Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Deputy Leader of the National Party) (16:58): At the outset, I'd like to acknowledge the member for Farrer for his fine contribution in his inaugural speech here in this place, and I wish him well and every success as he seeks to represent that magnificent community in regional New South Wales. In relation to the bill before the chamber this afternoon, I acknowledge from the outset the opposition will support the bill that was introduced to the House of Reps in July this year by Minister Collins.
It's an important bill in some regards because, every year, millions of Australian travellers arrive and complete a two-page piece of paper as they reach the airport—the incoming passenger card. It's a paper card that's filled out. Many of us have probably wondered, 'Why are we still using a paper card in this manner?' It provides information about any goods they may be carrying, the places they've visited and their occupations—indicators of any potential biosecurity risk for our nation.
The Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026 provides for that information to also be collected through a digital Australian travel declaration model, sitting alongside the existing paper card system. Travellers can complete the new declaration through an airline app or web form before or during their travel, and that will generate a QR code which will be scanned by our biosecurity officers on arrival at their point of destination.
This system has already been piloted on select Qantas flights into Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. The legislation before the House this afternoon creates the legal basis for that digital declaration to operate alongside the system with which we're all familiar: the existing Australian travel declaration card. The legislation before the chamber also makes it clear that providing that information is mandatory.
There is a potential civil penalty of up to 120 penalty units for a refusal to fill in the card or the declaration form. This mirrors the existing penalty under section 196 and extends the existing legislation to the digital pathway rather than creating any new punishment or any new offence. I will acknowledge that this is also distinct from the much higher penalty for knowingly providing false information, which allows for a civil penalty of up to 600 penalty units or a criminal penalty of 12 months imprisonment.
Those penalties already apply and are unchanged by the bill before the chamber this afternoon. The bill also introduces a notice of intention requirement before the department can refuse or impose conditions on an approved biosecurity arrangement, such as treatment, fumigation or storage facilities. This is currently just administrative practice, but the bill legislates a guaranteed right to respond before an adverse decision, providing additional powers for the government in terms of protecting our biosecurity.
It also retains the paper and verbal alternatives for travellers without a suitable device to fill in the digital travel declaration. And included in the bill is a minor technical fix, removing an incorrect reference in the inspector-general's information-gathering power. Now, those are the technical aspects of the bill, but I think there'd be many people who travel to Australia with very little appreciation of our agricultural sector or other industries who would receive that card as they approach their destination, saying: 'Why are we bothering with this?
What's this all about? What is the point of having a declaration card?' The point, Deputy Speaker Boyce—as you well know, representing your magnificent electorate and its agricultural producers—is that this is about managing risk. This is about trying to stop additional incursions of invasive species and threats at our border.
It is far more economically efficient to prevent an invasive species from entering Australia in the first place than it is to try to clean up the mess that occurs when we have an outbreak of an invasive species, whether it be a plant or animal species. The coalition support this bill because we back a strong and well-resourced biosecurity system and the sensible use of technology to help it run better.
Providing modernisation comes with additional strength for what we're seeking to achieve. On the available information that the government has provided and the briefings provided to the opposition, we believe this is sensible modernisation that doesn't weaken our existing protections. The coalition will continue to examine and scrutinise how it rolls out to ensure that the technology is being implemented in a way which delivers benefits for the Australian travelling public and also for those who are exposed to the risks of biosecurity incursions.
We believe that modernising the border pathway matters, but the coalition still has real concerns with what is actually happening on the ground in regional Australia today, where there are already established pests. Quite frankly, the Labor Party has dropped the ball on keeping Australians safe, keeping our agricultural sector safe and protecting our magnificent biodiversity.
The greatest threats to biodiversity and agricultural production are the pest weeds and pest animals which continue to impact vast areas of rural and regional Australia today. The CSIRO has found that invasive species cost Australia more than $25 billion in lost agricultural production every year and that invasive species remain the greatest risk for the extinction of native species.
That is an accepted fact. Environmentalists and the CSIRO all agree that it is invasive species which are the greatest risk to Australian biodiversity, not climate change or any other theory that might be put forward by some of the more extreme green elements in our nation. It is invasive species which we need to control to protect our biodiversity and our agricultural sector.
As a nation, we need more boots and fewer suits. That's more boots on the ground undertaking practical environmental work, undertaking practical environmental projects, like controlling invasive species through trapping, hunting and those sorts of measures, and fewer suits making excuses for the lack of action. At a time when farmers are feeling the pressure from increased input costs for fuel and fertiliser, we can't afford to add to their social and economic stress by dropping the ball on invasive species.
But that's exactly what this government has done in this year's budget. Whether it's pigs, deer, feral cats, rabbits, foxes, European carp, wild dogs, fire ants or any form of pest weed, the federal government needs to work in partnership with the states and natural resource management groups to control their combined impacts. As you know, Deputy Speaker Boyce, and as members on this side of the House know, the real environmentalists in Australia are the farmers, the trappers, the hunters and the Landcare and Coastcare volunteers, who get their hands dirty and undertake pest, weed and animal control work along with revegetation and other activities to support our native species.
The federal budget should have prioritised those practical efforts, should have prioritised those projects which make a difference on the ground and should have supported the efforts of regional Australians to care for the environment while they provide the food security for our nation—but it didn't. $56.1 million has gone to the border technology program, yet the Albanese government has cut funding from the feral animals, pests and weeds program in this year's budget.
Feral pigs, wild dogs, deer and other invasive species are increasing their impact across regional Australia, and we have a government cutting funding from the feral animals, pests and weeds program. One example I'll touch on briefly, just to give a practical demonstration of the cost of an invasive species and the real-life consequences, is feral pigs. Feral pigs are a genuine biosecurity risk.
They may well become the vector animal to move disease through our nation. They are capable of carrying and spreading serious livestock diseases, and they move, unfortunately, too freely through public and private land. Reading media reports of the Walgett NSW Farmers Association branch president, who was reported to be personally paying more than $1,000 an hour for helicopter feral pig control every six to eight weeks—that's a cost being borne by a landowner.
The pigs are moving onto farmland from a neighbouring national park. That's not a burden that individual farmers should be left to carry alone. I find in my state of Victoria that the worst neighbour to have is the state government.
The state government, through its parks—either national parks or state parks and state forests—does not undertake enough feral animal control, whether it's of wild dogs or pigs, and the impact is being felt on the farming sector. Wild dogs are costing the livestock industry an estimated $302 million every year, according to the National Farmers' Federation, yet we have funding for the National Wild Dog Management Coordinator running out at the end of September and funding for the National Wild Dog Action Plan itself lapsing just a month after that.
We have no indication yet from this government whether they'll support what is a tiny amount of money in the scheme of the budget—$250,000 a year for the National Wild Dog Management Coordinator. It is a tiny amount of money in the scheme of the importance of the industry, yet the funding is running out in only a matter of weeks and there is no indication yet of whether this government will support a national wild dog action plan and coordination through the National Wild Dog Management Coordinator.
Keep in mind, the government funds national coordinators for feral pigs, deer, rabbits, cats and foxes, so it doesn't make any sense to walk away from the wild dog coordination program now—unless it's the extreme Greens pulling the strings behind the scenes because they have some problem with the fact that we have to hunt, trap and kill these dogs in order to protect biodiversity and protect the agricultural sector.
I call on the Commonwealth to understand that, while this is primarily a state responsibility when it comes to invasive species, the federal government has a role to play in terms of encouraging good behaviour by the states but also in terms of coordination, and ensuring that these nationally significant species in terms of our biodiversity are protected but also that our nationally significant agricultural sector is given the support it needs to flourish and to continue to feed our nation and other countries throughout the world.
In closing, the coalition does support a modern border declaration system. We welcome it, but it does count for little if the government isn't guaranteeing ongoing funding for pest control that's already up and running in the community. Strong border protection and effective on-ground pest management are two halves of the same biosecurity system.
Digital reform needs to be matched with real continuous investment—more boots and fewer suits—and investment in the frontline programs that our farmers, our biodiversity and our native wildlife depend on. The coalition will keep advocating for a coordinated national approach to feral animals, pests and weeds; working with our farmers; working with industry, peak groups and the states; and will continue to monitor how this bill's provisions operate in practice.
Debate adjourned.