Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026

Mr FRENCH (Moore) (12:58): Australia is an island nation, and that gives us an enormous advantage. We are separated by sea from many of the pests and diseases that damage farms, animals, plants and natural environments in other parts of the world. But that advantage only works if we protect it.

Every day, aircraft land at Australian airports, ships arrive at our ports and travellers return from holidays, visit family, come here for work or arrive in Australia for the first time. They bring luggage, food, clothing and equipment. Almost all of them are simply getting on with their lives.

But sometimes, without even knowing it, a traveller can also bring something in that could cause enormous damage. It could be seeds stuck to a boot, soil on camping equipment, fruit carrying an insect or meat carrying a disease. That is why we have a biosecurity system.

The Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026 is about making that system work better. It does not lower our biosecurity standards. It does not remove the responsibility on people entering Australia to tell us what they are carrying.

In fact, it gives our biosecurity officers better tools to get the right information earlier and use that information more effectively. The bill has three main parts. First, it supports the Australia travel declaration, or ATD, and allows biosecurity information to be collected in modern ways.

Second, it gives businesses operating under approved biosecurity arrangements a clearer and fairer process when government decisions are being made about those arrangements. Third, it fixes a small technical problem in the existing Biosecurity Act. Those changes might sound fairly dry, but the reason behind them is simple: Australia is receiving more travellers and goods, the risks are changing and our border system has to keep up.

In 2025 alone, biosecurity officers inspected more than 280,000 commercial air and sea consignments and intercepted more than 359,000 incoming travellers. In March this year, alone, officers intercepted more than 33,300 travellers carrying biosecurity risk material. Those are not small numbers.

As international travel continues to grow, we cannot simply respond by making every traveller stand in a longer line. We need smarter systems. That brings me to the first major reform in this bill, the Australia travel declaration.

Most Australians who have travelled overseas know the current system. You're sitting on the plane as it approaches Australia. The cabin crew hand out paper incoming passenger cards.

You find a pen—more often than not you discover you don't have one—then you try to remember the flight number, where you were staying and whether something buried at the bottom of your suitcase falls within one of the questions on the card. For decades, that system has done an important job. But in 2026 we can do better.

The Australia travel declaration allows travellers to provide biosecurity information digitally. Under the current pilot, eligible travellers can complete the declaration through the Qantas app before arriving in Australia. Once it is completed, they receive a QR code which can be scanned once they arrive.

The declaration can be completed up to 72 hours before departure. The pilot started in Brisbane in 2024. It was expanded to Sydney in 2025 and to Melbourne in 2026.

By 26 May this year, more than 380,000 travellers had used the system. The government has now announced its intention to expand the system further. The bill creates the legal framework needed to support that work.

Importantly, this is not simply about replacing a piece of paper with a screen. The real benefit is getting useful information earlier. At the moment, much of the information on an incoming passenger card becomes available to officers when a traveller is already arriving at the border.

A digital system can allow that information to be provided earlier. That gives biosecurity officers more opportunity to assess the risk, and it means officers can spend more time looking at people and goods that require closer attention instead of treating every traveller in exactly the same way. The explanatory memorandum makes the purpose clear.

The aim is smoother passenger flows, less congestion and faster processing while maintaining our biosecurity standards. That last part is important. Efficiency cannot mean weaker biosecurity.

The point is to be more efficient because we have better information, not to wave more people through and hope for the best. Under the bill, new section 195A will create a clear obligation on incoming travellers—including passengers, crew members and people in charge of aircraft or vessels—to provide prescribed biosecurity information and documents. Adults can also be required to provide information for children or other people for whom they are responsible.

The information that can be required is tied to biosecurity. For example, travellers may be asked what goods they are bringing into Australia. They might be asked where they have travelled—whether they've visited farms, been around animals, walked through wilderness areas or visited freshwater areas.

In some cases a person's occupation may help officers understand the risk. That does not mean that Australia has suddenly developed an unhealthy interest in what everyone does for a living. It means that someone who works around farms, plants or animals may be more likely to have soil, seeds or other biological material on their equipment and clothing.

The bill also allows information to be used for future assessment and profiling of biosecurity risks. In plain English, that means looking for patterns. If we know where the risks are appearing, where travellers have come from, what goods are causing problems and where breaches are occurring we can put officers and resources where they are most useful.

That is basic risk management. The bill also makes clear that information needs to remain accurate. If information changes or is incomplete, travellers are required to correct it.

There are penalties for failing to comply. There are also existing serious penalties for knowingly providing false or misleading information, and that is appropriate. Australia welcomes millions of people through our border.

The overwhelming majority of people do the right thing. The system should make their journey as simple as possible. But there must be consequences for people who deliberately ignore biosecurity rules, because the cost of a serious pest or disease outbreak does not stop at an airport terminal.

It can reach farms thousands of kilometres away. It can affect food production. It can close export markets.

It can destroy businesses. It can damage the environment. It can threaten jobs in regional communities.

Australia's agriculture sector depends heavily on our strong pest and disease status. Our producers are able to sell high-quality food and fibre around the world because international customers trust Australian products. Biosecurity helps protect that reputation.

That is why farmers are right to insist that any new technology must strengthen the system, not weaken it. The National Farmers' Federation has described Australia's biosecurity as non-negotiable. The Queensland Farmers Federation has also supported greater digital efficiency in principle, while stressing the importance of strong border protection and cybersecurity.

These are reasonable expectations. Modernisation has to be done properly. Accessibility also has to be part of the rollout.

Not every traveller owns the latest phone. Not everybody is confident using an app. Not everybody has reliable internet access.

And some travellers may have a disability or another reason that a particular digital process is difficult to use. Canberra Airport has specifically raised the importance of keeping the declaration process accessible for travellers who face barriers with digital technology, and that should be taken seriously as this program expands. Digital government should make services easier.

It should not turn possession of the right phone into an entry requirement. The second major reform in this bill deals with what are called approved arrangements. That phrase needs some explanation.

Some businesses regularly deal with goods that carry biosecurity risks. Rather than having government officers personally manage every step of the transaction, an approved arrangement allows an organisation to manage certain biosecurity risks itself under rules agreed with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. These arrangements can make the system more efficient while still requiring the business to meet strict biosecurity standards.

The issue addressed by these bills is: what happens when an organisation applies for one of these arrangements or asks to change an existing arrangement and the department is considering saying no or imposing conditions? The bill establishes a clearer notice-of-intention process. Again, the name sounds complicated; the idea is not.

If the department is considering refusing an application it should generally tell the applicant why before making the final decision. The applicant then gets a chance to respond. Under the proposed process a notice of intention must be in writing.

It must explain what the decision-maker is considering doing. It must provide reasons and, except in serious or urgent cases, the applicant can be invited to provide a written response within 30 days. It must also tell applicants about the review rights.

For lawyers, we call that procedural fairness; for everyone else, we might call it giving somebody a fair chance to put their side of the story. If a government regulator is considering refusing an application, an applicant should normally know why. If the regulator has misunderstood something, the applicant should be able to correct it.

If there was more information that could change the decision, the decision-maker should be able to consider it. The department already uses notices like these as part of its administrative practices, and this bill puts that practice more clearly into legislation. That means greater certainty for industry and more consistent decision-making.

Good regulation is not simply about being tough; it is about being clear. Businesses need to know what the rules are, regulators need to have the power to enforce those rules and, when decisions are made, people should understand the process. That combination supports confidence in the system.

The third part of this bill is much smaller. It fixes wording in section 568 of the Biosecurity Act, relating to the Inspector-General of Biosecurity. The act currently uses the phrase 'relevant information' in that section.

The problem is that relevant information already has a special defined meaning elsewhere in the act. That special meaning was not intended to apply here, so the bill removes the word 'relevant' from that provision, making the meaning clear. It is not a dramatic reform; no-one will be making a documentary about it, but clear laws are better laws, and fixing confusing drafting is worthwhile.

This bill also forms part of a much larger investment in Australia's biosecurity system. Since the 2022 election, the Albanese Labor government has committed more than $2 billion in additional biosecurity and resourcing. We've also strengthened our frontline capability.

Detector dogs remain one of the most effective tools we have. In 2024 biosecurity detector dogs intercepted more than 42,000 items at our borders and mail centres. More than 10,000 of those interceptions were made by the additional 20 detector dogs funded by this government.

Technology is valuable, but good biosecurity will always depend on people as well. It depends on trained officers making decisions. It depends on scientists identifying risks.

It depends on detector dogs finding things that people would rather they not find. It depends on farmers and industry working with government. And it depends on travellers being honest about what they are bringing into Australia.

The aim of this bill is to make each part of that system work better together. We should welcome international visitors. Tourism supports businesses and jobs across Australia.

Australians should also be able to return home without spending unnecessary time standing in airport queues. But convenience and security are not opposing ideas. Done properly, technology can give us both.

Information can be provided earlier. Risk can be assessed sooner. Low-risk travellers can move smoothly through the system.

Biosecurity officers can concentrate on areas that require closer attention. Businesses working under approved arrangements can receive clearer and fairer decisions, and our farmers, environment and economy continue to receive the protection they depend upon. Australia has built one of the strongest biosecurity systems in the world, but a strong record is not an excuse to stand still.

Travelling numbers will continue growing. Trade will keep growing. Technology will keep changing.

Pests and diseases will keep changing too. Our laws have to be capable of changing with them. That is what this bill does.

It replaces unnecessary reliance on paper with a framework for better digital processes. It gives officers access to information earlier. It strengthens the legal obligation to provide accurate biosecurity information.

It improves procedural fairness for industry, and it cleans up an unclear provision in the existing act. These are practical reforms. They make the border more efficient without lowering the standard of protection Australians expect.

I commend the bill to the House.