Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to say that it is great to see that the government has seen the wisdom in Labor's suggestions and recommendations and kept the inspector-general as an independent statutory body, because I share the shadow minister's concerns—particularly because in my own electorate of Bendigo we have a lot of agriculture. We have a lot of jobs related to agriculture. I was alarmed when I read the Senate majority report. The report:

… notes the Government's decision to retain the Inspector General of Biosecurity as an administrative, rather than a statutory, position, reflects the Government's policy to commit to avoid unnecessary regulation.

Forgive me, but alarm bells rang. I hope the government is not suggesting that robust, tough, independent biosecurity is red tape. Is the government suggesting that having a robust biosecurity inspector-general, who has the independence and the resources, is red tape? My further concern with what was being discussed about making the inspector-general 'administrative' was that:

According to the Minister, retaining the Inspector General of Biosecurity as an administrative position is not intended to diminish the Inspector General's capacity 'to provide constructive recommendations for improvements to Australia's biosecurity system'.

Constructive recommendations—that is good; but does this then water down and reduce their independence? We have heard, and we continue to hear, from the sector how important it is to keep our clean, green, disease-free image. To be able to do that we need to make sure that we have an independent and robust inspector-general and biosecurity regime.

My concern with this process we have been through is that the government attempted to water it down—to make it administrative, not statutory. It is so important within this space that we have independence. My question to the minister is: can he now guarantee, because of this change, that the inspector-general will be independent? Will they have the resources they need to investigate and enforce?

I will highlight an example of the ag industry in my electorate: Hy-Line Poultry, a poultry producer. They provide 70 per cent of the hens that lay eggs in this country. They run the facility that produces the eggs for our flu vaccinations every year. They say to me their biggest threat is biosecurity. I want to be able to let them know at the conclusion of this debate that yes, the inspector-general will continue to be independent and will have the resources needed to ensure they can do their job to ensure that Australia keeps its disease-free, clean and green image.

See this speech in context