This supports the expanded use of digital technologies to collect this information, by reducing reliance on a one-on-one interaction with a biosecurity officer and a traveller... supporting more seamless clearance through the border and reduced touchpoints with officials.[Explanatory Memo page 2]. This information, which includes goods in possession and travel history, is used for "future profiling" and "targeted intervention" to manage risks to Australia's $70 billion agricultural sector. Failure to comply with these information requirements carries a civil penalty of 120 penalty units. Notably, the Bill abrogates the privilege against self-incrimination for this mandatory information, though it provides "use and derivative use" immunity to prevent the information from being used in most criminal proceedings. Additionally, the Bill enhances procedural fairness for biosecurity industry participants. It requires the Director of Biosecurity to issue a Notice of Intention (NOI) before refusing an application for an "approved arrangement" or approving one subject to non-standard conditions. This allows applicants 30 days to provide a written submission, which the Director must consider before making a final decision. The Bill also makes a technical correction to section 568 to clarify the Inspector-General of Biosecurity's information-gathering powers.
The primary justification for this Bill is the enhancement of Australia's biosecurity resilience through technological modernization and administrative transparency. By transitioning to a mandatory digital declaration system, the government can process the increasing volume of international travellers more efficiently while focusing resources on high-risk individuals. From a utilitarian perspective, protecting Australia's $70 billion agricultural sector and its unique environment from invasive pests and diseases is a paramount objective that justifies the collection of detailed traveller data [Judgment].
The Bill also significantly improves the legal standing of biosecurity industry participants. By enshrining the requirement for a Notice of Intention (NOI) in the Biosecurity Act 2015, the Bill moves beyond mere administrative practice to provide a robust legislative guarantee of procedural fairness. This ensures that businesses are not subject to arbitrary decisions and have a meaningful opportunity to contest proposed conditions or refusals that could impact their operations [Judgment].
Furthermore, the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination is a necessary and proportionate measure. Given the potential for catastrophic economic and environmental damage from a biosecurity breach, the public interest in obtaining accurate information at the border outweighs the individual's right to silence, especially since the Bill includes protections against the use of such information in criminal trials.
While the goal of biosecurity is laudable, this Bill introduces several concerning precedents regarding civil liberties and regulatory oversight. The mandatory obligation to provide personal information—including travel history and occupation—represents a significant intrusion into individual privacy. This is compounded by the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination under section 195A. The right to not incriminate oneself is a fundamental tenet of the common law, and its removal, even with limited immunity, weakens the legal protections afforded to individuals entering the country [Judgment].
There is also an epistemic concern regarding the delegation of power to regulations. The Bill leaves the specific "times," "manners," and "types" of information to be prescribed by the executive through regulations rather than defining them in the primary Act. This reduces parliamentary oversight and creates uncertainty for travellers who may face significant civil penalties for failing to comply with requirements that can be changed without full legislative debate [Judgment].
Finally, the extraterritorial application of these requirements means that travellers could technically be in breach of Australian law before they even set foot on Australian soil. Imposing a civil penalty of 120 penalty units ($43,680) for failing to complete a digital form correctly or on time is arguably disproportionate, particularly for individuals who may lack digital literacy or reliable internet access during travel.
2026-07-01
House of Representatives
Before House of Representatives
Unspecified
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Agriculture, Science / Technology, Democratic Institutions