These questions will help us understand which region, community and industry sectors are affected by the proposed new Regulation and the proposed amendments. 

The recommended option is to remake the Code of Practice for the Labelling of Fertilisers and for Contaminants in Fertilisers, Code of Practice for Feed for Food Producing Animals and the Code of Practice for the management of Panama TR4. The recommended amendment is to fix a typographical error in the Code of Practice for Feed for Food Producing Animals by adjusting (increasing) the maximum permitted levels of aflatoxin B1 in dairy animal feed to match nationally agreed levels.

The recommended option is to remake the existing regulation requiring notification of tick fever and some honey bee symptoms, with amendments to include symptoms of additional exotic bee diseases to the notifiable incident section 19(2) to include:

• deformed bees, including deformed wings

• dead bees at the entrance of hives

• bees not able to move or with irregular movement.

This option strengthens early detection, protects Queensland’s bee and cattle industries, supports market access, aligns with national biosecurity obligations, and imposes negligible cost.

If this part of the Biosecurity Regulation was allowed to expire, key symptoms of high priority diseases would no longer need to be reported and would jeopardise the cattle, bee keeping and pollination reliant industries through increased risk of disease spread and establishment.

The recommended approach is to remake the diagnostic testing provisions of the Biosecurity Regulation with some amendments. This will enhance Queensland’s diagnostic testing framework by expanding its scope to include all notifiable and reportable diseases, not just exotic ones. The amendments aim to improve clarity, align with national standards, and enhance scientific rigour. They will also streamline processes by removing the need for additional approvals, establish clear decision-making criteria for the chief executive, and ensure proper regulation of both the supply and use of diagnostic kits. These changes will create a more efficient, consistent, and reliable system for managing biosecurity risks.

If the Biosecurity Regulation is allowed to expire, the approval framework for diagnostic test kits and methods will be removed, leaving Queensland to rely solely on the general biosecurity obligation (GBO). This could lead to uncertainty about acceptable testing methods, increase the likelihood of inaccurate results, weaken disease surveillance and response systems, and compromise Queensland’s ability to demonstrate disease-free status, potentially impacting market access.

The recommended option is to remake the current linkages with the general biosecurity obligation, the Biosecurity Manual and sample movement requirements. The recommended option includes strengthening sample packaging requirements to support the secure transport of samples of biosecurity matter without imposing the high administrative burden of permits. It would also align packaging expectations with national transport standards and close gaps in the current requirements. This option would improve biosecurity protection while keeping compliance costs low and requirements easy for stakeholders to understand and apply.

If these sections were allowed to lapse, industry would face higher compliance burdens, communities increased biosecurity risks, the environment greater pest escape risks, and government heightened enforcement challenges and costly responses.

The recommended option is to remake the chapter which clarifies Biosecurity Act provisions, defines feed materials, appoints officers, and outlines compliance agreements, with one amendment. This is to remove external inspector appointments and authorised person appointments that are not being utilised.

If these parts of the Biosecurity Regulation are allowed to lapse, this could increase the risk of serious animal diseases, such as foot and mouth disease and African swine fever, entering Queensland through unregulated feed practices, resulting in significant economic losses, reduced market access, and threats to livestock industries. Additionally, the lack of clear provisions for appointing authorised officers and authorising the Rural Stock Crime Squad would weaken compliance and enforcement efforts, compromising Queensland’s biosecurity framework.

The Biosecurity Act provides the regulation-making power for fees payable.

DPI will be considering the appropriate fee structure and amounts payable, including the level of cost recovery*, during the next phase of the review. To inform that process, general feedback on the fees is sought.

*Cost recovery includes labour, operating and indirect costs of delivering a service such as a permit assessment.

The analyses in this document have been focused on the existing Biosecurity Regulation. DPI invites you to raise any biosecurity (including contaminant) risks that you believe may benefit from management in a future Biosecurity Regulation.

DPI would like to better understand the direct compliance costs for each part of the current Regulation, to confirm the understanding of the impacts. Direct compliance costs are those costs that a person or business bears in performing actions the Biosecurity Regulation requires. It does not include indirect or consequential business costs, or costs that are a business decision. DPI invites you to share your experience.