Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on this bill. This bill very much goes to the fact that Australia's clean, green, safe food is the agriculture sector's greatest advantage, and keeping Australia's competitive edge is why this bill is of critical importance.

Having said that, though, I want to point out that the Abbott government has sat on this bill for 18 months, when the majority of the work was already undertaken by the previous Labor government. It was Labor that recognised the importance of upgrading and modernising Australia's biosecurity laws and it was Labor that first introduced this legislation back in 2012.

It was in fact on 19 February 2008 that the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Tony Burke, announced a comprehensive independent review of Australia's quarantine and biosecurity arrangements to be undertaken by an independent panel of experts, chaired by Roger Beale AO. This report is very well known as the Beale review. The current bill before the Senate is essentially identical to Labor's initial bill introduced in the 43rd parliament, but the Beale review recommended, amongst other things, a statutory office for an inspector-general of biosecurity. The inspector-general would report directly to the minister, have broad powers of audit and investigation and would be responsible for conducting systems audits and reviews of the biosecurity programs carried out by the national biosecurity authority. It is incredibly disappointing and regrettable that the Abbott government has not continued to support an independent inspector-general of biosecurity but, instead, has decided to give those powers to the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Barnaby Joyce. The fact that Minister Joyce—as my Senate colleague Senator Cameron mentioned in his contribution—will have the final say on biosecurity will, I agree, remove all the confidence of the Australian community and remove all the confidence of the Australian agricultural sector.

Labor strongly supported the Beale review and strongly supported the need to have an inspector-general of biosecurity. There are many justifications, but a few recent examples are: Australians contracting hepatitis A from contaminated berries; northern Queensland's banana crop suffering its first exposure to the rampant and destructive Panama disease; Northern Tasmania's eucalyptus species suffering its first exposure to the devastating and virulent myrtle rust; and the first colonies of the invasive and ecologically overwhelming red fire ant found in Botany Bay. All senators in this place should consider these examples. They are examples that are only from the past two months, and they are good enough reason alone to take the time and the trouble to establish the very best biosecurity system we can. That, of course, should include the Beale recommendation for the position of an inspector-general of biosecurity—an independent statutory holder.

The clear and present danger from contaminated food has been well publicised recently; however, even the current alarm over the spread of myrtle rust in my own state of Tasmania, even though it does not directly threaten Tasmania's major food production crops, justifies the need to have strong biosecurity laws. As the Tasmanian Farmers & Graziers Association has made clear:

If myrtle rust gains hold in our eucalypt forests, the landscape will change irretrievably. For farmers, it threatens shelter belts, hardwood plantations and forests important for their biodiversity, honey production, etc.

Yet, for no good reason, the Abbott government wants to undermine the powers, the independence and the tenure of the inspector-general of biosecurity. It simply does not make sense. Labor stands by wanting to protect the powers, the independence and the tenure of the inspector-general for excellent common-sense reasons, exactly like those I have just mentioned. If you think about it, as trade liberalisation spreads, globalisation grows and global trade increases many more such threats inevitably will emerge for Australian agriculture. To maintain our reputation for high-quality, clean and safe produce we need strong biosecurity laws in this country. The Abbott government's unjustifiable decision to amend the former Labor government's bill will undermine the effectiveness of the inspector-general of biosecurity and will weaken rather than strengthen our biosecurity system. As my colleague the shadow minister for agriculture, Joel Fitzgibbon, said in the other place:

When you think about it, there are two things in agriculture policy that rise above all others; there are two things that are paramount. The first is natural resource management and sustainability. The second is biosecurity.

Why? It is because agriculture is so important to our nation's future. That is why we have tried to strive for a bipartisan approach when it comes to agriculture policy. Dropping the ball on agriculture policy would be an existential threat because maintaining our food security and our ability to sustain ourselves, independent of any other country, goes to the very survival of our country. I think our shadow minister for agriculture said it so well that I cannot say it any better myself. It goes very much to the very survival of our country.

For many of us, biosecurity is still in some sense about a quarantine regime rather than biosecurity. Whether you call it a quarantine regime or biosecurity, it is clear that both, being one and the same, are of paramount importance to our nation. Yet, as the Beale inquiry, a seminal report on our biosecurity system, noted, biosecurity in this place usually only rates a mention when something goes wrong rather than rating a mention as things almost always go right. I think it is somewhat a source of disappointment that we only highlight when things go wrong rather than looking at when they go right.

The Biosecurity Bill 2014, like the Beale review and other reviews that went before it, is clearly a past Labor government initiative. That is why it has Labor's support—because it was an initiative of a Labor government to start with. It was progressed and developed by a Labor government. But that was some 17 months ago now. The Abbott government could have brought this legislation forward some 17 months ago. It was Labor that recognised the importance of upgrading and modernising Australia's biosecurity laws, and it was Labor that first introduced this bill back in 2012.

I will just go to the heart of the Beale review. The Beale report concluded that we have a very good biosecurity system. Its overwhelming success, I think, is testament to that. We have had, by any measure, a very successful approach to keeping disease and pests out of our food chain. Beale also concluded that the system is not perfect, and that is fairly obvious. Beale also reinforced, very importantly, the view—and I am sure this is a view shared by all senators—that a zero-risk approach to quarantine is not a feasible approach, not one that is likely to lead to success and certainly not one we could afford in fiscal and resourcing terms. Rather, he reinforced a risk based approach to our quarantine system.

This bill is a significant modernisation that has been a long time in the making, and on that basis the opposition will be supporting the bill. Having said that, though, the position that this government is taking in relation to the position of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity, a position that has been recommended in numbers upon numbers of reviews and inquiries over the last 17 years, is, as I have said, very disappointing. Labor's Biosecurity Bill 2012 provided for the Inspector-General of Biosecurity independent powers of review and detailed transparency provisions, including parliamentary reporting.

This government has carried forward, sensibly, Labor's lapsed Biosecurity Bill 2012, with some tweaking. It has introduced largely the same legislation into parliament. But this version has one important and irresponsible—I would say—change that has been made. Granting new powers to Minister Barnaby Joyce to conduct reviews on biosecurity performance and dropping the plan to create that statutory, independent Inspector-General of Biosecurity is very, very irresponsible. It is irresponsible, it is short sighted and it is unnecessary, and it is in complete contradiction to what was laid out through the Beale review, as I have said, along with many other reviews.

In brief, this important role, a very important role in the original legislation, will no longer be independent. That is the bottom line here. It is Minister Barnaby Joyce who will be having all the power and all the say. There will be no independence, and that is of grave concern. The minister has indicated that he intends to use these powers to delegate an ongoing review role to the current Interim Inspector-General of Biosecurity, which will now be a non-statutory position. So it appears now that, rather than having that independent statutory officer reviewing the performance of the biosecurity system and all of its players, we will have no less than just Minister Barnaby Joyce overseeing these processes. That is a concern to me. It is a concern to the opposition. It should be a concern to everyone in this place, if they are speaking honestly. It should be of concern, quite frankly, to the minister himself because it is not a responsibility he should even seek to have.

The inspector-general that Labor had in mind has, on an interim basis—and would have—reported independently of the minister's view and indeed of the view of the department, so the position plays an important role in ensuring the integrity and the transparency of the biosecurity import risk analysis process. Stakeholders also have the opportunity to appeal where they believe there has been a significant deviation from the biosecurity import risk analysis process, which might have adversely affected their interests. Not only does that inspector-general ensure transparency and integrity in the biosecurity system more broadly; the position also establishes a number of powers to ensure transparency in the way the role is carried out. The position was recommended, as I said, in numerous reviews as well. It was a fixed term appointment, allowing for the officer to give frank advice without fear of personal repercussions and to probe into the affairs of government even if that is politically uncomfortable.

How on earth will Minister Barnaby Joyce be able to conduct such a transparent role when he himself is a minister of the executive, a minister of government? How can there be confidence? How can the Australian community, the Australian agricultural sector or anyone have confidence in the integrity of any review process when Minister Barnaby Joyce is carrying out this role and cannot remove himself and be an independent player within it?

There is clearly a conflict of interest when the minister administering biosecurity legislation and the person responsible for reviewing biosecurity performance are now going to be one and the same. Surely those government senators see that. Surely those government senators have concern for that. It simply does not make sense. It simply highlights a conflict of interest that it has.

Of course, Labor was so much better than that. The legislation that we put forward in 2012 was so much better than that. We have tried to have ongoing bipartisan support in agricultural policy, because of the importance of agriculture to our nation's future, because it goes to the heart of food security in our nation's future. So to undo that bipartisanship by the removal of that independent statutory office holder to review our biosecurity processes is simply a backward political manoeuvre. I know it is a manoeuvre that is making a number of senators on the government side unhappy and uneasy, knowing that Minister Barnaby Joyce now has all the cards and all the power, carrying that conflict of interest.

Finally, I just want to say that this bill has no independent authority or alternative arrangement that minimises potential conflicts of interest. Its primary safeguard is a requirement that the Director of Biosecurity 'have regard to' the objects of the biosecurity legislation. However, this person is also the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and has broader roles relating to the promotion of agriculture and trade and government priorities. It is simply not good enough to hope that the Department of Agriculture will at all times be able to avoid conflicts of interest in managing biosecurity risks and resisting all the pressures from within and outside government. Further, the nature of any review is undescribed and totally discretionary. There is no requirement to publicly release terms of reference of any review or to release the results.

There is no good reason to undermine Australia's biosecurity framework as this government would wish. In fact, as Australia's exposure to biosecurity risks increases, the reasons for a tougher framework get stronger. I go back to those original examples that I talked about at the start of my contribution: the Panama disease affecting the banana crop in Queensland; in my home state of Tasmania, the myrtle rust in Tasmania's northern eucalyptus species; and the first colonies of the red fire ant in Botany Bay. They are, just in the last two months, some of the important reasons why I call on the Senate to demonstrate some more of our collective common sense and strengthen Australia's biosecurity legislation by installing the inspector-general position. (Time expired)