This bill became law on Sep 13th, 2023.
Industry, agriculture & resources
The Director of BiosecurityThe official who has the legal power to require traveller information and approve or vary some biosecurity arrangements, even though the job is often carried out by biosecurity officers in practice. can require everyone on a flight or vessel, not just one traveller at a time, to give information for border biosecurity checks.
Rising biosecurity and human health threats, driven by more travellers, changing trade and climate pressures, left the system needing better traveller information and stronger deterrence. The bill lets officers collect passport and travel data more efficiently, target higher-risk arrivals, and raises penalties to discourage non-compliance and false information.
Australia already had a national biosecurity regime under the Biosecurity Act 2015The main federal law that lets Australia stop pests and diseases at the border and manage biosecurity risks after they arrive., but by 2023 the government said rising traveller numbers, more diverse trade and cargo, climate change and growing human health threats were putting that system under heavier strain. The bill responded by letting the Director of BiosecurityThe official who has the legal power to require traveller information and approve or vary some biosecurity arrangements, even though the job is often carried out by biosecurity officers in practice. collect and retain passport and travel-document information more efficiently and by increasing penalties to deter breaches and false information, before Parliament passed it in September 2023 and Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. turned those stronger compliance powers into law.
The main criticism was not that the bill’s tougher powers were wrong, but that they would fall short without stronger long-term funding, environmental biosecurityThe part of biosecurity focused on protecting native plants, animals and ecosystems from invasive species and disease. focus and careful implementation. These concerns came from conditional supporters such as the GreensThe minor party that moved the amendment calling for stronger environmental biosecurity and long-term funding. and some crossbench and Coalition speakers, while no party represented in the debate opposed the bill itself.
Hon Catherine King MP introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 13 Sept 2023
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
Members called out ‘aye’ or ‘no’ — no individual votes were recorded.
Passage speed
84 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
The Director of BiosecurityThe official who has the legal power to require traveller information and approve or vary some biosecurity arrangements, even though the job is often carried out by biosecurity officers in practice. can require everyone on a flight or vessel, not just one traveller at a time, to give information for border biosecurity checks.
The Director of BiosecurityThe official who has the legal power to require traveller information and approve or vary some biosecurity arrangements, even though the job is often carried out by biosecurity officers in practice. can require arriving travellers to show travel documents, scan them, and keep personal information from them to assess current and future biosecurity risks.
Travellers who are required to show a passport or other travel document for a biosecurity check can face a civil penaltyA court-enforceable financial penalty for breaking a rule, used here for refusing to provide required travel documents or giving false information. if they refuse.
Businesses with approved biosecurity arrangements must get notice and a chance to respond before a proposed variation, suspension or cancellation, and can be reprimanded instead of losing approval.
Penalties rise, in some cases sharply, to better deter serious breaches of biosecurity law and false or misleading information.
Assessing the biosecurity risk associated with persons arriving in Australian territory and the goods they have with them on an individual basis does not allow for the most effective and efficient management of associated biosecurity risks. Therefore, in order to better assess biosecurity risks arising from incoming travellers, Schedule 1 to the Bill would amend section 196 of the Act to allow the Director to require the provision of information by classes of person, as well as by an individual. For example, these proposed measures would allow the Director to include each person on a flight or a vessel (including a cruise ship) in a class and then require every person in that class to provide information so the Director can assess the level of biosecurity risk associated with them and the goods they have with them, rather than having to require the provision of information from each person individually. This would be an effective addition to the current biosecurity management options for incoming travellers, particularly for example where flights or vessels are arriving in Australian territory from a country or region where there is a heightened risk posed by a disease or pest that, should it enter Australia, would have a serious and adverse impact on the economy, the environment, flora and fauna and the nation’s agricultural sector.Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) explanatory memorandum
(c) collect and retain personal information obtained as part of that production or scanning for either or both of those purposes.Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) as-passed bill text
These measures would also create a new civil penalty provision. Where a person is required to produce a passport or travel document, that person must comply with such requirement. The maximum civil penalty for a contravention of this provision would be 120 penalty units. The new civil penalty provision would also be subject to the infringement notice scheme under the Act.Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) explanatory memorandum
make amendments to Chapter 7 of the Act in relation to the requirement to give notice to a biosecurity industry participant of a proposed variation, suspension or revocation of an approved arrangement. Specifically, the amendments would introduce a new procedural fairness requirement for proposed variations and consolidate notice requirements for a proposed variation, suspension or revocation into a single provision, with the option to give a reprimand as an alternative sanction;Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) explanatory memorandum
With stronger penalties, in some cases up to $275,000, we better reflect the seriousness of breaches of the act and provide a more effective deterrent to noncompliance with biosecurity laws.Minister's second reading speech
Context
Australia already had a national biosecurity regime under the Biosecurity Act 2015The main federal law that lets Australia stop pests and diseases at the border and manage biosecurity risks after they arrive., but by 2023 the government said rising traveller numbers, more diverse trade and cargo, climate change and growing human health threats were putting that system under heavier strain. The bill responded by letting the Director of BiosecurityThe official who has the legal power to require traveller information and approve or vary some biosecurity arrangements, even though the job is often carried out by biosecurity officers in practice. collect and retain passport and travel-document information more efficiently and by increasing penalties to deter breaches and false information, before Parliament passed it in September 2023 and Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. turned those stronger compliance powers into law.
Rising travel, trade and climate pressures strain the biosecurity system
The explanatory memorandumThe official document that explains what the bill changes and why the government says the changes are needed. said increased traveller numbers, diversifying trade and cargo, climate change and threats to human health were creating new and growing challenges for Australia’s biosecurity regime.
Australian Parliament House ↗Government introduces a bill to expand traveller checks and lift penalties
The minister introduced the bill as a way to help officers gather information from arriving travellers more efficiently and strengthen deterrence against non-compliance and false or misleading information.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing its parliamentary passage after debates that focused on keeping the biosecurity system fit for emerging risks.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. turns the bill into law
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. made the measure an Act, locking in the new compliance powers and higher penalties within the federal biosecurity framework.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (22/06/2023): Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee; Committee report (27/07/2023)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was not that the bill’s tougher powers were wrong, but that they would fall short without stronger long-term funding, environmental biosecurityThe part of biosecurity focused on protecting native plants, animals and ecosystems from invasive species and disease. focus and careful implementation. These concerns came from conditional supporters such as the GreensThe minor party that moved the amendment calling for stronger environmental biosecurity and long-term funding. and some crossbench and Coalition speakers, while no party represented in the debate opposed the bill itself.
No party represented in the debate opposed the bill, but some support was plainly qualified.
Too narrow without stronger environmental biosecurity
Critics argued the bill strengthens compliance tools but does not by itself fix bigger gaps in environmental biosecurityThe part of biosecurity focused on protecting native plants, animals and ecosystems from invasive species and disease., especially invasive species risks and the need for a dedicated long-term response beyond agriculture-focused enforcement.
Powers need funding and resourcing to work
Some supporters warned that tougher penalties and broader information-gathering powers will not achieve much unless the government also provides sustained funding, enforcement capacity and follow-through. The concern was mainly about implementation risk rather than opposition to the bill’s policy goal.
Future biosecurity changes could hurt industry if poorly designed
Coalition speakers said stronger biosecurity laws should not become a basis for badly designed later changes that add costs or disrupt growers and plant importers without proper consultation. This was a caution about how the wider regime is implemented, not a direct rejection of the bill.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
Senate
The Senate defeated this proposal on voices; it would have added recognition of invasive species risks, criticised biosecurity performance in environmental protection, and urged greater priority and long-term funding for environmental biosecurityThe part of biosecurity focused on protecting native plants, animals and ecosystems from invasive species and disease..
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Ms King supports the bill, saying it strengthens the Biosecurity Act with more targeted intervention, better risk management and stronger penalties to deter noncompliance.
Read in Hansard ↗Whish-Wilson says the GreensThe minor party that moved the amendment calling for stronger environmental biosecurity and long-term funding. support the bill’s tougher compliance powers and extra resources for biosecurity, but he argues the government must do much more for environmental biosecurityThe part of biosecurity focused on protecting native plants, animals and ecosystems from invasive species and disease. and long-term sustainable funding.
Read in Hansard ↗Steggall supports the bill because it modernises the Biosecurity Act, strengthens penalties, and responds to growing biosecurity risks.
Read in Hansard ↗Watt supports the bill and says it strengthens Australia’s biosecurity laws by giving officers better tools, tougher penalties and more targeted infringement powers to deter risky or dishonest behaviour at the border.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
5 speakers · 6 contributions · 5 support
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Murray Watt, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Moved amendment
Watt supports the bill and says it strengthens Australia’s biosecurity laws by giving officers better tools, tougher penalties and more targeted infringement powers to deter risky or dishonest behaviour at the border. He argues the changes are needed because growing travel and cargo volumes are increasing the biosecurity threat to agriculture, the environment and public health.
“This Bill strengthens the Biosecurity Act to enable targeted intervention, better risk management and more proportionate responses.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Watt supports the bill, saying it will strengthen biosecurity powers, penalties and information gathering so officers can better target high-risk travellers and products. He says it is part of the Albanese government's broader effort to improve biosecurity protection and funding.
“I appreciate the support from the chamber for this bill. It is another step in the Albanese government's plans to continue strengthening our biosecurity responses. Australia's biosecurity system is recognised as among the best in the world. This bill and our new sustainable funding model will ensure that we maintain our reputation as a supplier of high-quality produce while protecting our farmers, our economy and our environment from biosecurity risks into the future.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“The bill before the House amends the Biosecurity Act 2015 to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose in managing emerging biosecurity risks and that penalties reflect the seriousness of offences. Penalty options should reflect the significant long-term economic, social and agricultural industry impacts of contravention of Australia's biosecurity rules. As I said before, we should make no apologies for coming down hard and strong on people who put Australia's biosecurity at risk and who flagrantly disregard this country's biosecurity laws.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“A strengthened biosecurity system not only secures better economic outcomes for producers and related industries but protects Australia's environment, biosecurity and people. I urge everyone in this place to put their communities and their agricultural industries first and to support our regions by supporting the Albanese Labor government's incredibly important bill to keep our industries and the jobs that they provide within our communities safe.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill strengthens the Biosecurity Act to enable targeted intervention, better risk management and more proportionate responses.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Australia's biosecurity system is recognised as among the best in the world. This bill and our new sustainable funding model will ensure that we maintain our reputation as a supplier of high-quality produce, while protecting our farmers, economy and environment from biosecurity risks into the future. I commend the bill to the chamber.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 3 support
“We will be supporting this bill because we believe that the measures outlined in this legislation are sensible and reasonable, and we commend it to the Senate, but we again implore the Labor Party to find ways to fund their biosecurity policy other than by taxing Australian farmers.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition is supporting the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023 because a strong and robust biosecurity system is crucial to protecting Australia against the threat of pests and diseases. It is also largely supported by industry.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“On behalf of the federal coalition, I confirm to the House that we will be supporting the passage of the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023. The coalition recognises that having a strong and robust biosecurity system is crucial to protecting Australia against the threat of pests and diseases.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“I'm going to conclude by saying this is a classic example of where a much feared outbreak in our country has happened, and it's costing an absolute bomb. There are estimates regarding this getting into a major crop through crop pollinators, and concerns have arisen in recent days that beekeepers in Kempsey have been sending potentially infected hives to pollinate almond crops in Sunraysia. If that is the case, if there are infected bees now in Victoria, you can forget about eradication because it will be off the table. We're going to have to learn to live with this infestation and the cost is going to be in the billions. We heard in the Senate enquiry that it would most likely destroy 90 per cent of Australia's honey bee population. This is a classic example of something that is costing us a bomb, so we support the initiative to give the government more power and more resources to deal with these kinds of outbreaks.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“I commend the government for strengthening the Biosecurity Act with these proposed amendments. But it's also vital that adequate resources be allocated to the identification and eradication of biosecurity risks, and enforcement of penalties.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee; Committee report (27/07/2023)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (22 June 2023): Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee; Committee report (27 July 2023)
APH bill page notes
