Rethinking biosecurity: from control to coordination

Australia’s biosecurity system is under increasing pressure.

Freight volumes are growing. International and domestic travel continues to increase. Supply chains are more interconnected than ever. Production systems are changing, consolidating and intensifying. While each of these shifts creates economic opportunities, they also expand the pathways through which pests, diseases and weeds can enter and spread.

So the question isn’t whether the risk profile is changing. It is.

The real question is whether the biosecurity system is evolving at the same pace as the risks it is managing.

Biosecurity no longer sits in one place

Border protection will always remain a core responsibility of federal and state governments. That foundation is critical and it works hard every day. But once a biosecurity risk is inside the country, it does not move through policy documents. It moves through people, equipment, transport routes and everyday decisions.

It moves when contractors travel between properties.

When picking bins and pallets are moved between properties and reused.

When harvest crews shift regions.

When unusual signs are noticed or not acted on.

In other words, biosecurity risk has always moved through the supply chain – but today it does so at greater scale, speed and connectivity. That raises a question: are roles and expectations across the supply chain as clear as they need to be?

Producers, service providers and processors within the supply chain already influence biosecurity outcomes, whether formally recognised or not. They often see early signals and are frequently among the first to respond – or the first to be impacted, even when they are not the primary source of risk.

The issue is rarely willingness. It is coordination, and the fact that commercial risk can influence how and when issues are reported. Shared responsibility only works when the broader system supports it.

The business lens matters

From a policy perspective, biosecurity is framed through legislation, national strategies, government, industry agreements and compliance settings.

From a business perspective, it is framed through continuity, contracts and commercial risk.

Producers and supply-chain operators tend to ask practical questions:

• Will this disrupt my production?
• Will I lose market access?
• What will my customers expect of me?
• What will it cost me to manage?
• How do I reduce risk without adding unnecessary cost?
• Will I be able to meet my contract requirements?

 

These questions are not at odds with national biosecurity objectives. They reflect how risk is experienced at the farm gate and across the supply chain.

If we want early reporting, proactive management and shared vigilance, systems need to align regulatory intent with commercial reality. Otherwise, even well-designed policy can struggle in practice.

Farm in Longford, Tasmania

The fragility beneath reliability

Australia’s food and fibre system is generally reliable. That reliability is something we should be proud of, but it can also mask fragility.

In recent years, a range of shocks – from global events like COVID-19 through to extreme weather and rising input costs – have shown how quickly labour, transport and processing constraints can cascade through supply chains.

A significant agricultural pest or disease incursion would test many of those same pressure points, potentially with longer-lasting impacts on trade, regional economies and public confidence.

Biosecurity, therefore, is not just a compliance function. It is part of national economic resilience.

The challenge is whether we are investing in coordination and capability with the same seriousness that we invest in response.

From control to coordination

Australia’s biosecurity framework has historically emphasised detection, response and regulation. That foundation remains essential. But in a highly networked agricultural system, performance increasingly depends on coordination, data and information.

• Where does influence actually sit?
• Who is likely to see early warning signs?
• Are reporting pathways trusted?
• Do incentives encourage early action – or discourage it?

 

Strengthening biosecurity today is less about shifting responsibility and more about aligning it. It means investing in relationships across the supply chain, clarifying roles, and designing systems that reflect how agriculture actually operates – including better connecting the tools, data and systems that already exist but often operate in isolation.

When systems are designed with that reality in mind, shared responsibility across government, industry and supply chains becomes a strength rather than a risk.

What industry leadership can look like

We are already seeing examples where this approach is working.

The VegWatch program, led by AUSVEG, is one such case. By strengthening surveillance capability across the vegetable industry and embedding practical tools into existing operations, it has shown how industry, researchers and government can work together in a coordinated way. RMCG has supported the monitoring and evaluation of this program, helping capture insights about what enables collaboration and where systems can be strengthened.

The lesson is not that industry replaces government. It is that coordination, clarity and shared ownership improve outcomes – for all.

The broader opportunity is to apply that mindset across sectors and supply chains.

Veggie lines

Navigating complexity with a systems lens

At RMCG, we work with producers, supply-chain businesses, industry bodies and governments who are grappling with these questions.

Our role is to support clients in navigating this complexity by grounding decisions in how risk actually moves and how people respond in practice.

We bring a systems perspective that connects policy settings with the operational realities in Australian agriculture, identifies where influence sits, and help aligns common goals across the network.

We see biosecurity not as a debate about who holds responsibility, but as a design challenge – one that requires aligning roles, incentives and information across the system. As risks evolve, so too must the systems that manage them.

The future of Australian biosecurity will depend on how well we bring these elements together in practice – integrating people, information and incentives across the supply chain through deliberate coordination, trusted relationships and practical design.

The question now is whether we shape what comes next intentionally, or wait for the next incursion to force it.

At RMCG, we believe the system is strongest when it is designed with the realities of agriculture in mind. We are ready to work with industry and government to help shape that next phase deliberately, collaboratively and practically.

Learn more about our work in agriculture here.

• Latest news
• Publications