This Bill amends the Export Control Act 2020 to facilitate the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's export assurance reform project. The primary objective is to ensure that the regulation of 'general products' (commodities like wool, skins, and animal food) does not impose unnecessary costs on industry.
Key provisions include:
The intention is that export operations that occur at a registered establishment only contravene section 143 where it is a prescribed export condition that those operations occur at a registered establishment and the registration does not cover them.[Explanatory Memo page 2].
The primary argument for this Bill is its commitment to reducing 'red tape' within Australia's vital export sector. By clarifying Section 143, the Bill removes a technical trap where exporters could be penalized for conducting harmless operations simply because they were not explicitly listed on a site's registration. This is a common-sense reform that recognizes that not every activity within a facility poses a risk to Australia's international reputation or biosecurity [Judgment].
Furthermore, the reform regarding government certificates is essential for maintaining market access. Many international trading partners now require general certifications that do not fit the traditional model of per-shipment documentation. By allowing the Department to issue broader certificates, the government is providing the industry with the tools it needs to remain competitive in complex global markets. The 18-month cap on these certificates is a prudent measure that balances trade facilitation with the need for periodic oversight and audit compliance.[1]
The explanatory memo highlights that this period aligns with the power to audit non-prescribed goods under subsection 266(4) of the Act.
Critics of the Bill may argue that narrowing the scope of Section 143 creates potential gaps in regulatory oversight. While the intention is to reduce burden, registration serves as a comprehensive record of what occurs within export-certified facilities. By allowing certain 'unlisted' operations to proceed, the Bill may complicate the task of auditors and inspectors who rely on a clear, exhaustive registration to verify compliance [Judgment]. There is a risk that this 'flexibility' could lead to a lack of clarity regarding which standards apply to which activities within a single establishment.
Additionally, the introduction of non-consignment-specific certificates that last up to 18 months represents a significant shift away from shipment-by-shipment verification. While this is efficient, it places a greater reliance on the integrity of the producer's ongoing systems rather than the physical inspection of goods intended for export. If a producer's standards slip during that 18-month window, the presence of a valid government certificate could inadvertently provide a 'halo effect' to sub-standard goods, potentially damaging the 'Brand Australia' reputation if an issue is discovered by an importing nation.[1]
The reliance on 'accredited properties' instead of 'registered establishments' for general products reflects a lower-tier of oversight that some stakeholders may find insufficient for high-value exports.
2026-03-12
House of Representatives
Before Senate
Unspecified
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Agriculture, Trade Policy, Industrial Policy