This thesis examines the differences of law and institutional framework between Malaysia and Australia. The current legislation dealing with the threat and diseases in relation to Covid-19 is still based on the outdated, static legislation. The new legislation amendment should be created and controlled by a specific authority solely in order to address this problem. Malaysia needs to consult the organisations that cover all damages. In order to examine and put into practise new laws from diverse regulatory strategies with the intention of protecting living things, the regulatory theory is employed as the theoretical framework. Despite Australia's decision to not join the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the protocol is widely used because it serves as the cornerstone for biosafety. At the conclusion of the legal comparative analysis, it is suggested that Malaysia's current law needs to be improved for better governance. This is done by comparing the similarities and differences between the legal and institutional biosafety laws of the two countries. The findings of the thesis more focus on the similarities and the differences between Malaysia and Australia Biosecurity laws. The study concludes that the implementation and improvement of the new law can be made by following the right approach.