Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries) Share this | Hansard source

It is, indeed, a pleasure to rise to conclude debate on the Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019. I do thank senators for their contributions to this very important debate.

Having heard some of the remarks made by my colleagues, and in particular Senator McGrath who has just concluded his, not enough emphasis can be put on how important the agriculture sector is to our nation's economy and the jobs that that industry produces for our regional communities. The point that was made by Senator McGrath in his contribution about protecting the brand and ensuring we remain pest and disease free as best as we possibly can is critical to that sector being able to trade on its brand. Our trading partners have very high expectations of the goods we export. We, as discerning consumers, also have very, very high expectations of the quality of the produce we consume. So having in place robust and far more than adequate biosecurity measures is essential to underpinning the confidence that is required by domestic consumers and our trading partners when it comes to our primary production sector. This bill does go some way to assisting that sector and the authorities—the department of agriculture and the teams at biosecurity Australia—to do their jobs to make sure that we can retain a strong border when it comes to protecting our country from pests and diseases, and most importantly protecting our brands. Because we know what happens when we have incursions. It does have an impact on our produce and people will make a consumer choice—be they international markets or domestically. That, in the end, has an impact on jobs, particularly in regional communities. So, that's where the rubber hits the road with this bill and that's why I'm so pleased to be speaking to it today.

The point has been made by a number of my colleagues already about how much cargo is processed and the amount of cargo that comes into our country. The high volume of the cargo that is brought in to this nation in, itself, like you would expect, does present an opportunity for pests and diseases to enter our country. As Senator McGrath mentioned, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment process roughly 45,000 commercial cargo referrals each month—not each year, but each month. That is a huge number of referrals to process and to ensure meet the standards we require in this country when allowing goods to enter. That's why this bill assists the department in being innovative in how it deals with this high number of referrals, while preserving the integrity of the system and maintaining that robust biosecurity framework that we need.

As I'm sure has been stated by my colleagues and of course Senator McGrath, the presence of one of Australia's highest-risk pests, the brown marmorated stink bug—which has a terrible name but I'm sure would have a much more terrible impact on our primary producers—and the fact that we're coming into peak season is why this bill and passage of this bill is critical. As has been referred to by the previous minister for agriculture, Bridget McKenzie, who I acknowledge, along with the current minister, Minister Littleproud, a huge amount of resources have been allocated to ensuring that we do have in place the resources to be able to stop other problems that can be encountered in this space, including the African swine fever virus, ensuring that they can't enter Australia's borders. There are other high-risk pests and diseases, including the khapra beetle and the foot-and-mouth disease, just to name a few. The volume of work associated with preventing these incursions does mean we do need to look at ways to ensure that work can be done in the most timely way to ensure that goods can come into our country in an expeditious manner. We've seen it in other jurisdictions where things get stuck on docks because they've got to be processed by the quarantine or biosecurity authorities of that relevant jurisdiction. Particularly with fresh produce, that poses a problem. Timeliness and innovative ways of utilising the resources available to us is critical to allowing the department to preserve the integrity of our biosecurity system and our relative status when it comes to pests and diseases.

The amount of work that these high-risk pests require will increase, and has increased in recent months, and will require considerably more amounts of manual effort. Automated decision-making, which is provided for in this through the amendments to the two bills, the Biosecurity Act 2015 and the Imported Food Control Act 1992, enables that work to be done, lessening the operational burden in these high-risk times, allowing departmental officers to allocate those manual efforts and resources to more complex matters, which I think is sensible. We need to make sure that our resources are allocated appropriately and to ensure that we are using that human interface in the more complex situations that require that human touch.

As I mentioned, this bill does amend those two pieces of existing law—that is, the Biosecurity Act 2015 and the Imported Food Control Act 1992. In doing so, these amendments will allow the Director of Biosecurity to determine, by way of a legislative instrument, which decisions under the Biosecurity Act can be made by an automated system. There will be judgement exercised about which decisions are made through these new processes. It also enables decisions under particular sections of the Imported Food Control Act to be made by automated systems as well, enabling the department to provide food control certificates to all food that's imported into Australia, irrespective of whether the food is required to be inspected, which I think should provide consumers the confidence they need when it comes to ensuring that what we consume here in Australia is not going to pose a threat, as already outlined in contributions so far. The certificates for foods that are not required to be inspected will remind both the importers and the brokers of their requirements to ensure food safety. We can never have a high enough standard when it comes to these sorts of things. Across the globe, modern regulators are increasingly relying on automated decision-making for decisions based on risk matrixes to enable a more timely decision-making process, freeing up resources to where they are better allocated. Again, it's about timeliness—ensuring that we do not unduly create delay. We often talk in this place about red tape and bureaucracy and about how to lessen them. This is a prime example of how we are reducing red tape and reducing the time it takes to do business with this country, and that's something I'm sure our trading partners will welcome with open arms.

It's also important to note that, in dealing with these sorts of things—how bills intersect with other parts of government and different pieces of legislation—there was a degree of internal consultation undertaken with the Attorney-General's Department; the Department of Health, which looks after food standards; the Office of Best Practice Regulation; and also, as you would expect for the drafting of a bill, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

Those listening might be interested in the sorts of decisions that might well be automated through this process. It's a valid question to ask. Consideration will be given to all sorts of decisions and whether they are suitable for automation in line with administrative law requirements. There are standards around these things, and those standards will of course be applied. Ordinarily these decisions will be ones where particular facts are reliably established without the need for a subjective assessment or the need to assess information to come to a particular position. As such, you would expect fairly straightforward and simple cases where high degrees of resources and effort are not required to reach the conclusion that you would ordinarily reach when making an assessment.

The types of decisions that are not proposed to be subjected to automated decision-making include decisions that require assessment of information provided by applicants and assessment as to whether specified statutory criteria have been met. Complex decisions involving consideration of conflicting information from many sources would require persons adversely affected by the decisions to be accorded procedural fairness and again would not be covered by automated decision-making. I think that is just plain old common sense. Where we need to to-and-fro to establish facts, or go and do some research, or where officers need to apply their judgement and investigative skills to be able to assess whether something should be permitted or not, of course, an officer will be sent in to do that work. That is not what we are talking about. Of course, that means we should retain confidence in the processes we're talking about.

Obviously there'll also be great benefits flowing to stakeholders—importers of food, the brokers, our trading partners—which in turn will be of benefit to us here in Australia. The administration of the act and allowing officers to respond to biosecurity risk are critical. Again, it underpins the whole framework around our trading relations, particularly when it comes to primary produce. While it'll have a minimal impact on Australian domestic stakeholders, if we continue to prevent pests and diseases from entering our country through this process then, as Senator McGrath cited when concluding his remarks, our own crops and produce won't be subject to the risks associated from that exposure. That's what a robust biosecurity system is able to provide.

In terms of small business—the engine room of the economy, as we often refer to it, particularly in regional communities—it's about efficiency, it's about timeliness and it's about ensuring that goods get to market on time. Of course, the faster clearance of goods at the border through the automated decision-making process will reduce the burden on industry—I'm talking about red tape reduction and the timeliness of doing business with government—and result in a dramatic improvement for small businesses at the receiving end of these goods.

The department's systems have the capacity and the capability to automate decisions already; however, this bill will allow for more automated decision-making to increase efficiency. As already cited, this means that we will have faster clearance of goods across the border. It will also enable the department to maximise resources in addressing critical risks and ensure that current and planned decision-making tools can be implemented as effectively and efficiently as possible, optimising resources and minimising impacts on importers. This is something we absolutely need to do, because we do import and consume products from overseas, and that is an important part of what we are looking to do here.

In summing up—and without detaining the Senate any further—a significant degree of consideration has been given to this piece of legislation. We've talked about the acts that will be amended—the Biosecurity Act 2015 and the Imported Food Control Act 1992—to enable the government to put in place automated decision-making. In summary, the bill ensures that there is a clear statutory basis for applications of automated decision-making under the Biosecurity Act. It enables wider use of automated decision-making to issue biosecurity directions and notices for imported food control certificates. It enables the Director of Biosecurity to determine by legislative instrument which biosecurity officer decisions under the Biosecurity Act may be made by operation of a computer program. It also authorises the Secretary of the Department Agriculture, Water and the Environment to arrange for automated decision-making for certain sections of the Imported Food Control Act.

These changes will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Biosecurity Act and the Imported Food Control Act, and will ensure that Australia’s biosecurity system continues to keep pace with the changing biosecurity environment and the emerging risks we face every year. This is particularly important in an environment where, as a nation, we import high volumes of goods on vessels entering Australia. We've already talked about the 45,000 commercial cargo referrals per month, a process that we have to deal with—a process which the passage of this legislation will be able to assist with—and where intensive resources are necessary to prevent incursion of high-risk pests and diseases such as African swine fever virus.

I conclude where I commenced, and that is to underscore the importance of the primary production sector, our agricultural businesses and every element of that in the value chain and the production chain, and why we need to protect this sector. By putting in place systems like this and enabling small business to get greater efficiencies out of our importing programs, we are doing the right thing by the rural and regional communities of Australia and by those people who invest in and work on our farms by protecting their biosecurity and by protecting jobs in these communities as well. I commend the bill to the Senate and once again thank senators for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.