Victoria Biosecurity Roundtable 2 August 2018

Publication details

Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, August 2018


Document Pages File size
Victoria Roundtable Summary Report - 2 August 2018, Melbourne PDF PDF Icon 14 2.3 MB

If you have difficulty accessing this file, please visit web accessibility.

Online content

The 2018 Victoria Biosecurity Roundtable was held in Melbourne, on 2 August 2018.

What we heard from participants

  • The biosecurity story needs to be told in a way that makes it relevant to the stakeholder 
  • Strong partnerships between government, industry and community are important
  • The biosecurity consequences relating to the changing use of land and increasing peri-urban farming need to be better addressed
  • We need to focus on capability and capacity building, including increasing technical scientific expertise to ensure a timely response to incursions

The event was hosted by the National Biosecurity Committee together with the Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources and Agriculture Victoria.

[Expand all]

The 2018 Biosecurity Roundtable Program

The Biosecurity Roundtable Program consists of seven biosecurity roundtables in each state and territory (NSW and ACT are combined), two environmental biosecurity roundtables and a National Biosecurity Forum at the end of the year.

These events are an opportunity for biosecurity stakeholders to talk about biosecurity issues directly with Australian and state/territory government representatives, a wide range of industry members and producers together with environmental and community groups.

This year the theme for the program is ‘preparedness and response’, with activities on the day designed to seek input on:

  • preparedness and response arrangements across a range of biosecurity activities
  • gaps and possible solutions
  • roles and responsibilities in preparedness and response
  • successes and lessons learned
  • trusted sources of information on biosecurity


Beth Jones, Executive Director, Agriculture Victoria, opened the roundtable, outlining the purpose of the biosecurity roundtables and their importance in shaping policy and updating stakeholders across industry, community and government.

Commonwealth update

Peter Creaser, Assistant Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, delivered the Commonwealth Update, emphasising the need to work together to meet the increasingly complex challenges of Australia’s biosecurity system. Mr Creaser highlighted that the increase in trade has brought with it an increase in pest and disease detections across Australia. In 2017-18 there were 18 active eradication responses with an estimated direct financial cost to governments and industry of $53.4 million.

Mr Creaser provided details about the Australian Government’s commitment of $313 million to strengthen Australia’s biosecurity capacity, including $65.6 million to improve our capacity to detect, identify and respond to priority exotic pests and diseases.

He also highlighted key activities being undertaken by the department in collaboration with the states and territories through the National Biosecurity Committee, in response to the Priorities for Australia’s Biosecurity system review report (2017). This included:

  • supporting industry and community-led development of a National Biosecurity Statement.
  • drafting a revised Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity and priority reform areas for Agricultural Ministers’ consideration.
  • establishing the Environment and Invasives Committee, including a subgroup of specifically focussed on environmental biosecurity.
  • developing a National Priority List of Exotic Environmental Pests and Diseases.
  • developing emergency response deeds for aquatic animals and exotic production weeds.
  • setting national priorities for biosecurity research and development.

State update

The Victorian Government update, delivered by Beth Jones, provided an overview of agriculture in Victoria and the current biosecurity activities and challenges. Ms Jones highlighted the state’s key focus areas, including:

  • working as part of the national biosecurity system in response to the Priorities for Australia’s Biosecurity system review report.
  • providing market access and assurance through active surveillance programs to demonstrate pest/disease free status, effective regulation and traceability systems.
  • responding effectively and efficiently to emergency biosecurity incidents and investigations.
  • maintaining emergency preparedness and response capability, including the capacity to deal with multiple, extended or concurrent responses.
  • supporting industry and community action and building capability. 

Ms Jones spoke about traceability and the transition to the sheep electronic identification (EID) program. While there was some initial resistance and debate on the system, it has been embraced across the industry and promoted by key representative organisations.

While delivering significant biosecurity benefits, the EID also presents substantial development opportunities for industry decision making in the supply chain.

As noted in Mr Creaser’s presentation, Ms Jones also commented on the increasing volume of travellers and cargo resulting in higher rates of pest and disease detection across the state. She gave an update on the recent varroa mite detection and response in Victoria. The Australian Government confirmed the varroa mite detection at the Port of Melbourne on 27 June 2018. Agriculture Victoria immediately established an incident management team and active surveillance zone and is confident the outbreak has been contained to the ship. Ms Jones emphasised how critical planning; an understanding of roles; preparedness exercises (e.g. ‘Bee Prepared’); and having good industry partnerships were to the response.

Ms Jones also spoke about the increasing prevalence of Queensland fruit fly and the challenges for domestic and international trade. She highlighted the significant investment of funds into research and development, market access, surveillance and national engagement.

The presentation concluded with Ms Jones stressing the need to work together; build strong government, industry and community partnerships; and focus on capacity building and continuous improvement.


Michael Rosier, Agriculture Victoria provided an overview of Agriculture Victoria’s approach to traceability. Mr Rosier outlined how traceability can grow market access; support quality assurance; assist in responding to incursions; and meet our international trading partners’ growing demand for proof of absence reporting.

Mr Rosier outlined the work Agriculture Victoria is undertaking in relation to traceability, including:

  • actively participating in national committees and forums
  • building relationships and dialogue between government and industry
  • developing traceability and product integrity programs.

As an example of a traceability project, Mr Rosier then provided details of the EID tagging program for sheep and goats. Following significant investment and consultation with saleyards the transition to EID commenced in January 2017 and will continue until January 2022. A $17 million funding package is available to producers to aid in the transition process through grants and cost neutral tags. So far over 600,000 sheep have been scanned and uploaded into the system to date.

The program has resulted in a positive shift in industry attitudes due to Agriculture Victoria’s use of innovative solutions and their work with the Meat and Livestock Australia to realise its commercial benefits.

The program has highlighted the value of:

  • planning, trialing and testing equipment, software and hardware and looking beyond compliance to industry benefits on-farm
  • value of engaging with stakeholders early and often
  • benefits of investing early in training of staff and users.

How do the emergency response deeds work?

Chris Ipkendanz, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources provided an overview of Australia’s national emergency response deeds and agreements, which include the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed and the National Environmental Biosecurity Response Agreement (NEBRA). Mr Ipkendanz explained the purpose of the deeds, the triggers and decision making processes and the ability for industries to access response funds under the deeds and reimburse the Australian Government through levies over time. The national deeds/agreements complement industry and state arrangements as they are only activated in circumstances where eradication of a pest or disease is:

  • technically feasible
  • cost beneficial
  • in the national interest.

The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources is currently leading the development of an Exotic Production Weed Deed and Aquatic Animal Disease Deed.

Several questions arose at the end of the presentation. An attendee asked about whether there were difficulties measuring the cost-benefit of environmental values under the NEBRA. Mr Ipkendanz commented that one of the recommendations arising from the NEBRA review is to streamline the cost benefit analysis and the valuing of social amenity. The department is working with ABARES to improve this process.  The Consultative Committee and National Management Group will also be doing further work on this subject.

It was raised if there had been any consideration given to using the levy funds for surveillance and pre-incursion activities. Mr Ipkendanz explained that surveillance is considered part of the normal government commitment to biosecurity but as transmission pathways and the demand for services change this may be reviewed.

It was asked how the process would look if there was an incursion that effected an industry who had not signed up to a deed/agreement. Mr Ipkendanz clarified that the process would be the same and if the incursion met the requirements of the deed/agreement there would be cost sharing options. However, while the effected industry would be consulted, they would not have a right to be part of the decision making processes.


National Biosecurity Statement

Prue Oxford, a member of the National Biosecurity Statement Working Group and Manager, Agriculture Victoria, introduced the draft National Biosecurity Statement (NBS). The NBS is being developed in consultation with industry, environmental and community groups and the public.

Dr Oxford stated that the NBS was intended to foster community‑wide understanding and ownership of Australia’s biosecurity system based on shared goals, responsibilities and accountability.

Dr Oxford then led table based exercises on the roles and responsibilities component of the NBS. She asked participants to discuss their roles in the biosecurity system and in improving its efficiency; the concept of stewardship; the roles and responsibilities of major institutions; the benefits of an agreed set of roles and responsibilities for system participants; and how we can measure if they are meeting these obligations.

Discussion on the NBS was positive on the day, with attendees agreeing on the need to clearly articulate roles and responsibilities to enable direction setting and clear messaging, however, that the list needed further development. Feedback suggested the current framing of the roles and responsibilities in the NBS did not provide clarity when it came to coordinating and supporting responses. It was especially unclear in relation to producers and the general public. There was general agreement of the importance of consultation before the NBS was finalised.

Public consultations on the NBS closed at the end of October. The department will present the final version at the National Biosecurity Forum on Thursday 29 November.

Building biosecurity capabilities across government, industry and community

James Hider, Director, Agriculture Victoria facilitated a workshop to discuss, share and identify challenges and opportunities to build biosecurity capabilities across government, industry and the community.

Table groups were asked to identify and prioritise current and emerging biosecurity challenges and opportunities. They then considered the capabilities needed to address them.

A key point to emerge was the lack of a strong biosecurity awareness and culture and as a result many stakeholders do not understand their role and obligations. Attendees agreed obtaining effective engagement and making biosecurity relevant to people continues to be a challenge, in some cases due to apathy or ignorance. Work needs to continue on building the confidence of stakeholders to report biosecurity concerns, including reducing the stigma around producers reporting incursions.

Attendees discussed the issue of resourcing, not only financial but also technical. There was a recognised need to promote careers in the sector, including increasing diagnostic capability and laboratory capacity to minimise delays during incursion responses. Attendees identified an opportunity to create a state or national biosecurity capability network of organisations and individuals to respond to incidents.  This would be similar to the model operating in New Zealand. The opportunity to use existing labelling and packaging requirements to aid traceability was also identified.

A key challenge identified was the evolving threat pathways and the need for on-farm biosecurity procedures to adapt to the differing uses for agricultural land, including tourist/farm stay accommodation. There was also discussion on the changing distribution of pests due to climate variation and the consequences this has for predicting pest and disease movements.

Panel: Roles and responsibilities

Chaired by James Hider, a panel comprised of:

  • Beth Jones, Executive Director, Agriculture Victoria
  • James Gilkerson, Faculty of Veterinary & Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne
  • Nathan Hancock, Chief Executive Officer, Citrus Australia
  • Mark Schipp, Australian Chief Veterinary Officer (ACVO), Department of Agriculture and Water Resources
  • Leonard Vallance, Livestock President, Victorian Farmers Federation
  • Philip Ingamells, Park Protection, Victorian National Parks Association

The panel gave a short presentation on their roles and responsibilities and made comments on what they perceive to be the emerging biosecurity challenges and opportunities. 

Beth Jones spoke about the increasing scientific and technological challenges due to the frequency and complexity of goods entering the country. Ms Jones also commented on the need to nurture the right skill sets to better coordinate and staff incursion responses.

James Gilkerson raised the diminishing number of specialist veterinarians who can provide the technical and scientific basis for emergency animal disease responses stemming from the decline in resources, training and pathways to pursue a career path outside academia. Professor Gilkerson highlighted the temptation to rely on risk assessments and modelling as a surrogate for physical research and that, if paired with a lack of investment in basic science, it will produce weak data and poor outcomes. He also noted the growing issue of antimicrobial resistance and the impact it will have on trade in the future.

Nathan Hancock described his responsibility as the industry representative at Consultative Committee on Emergency Plant Pests and National Management Group. Mr Hancock highlighted the challenge of balancing the privacy and confidentiality requirements of these roles when engaging with industry.  He noted Citrus Australia was continuing to strengthen biosecurity and had recently engaged a Plant Health Australia employee to assist.

Mark Schipp gave an overview of his role as ACVO and the current president of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). Dr Schipp said the OIE role has given him the opportunity to get a global perspective and see how Australia compares to its international counterparts. He stressed the need to ensure the wildlife and environmental sectors are included in biosecurity discussions. He also highlighted the opportunity to build on the respect and affection the general public hold for our farming community to communicate biosecurity messaging. Dr Schipp agreed with Professor Gilkerson’s comments regarding the need to manage antimicrobial resistance to maintain Australia’s market access.

Leonard Vallance gave an overview of his role both as president of the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) and as a producer. Mr Vallance detailed some of the biosecurity challenges he faces as a producer in an agritourism area. He noted that the VFF are engaging seven extension officers under the ‘Stocksense’ program to work with producers from complex properties through to peri-urban. Stocksense will be funded at around $1 million a year through livestock sale levies. Mr Vallance also emphasised the point that biosecurity is not just an agriculture problem and biosecurity funding needs to be a community contribution.

Phillip Ingamells from the Victorian National Parks Association explained the organisation’s role working across Victoria to protect the states native species and natural heritage. Mr Ingamells drew attention to the parallels between biosecurity in nature and in an agricultural environment. He highlighted the rapidly growing deer population as an issue facing both sectors through the impacts on biodiversity as well as potentially being the biggest foot‑and‑mouth disease vector in Australia. The Victorian Government is currently working on a deer management strategy. He also spoke about the huge potential to engage with the community on biosecurity through existing citizen science programs, e.g. the Great Victorian Fish Count.

The panel session was then opened to questions and comments from the floor.

The first question asked what could be done to better to raise general biosecurity awareness. The panel agreed that Australia could take inspiration from the New Zealand campaign ‘4.7 million sets of eyes’, which identifies all NZ citizens as ‘biosecurity officers’ working together as part of the solution. Mr Vallance suggested a useful way to get biosecurity information to people would be to automatically include the information with their airline tickets. Mr Hancock went a step further and suggested that an in-flight video be shown to aircraft passengers in multiple languages that demonstrating the impact of incursions. Many people bring items into Australia for personal reasons so there is a need to communicate the biosecurity consequences, importation solutions and the potential to prosecute breaches. Mr Ingamells noted the importance of building a large scale community education program using multiple forms of media and locations, with Professor Gilkerson and Ms Jones emphasising the need to personalise the messaging to help the general public understand how it affects them.

When asked what more industry can do, Mr Vallance reiterated his earlier point that biosecurity is not just an agriculture issue, but a community issue. Mr Hancock commented on the need to make biosecurity a consideration in the financial management of a business. Professor Gilkerson added that industry are best placed to see where the weaknesses are and again highlighted the need to personalise biosecurity. He used equine influenza as a case study which could be used to demonstrate the impact of a biosecurity incursion on a community and other associated industries.

Another question was asked around how we improve engagement in biosecurity within high-risk parts of the industry, such as where agribusiness seeks to diversify e.g. agritourism. While the visitor economy injects money onto rural areas, it appears to be at odds with many of our biosecurity concerns; does the lack of a national strategy play a role in this or is there a way to get better incorporation of biosecurity practices into other sectors?  Mr Hancock commented that he saw the breakdown at a local government level. The state level biosecurity strategies don’t appear to filter down to councils, who don’t prioritise the protection of agricultural land over other competing land uses, including urban and peri-urban encroachment. He said the citrus industry currently faces this issue in Kununurra where citrus canker affected properties neighbour properties used for tourism, which increases the biosecurity risk to production areas. Professor Gilkerson reiterated the earlier point that we need to be better at selling biosecurity as everyone’s business.

There was also a question around how we better engage with the smaller scale ‘farmers market’ type producers who want to be included in the biosecurity conversation. The panel agreed on the need to educate these producers on their part in the supply chain. Ms Jones noted that discussions have commenced to identify the challenges and opportunities for this cohort. Dr Schipp highlighted that these producers are well placed to be informed ambassadors and advocate biosecurity, particularly over social media channels.

A comment was made about the need to tackle the generational growth and change in the biosecurity sector and a simple solution is to engage with children at a grassroots level. The panel agreed and Dr Schipp noted that the Australian Government has engaged Costa Georgiadis from Gardening Australia to deliver biosecurity messages with ABC2’s Dirt Girl to a preschool audience.

A question was put to the panel about providing economic incentives to producers to change behaviour. Mr Vallance mentioned the voluntary livestock production assurance program. The market has attached a value to the program and sale prices of assured livestock can be up to 20 per cent more. The next step for the program will be to transition to a fully electronic system. Dr Schipp raised South Australia’s introduction of One Biosecurity, which gives farms a publically available biosecurity score. This allows purchasers to see the biosecurity status of the property they are buying from and higher scores allow farmers to build a ‘premium’ branding.

The issue of unregulated channels for selling livestock (e.g. Gumtree and Facebook) was raised, with attendees asking how we can ensure these organisations use property identification code numbers for every transaction. Mr Ingamells highlighted the trade of plants and ornamental fish over the internet as a significant issue arising from the lack of regulation. Dr Schipp agreed that is a significant problem. He noted that the Australian Government has a good relationship with eBay, which now prohibits importation of quarantine controlled material into Australia and would persist with other online retailers. Ms Jones confirmed discussions are underway with some of these companies already, but they face difficulties with the legislation varying between each jurisdiction. A national memorandum of understanding would be a good option.

Attendees were keen to question the panel on how we raise awareness of the need to build capacity and attract the right people. Mr Hancock reiterated Professor Gilkerson’s comments around the need to encourage more specialist scientists to be involved in biosecurity. He noted the importance of acknowledging and rewarding scientists who want to be more industry and applied science focused. Dr Schipp added that global competitions are being used to encourage this type of engagement with prizes and rewards offered to participants. Professor Gilkerson noted that people go into academia in order to apply for grants to undertake research and suggested the best way to increase capacity long term is to guarantee some longer term funding to disrupt the continuous grant funding cycle.

The final questions were directed to Dr Schipp regarding how long we can sustain a livestock standstill and what provisions we have to bring in people from overseas to relieve staff during an incursion. Dr Schipp confirmed there have been issues with exceeding laboratory capacity during the most recent incidents. However, Australia does have an agreement with the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, the United States of America and New Zealand to share resources and call upon vets, technicians and response personnel from these countries if needed.

Closing remarks were provided by Ms Jones who thanked all attendees on behalf of Agriculture Victoria and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources and the National Biosecurity Committee for their time, engagement and ideas.

Biosecurity Information Survey

Thank you to participants who completed the biosecurity information survey.

Initial analysis of the completed surveys highlighted the primary role of industry groups or associations, state government and peers as sources of biosecurity information. Of note, Twenty five per cent of respondents said that they access information using face to face contact, Twenty one per cent via emails or newsletters, Twenty one per cent via websites and Seventeen per cent via seminars and meetings.

Full results were reported on at the National Biosecurity Forum on 29 November 2018.

The survey is available for organisations or industry bodies to run with their own members – please contact the Biosecurity Roundtable Secretariat and we will email templates to you Biosecurity Roundtable or phone 1800 068 468


Invitations were sent out to 147 organisations, groups or individuals (excluding state and Australian government staff), with 48 participants (in bold) taking part in the roundtable, representing a wide range of organisations including:

  • Agribusiness Yarra Valley
  • Agricultural Biotechnology Council of Australia (ABCA)
  • Agriculture Victoria
  • Agri-gee Pty Ltd
  • Alta Genetics Australia
  • Animal Health Australia
  • Apple & Pear Australia
  • AusBiotech
  • AusCitrus
  • Australian Environment Foundation
  • Australian Livestock & Property Agents Association
  • Australian Nashi Growers Association
  • Australian Ostrich Association
  • Australian Processing Tomato Research Council
  • Australian Rubus Growers Association
  • Australian Seed Federation
  • Australian Shipping Association
  • Australian SPF Services
  • Australian Table Grape Association
  • Australian Truffle Growers' Association
  • Australian Veterinary Association
  • Australian Veterinary Association - Victoria
  • Australian Walnut Industry Association
  • Australian Wool Innovation
  • Australis Biological
  • Banksia Environmental Foundation
  • Beechworth Honey
  • Bejo
  • Bemco Australia
  • Biodynamic Marketing Company
  • Biosecurity Advisory Service
  • Box Hill Institute
  • Brown Brothers
  • Bunurong Land Council
  • Burra Foods
  • Cargill (Formerly Australian Wheat Board/AWB)
  • Centre for Invasive Species Solutions
  • CherryHill Orchards
  • Citrus Australia - VIC
  • Citrus Australia 
  • Corangamite Catchment Management Authority
  • CT Freight
  • Cutrifruit
  • Dairy Australia
  • Dairy Farmers Milk  Cooperative Limited
  • Dairy Food Safety Victoria
  • Deakin University
  • Department of Agriculture and Water Resources
  • Dreamtime Wholesale Nursery
  • Driscolls
  • East Gippsland Catchment Management Authority
  • Elmore Haulage
  • Emerald Grain
  • Environment Protection Authority -Victoria
  • Environment Victoria
  • Environmental Justice Australia
  • Far East Victoria Landcare
  • Farm Pride Foods Pty Ltd
  • Federation University
  • Feedlots Australia
  • Food & Beverage Importers Association
  • Fruit Growers Victoria Ltd
  • Gene Ethics
  • Gerard McMullen Consulting
  • Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority
  • Goulburn Broken Catchment Authority Management
  • Grain Producers Australia
  • Graincorp
  • Horticulture Innovation Australia
  • HYGAIN Feeds
  • Jamoney Pty Ltd
  • La Manna Group
  • La Trobe University
  • Landcare Australia
  • Livestock & Rural Transporters Association of Victoria
  • Livestock Biosecurity Network
  • Livestock Biosecurity Network - Victoria
  • Livestock Saleyards Association of Victoria Inc.
  • Luv-a-Duck
  • Mallee Catchment Management Authority
  • Maritime Industry Australia Ltd
  • Meat & Livestock Australia
  • Melbourne Water
  • Midway Limited
  • Mildura Fruit Company
  • Ministerial Freight Advisory Council (Victoria) C/o Begley Hobba & Manton Pty Ltd
  • Mondelez Australia (Foods) Ltd
  • Municipal Association of Victoria
  • National Competition Council
  • National Herd Improvement Association
  • National Herd Improvement Association of Australia
  • North Central Catchment Management Authority
  • North East Catchment Management Authority
  • Nursery & Garden Industry Victoria
  • Nursery and Garden Industry Australia
  • Paradisia Nurseries
  • Parks Victoria
  • Pistachio Growers Association Incorporated
  • Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre
  • Plant Biosecurity Research Initiative
  • Plant Health Australia
  • Plunkett Orchards
  • Port Phillip & Westernport Catchment Management Authority
  • Project Platypus Association
  • Pulse Australia
  • Racing Victoria
  • Raspberries & Blackberries Australia
  • Redland Orchards
  • Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - Victoria
  • Science Industry Australia
  • Seafood Industry Victoria Inc.
  • Sheep and Goat Identification Committee
  • SPC Ardmona
  • Stockfeed Manufacturers Council of Victoria (SFMC) representative
  • Summerfruit Australia Ltd
  • The Royal Agricultural Society of Victoria
  • The University of Melbourne
  • Total Livestock Genetics
  • Treasury Wine Estates
  • Trust for Nature
  • United Dairy Farmers of Victoria
  • Valley Pack
  • VFS Exports
  • Victorian Association of Forest Industries
  • Victorian Certified Seed Potato Authority
  • Victorian Environmental Assessment Council
  • Victorian Farmers Federation
  • Victorian National Parks Association
  • Victorian Petfood Processors
  • VR FISH - Victorian Recreational Fishing Peak Body
  • Warrnambool Cheese & Butter Factory Co. Holdings Ltd
  • Weed Society of Victoria (Inc.)
  • West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority
  • Wild Matters Pty Ltd
  • Wildlife Health Australia
  • Wimmera Catchment Management Authority
  • Wine Victoria and Victorian Viticulture Biosecurity Committee
  • Woodside Energy
  • Zoo Victoria

Victorian biosecurity roundtable agenda

Schedule Topic Presenter
9:00-9:15 Item 1
Amber Parr, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources
Beth Jones, Executive Director, Biosecurity & Agriculture Services, Agriculture Victoria
9.15-9.30 Item 2
Commonwealth update
Peter Creaser, Assistant Secretary, Plant Biosecurity, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources
9.30-10.00 Item 3
State update
Beth Jones, Executive Director, Biosecurity & Agriculture Services, Agriculture Victoria
10:00-10:30 Item 4
State presentation: Traceability
Michael Rosier, Director, Biosecurity Operations, Agriculture Victoria
10:30-11:00 Morning tea  
11:00-12:40 Item 5. Workshop One:
Topic: Building biosecurity capabilities across government, industry and community
Table based exercises
Facilitator: James Hider, Director Strategic Projects, Agriculture Victoria
12:40-1:25 Lunch  
1:25-2:40 Item 6. Panel: How do we work together to ensure a strong and effective biosecurity system?
  • Introduction to panel & outcomes
  • Commonwealth role in preparedness/ response/regulation
  • State role in preparedness/response/regulation
  • Industry org role in preparedness/ response
  • Environmental org role in preparedness/ response
  • Questions to panel
Facilitator: James Hider, Director Strategic Projects, Agriculture Victoria
  • Mark Schipp, Australian Chief Veterinary Officer, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources
  • Beth Jones, Agriculture Victoria
  • Leonard Vallance, Livestock President, Victorian Farmers Federation
  • Nathan Hancock, CEO Citrus Australia
  • Professor James Gilkerson, Faculty of Veterinary & Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne
  • Philip Ingamells, Park Protection, Victorian National Parks Association
2:40-2:55 Item 7. Role of the emergency response deeds Chris Ipkendanz, National Response Policy, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources
2:55-3:25 Item 8. Workshop Two:
National Biosecurity Statement - Roles and Responsibilities
Facilitator: Prue Oxford, Manager, Community & Industry Engagement, Agriculture Victoria
3:25-3:55 Item 9. Workshop Three:
Topic: Information and advice sources
Survey with table discussion
Amber Parr, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources
3:55-4:15 Item 10. Closing remarks Beth Jones, Executive Director, Biosecurity & Agriculture Services, Agriculture Victoria
4:15-4:45 Item 14
Afternoon tea

2018 Biosecurity Roundtable Program Calendar

Date Event Location
11 April 2018 South Australia Biosecurity Roundtable Adelaide
3 May 2018 Environmental Biosecurity Roundtable 1 Canberra
7 June 2018 Tasmania Biosecurity Roundtable Hobart
4 July 2018 Western Australia Biosecurity Roundtable Perth
2 August 2018 Victoria Biosecurity Roundtable Melbourne
30 August 2018 New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory Biosecurity Roundtable Sydney
26 September 2018 Northern Territory Biosecurity Roundtable Darwin
9 October 2018 Environmental Biosecurity Roundtable 2 Brisbane
11 October 2018 Queensland Biosecurity Roundtable Brisbane
29 November 2018 National Biosecurity Forum Canberra

Next steps...

The Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources and Agriculture Victoria would like to thank everyone who participated in the Victoria Biosecurity Roundtable for their time and contributions. The discussions and ideas from the Roundtable will feed into the agenda for the National Biosecurity Forum and other biosecurity governance and communication processes through the National Biosecurity Committee and other avenues.

We value your feedback – if you have suggestions about this roundtable or the roundtable program please contact us at Biosecurity Roundtable.

Phone 1800 068 468
Facebook: Australian biosecurity
Twitter: @DeptAgNews
Subscribe to Biosecurity Matters, a bi-monthly online newsletter providing readers with a greater understanding of the department's work in managing biosecurity risks overseas, at the border and within Australia. 

Last reviewed: 30 September 2020
Thanks for your feedback.
Thanks! Your feedback has been submitted.

We aren't able to respond to your individual comments or questions.
To contact us directly phone us or submit an online inquiry

Please verify that you are not a robot.