Australia’s biosecurity system protects our farms, nurseries, environment and communities from invasive pests, diseases and weeds. But according to Greenlife Industry Australia (GIA), the way the system is funded and coordinated needs reform.
In a recent submission to the Federal Government’s National Biosecurity Reform Agenda, GIA outlined a range of recommendations designed to strengthen Australia’s biosecurity system while ensuring growers and nursery businesses are not unfairly burdened with the costs.
Every nursery business relies on a strong biosecurity system.
Whether it’s fire ants, exotic plant pests, emerging diseases or invasive weeds, biosecurity threats can disrupt production, restrict trade, increase compliance costs and impact business confidence. Australia’s nursery industry already invests heavily in biosecurity preparedness and compliance.
GIA’s submission argues that future reforms should recognise those efforts and focus on reducing risk where it is created.
At the heart of GIA’s submission is a simple argument: those creating biosecurity risks should contribute fairly to managing them.
The submission states that Australia’s biosecurity system is currently “structurally imbalanced”, with primary producers often carrying the costs of preparedness, surveillance and response, while importers and other supply chain actors do not always contribute proportionately to the risks they create.
As a result, GIA is calling for a more balanced, risk-based funding model that better reflects where biosecurity risks originate and who benefits from Australia’s biosecurity system.
Another major focus of the submission is improving coordination between states and territories.
Currently, different jurisdictions often operate with different data systems, reporting standards and response processes. According to GIA, these inconsistencies can create delays during pest and disease outbreaks and reduce the effectiveness of national responses.
The organisation is calling for stronger national data sharing, more consistent response arrangements and better integration of surveillance systems to improve preparedness and enable faster action when threats emerge.
GIA has also highlighted the importance of maintaining practical and economically viable import pathways for nursery stock and plant genetics.
Australia’s nursery, landscape and environmental sectors rely on specialist importers to introduce new plant varieties and genetics under strict quarantine controls. These pathways support innovation, plant diversity and access to climate-resilient varieties that benefit the broader industry.
The submission warns that additional costs or regulatory burdens could threaten the viability of these pathways and restrict access to future innovation.
While supporting stronger biosecurity outcomes, GIA has stressed that any new traceability, reporting or compliance requirements must be practical and proportionate.
Many nursery businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, already operate with limited resources and significant compliance obligations. Future reforms should strengthen biosecurity outcomes without creating unnecessary administrative burden for businesses already doing the right thing.
Among its key recommendations, GIA is calling for:
As the Federal Government considers the next phase of national biosecurity reform, GIA will continue advocating for policies that strengthen Australia’s biosecurity system while recognising the realities faced by nursery businesses across the country.
After all, effective biosecurity is not just about responding to threats once they arrive. It’s about ensuring the right systems, funding and responsibilities are in place to prevent them in the first place.
Read more news and insights from Nursery & Garden Industry Queensland
Greenlife Industry Qld