This bill became law on Sep 15th, 2026.
Industry, agriculture & resources
People travelling to Australia by aircraft or vessel—including passengers, crew and the person in charge—must provide the biosecurity information and documents set by regulations.
The government said rising traveller and goods volumes, changing disease patterns, climate effects and time pressure at the border require faster, better-informed biosecurity decisions. In 2025, officers inspected more than 280,000 commercial air and sea consignments and intercepted over 359,000 incoming travellers; in March 2026 alone, they intercepted more than 3,000 mail items and over 33,300 travellers carrying biosecurity-risk material. Minister Julie Collins (Labor) said the government had also provided more than $2 billion in additional biosecurity funding. The digital declaration is intended to reduce airport congestion, help low-risk travellers move faster and let officers focus on higher-risk people and goods.
Australia already required incoming travellers to complete a paper Incoming Passenger Card and gave biosecurity officers powers to seek further information, but rising traveller and goods volumes, changing disease patterns and border time pressure made the system harder to manage efficiently. The bill responded by creating a legal basis for digital Australia Travel Declarations and clearer notices for businesses with approved arrangements; after Hon Julie Collins MP introduced it on 1 July 2026, Parliament passed it on 10 September and Royal Assent followed on 15 September.
James McGrath (Liberal) supported the bill but argued that a modern declaration form would achieve little if established pests inside Australia were left without continuing funding. He contrasted $56.1 million for the broader border technology program with what he described as the complete removal of the federal feral animals, pests and weeds program. He also said wild dogs cost agriculture about $300 million a year and called for $250,000 a year for five years to continue national wild-dog coordination. Ash Ambihaipahar (Labor) reported concerns that digitisation must strengthen border protection, protect data from cyberattacks and remain accessible to older travellers and people without smartphones or digital confidence.
Hon Julie Collins MP introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 15 Sept 2026
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
Members called out ‘aye’ or ‘no’ — no individual votes were recorded.
Passage speed
76 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
People travelling to Australia by aircraft or vessel—including passengers, crew and the person in charge—must provide the biosecurity information and documents set by regulations. This includes information and documents about another person in their care on the journey, such as a child. The obligation applies even while the traveller is outside Australia. Travellers must correct anything that becomes inaccurate or incomplete, although regulations can create limited exceptions and allow someone else to respond for them.
Regulations can require information to be supplied electronically, in writing or by answering an officer's questions. The memorandum says the digital Australia Travel DeclarationA digital way for incoming travellers to provide required border and biosecurity information. is intended to be available through participating airlines' apps or a web form before arrival, producing a QR code for officers to scan. It also says the intended options include written forms and, in some circumstances, verbal answers, but the Act does not itself guarantee those alternatives.
A traveller who refuses to provide or update required information faces a maximum civil penaltyA financial penalty dealt with under civil law rather than a criminal conviction. of 120 penalty units—$43,680 from 1 July 2026. This penalty can apply while the person is outside Australia. The memorandum says travellers will receive several opportunities to comply and, in practice, a penalty or fine notice would be used only if someone refuses after an officer prompts them at the border.
The information can be used to assess a traveller, their goods and future biosecurity risks. Regulations can also cover document scanning and the collection and retention of personal information. Travellers cannot refuse to answer because the information might incriminate them, but it generally cannot be used against them in court except in cases about false or misleading information or documents.
Biosecurity officers can still ask selected travellers further questions or seek documents when more detail is needed. The Director of Biosecurity can also require information for future risk analysis, including about another person for whom the traveller is responsible and that person's goods.
Businesses applying for an approved arrangementGovernment approval for a business to manage specified biosecurity activities under oversight.—a permission to carry out activities such as treatment, fumigation or storage under government oversight—must receive written notice before an application or proposed change is refused. A notice before approval with conditions is optional. A notice must explain the proposed decision and review rights and normally allow 30 days for a written response, but that invitation can be left out where the grounds are serious and urgent.
When a business is invited to respond, the department's decision period is extended. If a response arrives on time, the extension runs from the notice date until 30 days after the response is received; otherwise, it is extended by 30 days.
The traveller-information changes begin on a date set by proclamationA formal government notice that starts legislation on a specified date., or automatically just over six months after royal assent if not started earlier. The business-notice changes begin the day after royal assent. The Act also removes an unintended use of the word “relevant” from the Inspector-General of Biosecurity's information-gathering power to avoid confusion.
(1) This section applies in relation to a person (a traveller) who: (a) intends to enter, or enters, Australian territory on an incoming aircraft or vessel; and (b) was, is, or will be: (i) a passenger on an incoming aircraft or vessel; or (ii) a member of the crew of an incoming aircraft or vessel; or (iii) the person in charge of an incoming aircraft or vessel; or (iv) a person included in a prescribed class of persons. Information and documents must be provided in accordance with the regulations (2) A traveller must provide prescribed information and prescribed documents in relationBiosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Act 2026
Matters that may be prescribed for the provision of prescribed information and documents (9) For the purposes of subsection (2) or (4), the regulations may do any or all of the following: (a) prescribe the time or times at, or by which, any or all prescribed information or documents must be provided; (b) prescribe the manner or manners in which any or all prescribed information or documents must be provided at, or by, any or all of those times; (c) prescribe a time or manner by reference to a person to whom information or documents must be provided, a place, an event, or another circumstanBiosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Act 2026
Civil penalty provision (7) A person who is required to provide information or a document under subsection (2) or (4) must comply with the requirement. Civil penalty: 120 penalty units. Application to persons within and outside Australian territory (8) Subsection (7) applies whether or not the person is in Australian territory when the person is required to provide the information or documents.Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Act 2026
(3) Information or a document prescribed for the purposes of subsection (2) must be information or a document for any of the following purposes: (a) assessing the level of biosecurity risk associated with a traveller or any goods that a traveller has with them; (b) the future profiling, or future assessment, of biosecurity risks in relation to travellers. Information and documents must be updated to remain accurate and complete (4) If information or a document provided by a person for the purposes of subsection (2) is not, or is no longer, accurate or complete, the person must provide anyBiosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Act 2026
7 Subsections 196(2) and (3) Repeal the subsections, substitute: Provision of information (2) The Director of Biosecurity may require any person covered by subsection (1), or each person included in a class of persons covered by subsection (1), to provide information in an approved manner that is for any of the following purposes: (a) assessing the level of biosecurity risk associated with: (i) the person; or (ii) any other person that person is in charge of on the relevant flight or voyage; or (iii) any goods that the person or other person has with them; (b) the future profiling, orBiosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Act 2026
2 At the end of section 406 Notice of proposed refusal to approve arrangement (4) The relevant Director must not refuse to approve a proposed arrangement unless the Director has given a notice to the applicant for the approval under subsection 435AA(1). Notice of proposed approval subject to conditions (5) The relevant Director may, before approving a proposed arrangement subject to one or more conditions, give a notice to the applicant for the approval under subsection 435AA(1). 3 Subsection 435(3) Omit “subsection (4)”, substitute “either or both of subsections (4) and (4A)”. 4 AfterBiosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Act 2026
3 Subsection 435(3) Omit “subsection (4)”, substitute “either or both of subsections (4) and (4A)”. 4 After subsection 435(4) (4A) The initial consideration period is extended, for each notice given under subsection 435AA(1) that includes the invitation referred to in paragraph 435AA(2)(d) in relation to the application, by: (a) if a submission in response to the invitation was given within the period specified in the invitation—the number of days falling within the period: (i) starting on the day the notice was given; and (ii) ending on the day that is 30 days after the day the submissiBiosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Act 2026
2 Commencement (1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms. Commencement information Commencement Date/Details 1. Sections 1 to 3 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table The day this Act receives the Royal Assent. 2. Schedule 1 A day or days to be fixed by Proclamation. However, if any of the provisions do not commence within the period of 6 months beginning on the day this Act receives the RoyaBiosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Act 2026
Context
Australia already required incoming travellers to complete a paper Incoming Passenger Card and gave biosecurity officers powers to seek further information, but rising traveller and goods volumes, changing disease patterns and border time pressure made the system harder to manage efficiently. The bill responded by creating a legal basis for digital Australia Travel Declarations and clearer notices for businesses with approved arrangements; after Hon Julie Collins MP introduced it on 1 July 2026, Parliament passed it on 10 September and Royal Assent followed on 15 September.
Border volumes increase
Biosecurity officers inspected more than 280,000 commercial air and sea consignments and intercepted over 359,000 incoming travellers, increasing pressure on border operations.
Government rationale ↗Officers intercept thousands of biosecurity-risk items and travellers
In March 2026, officers intercepted more than 3,000 mail items and over 33,300 travellers carrying biosecurity-risk material.
Government rationale ↗Hon Julie Collins MP introduces the bill
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to support digital traveller declarations and improve fairness and transparency for businesses operating under approved biosecurity arrangements.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, clearing the way for its new traveller-information and approved-arrangement rules to become law.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal Assent turns the bill into an Act
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, allowing the business-notice changes to begin the following day and the traveller-information changes to commence by proclamationA formal government notice that starts legislation on a specified date. or after six months.
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 (02/07/2026): Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Trade Legislation Committee; Committee report (28/08/2026)
Report tabled 28 Aug 2026
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.
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
Considered by scrutiny committee (12/08/2026): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 9 of 2026
Report 9 of 2026
APH bill page notesThe 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 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 Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
James McGrath (Liberal) supported the bill but argued that a modern declaration form would achieve little if established pests inside Australia were left without continuing funding. He contrasted $56.1 million for the broader border technology program with what he described as the complete removal of the federal feral animals, pests and weeds program. He also said wild dogs cost agriculture about $300 million a year and called for $250,000 a year for five years to continue national wild-dog coordination. Ash Ambihaipahar (Labor) reported concerns that digitisation must strengthen border protection, protect data from cyberattacks and remain accessible to older travellers and people without smartphones or digital confidence.
McGrath said the Coalition supported the bill and believed it modernised the system without weakening border protections. Ambihaipahar said the regulations remain open to parliamentary rejection, a web-form option is funded, and the underlying biosecurity questions do not change.
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.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Collins supports the bill as a practical modernisation of Australia's biosecurity system, arguing that digital travel declarations and clearer regulatory processes will improve border efficiency, decision-making and fairness without weakening biosecurity standards.
Read in Hansard ↗McGrath says the coalition will support the bill because it sensibly modernises traveller declarations without weakening biosecurity protections, retains non-digital options and improves procedural fairness.
Read in Hansard ↗French supports the bill, arguing that it will modernise traveller declarations, help officers assess biosecurity risks earlier, improve procedural fairness for businesses and make border processing more efficient without weakening protections.
Read in Hansard ↗Chester says the coalition supports the bill because digital travel declarations are a sensible modernisation that should strengthen border biosecurity, while arguing that the government must also maintain funding for practical pest control in regional Australia.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
7 speakers · 7 support
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In closing, this bill is not about sweeping changes or unnecessary complexity. It is about practical improvements that make a real difference. It is about ensuring that our biosecurity system continues to evolve in step with the world around us. And it is about protecting what matters most: our environment, our industries, our communities and our way of life. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I believe this bill doesn't compromise on that rigour. What it does is finally bring a much fairer and a much clearer system to the industry. As the Chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, this is something that would be of interest for the participants in this forum, who look at a lot of things outside of the scope, particularly on LTOPs and the sounds of aircrafts, but it is also quite relevant to the functions and the operations of Sydney Airport, which are really pertinent. I think for them this is an important step. It will also make it clearer for Sydney Airport and also for the workers and travellers. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That's what I want people to talk about when they get off the plane. That's what I want them to talk about when they go back to their countries of origin. That's what I want them to remember—that initial beauty and the fact that someone said, 'G'day, welcome to Australia; we hope you enjoy your stay here.' We understand what that means for tourism, what that means for our international reputation and what that's going to mean to the hundreds of thousands of people who will descend on Queensland over the next few years, especially when the 2032 Olympics are up and running. We're going to make it nice and smooth. We're going to make it nice and easy. The sun will hit their skin. They'll be in Brisbane, they'll be in Cairns, they'll watch the Olympics and we will say, 'G'day, welcome to Australia.' I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This Bill facilitates this by delivering a more responsive biosecurity framework that meets this expectation. It enables the long overdue transition from paper-based information gathering to modern digital options such as the Australia Travel Declaration. It improves procedural fairness for approved arrangements with greater clarity around regulatory decisions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill reflects a practical and forward-looking approach to strengthening Australia's biosecurity system for the future. It supports innovation and ensures our biosecurity laws continue to make a meaningful difference for Australia now and into the future.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026, particularly because it enables an incredibly important modernisation of our border, something that is going to be incredibly important for our international visitors and tourism sector. The bill does two things. It modernises how travellers provide biosecurity information and it improves fairness and transparency for biosecurity industry participants. It enables the digital Australian travel declaration, starting the move from paper based forms to modern digital options. Travellers can provide accurate information earlier before they board, which supports faster and stronger biosecurity decisions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 support
“The coalition will support this bill because it is a sensible step forward, but we will keep advocating in this place and beyond for a properly coordinated national approach to feral animals, pests and weeds, working with farmers, industry and the states and territories to protect Australia's agricultural production, our environment and the strength of our biosecurity system as a whole. We commend the bill to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”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 · 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 Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Trade Legislation Committee
Report tabled 28 Aug 2026
Referred to Committee (2 July 2026): Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Trade Legislation Committee; Committee report (28 Aug 2026)
APH bill page notesParliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report 9 of 2026
Considered by scrutiny committee (12 Aug 2026): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 9 of 2026
APH bill page notes
