National Biosecurity Committee

Stakeholders highlight that sustainable funding is essential for delivering reforms and maintaining the system over the long-term. Key priorities include investment in preparedness, surveillance, recovery and environmental biosecurity.

Many stakeholders support exploring alternative funding models, including expressing interest in the risk-creator principle, which calls for import pathways and other activities that generate biosecurity risk to make a greater contribution to funding the system. Ideas included:

• importers contributing more to biosecurity costs
• container levies or similar import-based charging mechanisms
• funding models that better align financial contributions with risk creation
• exploration of insurance or actuarial-based approaches to pricing biosecurity risk.

At the same time, there is strong feedback that primary industries already make substantial financial and operational contributions and have limited capacity to absorb additional costs.

It is acknowledged that biosecurity delivers benefits well beyond agriculture. It also supports the environment, trade, food security, public confidence and the economy.

Preparedness

Preparedness is consistently identified as a high priority for reform.

Stakeholders raise the need to continue strengthening prevention, surveillance and early detection. There is broad support for:

• a national biosecurity threat assessment
• national capability standards
• greater sharing of risk-based surveillance information
• national preparedness exercises, including with industry
• improved traceability systems
• building on existing government and industry preparedness programs
• continued investment in preparedness infrastructure, diagnostics and research.

Many stakeholders note that investing in preparedness before a biosecurity event delivers better outcomes than responding after an incursion.

There is also support for working with neighbouring countries to help manage risks before they reach Australia.

Response

Stakeholders see Australia's current response arrangements as a strong foundation. They also support improvements to coordination, consistency and flexibility.

This includes practical examples of how we can strengthen surge capacity, such as the utilisation of:

• trained national response personnel
• expandable surge workforces
• more response simulation exercises, including those that incorporate local government, industry and community organisations
• operationally ready incident management resources.

There is broad support for rapid eradication where possible while also strengthening arrangements for situations where eradication is not possible. This includes improving approaches to containment and long-term management.

Stakeholders emphasise the importance of clear governance, nationally coordinated decision-making, and aligning existing response frameworks, while retaining arrangements tailored to specific sectors.

Recovery

One of the strongest practical recovery messages was that recovery should begin as soon as a response starts.

Stakeholders suggested:

• defining recovery triggers early
• planning transition points from response to recovery
• aligning recovery arrangements with broader disaster recovery frameworks.

There is strong support for a comprehensive recovery framework that addresses economic, environmental and social impacts, alongside clear funding arrangements and delivery mechanisms.

Many stakeholders support closer alignment between biosecurity recovery efforts and broader disaster recovery frameworks.

Workforce shortages remain a significant challenge across the biosecurity system. Stakeholders reference shortages in critical disciplines including veterinary science, diagnostics, epidemiology, plant pathology, entomology, ecology and emergency management. Regional and remote workforce shortages are also highlighted as an ongoing challenge.

There is broad support for a nationally coordinated workforce strategy that focuses on education, training, recruitment, retention, succession planning and surge capacity.

Practical examples to address workforce challenges highlighted by stakeholders, include:

• university and vocational training pathways
• clearer career pathways into biosecurity professions
• professional development opportunities
• succession planning programs
• retention initiatives for specialist staff.

Another example is leveraging and building on the valuable indigenous ranger programs as a part of workforce and capability development.

Stakeholders also want reforms to recognise existing expertise across industry, research organisations, First Nations communities and other frontline groups.

Stakeholders highlight the need for an integrated national system to support fast and effective decision-making, preparedness and response. They call for greater consistency across jurisdictions in:

• legislation, regulations and domestic trade settings, including consistency in how they are applied
• surveillance, data sharing and system integration
• coordination of research, innovation and operational capability
• preparedness and response arrangements.

Stakeholders note that different approaches across jurisdictions can create inefficiencies, increase costs and make domestic trade more difficult. At the same time, stakeholders also recognise that greater national consistency will take time. Privacy, security and governance issues need to be addressed, and legislative reform will require realistic timeframes.

Stakeholders said Australia should improve and connect existing systems instead of creating new ones. This reflects the significant investment already made in digital systems, surveillance tools and data-sharing.

Stakeholders identify data sharing as one of the most important enablers of national integration.

Research and innovation

Stakeholders highlight the need for strong coordination between research organisations, governments and industry to accelerate innovation in operational biosecurity activities.

Shared national research priorities, improved coordination of research efforts and good connections between researchers and decision-makers are also priorities.

Stakeholders see emerging technologies as a way to improve preparedness, surveillance and response capability.

Stakeholders highlight the potential in:

• advanced diagnostics and genomics
• high-throughput sequencing technologies
• artificial intelligence and predictive analytics
• digital traceability systems
• environmental DNA (eDNA) surveillance
• shared analytics and decision-support tools.

Investment in these technologies could improve early detection, enhance surveillance, and strengthen responses.

A consistent theme is that biosecurity cannot be delivered by governments alone. Stakeholders said effective biosecurity relies on governments, industry, researchers, environmental organisations, First Nations communities, producers, and the wider public working together.

Submissions identify the continued need for biosecurity awareness across the community and supply chains. Stakeholders highlight opportunities to improve:

• public understanding of biosecurity risks
• awareness of reporting obligations
• industry preparedness
• biosecurity training and professional development
• community participation in surveillance and early detection.

Stakeholders also link a strong biosecurity culture to broader inclusion and highlight the importance of incorporating:

• First Nations knowledge and leadership
• environmental and wildlife perspectives
• citizen science initiatives
• regional and local expertise
• industry insights.

Many stakeholders raise the importance of a One Health approach, acknowledging that environmental, human and animal health are closely connected.

Stakeholders also called for wildlife, environmental and ecosystem perspectives to be better recognised and integrated with existing agricultural biosecurity arrangements.

Feedback highlights the value of strong partnerships between governments, industry, First Nations organisations, researchers, environmental groups and communities.

Stakeholders said that existing partnerships between government and industry are a strength of the current system. They pointed to organisations such as Plant Health Australia, Animal Health Australia and Wildlife Health Australia as successful examples of organisations working together and sharing knowledge, funding and decision-making.

Stakeholders want reforms to strengthen existing partnerships rather than replace them.

Many stakeholders also said that trust and community support are critical to an effective biosecurity system. They noted that successful responses rely on:

• producers reporting potential incursions early
• communities supporting control measures
• industry and government working transparently together
• stakeholders having confidence in decision-making processes.

Stakeholders want governments to keep working with industry and communities as reforms are implemented. This will help build support for the changes. This includes using the practical knowledge of people who manage biosecurity risks every day. For example, incorporating local knowledge, community observations and First Nations perspectives to support early detection and more effective responses.