Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

First and foremost I would like to thank the Senate for supporting the government's amendment to the Biosecurity Bill 2014. I would also like to thank senators and key industry stakeholders for their scrutiny of, and contribution to, the development of this legislation, which has been more than six years in the making. I can see it before you, Madam Speaker, and it is approximately 634 pages. It is one of the largest pieces of legislation that this parliament will ever see.

I would especially like to mention the work of over 400 stakeholders and industry groups over the course of the development of this bill and in particular the recent work of the National Farmers' Federation and the NSW Farmers biosecurity committee in helping to ensure that the legislation has been given the chance to see the light of day. I would like to acknowledge the previous government for its foresight in commencing the development of this legislation and the current opposition's cooperation in its passage through the Senate.

Consequently, we have listened to the opposition, industry and the crossbenchers and have updated the legislation to reflect the need for the Inspector-General of Biosecurity position to be enshrined in statute. I highlight that, despite the great deal of misinformation being peddled during the Senate debate, the position of the inspector-general was never under threat in the government's proposed bill; however, a statutory position was what was asked for and we have delivered.

The Inspector-General of Biosecurity is of vital importance to the integrity of the system and to our stakeholders' confidence in the system. It was under the Quarantine Act, is today and will be under the Biosecurity Bill. This amendment enshrines in statute the inspector-general's ability to review the biosecurity system and provides transparency and independence in his or her ability to conduct effective reviews of Australia's biosecurity system. Independent reviews of the biosecurity system have resulted in and will continue to result in improvements to that system and provide assurance for its stakeholders.

Today marks an incredibly significant milestone in the biggest overhaul to Australia's biosecurity system in over 100 years. Today also signals the retirement of the Quarantine Act 1908. This new and historic biosecurity bill will enable us to continue to meet the challenges of the future with a modern and simple piece of legislation. Biosecurity risks have changed significantly since the core of the Quarantine Act was drafted over 107 years ago. At that point in time at the beginning of the century our biggest challenges were typhus, cholera and tuberculosis. We now face new and ever-changing risks such as ebola, cucumber green mottle mosaic virus, Panama TR4 and many more. Even today on high colour we are talking about Mr Johnny Depp, who has decided to bring his two dogs in without following the proper protocol.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's a pirate!

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is a pirate; that's right. The only thing that stands guard over our clean, pest- and disease-free status, the outstanding quality of our soft commodity markets and the value they return to this nation is our biosecurity system. We will not get paid a premium price for our product if we have a product that is like everybody else's. Our biosecurity system underpins our capacity not only to feed ourselves but to provide those high-quality, sustainably produced soft commodities to millions of hungry mouths around the world and, most importantly, to our own nation.

This system protects our people, our unique pristine environment and, additionally, our $52 billion worth of agricultural industries and the lifestyle of so many people in so many places. For instance, it will protect them from rabies if they are in parks. That is a disease that we do not have that is merely next door in Bali.

The significant contribution to our economy is thanks to the hard work of farmers and primary producers, getting out there and toiling to make sure that they can put a product on a truck or boat that will ultimately cause revenue to flow back to the economy of our nation. These people battle and scratch their livings out in the western districts, on the coast or in dairy farms. They are doing a job that this nation has been noted for for the duration of its closer settlement. As a government we owe it to them to ensure we have the effective biosecurity management in place so that they can continue this noble endeavour of feeding and clothing people.

This legislation and the establishment of a statutory inspector-general will put these processes in place. We must not take for granted the enormity of the task that lies ahead of this legislation. It has been drafted such that for the next century or more it will protect the health and livelihoods of the hundreds of millions of Australians who will come after us. It will stand guard over the environment that surrounds us and the land on which we stand, the land from which we derive our wealth, long after we are no longer in this place. This, in reality, is one of the most important pieces of legislation this parliament will ever consider. It has been refreshing to see the bipartisan acknowledgement of how important an inspector-general of biosecurity and this legislation is for the country. I look forward to continued support as we implement this important reform. I would like to assure stakeholders that the government and my department will continue to consult and work with them through the development of regulations and other instruments. These instruments will be available for comment well in advance of commencement.

Finally, Otto von Bismarck said, 'Laws are like sausages; it is better not to see them being made.' Therefore, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the work of my Department of Agriculture and all who are in it. They have invested tens of thousands of hours into ensuring this legislation, as amended, has gained the confidence of not only the members and senators of the parliament but also the Australian community as a whole. I commend the bill, as amended, to the House.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge and welcome the Rotary students joining us in the gallery today. I hope their visit enriches them and allows them to better understand and learn about Australian democracy. I cannot resist pointing out Anika from Hunter Valley Grammar School who did what Joe Hockey was unable to do on his own and that was to make him look good on budget day. Well done, Anika!

Mr Chester interjecting—

I am not going to go through every name in the gallery; I am sorry, colleagues!

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Enough indulgence—on with business!

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister and I can certainly agree on one thing, and that is that this is a very, very important piece of legislation. The completion of it today in the Senate later on will be the culmination of a lot of work by very many people which was initiated by the former Labor government almost eight years ago now when it commissioned the seminal Beale review of our quarantine system. It is the replacement of an act that dates back to 1908. I think that suggests in itself that this is an area that is well overdue for reform. This bill reflects the work of many towards the modernisation of our quarantine system or, as we know it today, our biosecurity system in this country.

Like the minister, I want to thank all those who made a contribution to this, all the way from Beale and his panel to the department, stakeholders and ministers—and I suppose we could include ourselves on the list. In particular I want to thank the Senate crossbenchers who supported me in my push to have the inspector-general reinstated with all the independence and powers he or she must have to undertake that role effectively.

Australia's competitive advantage in international markets lies largely in our clean, green and safe image. As an island continent, we are very fortunate to be largely free of pests and diseases that are so common in other nation-states. It is just so important that our biosecurity system is the best system it possibly can be—the best system in the world. My view—and I think there is now a consensus on this in this parliament—is that it can only be the very best system if it includes, as Roger Beale recommended, an independent inspector-general of biosecurity as a last cop on the beat, as I have described him or her, ensuring that the system is working in the way it should while continuing to review the system and audit the system, ensuring proper, full and independent investigation if and when things go wrong.

The minister has been out and about today, plastering himself on our television screens talking about his newfound friends Boo Boo and Pistol.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Boo.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard a correction of you on television, Minister. I am told that it is 'Boo Boo' rather than 'Boo', so one of us will stand corrected. I think it is very interesting on this day that the minister would choose to run out the doors and divert attention by bashing up on Johnny Depp and his party, who are making such a significant economic contribution to this country, by the way. By doing so, the minister is highlighting the fact that the system broke down here. The minister, by his own admission, said we only found out about Boo Boo and Pistol because they were seen going into a dog-grooming salon or whatever it is called. That is an admission that these dogs were not picked up at our border. I am not blaming anyone for that directly, but this consequence could be a manifestation of this minister's and this government's cutting of quarantine funding in the department. It is all right, Minister, to go out there and grab yourself a headline by bashing up on poor old Boo Boo and Pistol and, indeed, Johnny Depp. That is a bit like attacking Santa Claus, I would suggest, but that is your decision. It is getting you a run, so I suppose you have secured your objective on a day when you should be talking about the very heart of this bill.

The very heart of this bill is the inspector-general. I welcome the minister's significant backdown on this issue. When I raised the issue of the effective removal of the inspector-general in this bill in this House during question time, the minister ridiculed me. He started banging on about Michael Bond, who is the interim inspector-general, being not James Bond but Michael Bond. He had a big laugh about it and made out it was an insignificant issue and tried to suggest that I was wrong and that the inspector-general still existed and that he was alive and well et cetera. But now—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

If the member takes his seat, I might give him the call again.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I needed the exercise.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I think so. I would agree with that.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are today agreeing that the amendments passed in the Senate, which restored the inspector-general and all his statutory independence, powers and tenure, is a good thing. So in the beginning when I raised this important issue, the minister tried to make light of it, said I was wrong, said Michael Bond the interim inspector-general was alive and well. But today he is welcoming the Senate amendments. The main point here is that we would not be considering this amendment now if the crossbenchers and the Greens in the Senate had not agreed with my assessment of the minister's bill.

Let's go back in history. Labor's 2012 bill was the manifestation of that Beale review and included an independent Inspector-General of Biosecurity. This minister, for reasons only known to him—and he still has not explained his motivation, only known to him—took those provisions out of the bill. Our bill did not run the course of this parliament because of the intervention of the 2013 election. It took this minister 15 months to bring that bill back to the parliament after the election, 15 months. And when he brought it back, we discovered he had gutted the position of Inspector-General of Biosecurity. He has had to back down because the crossbenchers in the Senate and the Greens sided with me in my attempts to reinstate the inspector-general.

The great unknown here is why this minister sought to gut the position of Inspector-General of Biosecurity. What could possibly be the motivation for a minister of the Crown in the agriculture department, overseeing the most important thing in this country in terms of our agricultural sector and indeed our broader economy, leading the agriculture portfolio, seeking to undermine that position? There has to be a story here. There is no obvious explanation. Before we finish this debate today, I think the minister has an obligation to come to that dispatch box and explain why he changed Labor's original bill.

He can stand up here and nuance, and try to pretend that his amendments—and they were substantial—did not undermine the statutory independence of the inspector-general. He can try to do that. He will be unsuccessful. In fact, if he does so, he will be embarrassing himself because it is simply wrong.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to do that. I am happy to go to the dispatch box.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy for him to try. But he can he come to the dispatch box and say why he changed it at all. Can you give us some sort of logical and comprehensible explanation why? Let us go through the process. There is a bill—then presents a report. The former Labor government, with the assistance of course of the experts, including the department, produce a very substantial bill, a very important bill: our new quarantine bill, known as the Biosecurity Act. We were about to put it to parliament and the election came along, and of course the system stopped.

Fifteen months later he brought the bill back. Think about that, Madam Speaker: 15 months it took to bring a bill that was ready to go through the parliament and come back again. He stands here and talks about how important it is, but it took 15 months. But when it comes back, it is different. When I got a briefing from his people, I asked them what were the differences if any between the 2012 bill and this bill. Guess what? There was no mention of the changes to the Inspector-General of Biosecurity.

Minister, when you come to the dispatch box, yes, argue your case, embarrass yourself and try to argue that your original bill did not undermine that position—I am happy for you to do that—but, just as important, come and give us a logical explanation why you found it necessary to change Labor's original proposal, as recommended by the Beale review.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With your indulgence—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, not indulgence; you are entitled to speak for five minutes.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. This will not take long. What we had—we always had an inspector-general. Then during Senate estimates, Michael Bond, the inspector-general himself, acknowledged that under this bill he would have greater powers than he formerly had. But, to placate the variant spirits of the shadow minister for agriculture and his desire for statutory powers, we gave him the statutory powers. And then the shadow minister came up with an amendment, which he had obviously cut and pasted from 2012 which was completely unable to be dealt with in this bill. It was like saying I am now going to put the renovations with the previous plan of the house for the new bathroom on the side of the house that does not have any pipes. It did not work. It was complete laziness by the shadow minister. So we came up with an amendment that actually worked, that delivered what he wanted. It has been agreed. It passed through. I am afraid the problem is we have to not only do our work; we have to do his.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Predictably, and I am sure our Rotary students are listening very intently, the minister did not do what I asked him to do—did he? I asked him to come to the dispatch box—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The standing orders are not that broad that you can ask questions of the gallery.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I asked him to come to the dispatch box and do two things: at least attempt to argue that his original bill did not undermine the position of the inspector-general—and he did not. All he did was quote Michael Bond, who told Senate estimates, because he had read it in the paper, I suspect, that he understood the bill as represented gave him more powers than he previously held. He read it in the paper, because I know for a fact the minister never consulted Michael Bond before making these changes.

The second thing I asked him to do was give us some logical explanation to help us out—to explain why he found it necessary to amend the 2012 bill. He is talking about plumbing or something. I have no idea what that is about. We have gone from Boo and Pistol to plumbing. What that has to do with why he took the inspector-general out of the original bill I have no idea, and he still has not given an explanation.

The other thing he did—

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the point of order, Minister for Agriculture?

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow minister said—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat. You may not rise on a point of order to raise an argumentative point. This is a free-ranging debate here, where you can have five minutes each. You may not put a point of order in that way. That is totally and utterly wrong.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then, after failing to answer the questions I called upon him to answer, he tried to confuse those listening either in the galleries or at home by suggesting that his original bill somehow backed the independence and tenure of the inspector-general. What he did not properly explain is that, when he realised that my bill and my amendment made sense and were sound, and had the support of the Senate, he went out to the doors—half backflip, no pike—and said, 'Oh well, you know, we'll do something about this.'

I want to pay credit to Senator Colbeck because, when Senator Colbeck made his second reading contribution in the Senate, he very sincerely said mea culpa and gave me certain guarantees because I was still concerned about the unseen regulations which will back this bill and the position of inspector-general. He made a very sincere and, I thought, believable commitment to the Senate that the inspector-general, under the amendments the government has now produced, would have all the independence, tenure and authority we would hope he had. Senator Colbeck introduced the amendments into the Senate just before budget day, of course—because this is a very embarrassed minister now; this is a very big backflip. They brought the bill back to the Senate the day before the budget so that it disappeared under the cover of all the budget news. But he only brought his amendment to the Senate because he knew my amendment was going to succeed—and it was going to succeed because it was true that the position of inspector-general had been undermined, and my amendment properly restored that position and all of its authority. I did the responsible thing, as you would expect her Majesty's opposition to do, and when I was satisfied that the minister's backflip and backdown was complete, I withdrew my amendment and we happily allowed the government amendment to go through.

This morning we are here dealing with the Senate message which effectively and completely restores the Inspector-General of Biosecurity, which means we now have the best quarantine and biosecurity system in the world and one that is befitting this country. It will only work if we properly resource our quarantine people and, rather than go out to the doors on Boo and Pistol and blame someone else, the minister should— (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your time was up years ago. The benevolence and wisdom of the shadow minister is without compare, and I would like to thank my office for writing the amendment so he could get his issue through.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.