Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the federal coalition, I would state that we will be supporting the passage of the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023 because the coalition recognises that having a strong and robust biosecurity system is crucial for protecting Australia against the threat of pests and disease. Biosecurity is a critical pillar of our national defence. Having an efficient system in place allows our nation to prepare for, mitigate against and respond to the serious risks to our environment, economy and way of life. Incredibly, Australia's environmental assets are estimated to be worth $5.7 trillion, our agricultural production has reached $90 billion and employs hundreds of thousands of people and tourism, before COVID, contributed $50 billion to our nation's GDP. The health, sustainability and resilience of all these sectors rely on a biosecurity system that is advanced and effective.

However, many of the things we take for granted as a constant of Australian life are at greater risk than ever before. It is a confronting reality that exotic pests and diseases are spreading around the world and putting serious pressure on our borders, especially with constant threats like foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease. The emergency response in Australia continues to eradicate varroa mite. Responding to this rapidly changing biosecurity environment requires the government to have the controls, partnerships, tools, processes and networks in place to manage these risks, which brings me to the bill before the Senate today. The Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill will amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 by streamlining administrative processes and increasing some penalties to ensure there is compliance with our strict biosecurity laws. This follows a track record of similar changes that have been made to the act in previous years. Since it commenced in 2015, the Biosecurity Act has been amended several times, mainly in relation to increases in civil penalties for breaches.

This bill consists of four schedules to the Biosecurity Act which apply to both human and non-human biosecurity risks. Schedule 1 relates to assessing biosecurity risks for persons on an incoming aircraft or vessel. The amendments will allow classes of people to be directed to provide relevant information, instead of the current methods, which is on an individual basis. The Director of Biosecurity may also require any person to produce passports or official government travel documents so as to assess the level of biosecurity risk and for future profiling of future risk assessments. These documents can be scanned and retained for as long as is necessary to meet the purpose of this provision. It's important to note that there is a penalty for not adhering to this provision and that, currently, under the Biosecurity Act 2015, passports can be requested to be provided. This amendment will formalise this request and include the purposes for providing these documents—for determining the level of biosecurity risk associated with the person and any goods that the person has with them for future profiling or future risk assessment—and allow for these documents to be scanned and retained.

Schedule 2 amends the processes of providing notifications to holders of an approved arrangement, so as to streamline the processes of suspending, changing or revoking these arrangements. The aim of these changes is to cut red tape for biosecurity officers by making this process simpler and avoiding the need to provide multiple notifications. It also introduces a new procedural fairness requirement relating to a notice of proposed variation and an alternative sanction of a reprimand.

Schedule 3 increases a range of civil penalties for breaches of biosecurity law to prevent listed human diseases, manage deceased individuals and human remains and meet the requirements that apply to human health response zones. Ultimately, we need to have civil penalties that serve as a proportionate deterrent against noncompliance in response to growing human biosecurity threats. Additionally, there are increased penalties for providing false and misleading information.

Schedule 4 allows strict liability provisions and infringement notices to apply to a number of penalties where there is no way to deal with low-level noncompliance other than by prosecution or civil litigation. This will ensure that noncompliance can be addressed swiftly and effectively.

The federal coalition notes that this bill has undergone extensive consideration, having been referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 22 June. This committee has now published its report and has recommended that the bill be supported through the parliament. We also recognise that, through this committee process, the bill has received the support of industry and major agricultural stakeholders, including the National Farmers Federation, GrainGrowers, Australian Dairy Farmers, Australian Pork Ltd and NSW Farmers.

Ultimately, it comes down to this. We must ensure that people who seek to enter Australia and bring goods into this country—those who actually present the biosecurity risk at our borders—are complying with their obligations and responsibilities to keep our nation safe from pests and diseases. So, while the coalition are supporting the passage of this bill, we are concerned with Labor's approach to other elements of biosecurity policy. In the second reading speech on this bill, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government spoke about the government's sustainable funding model. We know that it is absolutely vital that Australia has a biosecurity system that is adequately and appropriately funded. That's why, in government, the federal coalition always funded a sustainable funding model for biosecurity. However, taxing farmers was never considered part of that funding mix.

The coalition's approach to a sustainable funding model was targeted at the risk creators at the borders—the importers. We believe an importer container levy is the responsible and fair way forward. In government we were making progress on this model, but it has not been implemented by Labor. Instead of an import container levy, the Albanese Labor government has decided that, from July next year, Australian farmers will be slugged with a new $153 million tax, which amounts to a bill equivalent of 10 per cent of their existing industry-led agricultural levies. Why would any Australian government tax its own farmers to pay for the biosecurity risks of their international competitors? We're one of the great agricultural trading nations on earth, but instead of facilitating that and doing what it can to put downward pressure on our competitors, the government is actually facilitating our competitors against our national interest. It doesn't make sense, it's profoundly unfair and it's the wrong approach to ensuring that our biosecurity system is properly funded in the future. Under a federal coalition government the Australian people can be assured that, in contrast to Labor, our hardworking farmers will never be punished for the biosecurity risk that their international competitors seek to bring in.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the federal coalition supports the bill before the Senate but calls on the Labor Party, who seek at every turn to make regional Australia and our agricultural industries pay the price so that they can sate their city-centric voting public. The regions don't vote for the Labor Party, and you can tell that by the way it is seeking to fund the biosecurity system, by taxing Australian farmers against their competitors.

We will support the bill because we need to have a biosecurity system that is strong, robust and fit for purpose, a system that has in place penalties which reflect the severity of any breaches and non-compliance by individuals who would willingly place at risk our unique environment, our economy and, indeed, our society. That is how serious it is. People might hear the word 'biosecurity' and go, 'La, la, la; that doesn't affect me or impact me.' If you love our natural environment and our flora and fauna, if you work in our tourism industry, if you rely or live in rural and regional Australia and you love our green produce that we produce and purchase in capital cities, then you need to understand that all that is completely underpinned by a strong biosecurity system. So of course we support it. It has always been a priority for us because we, unlike the Labor Party, fully appreciate and understand the role that Australian farmers and our $90 billion agriculture industry provide for this country.

We achieved a lot in government. Our government made more than $1 billion available for biosecurity and export programs in 2022. That was a funding increase of 69 per cent compared with 2014. In last year's budget we committed to strengthening our northern Australian biosecurity front line against animal diseases. We've got sentinel herds and Indigenous rangers all throughout northern Australia. The greatest risk is posed from those countries to our north where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease. State and territory governments were to be given support to undertake surveillance and control activities, and funding to improve livestock traceability was announced. In government we increased fines and penalties for people breaking biosecurity laws. I recall doing exactly that when I was agriculture minister: throwing the book at people who chose to flout our tough biosecurity regime—who thought it was okay to bring home goods, particularly meat goods, from overseas in the interests of family, when actually that posed an incredible biosecurity risk to our country. We also partnered with New Zealand to develop world-leading biosecurity risk detection technology, such as 3D X-rays. Ultimately, our measures in office ensured that Australia remained a world leader in biosecurity, with strong controls in place offshore, at the border and within Australia.

We will be supporting this bill because we believe that the measures outlined in this legislation are sensible and reasonable, and we commend it to the Senate, but we again implore the Labor Party to find ways to fund their biosecurity policy other than by taxing Australian farmers.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill, the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023, would amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 by increasing the powers of the Director of Biosecurity and introducing new civil penalties for failure to comply with instructions or provide relevant information or documents. This bill would enable Australia's biosecurity system to better detect threats and prevent incursions. The most recent amendment to the act was made in response to the threats of foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease. This bill seeks to build upon those changes and is focused on addressing biosecurity risks posed by travellers. The impacts of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease or lumpy skin disease on Australian farmers would be devastating. I was part of the Senate inquiry that look into this recently, and the Greens support action to mitigate these threats at the border and internationally.

In the May budget the Labor government announced more than $1 billion in new funding for biosecurity and stated:

This Budget delivers new biosecurity funding totalling more than $1 billion over the next four years, with more than $260 million guaranteed every year after that.

However, following the budget it has come to light that revenue generated by both the increased industry levies and the passenger movement charge will go to consolidated revenue rather than being hypothecated to, or earmarked for, a special account exclusively for biosecurity. This presents a significant risk that these funds may be diverted to other priorities by a future minister or government. While the government has promised to increase funding through increased agriculture industry levies, there is a significant opportunity to strengthen Australia's biosecurity system through ensuring biosecurity risk creators, such as importers, are appropriately levied to match the risks that increasing trade poses to Australia.

Long-term, sustainable funding for Australia's biosecurity system is critical if we're to manage the growing biosecurity risk posed by increased tourism and trade. While the government's recently announced biosecurity funding is welcome, there are concerns that its allocation and distribution are primarily directed towards creating protections for our Australian agriculture industry, while environmental biosecurity—protection from threats posed to our environment by invasive species—receives funding that is piecemeal at best and only a few per cent of the overall budget allocated to biosecurity. This is a key point I want to make in my contribution today.

Australia has had 136 incursions of 106 invasive species since records began, in the year 2000. The introduction of invasive species, diseases and pests poses a significant risk to native species and ecosystems as well as to our primary industries and tourism sector. New incursions of invasive species are a major risk to Australia's environment. Contemporary arrivals, including red fire ants, yellow crazy ants and myrtle rust, are devastating our environment right here, right now, and have also had significant social and economic impacts.

Despite the significant threat that invasive species pose to Australia's environment, environmental biosecurity remains underresourced and historically has generally been deprioritised in Australia's biosecurity system. I've continually asked the department questions on this exact issue at Senate estimates. The Greens would obviously like to see that change. In a minute, I'll be moving a second reading amendment for the Senate to acknowledge this.

What does sustainable biosecurity funding for the environment look like? The Invasive Species Council commissioned Frontier Economics to evaluate methods of delivering sustainable long-term funding. Their key finding was that biosecurity services should be funded by risk creators in the first instance, followed by beneficiaries and the general public. The second reading amendment that I will move shortly speaks directly to this point and urges the Senate to agree to the prioritisation, in both focus and funding, of the risks posed to Australia's environment and environmental biosecurity by invasive species.

A number of other independent reviews have identified the poor performance of Australia's biosecurity system when it comes to protecting our national environment. One biosecurity, the report to the Australian government by the independent Review of Australia's Quarantine and Biosecurity Arrangements, also known as the Beale review raised this issue as early as 2008. The review of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity, or IGAB, in 2017 by Dr Wendy Craik AM also raised this issue. The CSIRO, in their 2020 report Australia's biosecurity future, also raised this issue. All these reviews call for heightened focus and resources for environmental biosecurity, as being necessary for biosecurity protection, biodiversity protection and extinction prevention, along with ecosystem resilience and better primary production. Australia needs ongoing, sustainable funding to support our biosecurity system, which will both safeguard our agricultural sector and ensure our natural environment is protected. Environmental biosecurity remains underresourced and is generally deprioritised, and we need to change that.

For example, currently there is no environmental biosecurity preparedness body that is driving action to prepare for new environmental pests before they arrive. We've just had a Senate inquiry into doing this for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. Where are our strategic plans for dealing with these environmental pests? Industry bodies such as Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia are set up to deal with agricultural pests once they arrive, but we have no similar body to deal with environmental pests. This means that the responses to high-risk environmental pests are generally slow and poorly coordinated and have a low chance of successful eradication. The National Priority List of Exotic Environmental Pests, Weeds and Diseases, whilst a good start, is not comprehensive. High-risk species slip through our border controls, including new species and variants. Myrtle rust, Asian honeybees, red imported fire ants and yellow crazy ants are just some examples. We have not done the necessary risk assessments or prepared response plans for environmental threats, and we need to change this.

National leadership and coordination sit with the Chief Environmental Biosecurity Officer within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, DAFF. The Chief Environmental Biosecurity Officer is, at best, severely understaffed and underfunded to perform its base functions, in contrast to what could be achieved if it were adequately resourced. There is insufficient funding for or focus on national research and development on priority pests and diseases and plans to deal with those.

There are five key reforms needed to strengthen Australia's environmental biosecurity system. The first reform is to establish an independent body to coordinate the environmental biosecurity response, preparedness and engagement. Industry biosecurity is well served by the coordinating bodies Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia. A similar body for environmental pests would enhance Australia's capacity for environmental biosecurity preparedness and assist with biosecurity investment and coordination.

The second reform is to implement sustainable funding measures that target risk creators first. Funding sources for biosecurity should be based on equity, coming from risk creators first, beneficiaries second and general taxation third.

The third reform is to increase the capacity and capability of the environmental biosecurity office. Additional permanent staff and funding must be allocated to the Office of the Chief Environmental Biosecurity Officer within DAFF so it can perform its core functions.

The fourth reform is to improve surveillance for high-risk potential invaders, significantly increase investment in biosecurity surveillance, establish a community biosecurity surveillance coordinator and finalise and implement the INVASIPLAN, which was intended to be an environmental biosecurity preparedness plan.

Lastly, the fifth reform is to strengthen research, development and extension—RD&E—for invasive species. Australia needs a targeted and rapid RD&E program to address urgent gaps in environmental biosecurity research and invasive species management. Currently, funding is not coordinated or connected in this regard.

I move my second reading amendment to the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) new incursions of invasive species are a major risk and significant threat to Australia's natural environment, and

(ii) a number of independent reviews have identified the poor performance of Australia's biosecurity system when it comes to protecting our natural environment; and

(b) is of the opinion that:

(i) the Government must place greater priority on environmental biosecurity, and

(ii) long-term sustainable funding for Australia's environmental biosecurity system is critical if we are to manage the growing biosecurity risks posed by climate change, increasing tourism and trade".

Paragraph (a)(i) is something I can't imagine anyone would argue against. Paragraph (a)(ii) is a statement of fact.

In my remaining time for contributions, I want to talk a little bit more about the varroa mite outbreak, because it's a classic example. While we might be talking about transits, passengers in airports and in other places and giving the department more power and the ability to levy more significant penalties, the news out of New South Wales is not good. The Senate inquiry took extensive evidence on this; we visited Newcastle and other places. It is sad that, 18 months down the track, we're still seeking to eradicate this pest. Sadly, although I appreciate all of the efforts that have gone into this, it doesn't seem to be working. We recently heard about new varroa mite outbreaks.

Just for the Senate's information, while we had the first detected infested hives around Newcastle, there are now 233 infested premises across more than 1.5 million hectares of red zones in New South Wales. More than 28,000 hives have been euthanised, equating to around 40 million bees killed, and there's no end to this in sight. A number of the owners of these beehives have been small operators, and of course it's had a significant impact on their livelihoods. The New South Wales government announced a funding boost of more than $30 million to support beekeepers and horticulture and cropping industries that are affected by this deadly bee parasite. The total funding they put in is $64 million. But recently we've heard from the beekeepers associations and industries, and apparently Stewart Levitt, the senior partner of a leading Sydney law firm, is bringing forward a class action on behalf of a number of beekeepers. That's because their small businesses have basically been destroyed, and they don't feel they've been offered adequate compensation for the losses.

I wanted to raise today that this is particularly relevant because the Senate inquiry made a number of recommendations, which had full tripartisan support, about what we needed to do on varroa mite. Recommendation 7 was:

The committee recommends the Australian Government, in partnership with other stakeholders, ensures that adequate funding is provided to the National Bee Biosecurity Program.

That includes, as a critical component, paying out those who have been affected by loss of or impact to their livelihoods. The class action has estimated that the compensation of around $19 million that has so far been paid to affected apiarists falls short of the estimated impact to their livelihoods, which is between $77 million and $140 million. Remember, some of these estimates don't include losses foregone from hiring your bees out to pollinate crops. This is just the value of the bees as they've been euthanised.

While we might be talking about the impact on agricultural production here, going back to the Greens' second reading amendment, I note a number of native beehives have also been destroyed. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries has rolled out the biggest pest eradication program in our nation's history, putting hundreds of fipronil baiting stations in national parks and in reserves. We are also killing the wild honey bee populations, and we know that fipronil—which I've used previously in my vineyard to kill European wasps—poses a lot of risks to the environment, so this is a very sensitive subject in terms of the environmental impacts.

I'm going to conclude by saying this is a classic example of where a much feared outbreak in our country has happened, and it's costing an absolute bomb. There are estimates regarding this getting into a major crop through crop pollinators, and concerns have arisen in recent days that beekeepers in Kempsey have been sending potentially infected hives to pollinate almond crops in Sunraysia. If that is the case, if there are infected bees now in Victoria, you can forget about eradication because it will be off the table. We're going to have to learn to live with this infestation and the cost is going to be in the billions. We heard in the Senate enquiry that it would most likely destroy 90 per cent of Australia's honey bee population. This is a classic example of something that is costing us a bomb, so we support the initiative to give the government more power and more resources to deal with these kinds of outbreaks.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023 because this bill and the work our government is doing to keep Australia safe will also keep my home state of Tasmania safe. This bill supports the broader priority of strengthening biosecurity by maintaining Australia's reputation as a supplier of safe, high-quality produce while protecting our $96 billion agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries and our $5.7 trillion environmental asset. This is such an important bill for Tasmania and for those Tasmanians who work in agriculture, including our wonderful farmers, who contribute so much to our Australian way of life. They are the lifeblood of the nation, growing and producing what Australians consume every day. Tasmania produces the best natural produce in the world, which is why it is crucial we block overseas pests and dangerous flora and fauna which may bring pests and other biosecurity hazards into our country.

At this juncture, I want to acknowledge the leadership of Minister Murray Watt, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and the work he has done and is continuing to do to ensure that our investments are kept safe. I also want to commend his ongoing commitment to this vital sector.

The Albanese Labor government is looking to strengthen our biosecurity. Strong and sustainably funded biosecurity is essential to protecting Australia from potentially devastating pest and disease outbreaks as well as safeguarding our national economy, including our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries; our regional communities; and our unique natural environment, which we all hold so dear. Biosecurity is also fundamental in protecting our international agriculture trade, fisheries and forestry jobs and keeps our regional, rural and remote communities strong. This applies nowhere more than in my home state of Tasmania, where at least 10,000 people work in the agriculture sector, most of them in quite rural and regional areas. They're the lifeblood of their communities. I have a saying—'farming, family and fairness'—and this is what this bill achieves. It protects the livelihood of some 10,000 Tasmanians and their families. These industries make our national economy stronger, and they give us the 13th biggest economy in the world when it comes to this sector.

I know how important Brand Tasmania is. One of the reasons it is so good is our strong agricultural industry. Another is our strong border controls and biosecurity controls. Our $96 billion agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries are deeply precious. They're worth $79.3 billion in agriculture, fisheries and forestry exports, $36.5 billion in tourism and 1.6 million jobs across the agricultural supply chain, all spread out across 87,800 farms nationwide.

We saw earlier this year that the 2023-24 budget delivers on the Albanese Labor government's election commitment to introduce a long-term, sustainable funding model for biosecurity. The Albanese government is investing more than $1 billion in new funding over the next four years and more than $260 million per year every year after that to strengthen our biosecurity system. The new funding is locked in and permanent, and we hope that those opposite and everyone else in this place will support this bill and the Albanese Labor government's plan for our agriculture industry. It's extremely important because this investment will protect and grow our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries in a way that is fairer, more equitable and more accountable than ever before. As we heard from the contribution of the previous speaker, we know how important it is to our wine industry, and there's no better wine grown anywhere in this country than in my home state of Tasmania. So it is invaluable for us to have a biosecurity system that keeps pace with today's needs and prepares for the threats of the future. A strong, smart and sustainably funded system will help us manage growing biosecurity risks and help us safeguard Australia's industries, our export trade and our environment.

I think we could all agree in this place that efficient biosecurity operations are crucial to meet industry's needs; otherwise, it slows down trade and supply chains, adding costs to industry and consumers. Unfortunately, there are still those out there whose actions put this important industry at risk. We must take all measures as a government to protect Australia from illnesses and diseases such as fruit fly and foot-and-mouth disease. The Albanese government is 100 per cent focused on protecting our industry from those foreign pests. Instances of noncompliance are challenging the Australian government's ability to manage biosecurity risk in an environment that is becoming increasingly complicated due to an increased number of international travellers arriving in Australia and the growth and volume of complexity in Australia's global trade.

We all have a role to play to continue to connect with the regions and provide feedback in this chamber. Effective deterrents to noncompliance with Australia's biosecurity laws are particularly relevant post the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, in which noncompliance may have had a significant impact on Australia's public health and vulnerable populations. The measures in this bill will ensure that the penalties available under the Biosecurity Act are effective deterrents against these actions and enable a more proportionate response to noncompliance that puts Australia's human, plant and animal health at risk. The amendments in this bill are necessary to advance Australia's biosecurity laws to enable targeted intervention and effective and proportionate responses to behaviour that may have significant, lasting biosecurity impacts.

An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease would have an estimated direct economic impact over 10 years of around $80 billion. That would devastate the cattle industry. An outbreak of lumpy skin disease would result in an estimated market loss of $7.3 billion per annum across a range of commodities and markets. As a nation, we cannot afford this, because it would ruin livelihoods and affect our economy in such a devastating way, and it would actually destroy lives. People have been on the land for generation after generation, and we have a responsibility to keep those people on the land and to do everything we can to safeguard them. A small-scale outbreak of African swine fever in domestic pigs followed by the eradication of the disease was estimated to cost $117 million to $263 million. An incursion of Xylella fastidiosacould cost the Australian horticultural industry between $1.2 billion and $11.1 billion. We cannot afford for this disease to get into our nursery industry. It damages plants and has increased costs for disease management. Environmental impacts are also likely to be significant and long-lasting.

A strengthened biosecurity system not only secures better economic outcomes for producers and related industries but protects Australia's environment, biosecurity and people. I urge everyone in this place to put their communities and their agricultural industries first and to support our regions by supporting the Albanese Labor government's incredibly important bill to keep our industries and the jobs that they provide within our communities safe.

There are no more important jobs in Tasmania than those in forestry, farming and vineyards. We are great producers of quality food. Tasmania is known around the world for its wine, cheese, wonderful seafood and even beer. Tasmania is known around the world—and I know Acting Deputy President Chandler will agree with me—as the best producer of food, wine, clean water and great clean energy. Tasmania is the jewel in the crown of Australia when it comes to primary industries.

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has been down to Tasmania a number of times. Unfortunately, one of those times was when he had his other hat on as the Minister for Emergency Management. He has already developed a very strong working relationship with those in the primary industries, the forestry industry and the fishing industry. We know that he gets it. Finally, after almost 10 years, we have a minister for primary industries who not only gets it but actually shows real leadership. He understands, as I do, what's at stake. If we are complacent, we will lose jobs, we will devastate local economies and we will kill local communities. We have to do the best we possibly can to protect the industry.

I have seen on a program on television a couple of times people inadvertently forgetting to declare what they are bringing into the country. A pest can be brought in by someone who has no understanding of the danger they are bringing into Australia when they don't declare produce that they bring off the plane or off the ship with them. We have to do more. We have to stay ahead of the game. This is so important. As I've said countless times, nothing is more important to my Tasmanian community than biosecurity and ensuring that it is well funded. I appreciate the minister's leadership. I urge you to support this bill.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's an absolute delight to follow Senator Polley. It was a thoughtful and accurate speech that she just gave. Seriously, I thank Senator Polley for her very kind words. I also thank her for her continued advocacy for the agriculture sector in her home state of Tasmania. As Senator Polley accurately pointed out, agriculture is a very important industry in Tasmania. Arguably more than any other state, Tasmania prides itself on its clean, green agricultural produce and its strong biosecurity protections. I thank Senator Polley and all her Tasmanian colleagues for their efforts in that regard.

I want to say a few things in summing up this debate. The Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023 will amend the Biosecurity Act to enhance the government's regulatory regime and strengthen its ability to gather information to assess and manage biosecurity risk and take non-compliance action against those who jeopardise Australia's biosecurity status by breaking the law.

Senators will be aware that ever since taking office the Albanese government has strengthened our biosecurity protections. We obviously saw about five weeks after our election a lot of alarm about foot-and-mouth disease reaching Bali, which is a very popular tourist destination for Australians. We took very serious and strong action in partnership with the industry to tighten our biosecurity protections. We lifted penalties. We provided vaccines and other support to Indonesia and other neighbouring countries. We tested our preparedness. As a result, I'm very pleased to say that to this day Australia remains free of both foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease, but we recognise that the challenges we face as a nation in biosecurity continue to escalate and become more complex. That's why we always need to be examining our responses and our preparedness to biosecurity, and this bill is another part of that.

I won't go over in a lot of detail what's contained in this bill because we have done so already, but, in short, this bill will further strengthen and increase the powers and penalties available to our biosecurity officers and the regulatory system as a whole. We have, as I say, already increased the range of some biosecurity penalties, but this bill will take those measures further and put in place quite serious financial penalties for those who do the wrong thing and seek to flout our biosecurity laws. This bill will also increase the powers available to our biosecurity officers to access certain information from people, including from travellers who are arriving in Australian territory on board an international flight or voyage, through the provision of their passport or other travel documents. That's all to increase our ability to really home in on the highest risk travellers and the highest risk products that might be being brought into our country. If they were it would cause great harm to our agriculture industry and also our natural environment.

In summing up, I want to respond to a couple of things that have been raised over the course of this debate. This bill, of course, also complements the Albanese government's sustainable funding model for biosecurity. I note that some speakers—in particular, Senator McKenzie—raised concerns about the way that the government is proposing to fund our biosecurity system. I actually found it quite surprising that Senator McKenzie, or any member of the opposition, would want to have a debate about biosecurity funding as part of the debate on this bill because, on taking office in May last year, we learned that Australia's biosecurity budget was on track to fall by over $100 million per year due to the short-term funding decisions that had been made by the previous government. So even though we all know that Australia is facing increased biosecurity risks, when you look at what the previous government were budgeting for, they were actually budgeting to cut our biosecurity funding by about $100 million per year. That was grossly irresponsible and another train wreck left behind by the former government that we have had to fix.

I'm very pleased that we are in the process of fixing that right now, in particular as a result of the decisions we took in this year 's budget. After lots of lobbying from me and also the agriculture sector—I pay them their due for the efforts that they put in—I was delighted that in this year's budget the Prime Minister and Treasurer and our entire cabinet agreed to provide over $1 billion more for Australia's first financially sustainable biosecurity system. That means that, rather than having the biosecurity budget fall from year to year, it's actually going to be stable into the long term without the need to come back, cap in hand, year after year, seeking money to prop up our biosecurity system, which was the system the opposition left behind when they lost office.

The vast majority of this increased funding comes from two sources: increased government funding at $350 million each year and increased fees and charges on importers at $363 million annually. Already, in the first six weeks following 1 July, when these changes started, our regime of increased fees and charges on importers has raised more than $51 million. We often hear members of the opposition and some in the agriculture sector saying that importers should pay more for biosecurity. The Albanese government is actually making that happen. We're not just talking about it, as the former government did when they talked about bringing in container levies, which they then scrapped when they had the power to do something about it in government. Of course, now that they are in opposition, they are saying again that they are going to do it. They're all talk, no action. The Albanese government is actually delivering the change that the sector has been calling for. There is $51 million more, just in six weeks, coming from importers, because they're finally paying the costs of the biosecurity services that they receive from our department. So it's not just talk; it's real action from the Albanese government to protect our biosecurity system.

I know that Senator McKenzie and other people in the sector have raised this issue about the biosecurity protection levy that we are planning to introduce from 1 July next year. What that actually involves is that we are asking producers to make a modest contribution towards sustainable biosecurity funding. It amounts to about $47 million each year or a mere six per cent of the total funding package. We're not asking farmers and other producers to pay an exorbitant amount. We're asking farmers and producers to contribute a very modest amount towards protecting their own livelihoods through a strong biosecurity system while, at the same time, increasing fees and charges on importers and having taxpayers contribute more to the system—much more than what we're asking producers and farmers to contribute.

I think it is reasonable to ask producers to pay a modest amount to protect their livelihoods through strong biosecurity systems. As I say, the changes that we're introducing will see importers bear 48 per cent of the cost of our biosecurity system, taxpayers bear 44 per cent and producers bear a mere six per cent, with a little bit left over from others contributing as well. I think that is a reasonable split of the contributions towards a biosecurity system and I point out again that the $51 million that we've already raised in six weeks from increased fees and charges on importers—something the sector has been calling for, something farmers have been calling for that the coalition never delivered but a Labor government is delivering—is more than the $47 million we are asking producers to contribute each year. So, as I say, I think that is a reasonable split of responsibility.

I might also very briefly respond to some of the comments from Senator Whish-Wilson, who I know has a genuine concern about environmental biosecurity in particular. I can assure Senator Whish-Wilson and all who are concerned particularly about the growing threat of red imported fire ants that, as a South-East Queenslander, I'm very familiar with this concern. It's something we've been dealing with for a very long time, and I know the Queensland government has been doing a good job trying to eradicate it. I'm very pleased to advise that, at the most recent meeting of federal, state and territory agriculture ministers, all ministers agreed that eradication of red imported fire ants remains a huge national priority. Almost every state and territory has now joined with the Commonwealth in bringing forward the funding that we had previously allocated in future years to have that money spent this year so that we can actually increase the momentum on that eradication program this financial year. Money that had previously been allocated to be spent on fire ants next year and the year after has actually been brought forward by the Commonwealth and a number of states and territories to this financial year. That means we will now be spending up to four times as much this financial year as was originally planned to be spent. I understand that there are some in the community who have concerns about the effort being put in here, but quadrupling the amount of money that was originally going to be spent on this is a real effort and a sign of how seriously we're taking this threat. The other state and territory agriculture ministers and I will need to go through budget processes to seek funding for the future, but we absolutely recognise that this as a real threat that we need to remain committed to.

I appreciate the support from the chamber for this bill. It is another step in the Albanese government's plans to continue strengthening our biosecurity responses. Australia's biosecurity system is recognised as among the best in the world. This bill and our new sustainable funding model will ensure that we maintain our reputation as a supplier of high-quality produce while protecting our farmers, our economy and our environment from biosecurity risks into the future.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Whish-Wilson on behalf of the Australian Greens be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.