|
representatives vote 2021-02-17#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-07-15 09:55:51
|
Title
Bills — Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019; Second Reading- Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019 - Second Reading - Keep second reading motion unchanged
Description
<p class="speaker">Stuart Robert</p><p>I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-02-17.19.4) to keep the usual second reading motion unchanged. In parliamentary jargon, they voted "*that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.*"
- The usual second reading motion is "*that the bill be read a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/),*" which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. This vote took place after Franklin MP [Julie Collins](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/franklin/julie_collins) (Labor) proposed the amendment below.
- ### Proposed amendment text
- > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
- >
- > *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes:*
- >
- > *(1) the importance of ensuring computerised systems are only used in simple and uniform cases to guarantee consistency and accuracy; and*
- >
- > *(2) that the Coalition Government has backflipped on its plan to introduce the biosecurity imports levy."*
<p class="italic">That this bill be now read a second time.</p><p>Australia's world-class biosecurity framework has ensured that our $60 billion agricultural industry, local communities and natural environment are protected from the incursion of pests and diseases.</p><p>The Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019 will assist the efficiency and effectiveness of our biosecurity system, by authorising automated decision-making for decisions made by biosecurity officers under the Biosecurity Act 2015 and authorised officers under the Imported Food Control Act 1992. This approach will support deregulation and improve the effectiveness of the biosecurity framework and imported food system.</p><p>Australia's biosecurity framework plays a critical role in reducing risk of incursions by pests and diseases. The Department of Agriculture currently processes on average 45,000 commercial cargo referrals and an increasing value of imported foods each month. Australia is currently operating in the peak season for the brown marmorated stink bug, or BMSB, which entails considerable administrative and manual effort by biosecurity staff and stakeholders to prevent an incursion of this potentially devastating pest.</p><p>The department is also dedicating intensive resources to prevent African swine fever virus, or ASFV, from entering Australian borders. ASFV poses a significant biosecurity threat to Australia as it is a highly contagious disease that spreads rapidly through domestic and wild pigs, killing up to 80 per cent of the pigs it infects. As of September 2019, ASFV had reached the shores of our near neighbour East Timor. Other high-risk pests include the khapra beetle and the continued threat posed by foot-and-mouth disease.</p><p>If we do not provide Australia's biosecurity framework with all possible tools to prevent the entry of such high-risk pests and diseases, Australia's agricultural industry and world-leading reputation for biosecurity may be irreparably damaged.</p><p>This bill clarifies the legislative basis for the government to issue directions to importers and brokers arranging the entry of goods and imported food into Australia, through the use of computerised decision-making. Such automated decision-making will enable the government to maximise resources addressing critical risks, and ensure current and planned decision tools can be implemented as efficiently as possible, with minimal impacts on importers.</p><p>The bill will provide the secretary the power to determine, by legislative instrument, the types of decisions a computer program may make on behalf of a biosecurity officer or an authorised officer. This will allow the government to adapt to developments in technology and account for future iterations of automated decision-making systems. In this, the bill will provide a platform for immediate and ongoing improvement in regulatory decision-making.</p><p>To take into account technical difficulties that may be experienced by computer systems, the bill also enables a biosecurity officer or an authorised officer to substitute automated decisions where appropriate.</p><p>As the government enters the peak pre-Christmas season for cargo referred for inspection, including the increased inspection for ASFV and BMSB, optimising our operational efficiencies is critical. The operational environment of high volumes of goods and people entering Australia, and the potential for negative impact on Australia's agriculture, environment and economy if biosecurity risk or food safety is not effectively identified and managed, mean that it is necessary to provide automated decision-making. The bill is therefore critical for Australia's biosecurity framework to operate efficiently and effectively for the health and safety of all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Julie Collins</p><p>The Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019, as we heard from the minister, does seek to amend Australia's biosecurity laws in relation to imported food and imported goods to provide for streamlined administration through automated, computerised decision-making. The current bill is intended to amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 and the Imported Food Control Act 1992. The explanatory memorandum states that the bill will allow risk identification and management across a large number of goods and conveyances. It will also reduce the burden on importers by enabling fast, accurate clearance and providing flexibility in responding to existing and emerging risks. It also states in the EM that it's intended that the principles set out in the Administrative Review Council will be taken into account during implementation of the automated decision-making scheme, 'to the extent consistent with maintaining biosecurity and food health and safety standards'.</p><p>The proposed bill provides discretion for authorised officers under the respective bills to override an electronic decision where satisfied that the electronic decision is inconsistent with the objects of the relevant act or where another decision is more appropriate in the circumstances. It goes on to say that decisions made by a computer program will be subject to merits and judicial review in the same way as a decision made by an officer under the relevant provision. In the case of the Biosecurity Act, a decision will be taken to have been made by the director of biosecurity but not in a personal capacity, and, as such, the decision will still be subject to an internal initial review in that first instance.</p><p>This is all very important because we know what has happened with this government, particularly in relation to automated computer systems, in the past. They don't exactly have a great record when it comes to this. All you need to do is talk about things like the ABS. Who remembers the census of 2016, when everything crashed? What a debacle, it really was. The census website crashed and then the blame game started, but, instead of us accepting responsibility, the government blamed everybody else—as usual. The ATO website, as we know, crashes several times every year, usually around 1 or 2 July, when it gets high traffic coinciding with the end-of-financial-year activities. This continues to happen. We've seen the myGov website crash several times. We saw it crash spectacularly during the beginning of COVID, the pandemic, with distressed people trying to get access to critical government services at that time. At the time, I and many members on this side, I'm sure, received many contacts from people desperately trying to get into government services and get access to the system. We had the responsible minister apologise for claiming hackers had targeted the website. Later we of course found out that it wasn't hackers, and his response was just, 'My bad.' That's the response that you give when you don't have anything else to say, when you know that you were just making up excuses.</p><p>We also have seen many older Australians who had sadly passed away receive letters from the My Aged Care government website and system. We know that people are getting letters for deceased relatives more than a year after their relatives have deceased, and this continues to go on. Then there is the tech debacle to end all tech debacles, the robodebt disaster, where we saw innocent Australians believe they had occurred a Centrelink debt when indeed they had not, all because they were sent incorrect information by a computer—</p> <p class="speaker">Sharon Claydon</p><p>Is the minister standing on a point of order?</p> <p class="speaker">Stuart Robert</p><p>I am, Madam Deputy Speaker, on relevance. The word 'agriculture' is yet to be mentioned. I would have thought, on a bill dealing with agriculture, that that word would probably have some prominence somewhere at some time.</p> <p class="speaker">Sharon Claydon</p><p>Relevance stands. I believe there's a second reading amendment on its way.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|