Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda[Index] [Search] [Download] [Bill] [Help]
2019
THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
THE SENATE
AGRICULTURE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT
(STREAMLINING ADMINISTRATION) BILL 2019
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Agriculture,
Senator the Hon. Bridget McKenzie)
AGRICULTURE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (STREAMLINING
ADMINISTRATION) BILL 2019
GENERAL OUTLINE
The Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019 (the Bill)
will make amendments to the Biosecurity Act 2015 (the Biosecurity Act) and the Imported
Food Control Act 1992 (the Imported Food Control Act) in order to strengthen Australia's
biosecurity and food systems through a number of measures.
The Bill will:
ensure that there is a clear statutory basis for applications of automated decision-
making under the Biosecurity Act
enable wider use of automated decision making to issue biosecurity directions and
notices for imported food control certification
enable the Director of Biosecurity to determine by a legislative instrument which
biosecurity officer decisions under the Biosecurity Act may be made by operation of a
computer program
authorise the Secretary to arrange for automated decision making for certain sections
of the Imported Food Control Act.
These changes will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Biosecurity Act and
Imported Food Control Act to ensure Australia's biosecurity system continues to keep pace
with the changing biosecurity environment.
Automated entry processing and release of imported goods was expressly provided for in
section 56 of the Quarantine Act 1908. At present, automated decision-making is expressly
authorised for three sections in the Biosecurity Act and is not expressly authorised for any
sections of the IFC Act.
The Department of Agriculture (Department) processes an average of 45,000 commercial
cargo referrals each month. It dedicates intensive resources to prevent incursion of high risk
pests and diseases, such as African Swine Fever Virus (ASFV). ASFV poses a significant
biosecurity threat to Australia as it is a highly contagious disease that spreads rapidly through
domestic and wild pigs, killing up to 80 per cent of the pigs it infects. As of September 2019,
ASFV had reached the shores of our near neighbour East Timor. Other high risk pests include
the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB), Khapra beetle and the continued threat posed by
foot and mouth disease.
In this environment, automated decision-making is crucial for biosecurity and food import
control because it allows risk identification and management across a large number of goods
and conveyances. Automated decision-making can reduce the burden on importers by
enabling fast accurate clearance of goods and conveyances. Further, automated decision-
making provides flexibility to ensure the optimisation of resources to respond effectively to
existing and emerging risks.
The Administrative Review Council (ARC)'s 2004 Report Automated Assistance in
Administrative Decision Making (ARC Report) drew distinctions between the use of expert
systems to make non-discretionary decisions, the use of expert systems to assist decision
2
makers (while not touching the discretion points in the decision making process), and fully
automating the exercise of discretion. The ARC concluded that expert systems should not
automate the exercise of discretion, and that attempting to do creates the risk of inappropriate
fettering of discretion.
Under both the Biosecurity Act and the Imported Food Control Act, most decisions - whether
made by a person or by application of a computer program - involve the application of
detailed business rules where ordinarily the exercise of discretion is not expected by, and is
not in the interest of, entities seeking fast and predictable clearance. In this context fettering
of discretion is appropriate because:
The kind of decisions that are envisaged to be made by computer programs all involve
the identification, and management if necessary, of biosecurity or food safety risks.
Such an assessment is a technical and scientific process based on objective data and
information, for example, what the relevant goods are, what are the associated
diseases or pests of concern, whether there are current outbreaks or prevalence of the
disease and their locations.
In most cases, it is desirable to stakeholders in this regulatory context that identical
information inputs should not lead to different outcomes.
The operational environment of high volumes of goods and people entering Australia,
and the potential for immensely negative impact on Australia's agriculture,
environment and economy if biosecurity risk or food safety is not effectively
identified and managed, mean that it is necessary to provide automated decision-
making.
It is intended, during implementation of the automated decision making scheme, that the
principles set out in the ARC Report Australian Government are considered and taken into
account to the extent consistent with maintaining biosecurity and food health and safety
standards.
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The Bill will have no financial impact on the Australian Government Budget.
STATEMENT OF COMPATIBILITY WITH HUMAN RIGHTS
This Bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the
international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny)
Act 2011.
The full Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights is at the end of this explanatory
memorandum.
3
NOTES ON CLAUSES
Clause 1: Short title
Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the short title of the Act to be the Agriculture Legislation
Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Act 2019.
Clause 2: Commencement
Clause 2 provides for the commencement of each provision in the Act, as set out in the table.
Item 1 in the table provides that the whole of the Act will commence on the day after the Act
receives the Royal Assent.
Subclause 2(2) provides that any information in column 3 of the table is not part of the Act. It
also clarifies that information may be inserted in column 3 of the table, or information in it
may be edited, in any published version of the Act.
Clause 3: Schedules
Clause 3 provides that legislation that is specified in a Schedule to the Act is amended or
repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a
Schedule to the Bill has effect according to its terms.
4
Schedule 1--Amendments
Biosecurity Act 2015
Item 1: After section 541
Item 1 inserts new section 541A. New section 541A provides the power for the Director of
Biosecurity to arrange for decisions to be made by a computer program. Allowing a computer
program to make certain decisions is intended to improve the administrative efficiency for
stakeholders, including importers, as well as for the Government. This section is further
intended to provide for flexibility in taking advantage of developments in technology that
may assist computerised decision making and flexibility in responding to threats.
Subsection 541A(1) provides that the Director of Biosecurity may arrange for the use, under
the Director of Biosecurity's control, of computer programs for any purpose which a
biosecurity officer may or must:
a) make a decision under a relevant provision of this Act specified in a determination
made under subsection (2); or
b) exercise any power or comply with any obligation related to making a decision
referred to in paragraph (a); or
c) do anything else related to making a decision referred to in paragraph (a), or related to
exercising a power or complying with an obligation referred to in paragraph (b).
5
Under paragraph 541A(1)(a) only a decision made under a relevant provision, which has been
specified in a determination made for the purpose of subsection 541A(2), can be subject to
automated decision-making. A determination will be a disallowable legislative instrument
and therefore subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. Providing for a determination specifying the
decisions subject to automated decision-making provides flexibility to take into account rapid
changes in technology and changes in risks, while striking a balance by ensuring that
Parliament retains scrutiny of the determination.
The Note at the end of subsection 541A(1) directs the reader to subsection 541A(9) for the
meaning of "relevant provision". Subsection 541A(9) specifies provisions under the Act
which are relevant provisions for the purpose of this section.
Subsection 541A(2) provides that the Director of Biosecurity may, by legislative instrument,
determine the kinds of decisions that may be made by the operation of a computer program
under an arrangement made under subsection 541A(1), as well as the classes of persons that
may use such a computer program and the conditions of that use.
The types of decisions under relevant provisions that are intended to be determined by
legislative instrument under subsection 541A(2) are those based on a technical and scientific
identification of biosecurity risk, such as, a direction to provide information or answer
questions (section 126), require production of documents (section 127), move goods under
(section 128 or section 132).
The classes of persons that are intended to be determined by a legislative instrument under
subsection 541A(2) are those who would otherwise be authorised to carry out biosecurity
activities under the Biosecurity Act. For example, biosecurity industry participants that
operate under an approved arrangement as provided under Chapter 7 of the Biosecurity Act
are a class of persons intended to be determined by legislative instrument under subsection
541A(2). A biosecurity industry participant is required to meet specific training and
accreditation requirements under the conditions of an approved arrangement.
Further, persons who operate a computer program are not the decision makers, as the
information that is input into the computer program enables an electronic decision to be made
by the computer program utilising business rules.
Decisions which require the written approval or consent of the Director of Biosecurity are not
intended to be determined as decisions suitable for a computer program to decide. For
example, a decision to require treatment of high value goods at subsection 133(1) of the
Biosecurity Act or a direction to require the destruction of high value goods at section 136(1).
Subsection 541A(3) provides that the Director of Biosecurity must take reasonable steps to
ensure that decisions made by the operation of a computer program under an arrangement
made under subsection 541A(1) are consistent with the objects of the Biosecurity Act.
Section 4 of the Biosecurity Act outlines its objects, which includes to provide for the
management of biosecurity risk and to give effect to Australia's international rights and
obligations.
6
Subsection 541A(4) provides that the Director of Biosecurity must take reasonable steps to
ensure that an electronic decision is based on grounds on the basis of which a biosecurity
officer could have made that electronic decision. However, an electronic decision may be
made without any state of mind being formed in relation to a matter to which the decision
relates.
Subsection 541A(5) provides that the Director of Biosecurity is taken to have:
a) made a decision; or
b) exercised a power or complied with an obligation; or
c) done something else related to the making of a decision or exercise of a power or
compliance with an obligation;
that was made, exercised, complied with or done by the operation of a computer program
under an arrangement made under subsection 541A(1), as if the Director of Biosecurity were
a biosecurity officer.
This provision ensures that there is a decision-maker for purposes of judicial, internal or
Administrative Appeals Tribunal review.
This provision also ensures that there is a decision-maker who will have the responsibility for
any requirement under section 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
or under any similar provision of this or any other Act to provide a statement of reasons for
an electronic decision.
This is consistent with ARC Report Principle 9 that "Expert systems should comply with
administrative law requirements - in particular, requirements associated with ... statements
of reasons".
By declaring that the provision is to operate "as if the Director of Biosecurity were a
biosecurity officer", this provision clarifies the operation in relation to electronic decisions
made under provisions of the Biosecurity Act which refer to decisions of biosecurity officers
and decisions of the Director of Biosecurity.
Subsection 541A(6) provides that a decision that the Director of Biosecurity is taken to have
made because of subsection 541A(5) is not a decision made by the Director of Biosecurity
personally for the purposes of section 576 or 578.
The Note at the end of subsection 541A(6) refers to sections 576 and 578 which deal with
review of reviewable decisions.
Sections 576 and 578 apply in relation to "reviewable decisions" within the meaning of
section 574 of the Biosecurity Act. Some of the provisions of the Act which are relevant
provisions which can be made subject to automated decisions under section 541A are also
"reviewable decision" provisions.
Section 576 provides that a relevant person for a reviewable decision may apply to the
Director of Biosecurity for review of the decision, unless the decision was made by the
Director of Biosecurity personally. Section 578 provides that an application may be made to
the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of a reviewable decision made by the
7
Director of Biosecurity personally, or for review of an internal review decision under section
576.
Subsection 541A(6) has the effect that where the Director of Biosecurity is taken to have
made an electronic decision which is a reviewable decision, the decision is subject to internal
review under section 576. As with other reviewable decisions made by biosecurity officers,
no application for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of an electronic decision
which is a reviewable decision can be made under section 578 until there has been internal
review under section 576.
Subsection 541A(7) provides that a biosecurity officer may make an electronic decision in
substitution for a decision made by a computer program if a biosecurity officer is satisfied
that the electronic decision made by the computer program is not consistent with the objects
of the Act, or another decision is more appropriate in the circumstances.
This allows biosecurity officers to respond to any system or data input errors and ensure that
decisions remain consistent with the objects of the Biosecurity Act. It also ensures that a
decision is able to be substituted where another decision would be more appropriate in the
circumstances. The circumstances may include changed circumstances or new information
becoming available after the electronic decision was made.
If a substituted decision is a reviewable decision, then internal review under section 576 will
be available in relation to the substituted decision and - depending on the outcome of the
internal review - AAT review may be available under section 578 in relation to the internal
review decision. Further explanation is given in relation to subsection 541A(6) above.
Principle 6 of the best practice principles outlined in the ARC Report recommended that
before any decision is made to override a decision made by an expert system, the primary
decision maker should contact a senior officer. The reason for authorising biosecurity officers
to substitute a decision for an electronic decision without requiring that there be consultation
with a senior officer is that in this sector, importers, operators of ships and aircraft and related
ground transport operators value responsiveness and quick decision-making, and it may not
always be practically feasible in this operational environment to always require a senior
officer be consulted.
In addition, electronic decision arrangements can only be put in place for decisions which
could be made by a biosecurity officer, either because a provision empowers a biosecurity
officer to make the decision or where the relevant power or function is delegated to
biosecurity officers. A person can only be authorised to be a biosecurity officer if the person
satisfies the training and qualification requirements under section 545. Accordingly,
biosecurity officers are suitable persons to make substitute decisions.
On some occasions, the basis for the biosecurity officer substituting the decision will be that
the operator seeking clearance has provided more information. Under subsection 541A(7), it
is open to a biosecurity officer to consult a more senior officer. However, it is not considered
appropriate to require that such consultation always take place.
Subsection 541A(7) provides that an electronic decision in relation to a thing is of no effect to
the extent that it is inconsistent with an earlier decision (other than an electronic decision)
8
made in relation to the thing by a biosecurity officer or the Director of Biosecurity under the
Act. This subsection ensures that electronic decisions do not contradict earlier, human-made
decisions. Excluding electronic decisions from earlier decisions is intended to ensure that a
new electronic decision is not bound by previously made erroneous electronic decisions, to
avoid perpetuating the error.
Subsection 541A(9) provides the relevant provisions for which the Director of Biosecurity
may determine for the use of a computer program to make a decision under subsection
542(2).
Subsection 541A(9) provides that for the purposes of this section, each of the following is a
relevant provision of this Act:
a) subsections 49(4) and (5) (negative pratique);
b) a provision of Chapter 3 (managing biosecurity risks: goods) (other than section 154,
subsection 157(1) or paragraph 162(1)(a));
c) a provision of Chapter 4 (managing biosecurity risks: conveyances) (other than
subsection 192(6), paragraph 218(1)(a) or section 223 or 229);
d) a provision of Chapter 5 (ballast water and sediment) (other than section 280 or 303);
e) section 557 (permission to engage in certain conduct);
f) sections 600 and 602 (withholding goods that are subject to charge);
g) a provision of an instrument made for the purposes of a provision covered by any of
paragraphs (a) to (f) of this subsection.
9
There is no intention to make determinations in relation to all relevant provisions. The
intention is to develop determinations for decisions under provisions where there is a pressing
need or compelling benefits for using automated decision-making. See explanation above on
the kinds of decisions which are likely to be subject to a determination.
Paragraphs 162(1)(a) and 218(1)(a) are excluded from the definition of relevant provision
because there is already provision for automated electronic system decision-making each of
those provisions. See section 163 (for paragraph 162(1)(a)) and in section 219 (for paragraph
218(1)(a)).
Section 280 is excluded from the definition of relevant provision because there is already
provision for decisions under this section to be made using computer programs. See
subsection 280(4).
Sections 154, 157, 223, 229 and subsection 192(6) are excluded from the definition of
relevant provision because each of those sections provides for the making of legislative
instruments by the Director of Biosecurity. Even though each of those powers can be
subdelegated to a biosecurity officer in accordance with section 542, it is not appropriate for
legislative instruments to be generated by computer decision-making.
Section 303 is excluded from the definition of relevant provision because that section can
only operate in relation to unusual circumstances for which it is unlikely that business rules
could be written and because it is dependent on formation of a view that there are clear
grounds for believing that an offence has been committed.
Item 2: Subsection 542(3) (heading)
Item 2 inserts the word "powers" after "and functions" in the heading to subsection 542(3),
which is currently "Powers that must not be subdelegated". This is a consequential
amendment because item 6 inserts new item 26A to the table under 542(3). Item 2 clarifies
that subsection 542(3) refers to powers as well as functions that must not be subdelegated.
Item 3: Subsection 542(3)
Item 2 inserts the words "or a function" after "However, a power" in subsection 542(3).
This is a consequential amendment because item 6 which inserts new item 26A to the table
under 542(3). Item 3 clarifies that subsection 542(3) provides for powers as well as functions
that must not be subdelegated.
Item 4: Subsection 542(3) (table heading)
Item 3 inserts the words "and functions" into the table heading under subsection 542(3), after
"Powers". The table heading currently provides "Powers that must not be subdelegated". This
is a consequential amendment because item 6 inserts new item 26A to the table under 542(3).
Item 4 clarifies that the table under subsection 542(3) lists powers as well as functions that
must not be subdelegated.
Item 5: Subsection 542(3) (table, heading to column headed "Power")
10
Item 5 repeals the heading "Power" at the column currently headed thus in the table under
subsection 542(3) and inserts the new heading "Powers and functions". This is a
consequential amendment because item 6 inserts new item 26A to the table under 542(3).
Item 5 clarifies that the relevant column in the table under subsection 542(3) lists powers as
well as functions that must not be subdelegated.
Item 6: Subsection 542(3) (after table item 26)
Item 6 inserts new item 26A to the table under subsection 542(3) to provide that the power to
arrange for the use of a computer program is not to be subdelegated. New item 26A provides:
26A To arrange for the use of computer Section 541A
programs for purposes related to making
certain decisions under this Act and any
other power or function conferred by section
541A
Subsection 542(1) provides that the Director Biosecurity may, in writing, delegate any or all
of the Director's functions or powers under this Act, to an SES employee, or an acting SES
employee, in the Agriculture Department. The functions or powers that may be delegated
under this subsection excludes the power to make a determination under section 308A, and
the functions and powers under 541(1) and 618(2).
Subsection 542(2) provides that if, under subsection 542(1), the Director of Biosecurity
delegates a function or power to an SES employee or an acting SES employee in the
Agriculture department, the employee may, in writing, subdelegate the functions or powers to
certain persons, including a person who is a biosecurity officer.
Subsection 542(3) provides that however, a power under a provision of this Act referred to in
the table under this subsection must not be subdelgated under subsection 542(2).
By inserting new item 26A into the table under subsection 542(3), item 6 ensures that the
power to arrange for the use of a computer program, and other powers and functions
conferred by new section 541A inserted by item 1, may not be delegated below the level of
an SES employee.
Item 7: Subsection 576(1) (at the end of the note)
Item 7 adds, at the end of the note after subsection 576(1), "A decision that the Director of
Biosecurity is taken to have made because of subsection 541A(5) is not a decision made by
the Director of Biosecurity personally (see subsection 541A(6))."
This draws the reader's attention to subsection 541A(6) for clearer legislation purposes.
11
Item 8: Subsection 578(1) (note)
Item 8 repeals the term "Note" and inserts "Note 1" at the end of subsection 578(1). This is a
consequential amendment because item 9 inserts new Note 2 at the end of subsection 578(1).
Item 9: At the end of subsection 578 (1)
Item 9 adds a second note that clarifies the decision made by a Director of Biosecurity to be
that as made under subsection 541A (5).
Imported Food Control Act 1992
Item 10: At the end of section 7A
Item 5 adds a new sentence to section 7A to provide further explanation in the simplified
outline of Part 2 of the Act.
Item 11: At the end of Part 2
Item 11 inserts new Division 4 at the end of Part 2 of the Act.
Division 4 -- Other Matters
Section 20A Computerised decision-making
New section 20A provides power for the Secretary to arrange for decisions to be made by a
computer program. Allowing a computer program to make certain decisions is intended to
improve the administrative efficiency for food importers and the Secretary, and recognises
changes that have taken place in technology to assist Australia's imported food systems.
Computerised decision-making will enhance the operation of the Imported Food Control
Inspection Scheme (the Scheme) by enabling routine decisions to be made by a computer
programs and allowing allocation of authorised officers towards imported food that may pose
a risk to public health and safety.
Subsection 20A(1) provides that the Secretary may arrange for the use, under the Secretary's
control, of computer programs for any purpose which an authorised officer may or must
make a decision or exercise a power under section 12, subsection 14(1) or subsection 20(2),
(3) or (4) of the Imported Food Control Act.
Section 12 of the Imported Food Control Act provides for the issue of a food control
certificate for examinable food under the Scheme. Examinable food receives a food control
certificate whether or not it is required for inspection. Enabling the decision to issue a food
control certificate to be made by a computer program allows for greater administrative
efficiencies. This will be achieved by issuing automated food control certificates for all food
not required to be inspected under the Scheme. Foods that are required to be inspected will
continue to receive a food control certificate from an authorised officer.
Subsection 14(1) provides for imported food inspection advices, while subsections 20(2), (3)
and (4) provide for notice that food is to be treated, destroyed or re-exported. These
12
provisions may be automated for computer programs to make a decision as computer
program technology develops. There is no current intention to automate these provisions.
This is consistent with ARC Report Principle 5 which states that the use of an expert system
to make a decision should be legislatively sanctioned to ensure that it is compatible with the
legal principles of authorised decision making.
Subsection 20A(2) provides that the decision made by the computer program is taken to be a
decision made by the Secretary. This provision ensures that there is a decision-maker for
purposes of judicial, internal or Administrative Appeals Tribunal review of an electronic
decision. This provision also ensures that there is a decision-maker who will have the
responsibility for any requirement under section 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial
Review) Act 1977 or under any similar provision of this or any other Act to provide a
statement of reasons for an electronic decision.
This is consistent with ARC Report Principle 9 that "Expert systems should comply with
administrative law requirements - in particular, requirements associated with ... statements
of reasons".
Subsection 20A(3) provides that the Secretary must take reasonable steps to ensure that
electronic decisions made by the operation of a computer program under an arrangement
under subsection 20A(1) are consistent with the object of the Act. Section 2A of the Imported
Food Control Act provide that the object of the Act is to provide for the compliance of food
imported into Australia with Australian food standards and the requirements of public health
and safety.
Subsection 20A(4) also provides the safeguard that the Secretary must take reasonable steps
to ensure that an electronic decision is based on grounds on the basis of which an authorised
officer could have made that decision. However, this provision also confirms that an
electronic decision may be made without any state of mind being formed in relation to a
matter to which the decision relates.
Subsection 20A(5) provides that an authorised officer may make a decision in substitution for
an electronic decision if an authorised officer is satisfied either that the electronic decision is
not consistent with the object of this Act or that another decision is more appropriate in the
circumstances.
Principle 6 of the ARC Report recommended that before any decision is made to override a
decision made by an expert system that the primary decision maker should contact a senior
officer. The reason for providing that authorised officers may substitute a decision for an
electronic decision without requiring that there be consultation with a senior officer is that
this sector value responsiveness and quick decision-making.
The power to substitute decisions is available if any fault in the operation of the computer
decision process is identified. The Secretary is an authorised officer under the Act and can
"step in" if it is considered appropriate or necessary for him or her to do so.
However, it is expected that on most occasions, the basis for the authorised officer
substituting a decision will be that the business seeking clearance has simply provided more
13
information. Under subsection 20A(5) it is open to an authorised officer to consult a more
senior officer. But it is not considered appropriate to require that such consultation always
take place.
Subsection 20A(6) provides that a decision in relation to goods or a conveyance by the
operation of a computer program under subsection 20A(1) is of no effect to the extent that it
is inconsistent with a decision made in relation to the food by an authorised officer under the
Act.
Item 12: Section 41
Item 12 inserts the number "(1)" before "The Secretary" in section 41. This is to provide
clarity and number subsection 41(1) in the Act, and is consequential to item 14.
Item 13: Section 41
Item 13 omits the words "The Secretary" in substitution of the words "Subject to subsection
(2) the Secretary". This is to provide clarity for new subsection 41(2) in the Act.
Item 14: At the end of section 41
Item 14 inserts new subsection 41(2) to provide for the delegation of the Secretary's powers
and functions under new section 20A only to an SES employee, or acting SES employee in
the Department.
14
STATEMENT OF COMPATIBILITY WITH HUMAN RIGHTS
Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019
This Bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the
international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny)
Act 2011.
OVERVIEW OF THE BILL
The purpose of the Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration)
Bill 2019 (the Bill) is to amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Biosecurity Act) and Imported
Food Control Act 1992 (the Imported Food Act) to further strengthen Australia's biosecurity
framework.
The Bill will:
ensure that there is a clear statutory basis for applications of automated decision-
making under the Biosecurity Act
enable wider use of automated decision making to issue biosecurity directions and
notices for imported food control certification
enable the Director of Biosecurity to determine by a legislative instrument which
biosecurity officer decisions under the Biosecurity Act may be made by operation of a
computer program
authorise the Secretary to arrange for automated decision making for certain sections
of the Imported Food Control Act.
CONCLUSION
The measures in the Bill are compatible with the human rights recognised or declared in the
international instruments in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act, as
the Bill does not engage any human rights issues.
(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Agriculture,
Senator the Hon. Bridget McKenzie)
15