity to date, since 2013-14, is $2.72 billion. This includes funding of up to $200 million under the ag white paper, specifically for the purpose of improving biosecurity. This investment is being used to strengthen biosecurity surveillance, increase scientific capability, improve information systems and analytical capacity, and build community-based engagement.

The bill also builds on the Biosecurity Act 2015, which this government delivered. It focuses on measures in relation to ballast water management for ships and provides additional powers to control exotic vectors carrying harmful human diseases. The ballast water measures will provide additional protection for coastal environments from the risk of marine pest incursion by legislating for the use of more-effective ballast water treatment technologies. These additional powers are needed under the Biosecurity Act to ensure that Australia is not left vulnerable to significant human health risks. The bill seeks to reduce the likelihood of incursions of vectors that could pose human health concerns and provides powers to manage potential incursions when they are detected. The need for these powers is clearly demonstrated by the rising global detections of the mosquito-borne zika virus.

The bill will also position Australia to ratify the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments by introducing a nationally consistent approach to ballast water, in line with the requirements of the convention. We do not lose any powers of control by the ratification. In fact, we gain international consistency in the management of ballast water. The convention was first signed by the Howard government, in 2005. It is an important global initiative involving over 50 countries, representing over 53 per cent of the world's merchant fleet shipping tonnage. Australia was a driving force and played a leading role in the development of the convention, and it is important that we ratify it ahead of its entry into force on 8 September this year to uphold our positive international reputation for biosecurity management. It is worth noting that the convention also makes special provision for the Great Barrier Reef.

Ballast water is now recognised as a major source of the spread of exotic marine pests around the world. Each year, around 200 million tonnes of ships' ballast water is discharged into Australian ports by 18,000 ships visiting from some 600 overseas ports. Australia is particularly vulnerable as many cargo ships arrive here without cargo and, therefore, with a large quantity of ballast water which needs to be discharged when filling ships with our exports to the global marketplace. If the organisms that arrive are surviving the transport and discharge process, they may become established in the environment and populations may flourish. The Northern Pacific sea star, for example, is a major pest introduced into Australia by ballast water.

While Australia has had, since 2001, ballast water management requirements to prevent new marine pests arriving in Australia, domestic movements are not subject to ballast water regulation, excepting for vessels arriving in Victoria from other domestic ports around Australia. This bill will enable a comprehensive set of domestic ballast water management arrangements to be put in place to lower the risk of marine pests being spread through ballast water between parts of our pristine coastline. Ships will be required to have ballast water management plans while in Australian waters and to discharge ballast water in accordance with the convention. This will reduce the risk of invasive marine pests entering Australian waters, as well as between Australian ports. Additionally, it will protect Australia's vulnerable fisheries industries and environment by reducing the risk of potential invasion and of harmful aquatic organisms being introduced into Australia's marine ecosystem. The bill will further strengthen our strong biosecurity system.

With expanding international and maritime trade it is in Australia's interest to implement more-uniform and stringent requirements to manage the risk of vessels introducing marine pests into Australian waters. It is also in Australia's interest to continue to reduce the likelihood of incursions of vectors, such as mosquitoes, that could pose human health concerns, and to provide powers to manage potential incursions when they are detected. These amendments mean there is much less risk of viruses, including viruses such as zika, carried by vectors such as mosquitoes being established. They also mean our unique marine life will be better protected.

Finally, can I reinforce—and reaffirm to Senator Roberts—that the rules around making any changes to the convention will be subject to the usual treaty-making procedures and parliamentary scrutiny. Can I thank the opposition and the crossbench for their support of this bill and commend the bill to the house.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.