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

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

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

Question negatived.

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

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

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

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

644A Biennial biosecurity status reports

Biennial report—biosecurity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     (ii) progress in eradication programs;

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

     (i) enforcement actions; and

     (ii) consultation undertaken with relevant persons or bodies.

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

Biennial report—human biosecurity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meaning of relevant persons or bodies

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

  (a) Indigenous groups;

  (b) industry groups;

  (c) State and Territory governments;

  (d) local governments;

  (e) public sector entities;

  (f) conservation organisations;

  (g) any other interested groups;

  (h) the general community.

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

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

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

Question negatived.

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

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

Part 5—Proposed decisions affecting the environment

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

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

32B Director to take advice into account

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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