Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Biosecurity) Bill 2022, and to inform the chamber that the coalition parties will be supporting the government's efforts in this regard. The federal coalition supports the passage of the bill.

We support this legislation because it will amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 with measures that will enhance the operation of Australia's national biosecurity framework. It will strengthen the management of risks across maritime and aviation pathways, improve the efficiency of the act and increase a range of civil and criminal penalties for breaches of biosecurity law. Also, the passage of this bill will address recommendations made by the Inspector-General of Biosecurity in his review of the Ruby Princess incident and the New South Wales special commission of inquiry.

Significantly, this bill is similar to legislation introduced last year by the federal coalition. It's absolutely fantastic to see the Labor Party, particularly in an area of policy where they don't have a lot of strength, where stakeholders traditionally don't put their faith and store in a Labor government—that being the policy area of agriculture—doing the right thing and adopting the coalition legislation that lapsed as a result of the election, and re-presenting it here to the Senate.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With improvements!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know, Senator Watt, as you exit the chamber, it's great to be able to stand up myself, a former agriculture minister, and see we are doing the right thing as a chamber—

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, Senator Ciccone is on his feet with a point of order.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't mean to interrupt the good senator, but it is against the standing orders to reflect on senators walking out of the chamber.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRES IDENT: Keep that in mind, Senator McKenzie. You have the call.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to call out good behaviour when I see it. Every single time the Labor Party—and there have been a few instances of late—chooses to adopt coalition policy positions and to put forward in this place legislation that we had drafted or that had lapsed in the last parliament, we're very happy they support that and know it's going to be good for our country. There's no other area that we can invest more in to protect our future prosperity and sustainability, not just as a nation but particularly for rural and regional Australians, than biosecurity itself.

The bill will increase protection from diseases and pests by implementing measures that manage biosecurity risks from travellers, including responding to the threat of foot-and-mouth disease being introduced into Australia through the footwear and clothing of travellers.

If the federal Labor Party had been more robust in supporting this legislation when it had the coalition's name on it, it would've been a lot easier for the now agriculture minister to direct travellers returning from Bali in June, July, August this year, with the threat of foot-and-mouth disease, specifically that they had to walk through those foot baths et cetera and a whole raft of other measures to increase our biosecurity and also decrease the risk of such a disease getting into Australia. Better late than never, so well done, Minister Watt, on finally getting this before the Senate. While this is welcome, it is worth recognising that it was the federal coalition who was calling for foot mats to be installed—and the NFF, I might say—at international airports once foot-and-mouth was detected in Bali, given the increased risk from travellers, and it was Minister Watt and the federal Labor Party who were standing up saying that wasn't needed and that people coming back from Bali were in thongs, so they didn't want to go through the foot baths, because it was going to hurt their feet.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rubbish!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I can tell you, I'm happy for those senators—

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators, a reminder of the need to be orderly. Interjections are disorderly.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your protection. For those senators who can't recall that classic interview of the minister—I think it was on Sky, but I'll search my records—I will send it to Senator McCarthy, Senator Ciccone any other government senator who doesn't believe that the agriculture minister was more concerned about Australian travellers coming back from Bali wearing thongs and what these chemicals may do to their precious feet than he was about protecting Australia's livestock industry from foot-and-mouth disease. But I'll leave that for another day. I will return to the bill before us.

It's good that they're now in place. But this government flip-flopped about whether to install the mats in the first place, and by the time they did it was way too late. In the weeks that it took for the government to make up their minds and take action, over 79,000 international travellers arrived in Australia from Indonesia, 93.4 per cent of those from Bali, without having to disinfect their shoes, without having to go through a raft of measures to provide security to Australian producers and indeed the future prosperity of this trade. One of our great gold stars internationally is that we are foot-and-mouth disease free, which means that our primary produce can require a higher price in international markets. That's a good thing, but that works only as long as we keep foot-and-mouth disease out. Sorry if I'm not going to share the great offence of the Labor Party that people's precious little feet are being impacted by measures that will actually protect this great industry and our future trade prospects.

In a positive move, this bill will strengthen preapproval reporting by ensuring that prearrival reporting requirements of the Biosecurity Act will be expanded to ensure that accurate and up-to-date information is available to assess biosecurity risk, including the human health risk of arriving vessels and aircraft. Penalties for operators and people in charge of aircraft and vessels who do not comply with these requirements will be expanded and strengthened. The importance of having a strong biosecurity system should never be underestimated. In 2020 the value of Australia's biosecurity system was estimated to be $314 billion over the next five decades, so it's absolutely essential that compliance with our national biosecurity laws and frameworks is always maintained and that we never become complacent about this.

It's not sexy. You won't be finding Victorians in marginal seats this weekend casting their votes for or against Premier Daniel Andrews' re-election—I hope not, Senator Ciccone, and that Victorians will cast their vote for a positive future in my home state of Victoria. But this won't be one of the topics that they think about, because it is out of sight, out of mind. But it is critical for our future economic prosperity that we as legislators keep our minds and eyes focused on keeping this framework as strong and robust as possible.

It's absolutely essential that compliance with our national biosecurity laws and framework is always maintained and that the penalties in place reflect the seriousness of the risk. If they're going to destroy people's lives and livelihoods and future prosperity, we need to throw the book at these people and not just the individual travellers who are breaching the framework but the operators that are responsible for ensuring that travellers are fully informed of the risk and are fully informed of their responsibility on their return or on their entry to our country. Importantly, this bill will increase the penalties for those who do the wrong thing. People who put at risk our biosecurity system by failing to comply with these requirements will face civil penalties of up to 120 penalty units or $26,640. That's a few trips to Bali, if you get it wrong.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A lot of thongs!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A lot of thongs, so please fill out—

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A lot of washing too.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. You're going to be hit with a massive fine if you don't take our biosecurity framework as seriously as we do, and that's a good thing.

Those who deliberately conceal risk goods will face stiffer penalties of up to 5,000 bucks, so when you tick the card coming back into Australia and answer the question about having any meat products or animal products in your luggage, if you've stuffed the meat pie or the Hungary Jack's burger in your carry-on luggage, that's concealing meat products. That's going to be a very, very, very expensive whopper with cheese. It's going to cost you $5,000, and so it should because this is important stuff. Those people who aren't linked to rural and regional Australia and don't understand how important the livestock industry is to our national economy and particularly to local communities don't realise what they're doing. I hope that operators of vessels and aircraft will make the risk very clear to travellers if they think: 'Oh well, it's just a ham sandwich that I didn't finish. I'll save that for the bus trip back to Melbourne, the SkyBus because the Labor Party hasn't built our airport to CBD rail yet.' They're going to have to get on that SkyBus, and they think they'll save the ham sandwich for then. Don't—declare it because, again, that will a very expensive sandwich. For operators the increased penalties are up to $222,000 for an individual and up to $1.1 million for corporate bodies.

The remaining measures in the bill will simplify the process for making decisions, identifying prohibited, conditionally non-prohibited and suspended goods, or granting permits based on risk assessment. The bill will allow the agriculture minister and the health minister to authorise expenditure on biosecurity related measures to increase efficiency and allow more transparency of such expenditure. More effective sharing of information with government agencies and other bodies will be secured whilst ensuring necessary confidentiality. It will also improve the operation and provisions relating to approved arrangements and compensation.

Overall, these are sensible measures that the federal coalition will be supporting. Australia's biosecurity system is a crucial pillar in our national defence, helping us to prepare for, protect against and respond to risks to our environment, economy and way of life. Our nation has enjoyed a reputation for clean, healthy and disease-free agricultural production systems through our natural advantage of geographic isolation. This is also giving our producers an edge in a very competitive international environment, and this rock-solid reputation is not something we should ever put at risk. We need a strong biosecurity system because in 2020 Australia's environmental assets were valued at a staggering $5.7 trillion over the next five decades, and they cannot be replaced. We are a unique nation, a continent with a unique flora and fauna heritage that is completely at risk if we do not keep pest and disease out. We also need to ensure that we protect our agricultural production, which is projected to reach $82 billion in 2022-23 and supports 1.6 million Australians in work. Those 1.6 million Australians can thank our fabulous agriculture industry for their job. The success and future prosperity of that industry is premised on keeping pests and disease out in an increasingly competitive global market.

Before COVID, tourism contributed $50 billion to our GDP. There are a lot of planes and a lot of vessels bringing people to our shore—all of them representing a risk to our biosecurity framework. It's important to point this out: the health of all these sectors relies on a strong, robust biosecurity system. The coalition is very, very proud of our track record when we were in government, because we made it a priority. In 2023 we made more than $1 billion available for biosecurity and export programs—an increase of 69 per cent from 2014-15. In government, we also increased fines for people breaking biosecurity laws. I was very, very happy as the minister to hand out a few of those to ensure that people who did the wrong thing were fined appropriately and are unable to return to our country within certain time frames for doing the wrong thing—for not treating our nation with the respect that it deserves.

Given the increased risks at our border with a major foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Indonesia and the threat of varroa mite and lumpy skin disease, the federal coalition will always lend our support to outcomes that will strengthen our biosecurity system because we're a world leader. We commend the bill to the Senate.

(Quorum formed)

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was an unusual calling for a quorum. Anyway, Senator, you managed to disrupt a few spillover estimates sessions.

I'm on my feet on behalf of the Australian Greens to support the Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Biosecurity) Bill 2022. I must say I nearly did a double take listening to Senator McKenzie talk about the importance of Australia's environmental assets, their trillions of dollars worth of value and how we have to do everything to protect our Australian environmental assets. Well, you won't get any disagreement from the Australian Greens on that very important point. But I do note that our biosecurity risks are directly correlated to our changing climate, and no-one in this country has done more than the National Party to ruin a decade of action on climate. I would bring the Nationals' attention back to that specific point. If they actually care about strengthening our biosecurity, they would both act on mitigating emissions, in line with at least the Paris protocol and, of course, put in place a number of adaptation measures.

I also note that the Australian Greens are very aware that Senator McKenzie said that, under her government, a billion dollars was made available for biosecurity arrangements. I asked at estimates last week roughly how much money was spent on overall biosecurity expenditure, and the department said, 'Around a couple of hundred million dollars a year, Senator.' When we drilled down into how much is actually spent on environmental risks, in other words, biosecurity risks specific to the environment—for example, to threatened species—we found that there's a fund for $800,000. The rest of that funding is pretty much targeted at industry. So there's a big imbalance there that we've got to deal with, because, yes, it's important to look after our industry—and I agree with what Senator McKenzie said about our agricultural sector and our exports—but we've also got to look after our environment. So I would draw the senator's attention to that.

We support the bill today; however, unlike the Nationals—and I heard nothing at all from their contribution—or the LNP, and presumably the Labor Party, we have some significant problems with this legislation. If I had my way, we would have been putting up substantive amendments today to deal with some issues in this legislation in committee. I'm happy to mention that we brought this up with Mr Littleproud's office, and I brought this up with my colleagues across the chamber. I refer senators to pages 49 to 55 of Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2022, which draws to the attention of the Senate the appropriateness of exempting instruments made under proposed section 196A, proposed section 196B and proposed section 393B from the usual parliamentary disallowance process and of including no-invalidity clauses at proposed section 196A and 393B.

In other words, to put it simply, through this bill, this chamber, this Commonwealth parliament, is walking away from disallowing instruments. It's actually insulting that the agriculture minister somehow feels that we can't do our job. I think all senators would agree that none of us should be supporting measures to reduce the power of the Senate to scrutinise ministers and departments. That's our job. That is why we're here. It is why we're elected. It is bread-and-butter, plain vanilla work for us. Yet, while this bill is very important and we support what's in it, it shouldn't be beyond the scrutiny of this chamber. I will give you a little bit more detail on that. The Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2022states:

In Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2022 the committee requested the minister's advice as to:

I won't go through the details, because 10 minutes is not enough time in which to do so, but the minister responded in relation to the no-invalidity clauses that that kind of power was necessary. He advised that the intended section 196A and 393B determinations would be made in a consultative manner in all but exceptional circumstances. He talked about biosecurity threats being urgent and emerging and about the need to respond immediately.

Then, in terms of exemptions from disallowance, the minister considered that exemptions from the disallowance process within the bill were appropriate and he did not propose to amend the bill to remove the exemptions—in other words, to pass them but make them disallowable in case the Senate wanted to scrutinise those. He basically said that they are decisions that are scientific and technical in nature, are critical to the effective management of biosecurity risks and may enable emergency action to manage a threat or harm from a biosecurity risk.

Since when has this chamber and our committee process not been up to scratch in terms of dealing with legislation, where we have to make decisions on legislation that is scientific and technical in nature, which we get nearly every day in this place? Really? How did you guys miss this? Why weren't you concerned about this?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I'm glad you are. But I'll tell you what: Mr Littleproud wasn't concerned about it, nor were some of your colleagues across the chamber.

The minister gave a couple of other points. He noted that determinations would be made on the basis of expert technical and scientific assessments that determine whether a particular pest or disease poses an unacceptable level of biosecurity risk and he considered that subjecting these determinations to the disallowance process would have the potential to jeopardise the effectiveness of decision-making and risk management processes. Again, we get that every day. Just about every piece of legislation we've passed in the last couple of days has had technical matters and scientific advice in it.

He noted that there were some safeguards in the bill. He also noted that disallowance would be inappropriate because it could generate uncertainty. In other words, having the Senate and the Commonwealth parliament scrutinise regulations could create uncertainty. Well, of course it could, but, once again, it's our job to do this. It is bread-and-butter work for us as senators. He gave more information there. He considered that a 15-sitting-day disallowance period would, among other things, give rise to considerable uncertainty around business requirements, as disallowance would take effect immediately upon the passing of the motion. Now, that's a little bit misleading; that would be the passing of the motion to actually disallow, if it were disallowed by the Senate. When disallowances are tabled in this place, they're effective immediately.

This is perhaps an interesting question for some senators: does anyone know how many of pieces of regulation came before the Senate in the years from 2010 to 2019 to be disallowed? Thousands. How many were actually disallowed out of the thousands that were brought before the Senate? The number is 17—and I know that, for a specific couple of those, there was very good reason for it. So, out of the thousands of disallowable instruments that have come before this chamber in the last decade, only 17 were disallowed, yet the minister feels that's going to create uncertainty in relation to this legislation.

I want to bring senators' attention to this. I don't have time to go into it, but, in responding to the minister's response, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee made its view really clear. The committee reiterated:

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—

or for reducing the scrutiny of the Commonwealth parliament. It is not clear to the committee from the minister's explanation why the minister considers it is appropriate to exempt an instrument from disallowance merely because considerations that go into making that instrument are scientific or technical, and it gives a lot of examples of other instruments that we've had before the Senate about which no minister has raised these issues.

He also goes on to say that, in relation to the minister's advice, allowing the usual disallowance process to apply to instruments made under the proposed sections 196A and 196B and 393B would create an unacceptable level of uncertainty. The committee acknowledges that, yes, there's some uncertainty, but this is our lawmaking system; this is how we make laws in this country.

I think I've said enough on this. As I mentioned, if we'd had support from across the chamber, we would have moved a substantive amendment on this. But I just want to get on record the Greens' concerns that, when we so easily walk away from our role and our scrutiny of critical legislation, this is a slippery slope for us as a chamber and as a Commonwealth parliament. We support what's in this, but we support our right to have a period of time to do more work on it and to seek commitment from stakeholders. And let's be honest, we're under a lot of pressure to pass legislation this week and next week. We haven't had a lot of time to seek and consult on the back on this. It probably would have been perfectly fine to have passed this and had them as disallowable instruments, and then they would have immediately gone into law, and it's very unlikely they would have been disallowed because I think we all agree we need better biosecurity laws. The Greens have been very supportive of the current inquiry into biosecurity threats. We lobbied to get varroa mite included into that ongoing inquiry, which I'm part of in the rural and regional affairs committee. We absolutely support the need for better biosecurity laws, but we do not support reducing the power of the Senate. That's what we are. We are senators. This is our job, and I want to get that on record today.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, I'll say that I do support the bill, and that is certainly the opposition's position. However, I also support everything that Senator Whish-Wilson just said in relation to the scrutiny process. This is an issue which is going to be progressed in some form over the life of this parliament. All senators in this place need to closely reflect upon it now, because there will become a time when these matters in relation to biosecurity legislation—indeed, any other legislation that exempts instruments from a disallowance process—are going to have to be considered by each and every senator in this place. Senator Whish-Wilson is absolutely correct: this chamber has a scrutiny roll. That's part of our function in Australia's parliamentary democracy, and I'm deeply concerned at the systemic nature in which instruments are put forward through various pieces of legislation which are not subject to the disallowance process.

For those who may be listening to this debate, I'll tease out the importance of this issue. We have a piece of legislation before this place, and we'll all vote on that piece of legislation. And that piece of legislation will then give the executive, the ministers, the ability to make instruments and issue delegated legislation. That delegated legislation can have a material impact on the freedoms and lives of people in our society. There's a process called a disallowance process, which means each piece of that delegated legislation is scrutinised by a committee of this place, called the Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, and an assessment is made as to whether or not it's constitutional, as to whether or not it falls within the powers of the legislation under which it was made, as to whether or not sufficient consultation was made with all relevant stakeholders, as to whether or not it's clear on the face of it—or if it's uncertain. That scrutiny process is extraordinarily important. In my experience, in the last parliament and this parliament, serving on both of the scrutiny committees, that process leads to better law.

We have all seen firsthand how, when that scrutiny process is mobilised, instruments are amended, additional consultation may be made and instruments can be withdrawn because of scrutiny concerns which are raised by this chamber. So the arguments in relation to this matter—the minister and the department are making arguments that the instruments under this act should not be subject to disallowance process—are not persuasive. Those arguments actually undercut our system of parliament and our democracy, because it is our role as senators to scrutinise the laws which are made. When this chamber doesn't have the power to initiate that disallowance process, then that scrutiny role is undercut. As Senator Whish-Wilson said, it's very, very rare for instruments to be subject to disallowance motions and to actually be disallowed for the very reason that the scrutiny committee engages in a process with the relevant minister and with the department to make sure the instrument complies with the scrutiny principles. So it is very rare for an instrument to be disallowed.

I've said it previously in this chamber and I'll say it for as long as I'm in this chamber: the instruments which are made by ministers, made by departments, under various pieces of legislation should be subject to disallowance processes. I agree with Senator Whish-Wilson that the argument that something is particularly scientific or technical, and therefore senators in this place don't have the capacity to assess it, doesn't wash. It's not persuasive. All of us consider legislation every day which is based on a whole range of different evidence, including scientific and technical evidence, commercial evidence and social evidence. That's our job. There is a latent paternalism in the concept that 'we can't let it go to the senators because we might not get the result we want'. From my perspective, that is simply inappropriate, and it's up to us as senators to push back on that.

I would like to have seen this be one occasion when those arguments could have been further prosecuted, but there are time constraints. I think it is important that the scrutiny committees act with a degree of unanimity in pushing these matters forward in order to maximise the opportunity for the best result. That is something which I will be working towards—I hope with the support of other senators.

I will take this opportunity to read some excerpts from the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation inquiry into the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight. These quotes from leading Australian experts underline the importance of the points made by Senator Whish-Wilson and the points which I am making. This is a quote from Professor Twomey, who is one of Australia's leading constitutional law experts:

…legislative power is conferred upon Parliament by the Constitution and to abdicate that power would be to breach that constitutional conferral of power on Parliament. Accordingly, Parliament must retain control over its delegated legislative power and be in a position to supervise the exercise of delegated legislative powers in order to be effective in exercising that control.

3.42 Professor Twomey argues the mechanism of control and supervision is the process of tabling and disallowance.

I give another quote, from section 3.44 of this report, from Professor Kristen Rundle, a co-director of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies at Melbourne Law School. She said:

…disallowance is not just a technical process that your committee [Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee] can instigate; it's actually a principle that serves the operation of our constitutional order and, specifically, the centrality of Parliament's lawmaking powers within it…it is not simply a presumption that can be rebutted when convenient…

That is my concern in this case. Senator Ciccone, who is in the chamber, serves on at least one of the scrutiny committees. I'm not sure whether he serves on both of them with me. Senator Ciccone will be well familiar with these arguments. It cannot be rebutted just when convenient, but that's what we're hearing from the relevant department in this case. I'll give another quote from the report, again from Professor Twomey:

Parliament would completely abdicate its responsibility if it was unable to change the laws that provided for the delegated legislation.

And it goes on. There is another quote from Professor Kristen Rundle which really sums it up and underlines the concern I have that there's been a systemic shift over time to make delegated legislation not subject to the disallowance process and, therefore, not subject to the scrutiny of the Senate. She said, 'There's a cultural shift needed here, back towards the primacy of parliament.' A cultural shift is needed.

It concerns me deeply that we, the elected representatives appearing here in the Senate to represent our communities, will have our scrutiny role undercut, abdicated and eliminated if instruments aren't subject to disallowance. Consider that the disallowance principles apply to whether or not the instrument has been made in accordance with the act. That is not a scientific or technical issue; that is whether a minister who issues an instrument under an act has the power to do that. Isn't that something which you'd expect the Senate to scrutinise? Why shouldn't the Senate scrutinise that? The argument is absurd—absolutely absurd. Whether or not a constitutional power has been exercised—isn't that question something we should scrutinise here, as the Senate? Doesn't that go to the absolute core of our responsibilities? Whether or not there has been adequate consultation with respect to an instrument, again, goes to the core of our responsibilities. Has the minister consulted with members of our community who are going to be most impacted by these instruments? So many people in the Australian community have been impacted by instruments made under the Biosecurity Act, especially during the COVID pandemic. There needs to be consultation with respect to these instruments. Does the instrument inappropriately infringe upon the rights and liberties of Australian citizens? Isn't that something which we should be scrutinising? Of course it is. It can't be left to the departments. It can't be left to the executive, in terms of the minister. There needs to be a check and balance. That's how our system works or should work.

In closing, I'll refer to some of the arguments that are sometimes used to justify this. In terms of emergencies, we all understand that in certain biosecurity situations there can be an emergency and the department or the minister needs to act quickly. The disallowance process does not prevent that. The instrument is issued, the action is taken and it has effect from the moment when the action is taken. What the disallowance process means is that once the instrument is issued the exercise of that delegated lawmaking power is then scrutinised. In the very unlikely event—Senator Whish-Wilson gave you the numbers—that the issue can't be resolved through discussions between the Senate, the scrutiny committee and the minister, there's a disallowance motion, which is put on the floor of the Senate.

It's at that point that each and every one of the 76 senators here can make their own assessment with respect to the arguments as to whether or not the instrument should be in place. That's our job. There will be scientific and technical arguments. Of course there will be. There will be financial arguments. There will be social arguments. There will be arguments with respect to people's freedoms and liberties et cetera. Of course there will be. That's our job, and we do that every day.

It is only if a majority of the senators in this place believe that instrument should be disallowed that it is disallowed. That's the only situation in which it's disallowed, and that is an extremely rare event. I would have thought that the Australian community would be very concerned if a majority of senators came to that view and were deprived of their ability to actually disallow an instrument in that circumstance. What would that say about our system if a majority of senators in this place believed an instrument was inappropriate and should be disallowed, and we were deprived of our ability to actually cast a vote and put it into action? It's a major concern.

This is a systemic issue. It needs a solution. It's certainly something on which I am very interested in pursuing discussions with colleagues all across the chamber in order to rectify this matter, because it's simply not good enough. It's not good enough that we continue to see legislation introduced in this place which has instruments which are not subject to the disallowance processes, depriving the Australian people of the scrutiny process which goes to the heart of this place. With that, I'll conclude my comments. I've talked to many of my friends in this chamber about these issues, and a lot of my concerns and Senator Whish-Wilson's concerns, as he articulated, are shared by many in this chamber. I recommend all senators continue reflecting on this. It's something we need to bring to a head at some stage. We need to bring it to a head and make some material action to assert the importance of this Senate and the scrutiny processes which go to the heart of our role.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Biosecurity) Bill. Obviously, this is something that is very close to my heart, coming from regional Western Australia and being concerned for the agricultural industry. Successful biosecurity arrangements are one of the pillars that will enable agriculture to meet its growth targets over the next decade. We on this side are extraordinarily happy to support measures that do increase those protections, particularly for our agricultural community, and to see a constant evolution. This is a constant battle.

We like the fact that people move, we like the fact that people can travel and we like the fact that trade can occur between nations. These are good things. They are a positive for our nation and for other nations. But as population flows and trade flows increase, they also leave our environment and our agricultural producers at risk of biosecurity threats. Obviously, we've seen that very starkly revealed over the last six months with foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease being found in our near neighbour Indonesia. It is a constant battle to make sure that our systems and processes and the structures of our regulatory regime keep up with the constantly increasing pressure on those systems, so we do need to keep a watching brief on this. This isn't something you can set and forget, so we do welcome the government's introduction of these measures.

We particularly support the bill because it allows for new measures to manage biosecurity risk coming from travellers. As I said, this is very important because of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Indonesia and the risk of that disease finding its way into Australia, which would obviously be absolutely devastating for agricultural producers. The bill expands pre-arrival reporting requirements for aircraft and vessels. Getting people to think about biosecurity is one of the key tasks. If people think about it they will act appropriately. If they don't think about it, there's always the risk that things will slip through. It allows for better information sharing with government agencies and other bodies. It raises civil and criminal penalties for breaches. Again, if people are aware there are penalties involved, they will behave more carefully. It increases transparency around the process. It increases efficiency and transparency of expenditure on biosecurity programs, and improves the operation of provisions relating to the approval arrangements and compensation. As I said, these are common-sense measures. They have our support and they certainly have the backing of the agricultural industry.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to say that the Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Biosecurity) Bill 2022 is not just a plant biosecurity bill; in addition, it is a human biosecurity bill. We endorse many of the provisions relating to plant biosecurity. While we support many of those plant biosecurity initiatives, we cannot support the provision that enables the government to consign a class of people to quarantine. After the COVID mismanagement and the deceit and abuse that we saw from state Liberal, Labor Party and National Party governments and from a Liberal Party in government federally, the last thing that One Nation wants to do is to give politicians and unelected bureaucrats more power. That's the last thing we will do.

Government is always a trade-off between the rights of the individual and the need for collective action against real security threats—and I emphasise the word 'real'. This bill, when it comes to human quarantine, will move the weight of power further into the hands of government and unelected bureaucrats and away from the people. In the eternal human challenge between control and freedom, we must always support and enable freedom. To give any government this much power presupposes that the government knows what to do with it. So let's have a look at the recent history of governance in this country when it comes to a virus and, supposedly, quarantining. I've compiled a list of 30 initiatives that occurred for the first time in our country's history. I will read a few of them; I'm not going to read all 30.

This is the first time that governments forcibly injected people with something that can kill them and is killing them. People are dying in their hundreds in this country—potentially, in their thousands, because the records are not accurate. This is the first time that governments have prevented sick people accessing a proven safe and effective treatment, in Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. They banned it. Doctors in other countries and good doctors in this country worked out that it was very successful and very safe, and 3.7 billion doses have been administered. Yet, those treatments were banned and the doctors were then banned for doing their job.

Greg Hunt, then federal Minister for Health said—and these are his words—that 'the world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccine trial'. It was experimental. It was a radical new gene therapy based treatment, yet it was being mandated. It has not been tested. It had a literature review, and that's it. We've seen a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to big pharma. How the hell can we trust government in this country—state or federal? Towards the end of the second year, they said, 'We now need to live with the virus.' Oh, really? Then they extended the emergency provisions that declared states of emergency.

We cannot trust governments in this country. Look at the previous Prime Minister. He said repeatedly that Australia has no vaccine mandate. Those are Scott Morrison's own words, yet the Morrison-Joyce federal government drove the vaccine mandates that forcibly injected people. At the very least, they enabled the mandates, because it was the federal government—the Joyce-Morrison government—that bought 280 million doses of this stuff. They could have stopped the states at any minute simply by not giving the states the injections. Secondly, the federal government indemnified the states against vaccine damage. Thirdly, the federal health department provided the data and systems needed for states to enforce the mandates.

The federal government drove this. The state premiers agreed. They say that their vaccine mandates are in line with the unconstitutional so-called National Cabinet that Prime Minister Scott Morrison led. The federal government mandated vaccines in aged-care workers, the defence department and the Australian Electoral Commission—full of lies and not based on science. That's just with the existing provisions without this one that's being added. Then we saw AHPRA, a concocted regime based upon so-called national law. Now we see Queensland driving the latest iteration of national law—making it a provision that confidence in the health system is more important than patient care. That is naked suppression and control of doctors.

Then we realised that the injections were forced on people—if you want your kids to eat then you'll get this injection. That's what was done in this country. We saw that untested—or partially tested, very inadequately tested, incompletely tested—injections were used, and approvals were based in America for these injections on big pharma's word. That's it. The CDC didn't test them, the FDA didn't test them. Our TGA and ATAGI swallowed the lie about these injections. Military boots were put on the ground to enforce imprisonment of healthy people in their homes in New South Wales. The Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews, ordered his militarised police to fire on innocent protesters. Who will ever forget what happened at the Shrine of Remembrance on Anzac Day? He locked down the Shrine of Remembrance on Anzac Day. Who will forget the digger who was stopped from entering the Shrine of Remembrance on Anzac Day?

Arbitrary degrees, changing from one day to the next—how the hell can the science behind all the measures be science when they're conflicting? Science should be transparent, not locked in a cupboard. And if it's science, it should be consistent and debatable. None of this applied in COVID restrictions. Instead, we had censorship and persecution of good and decent doctors accused of being heretics. This is 2022, not 1692 in Salem, Massachusetts, when dissenters were labelled witches and burned. Today it's doctors and nurses being burned, their 40-year careers being burned at the stake. Now their careers are not even smouldering embers—they're gone, they're dead.

Power must always be accompanied by transparency, and yet we cannot even get copies of big pharma's vaccine contracts with our federal government. The Greens and the Labor Party stopped that, and the vote was tied. The process of dismissing almost 1,000 doctor supported deaths due to COVID injections turned into 15, so the process that was used by the TGA to take almost 1,000 doctors reported deaths—and doctors are responsible for reporting deaths in this country—and making the number 15 is not even quantified, not even specified. It's arbitrary, and we also know from listening to doctors and nurses that the reported deaths are a tiny fraction of the actual deaths, so there are way more than 1,000. That's the story overseas as well.

And now you want more power—more power to put classes of people into quarantine. Who would they be? Non-vaccinated people? And you want power over people. You're not going to get it from One Nation. That's why we cannot support this. All the things that I've talked about were for a coronavirus that the Chief Medical Officer admitted to me in writing was of low to moderate severity—low to moderate severity. Look at the actual results. This is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, published in part as a result of a One Nation document discovery a few weeks ago in this very chamber. In 2019, the year before COVID, the seasonal flu cost 4,126 lives. The next year, 2020, Australia recorded 882 deaths from COVID and 2,287 deaths from the flu, for a total of 3,169 deaths, almost 1,000 fewer deaths than the flu alone killed the previous years. Then, in 2021, 1,137 deaths were recorded from COVID and 2,073 were recorded from the flu, for a total of 3,210. This means that deaths from the flu, including COVID, across the first two years of the virus in this country were right on the long-term average of 3,255. There was nothing unusual about the Australian death rate in 2020 or 2021, and yet the COVID substances, the injections, were given emergency approval without any testing. The only thing unusual about our death rate in 2021 was that it was at a seven-year low. This makes a joke of provisional approval granted for injections out of urgency.

We are the party of freedom. Freedom is the key to human progress. Freedom is the key to responsibility. Freedom is the key to human satisfaction. Freedom is the key to truth, which was squashed and suppressed and became a victim of the government's COVID restrictions at state and federal levels. Before you ask for additional power, we need a royal commission to establish whether you need more power and if the power you already possess has been used properly and honestly. You're asking us for more power, yet you have not established why you need more power. You have already misused the power parliaments have given you and exercised your power with zero transparency at state and federal level. We cannot support this because it contains a provision for classifying humans into quarantine, as a class. We have one flag. We are one community. We are one nation, and we will always stand for freedom.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all senators for their contributions to this debate—some of which I agree with more than others, but I very much welcome the contributions we've seen.

The Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Biosecurity) Bill 2022 will amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 to strengthen Australia's ability to manage biosecurity risks, such as foot-and-mouth disease, posed by goods and by maritime and aviation traveller arrivals. In response to the current threats, we have deployed the strongest-ever response to a biosecurity threat at our border. We've supported our Indo-Pacific neighbours, toughened our legislation, stress-tested our preparedness and aligned ourselves carefully with state and territory partners in the nation's first National Biosecurity Strategy.

It's worth repeating that Australia remains both foot-and-mouth-disease and lumpy-skin-disease free. But the last few months have illustrated the need for a biosecurity system which is up to contemporary challenges. To that end, I'm pleased to say that the centrepiece of our agriculture budget this year was an investment of $134.1 million to bolster Australia's biosecurity system against the immediate threat of disease.

Critical to implementing these measures are strong legislative powers that enable biosecurity officers to effectively manage the biosecurity risk. This will be done through new measures that manage biosecurity risk arising from travellers and classes of individuals for the purposes of preventing or reducing the risk of a disease or pest, such as foot-and-mouth disease, being introduced into Australia through the footwear and clothing of travellers.

The bill will strengthen the legislative framework in responding to and managing human biosecurity risks. This will be done by expanding prearrival reporting requirements, to ensure access to up-to-date information is available to inform the management of human biosecurity risks, and strengthening penalties for noncompliance. The bill will enable more effective sharing of information with government agencies and other bodies in line with other Commonwealth legislation while ensuring that protected information is afforded appropriate safeguards.

The bill will increase pecuniary penalties that apply to specified criminal offences and civil penalty provisions in chapters 3 and 4 of the Biosecurity Act, which deal with managing biosecurity risks relating to goods and conveyances. These increases apply primarily to regulated entities such as commercial importers and to operators and persons in charge of aircraft or vessels, all of whom have a particular responsibility to know and understand their obligations under the Biosecurity Act. The increased civil penalties will serve as a deterrent to anybody considering undermining our biosecurity laws, and the criminal penalties will allow appropriate and proportionate punishment for offences under the Biosecurity Act. The process for making certain determinations relating to the import of goods, including the granting of permits based on risk assessments, will be streamlined by this bill. Other amendments will ensure transparency and efficiency of expenditure on biosecurity related programs and activities by permitting the agriculture minister and the health minister to authorise the expenditure directly through the Biosecurity Act.

This bill will enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the management of approved arrangements while also improving processes for approved arrangement administration, auditing and the consideration of compensation claims. The bill will provide for a new civil penalty provision targeting individuals who attempt to conceal goods from a biosecurity official at the border. The new penalties will be subject to the infringement notice scheme under the Biosecurity Act and serve as a deterrent to carrying out this serious behaviour that could jeopardise Australia's biosecurity status.

I know there's been a lot of public commentary about the level of penalties that exist under current legislation in relation to biosecurity offences, and the government is taking action to lift those penalties to ensure that we have strong deterrents against people doing the wrong thing and exposing our food and livestock and grains and crops industries to biosecurity threats. Passage of this bill will ensure that the biosecurity framework remains effective and responsive in protecting Australia's animal and plant health, environment and economy. This includes ensuring the biosecurity framework remains fit for purpose when responding to emerging biosecurity and human biosecurity risks. I foreshadow that I will be moving amendments at the appropriate time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, we can record your dissent.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.