David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I do support this bill and the increase in the strength of our biosecurity laws, given how critical biosecurity is to our country. We're a megadiverse country and an island nation, and we've seen the devastation of invasive species and diseases on our biodiversity, our agriculture and our economy. But there are clearly real issues with the lack of parliamentary oversight of some of the powers under this bill, as Senator Whish-Wilson and then Senator Scarr highlighted.

This does not seem like the proper way to be making these sorts of laws, and it is incredibly disappointing after the significant concerns that were raised by the scrutiny committees that the government has proceeded with the plan to make parts of this bill 'un-disallowable'. Legislative instruments should only be subject to disallowance in exceptional circumstances, and I think we see that. The Senate takes it very seriously when they seek to disallow a regulation and I accept that it is very unlikely that the delegated powers given to the minister under this bill will be misused, but we need to recognise that our democratic system relies on parliamentary oversight, as Senator Scarr so well laid out. This oversight should never be given away lightly.

In this case, serious concerns have been raised. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills raised concerns about the absence of parliamentary oversight in parts of this bill with the minister and the department. The minister responded, but the committee was not satisfied with the response. One justification provided by the minister was that the subject matter is too scientific and technical to be subjected to parliamentary oversight. I stand with the committee's emphatic rejection of this justification:

simply stating that a matter is technically complex, or has significant policy implications, is not an adequate justification for removing democratic oversight over a law of the Commonwealth.

The committee goes on:

The committee reiterates its view that while it is often appropriate to delegate law-making power to the executive in relation to technically complex matters, it does not follow that such instruments should subsequently be exempt from disallowance on that basis alone.

A second justification offered by the minister is that oversight would create uncertainty, but it's completely unforeseeable that measures to increase biosecurity where a significant threat arises would be disallowed. There were only 17 instruments disallowed between 2010 and 2019. It seems completely unforeseeable that, for example, a regulation to increase the use of foot mats in response to the increased risk of foot-and-mouth disease would be disallowed. Much of the questioning and talk I heard on this was for a swifter response and for a more stringent approach when it comes to our biosecurity, so I simply do not buy the arguments that have been put forward by the government to justify what they are doing here.

A third justification offered by the minister is that any disallowance of regulations would have a significant impact. I find this justification particularly problematic. Surely where the consequences of laws are more significant—more, not less—parliamentary oversight is needed.

I will not be moving an amendment to this bill, but I urge all senators to work to protect the oversight we were elected to provide. The Senate is the house of review, and we need to make sure that this function is always properly applied. As someone who is new to this place it seems to me that there is a huge amount of legislation that is issued in the way of regulations, with ministers deciding on aspects of policy, that should then be subject to oversight in here. We should at least be able to have the discussion, to be able to talk about it in this place in committees, and then come to an informed decision after scrutiny. With this bill, the government is seeking to remove that oversight of the Senate, remove that ability to ensure that the laws we make are in the best interests of the Australian people. As Senator Scarr pointed out, there are parts of this bill that confer extraordinary powers. You could argue, rightly so, that that is justifiable when it comes to matters of biosecurity. I would say there is as strong an argument that, with those extraordinary powers, there should be oversight from the Senate. I would urge the government to consider this and, going forward, to not introduce bills to this place that have similar arrangements.