Bills

Biosecurity Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:50): I rise to support the Biosecurity Bill 2024. I believe this bill had its genesis back when we were in government in 2019; it was being formed up. It is absolutely vital for our primary industries—for the health of South Australians, in fact—that we do get biosecurity right. I note it is quite a complex bill and hopefully it will lead how we manage biosecurity into the future for better outcomes.

As I indicated, this bill is there to ensure South Australia's biosecurity system remains effective, contemporary and adaptable for future needs. A new Biosecurity Bill has been drafted to update and improve the existing legislation.

The bill proposes to ensure protection from pests and diseases that threaten our economy, terrestrial and aquatic environments, or may affect public amenities, communities and infrastructure, and also to provide South Australia with a modern, flexible and responsive biosecurity framework. It will bring consistency to the management of biosecurity across industries by incorporating a number of biosecurity-related legislation. It will also promote shared responsibility for biosecurity among government, industry and the community.

A technical directions paper in consultation was performed under the previous Marshall Liberal government in 2020, and feedback received was compiled in a consultation summary on the building of a new biosecurity act for South Australia. Stakeholders subsequently had the opportunity to provide further feedback based on the summary. Submissions from these initial consultations were considered when developing the draft biosecurity bill. The draft bill was released for public consultation over an eight-week period, from 1 August 2023, on the YourSAy website. This feedback was further considered and some updates made before the Biosecurity Bill 2024 was introduced to the parliament in the other place.

The creation of a select committee to inquire into the bill was discussed by our side with industry bodies and raised with crossbenchers due to the scope of the changes and in response to the concerns raised by industry. It was raised with the opposition and crossbenchers in regard to the government's response to the recent outbreak of tomato brown rugose fruit virus. Following consultation with stakeholders and industry bodies, the feedback was a recommendation that the bill be progressed in order to update the legislation to meet current conditions and consolidate the state's biosecurity efforts into a modern framework.

We on this side continue to advocate for an independent review into the government's response to exotic disease outbreaks and, if the minister refuses to commission an independent inquiry, we will work with the crossbench in an attempt to establish a parliamentary inquiry.

In progressing the bill, however, fine details within the bill were sought to provide clarity and strengthen the proposed legislation to support industry. Some amendments that were moved in the other place did not make it through here. Some of those involved looking for clarity around third parties accessing land for primary production who could be assumed to present a biosecurity risk and what steps may need to be taken to reduce that risk.

Another amendment was put up by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti regarding employers' liability for employee offences, which would remove the liability of employers in situations where a security breach has been committed by an employee and where that employee has directly contravened instructions when committing an offence. There was also another amendment around using software or artificial intelligence to automate decision-making. As written, the legislation does grant the ability for a computer program or AI model to be used in order to make automatic determinations.

A couple of amendments did get through that obviously we support here, that are in the legislation as transmitted from the other place. An amendment to do with clause 306 is the creation of further biosecurity levies. It is around regulations, notices and instruments, that any additional levies imposed through the bill will require consultation with all relevant stakeholders and a ministerial review before gaining approval. It is pleasing to note that that amendment came through.

Another amendment in regard to the Dog Fence Board is that the proposed legislation ensure the entirety of current Dog Fence Board provisions through the biosecurity act. However, a provision for the Dog Fence Board to raise contributions in clause 21 of schedule 2, which despite being present in the original Dog Fence Act since 1946 has never been enacted, seems a point of contention in the updated legislation by the Local Government Association.

This amendment seeks to retain the provisions in clause 21 for the raising of contributions through local councils when required, but attempts to tighten the situation in which this can occur and ensures the provision must have ministerial approval and approval from the Treasurer of the day. Hence, this measure would only be enacted following consultation with the Local Government Association and the approval of both the minister and the Treasurer. This amendment has been consulted on with the Local Government Association and the Dog Fence Board, seeking consensus on this provision.

Industry groups were sent a copy of the bill and asked for feedback and position statements. Those consulted include Primary Producers South Australia, Grain Producers SA, the SA Dairyfarmers' Association, the Dairy Industry Association of Australia, the South Australian Wine Industry Association, the Wine Grape Council of South Australia, Wool Producers Australia, Egg Farmers of Australia, AUSVEG SA, SA Chamber of Fruit and Vegetables, Fruit Producers SA, Summerfruit SA, Pork SA and Livestock SA.

As I indicated and as a landholder, it is absolutely serious that we get our biosecurity protocols in place. We have recently seen how the breakout of the tomato virus was managed. I am sure some of that was managed well, but there did seem to be protocols in regard to the reporting of outbreaks, the testing, some of the false positives that came through, and the lack of testing facilities. I acknowledge Macro Meats—Ray Borda's company—for getting another lab online to test for these.

I refer specifically to the major growers and the nurseries involved in the tomato industry, where it is reported that up to 500 people lost their jobs in regard to bans on either selling produce or obviously seedlings to be used to grow tomatoes into the future. We certainly believe that the government needs to have its own review of its practices in this space, because we had producers reporting to us inefficiencies and issues with how it was managed and you can easily see why people got upset because this is their livelihood that is on the line. When you get told you are shutting down and if there is even one false positive it can have not just a huge effect on the industry but a major effect—possibly a career-ending effect—on that grower involved in the tomato industry.

There are some very sad stories with regard to this about the impact it has had on growers. Yes, I do acknowledge sometimes you have to be hard in the management of potential threats, but you have to make sure that you have got the people, the preparedness and the systems in place so that you can get the right outcomes, because, as I said, this could mean the end of people in the industry.

Certainly there is a whole range of pests that we need to deal with and there will be more pests coming as time goes by. Certainly varroa mite is something we need to be very mindful of in the honey and bee industry and with the number of plants that need interaction with bees so that they can pollinate properly to grow fruit or almonds—especially almonds. There are schemes where bees are basically run on a commercial basis throughout the almond orchards to get that pollination in place. There are many thousands of hectares of those that have gone in over the years, but it is not just them; we have to be mindful that there have been outbreaks just across the border from South Australia.

Another thing that we have seen recently is the abalone virus threat and certainly the Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome (POMS) which has had a significant effect in the oyster industry over time and the restrictions that have had to be put in place to make sure that seed stock were not brought in from an area that was affected by POMS. It does create serious issues for these multimillion dollar industries and for the livelihoods of people who are doing their best not just to put food on the table but to support the economy here in South Australia.

Fruit fly seems to be something that we are having to deal with forever at the minute. There were outbreaks not just throughout the city but throughout the Riverland, and the member for Chaffey will be able to give more information about what happened in the Riverland, or what is happening in the Riverland. It is something we have to be very mindful of so that we can keep that fruit fly free status into the future. I know we as a government spent many, many millions of dollars in keeping the orange army involved not just to let people know of their obligations under the restrictions and managing fruit fly but what they had to do legally to comply. Certainly, and it is across both colours of government, people have been upset with the tough conditions on the border. I get it. You can have an apple in the car, and I think the fine is several hundred dollars—three or four hundred dollars.

Mr Whetstone: $405.

Mr PEDERICK: It is $405, I am informed. There are plenty of signs, plenty of warning, and you just have to make it obvious that you have to look after not just industry but the health of South Australians and the South Australian economy.

Certainly, another issue that we have been aware of, well, all the time but in the not too distant past, a couple of years ago, was the threat of foot-and-mouth disease coming to Australia. This would be absolutely devastating to our sheep and cattle industries here in this country. As I have indicated before, I happened to go to Bali at that time, so I encountered the restrictions on the way in, which were not too bad. I walked through the rubber mats with the liquid on them. Before the group that I was with came home, we had toothbrushes out. I said, 'You clean out every skerrick from whatever shoes you wore, or you leave the shoes behind,' because I certainly did not want to be the one responsible for bringing it into the country.

These things have major economic impacts on our industry if they come in, especially something like foot-and-mouth disease. It is why we need to keep spending so much money to make sure that we do have those biosecurity outcomes with the other disease threats across the board.

Other things that have caused a great impact on Australian more generally are cane toads. They were brought in to fix one problem and created their own problem. They have been marching across Queensland and the Northern Territory. Trying to find a way to eliminate them has been a major issue for this country and those states and territories involved.

Something that is affecting the egg market across Australia are outbreaks of avian flu interstate, where I think at least two million chickens have had to be destroyed. We certainly have a major chicken industry here in South Australia, not just in my electorate but up around Port Wakefield. Obviously, Ingham's processing in Adelaide and north of Adelaide is a vital industry here in South Australia.

In my electorate we have the major feed mill that Ingham's operate, putting many thousands of tonnes through every week and feeding the multitudes of sheds in the area. Each one of these sheds, which are up to 160 metres long, represents well over a $1 million investment, and there is a lot of compliance to put these sheds, these chicken farms, in place. They obviously have to have firefighting systems in place so that you can virtually save yourself. It is not just the fact of building sheds; you have to put in that water reticulation and make sure you have access to that water in the event that something goes wrong. We certainly hope it does not. Not far from my place, Ingham's have a breeder farm out the back of Yumali, which is a big part of the industry.

It is said that there is a truck on the freeway every 20 minutes carting chickens to the process plant in Adelaide. I have been having discussions with the council and am hopeful that there will be investment by Ingham's into the future locally at Murray Bridge so that we do not have to have that freight through to Adelaide and that the chickens can be processed locally. It is a major industry for my area and a major industry for this state, going across multiple electorates.

Certainly the pig industry is very mindful of biosecurity measures. I have many friends who are involved in the pig industry, the intense pig industry, and there is lots of animal welfare progress that has been made in how sows have their litters and the management of that and then the way the pigs are raised in the eco shelters into the future. It is probably a far more effective and efficient way to grow pigs, and certainly a more animal-friendly way, than to just have them directly in sheds. Obviously when they are born and farrowing, they need to have that extra protection.

It is not unlike the chicken industry, and I have visited both types of facilities. There are deep protocols in place for visitors to these plants and these growing facilities, obviously with mats soaked in disinfectant so that no diseases are brought on board. Certainly in regard to processing at the facility at Murray Bridge, they have truck-wash systems in place, essentially mats for the trucks like the mats the people need to walk through, to make sure that we keep that area disease free to keep that vital industry. They contract-process there for Coles. There are hundreds of millions of dollars invested across the state in the pig industry, a very vital industry for South Australia. And look, there's a little bit of overseas capital involved in some of this. We even have some Chinese investment in one of the piggeries at Coomandook.

So, in regard to all of our industries, whether it is the intensive industries, whether it is the broadacre industries, we cannot let our guard down. We need to know whichever government is in control has the back of the people and the producers of South Australia to make sure that we can keep up that food production to feed the world. We had our challenges during COVID, when we were in government, and as was said: we were building the plane as we flew the plane. There were lots of restrictions on the management. It was more about people then, which obviously is not part of this bill, but it just showed the level you can get to with working out the best ways to manage a threat to the community.

Certainly, we must be mindful. I know the figure of $18.5 billion has been mentioned that the agriculture industry in South Australia generated in 2022-23, but that is 18 months ago now. As I have indicated in this place before, we have just come out of what I believe to be the worst drought in over 100 years—in fact, some rainfall records have it at least at 110 years—and it has been a shocker.

I know that the family who operates my farm under a lease arrangement had the worst year they have ever had, and they are not alone by any means. There would be hundreds, thousands of stories across the state on the impact it had on people's incomes.

It does not matter whether you are broadacre or intense, it is because the input costs are so high. When you are in that dryland, broadacre environment, and whether it is running stock, whether it is cropping or both, you are under the pump, you are right under the pump. Some of the issues I believe that people had to interact with were these forecasts that were coming out of the Bureau of Meteorology. Some of these long-range forecasts were saying that we were going to get plenty of rain in September and things were going to be great, and farmers were going out spending hundreds of thousands of dollars minimum on nitrogen, whether liquid or urea, and guess what? It did not rain.

We had a shocker. Stem frost across the board, and it happened at my place and we have never seen it before. Cutting 80-foot windrows—what is that, about 25 metres of windrows—to get a decent windrow so you could get a roll of hay rolled up because otherwise if you cut it with a normal mower, you would not have had enough length of crop to rake it up and you would not have got anything.

But there were certainly some surprises for people who thought all was lost in September and October with some of the standing crops, and they were not huge returns, but I know one example of people with a canola crop where it went 850 kilos a hectare, which in a drought like that was just amazing, but a lot of crops yielded 200 or 300 kilos a hectare or less and people were literally scraping what they could of lentil crops off the ground to get something. I am well aware of bean crops at 200 kilos a hectare and less, and I know a lot of that was left in the paddock right around the state. The only good thing out of that is that it can become sheep feed.

But there is also the dire need for stock feed for those people with livestock enterprises. We saw the Aussie Hay Runners do multiple runs and that kept the core of people's livestock operations going. A lot of people either sold all their stock or got down to the vital core that they may be able to breed out of their core stock, their bulls and cows or their rams and their ewes, to build again into the future but it has had a severe impact on farming in this state. As I said, a lot of it is attributed to the high cost of inputs for people to operate.

There are only a couple of saving graces in this conversation around dryland agriculture which is that wool prices have not been too bad and livestock has not been too bad. But the thing is, once you sell the stock, you cannot get it back, and if you sold most of your breeding stock, you are going to take a long time—multiple years—to get that back to fruition. What I am saying is that we cannot do much about the weather, that is true, but we need to, as with what has been attempted here with the Biosecurity Bill, get things as good as we can for all of our primary producers, whether they be our intensive farming primary producers, the more broadacre primary producers and the like, and people who are running livestock.

We need to make sure that they can get the best outcome they can knowing that if there is a threat of any virus, any disease coming in, and they can be plant-borne diseases, that the legislation and the government of the day have their back because farmers in this state—well, farmers across the country but certainly in this state, the driest state in the driest continent—do a magnificent job.

I have said it here before, if it were not for the forward thinking and the technological advances that we have seen over the last 30 or 40 years, and the one-pass farming using glyphosate, or Roundup, which is the commercial term, and other chemicals to do that one-pass farming, conserving moisture at every instance—even with the poor crops that came off right across the state, people were straight out with their boom sprays to get rid of any bit of green that would suck moisture out of the opportunity for this year's crops. Farmers are still investing, but they are not investing too much, I can assure you, because the cheque books went into the office and most of them got locked up from September.

What I was getting at with those technological advances is if we had had a year like this last year's season 30 or 40 years ago we would have seen the old footage that we had back then where farms used to get cultivated multiple times—eight, nine or 10 times—and you would have had graders grading bitumen to get the dust off the roads. Thankfully, we were nowhere near that because of what farmers do through those advances, working in farming groups, working with consultants, and working with their own knowledge that they learn over time to make it better. They need to be rewarded for what they are doing, as I said, whether they are dryland operators or more intensive operators where they need to bring in feed and water.

We certainly support the Biosecurity Bill. We want to see that it gets enacted in the proper way. We would certainly like to see improvements into the future as to how threats are managed and to make sure that PIRSA is appropriately resourced and that there are procedures put in place so that some of the issues we saw with the tomato rugose virus can be eliminated to give producers the best outcomes. We need to make sure the national protocols are right. I know it is a fine balance between what producers want and what we need to do with disease management but we need to get it right so that we can all progress into the future and have a better time with disease management into the future. With those few words, I commend the bill.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (16:22): I would like to make a contribution to this Biosecurity Bill. As the member for Hammond has so eloquently put it, the importance of biosecurity to the primary sector cannot be overstated. Obviously, South Australia does deserve an effective, contemporary and adaptable biosecurity framework but the bill has to ensure that the framework remains effective for the future needs. What I would like to see in the bill is the capability for the bill to be amended should there need to be some form of nimble change in the biosecurity space.

For those within the primary sector, those within the department and those who live and breathe biosecurity, the impact of a breach cannot be overstated. I want to err with a level of caution to the government, and that consultation was performed under a former Liberal government with me as the responsible minister in the early days. There is crossover with the Biosecurity Act: there is the Livestock Act and there are national committees that do have a lot of crossover. I would like to have seen a level of consultation with the Marine Pest Sectoral Committee and also other biosecurity measures in other states.

I raise my hand to say that I have been a very proud South Australian primary producer. South Australia does lead the way with a lot of biosecurity measures. We have put enforcement and eradication programs in place over a long period of time, while I have seen other states be quite complacent and allow things to spiral out of control and I will touch on that shortly.

First and foremost, we need to make sure the bill ensures protection from pest and diseases, full stop, but once we do incur an outbreak or disease, whether it is a local disease or whether it is an introduced disease, it threatens an economy. It is a terrestrial environment, but the public amenities and the communities and the infrastructure need to be, as I said, nimble should we have an outbreak and I think, by and large, South Australia has demonstrated that.

We have seen a number of biosecurity breaches. We have seen outbreaks and introduced problem areas right across the board within the primary sector. I guess the framework needs to be, as I said, nimble and flexible so the department can actually move quickly. Obviously, primary industries are the responsible department. Department of the Premier and Cabinet are also a driver within that space to properly resource PIRSA, should there be the need for a quick response.

I think what we have seen over recent times has been that we have implemented a quick response, whether it be land-based, marine-based or commodity-based biosecurity. Whether we are looking at grains or livestock or the marine environment, there has to be the capability to have the resources on hand for the relative agency to be able to address the threats of either an imminent outbreak or an outbreak that has been detected and needs to be very quickly addressed and it is about how quickly the government can manage an incursion.

I must say that there have been good and bad responses by governments and, by and large, it does not matter what colour of government is in: it is about how they address it and the priority they put on making sure they nip in the bud whatever the pressure point is with a biosecurity breach or an outbreak. I think what we need to do when we are building this new biosecurity act—and it has been a while since we put measures in place to amend what the act is—is to actually learn from the vagaries and shortcomings through history.

I think there were two amendments in the Legislative Council that ensure third parties accessing land for primary production are taking the necessary steps to reduce the risk. We need to make sure there is better automated biosecurity oversight with computers and AI models. Obviously, AI is a thing in the distance and we will watch very carefully just how those AI models can be used to address some of the shortcomings that human intervention has missed along the way.

We need to have better automated oversight with outbreaks and response times and it requires ministers and departments to publish reports of these decisions so there is transparency so the industry and the commodity sector can be assured that the government is doing everything in its power to best protect our primary sector.

That also sends a very strong message to our trading partners. Most of those trading partners rely on a very reliable product and they want a safe product and if we can demonstrate to them that as a state with a well-led government we are doing everything in our power to have those biosecurity measures put in place, making sure that product is of exceptional quality with no threats and assure our buying customer, we will go far. We will also be able to draw a premium for those products.

I think what it has shown us over a long period of time is that previously—not so long ago—we had a huge advantage within our vineyards. With phylloxera within our food-growing areas and horticulture, particularly with the Qfly that sadly has now seen a number of outbreaks within the Riverland—we have even seen some outbreaks, particularly the Mediterranean fruit fly down here in metropolitan Adelaide. Just recently we saw another outbreak at Glynde. That raises alarm bells for people who are here in our marketplace buying our products, wanting to be assured that when they buy a product at a premium price they are getting a safe, clean, green product that will not threaten that relationship between buyer and seller or between farmer and agent going into the marketplace.

I just want to touch on some of the biosecurity threats that we have experienced over a short period of time. When we look back in history, it does demonstrate that the biosecurity act must be an anchor point; it must be rock solid. We are now relying on a global trading economy, more so than ever. We know that there are political headwinds occasionally that do hurt our trading economy, but I think we have to make sure that we have our house in order so that when we are trading into those markets we can ensure that it is safe and it is not there to impact.

Obviously, one of the newly detected diseases or viruses that has come into South Australia has been the varroa mite, the varroa destructor as it is commonly known. It is not just a global pest within the honey industry; it is a global pest within the pollination industry. Pollination is worth many, many dollars' worth of benefit—I have heard closer to $2 billion—to a food-dependent sector, the horticulture sector.

My electorate runs up into the Victorian border. We have seen some of those pollination services, honeybees, that have been detected in New South Wales with varroa mite. Governments now in their wisdom have gone away from eradication and are now just doing a management-type transition. Management is all very well and good, but government has to better understand that bees have no boundaries. I will declare that South Australia's 2,000 registered apiarists (beekeepers) are not enough to service the sector that we need for pollination services in particular.

Pollination services are a very large part of the bee industry, but they are an even larger part of the pollination services into horticulture, into food production and also into the environment. We know that we have a lot of native bees. We know that we rely more and more on pollination, whether it is on our native plants or whether it is on our food plants. It is also about making sure we have pollination for our food-derivative plants that are feeding our livestock and are helping grow our forests. There is a hugely diverse need for pollination within our natural environment.

As I said, the pollination-dependent industries must be able to act quickly, particularly the almond industry, which is a very buoyant commodity at the moment and is almost totally dependent on pollination services. Some of the new almond varieties are now self-pollinating; they are new breeds. What we are seeing now is that they still require bees. The selling factor is that they are self-pollinating and do not require bees—that is not the fact. The fact is that they require fewer bees and they are less dependent on having to have pollination to, at the end of the day, have a viable crop so that we can make that industry continue to grow.

With regard to the $2 billion horticulture industry, 85 per cent of that industry relies on pollination services. It cannot be overstated. Obviously, I very proudly say that Chaffey is one of the great food bowls of Australia—it is one of the great food bowls of South Australia—having significant citrus holdings, soft fruits, pome fruits and vegetables. Growing industries are nut crops that are, again, reliant on those pollination services. It is the largest fresh potato-growing electorate in the Southern hemisphere. All of these plants have flowers and all of these flowers produce better yields once they have been pollinated by bees rather than just using the wind or chemicals to make sure that those plants are part of a vibrant, productive food industry.

The almond industry is a growing industry. It is said to double over the next five years. It becomes more and more important to the state's economy. Not only is it the majority of what we grow in the almond sector but the majority of it is exported. About 5 per cent to 6 per cent of the almonds are for the domestic market; the remainder is put into containers, they are value-added and they are sent abroad to our trading partners at a premium price because they are Australian almonds. We produce a premium product. As I said, it is clean and green. There are some producers that are better than others, and that is another complexity with return price. While industry is pouring millions into combatting any biosecurity risks, so must government. It is a government's role to co-contribute to keeping our shores safe from those biosecurity threats.

I will touch on Queensland fruit fly. Sadly, what we have seen is a number of outbreaks in the Riverland—some 50-plus outbreaks. That has only happened over the recent couple of years. I think the measures that were put in place by the former Liberal government, with myself as the minister responsible, were about zero tolerance, about stopping people at our borders, enforcing the rules. There were no new rules. It was about enforcing penalties and making sure that people were educated and better prepared coming into South Australia not to carry fruit, not to carry host material that would potentially further threaten the industry.

It is a great economy but we have to continue to educate people. I thank the current government of the day. They continue to roll out the fruit fly program; however, there are many arms to rolling out a fruit fly program. Zero tolerance is part of it, the liaison officers, and having a sterile fly facility at Port Augusta. Continuing to grow the capacity of that facility has never been more important. At Port Augusta, those sterile flies are fruit flies that have been irradiated; they become sterile and they fire blanks. They give a false reading with the natural fly and those flies have a limited lifespan. Once that sterile fly has done its job it breaks the life cycle, and it is very important that that continues to happen.

We did use the Western Australian Mediterranean fruit fly facility over a long period of time. It was very costly. That Mediterranean facility was used for the outbreak of the Mediterranean fruit flies here in Adelaide. That was eradicated. I commend the work of both the former Liberal government and this current government for the work they are doing to keep it eradicated. Really, it is up to growers, and it is up to householders to be vigilant. It is up to the government to continue to spread the message, to educate people and to make sure that people are responsible in their backyards and that they are not transporting contaminated material, infested larvae, into other regions, only for it to be detected and then have declared outbreaks. It really does create a number of issues.

I do want to say that South Australia is the lens between the west and the east. We are between the outbreak of Mediterranean fruit fly in the west and what we have seen over in the east. At the border, just to the east of the Riverland, the Queensland fruit fly outbreak is endemic. You cannot go into a backyard within Sunraysia, within the Millewa—a lot of those areas, all the way to the eastern seaboard—without picking up a piece of contaminated fruit.

I have said in this place more than once: there is nothing worse than biting into a peach and getting a mouthful of maggots, and that is exactly what is happening, particularly in Sunraysia. There are very few fruit trees in backyards now because they were all contaminated with fruit fly. They all have to be chemically treated and they lose their market share. But here in South Australia we had that huge advantage.

In some of the other sectors—with the short amount of time I have left—obviously with livestock we have seen a lot of pressure with footrot and mad cow. We have Asia on our doorstep, and we have to be vigilant with any host material coming out of Asia. As has been stated, with chickens the avian flu has raised its head, but biosecurity measures put in place by the department are doing a good job to keep it at bay.

The marine environment continues to give people heart palpitations. In abalone, there is the AVG virus. In oysters, we have POMS. In the aquaculture sector, we have seen a number of issues and threats to our aquaculture businesses, including ranching. A lot of production ships come into our ports and drop ballast water. In particular, with some of those, there is the crown-of-thorns starfish and prawn white spot. There are many. In grains, we have rust, fusarium, mildew and nematodes. There are many and some of these diseases can actually kill humans, so it is more than just dealing with what we are currently seeing.

In citrus, huanglongbing is a pathogen. It is an Asian citrus psyllid, and it has almost wiped out the citrus industry in the US. It has had a monumental impact on the Queensland citrus industry. We talk a lot about particularly phylloxera in the wine industry. South Australia is phylloxera free, so please let's keep it that way. Border security—thank you. Keep our state safe and keep our state biosecurity friendly.

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (16:42): It is a pleasure to rise today and to speak in support of the Biosecurity Bill 2024—an important piece of legislation that seeks to protect and strengthen our state's biosecurity and which aims to provide benefit for our state's industries, for our environment and for the South Australian community. Before I begin, I really want to thank the two previous members for their contributions. It was fascinating to hear your perspective on this particular matter and thank you.

To the member for Chaffey, I did tell you I was going to creep into your electorate a few weeks ago, and it was a relief to be able to buy fruit from the side of the road. I must confess, 12 months earlier I tried that game in ignorance and came home empty-handed and was probably not willing to confess that to the house then, but it is a welcome relief that we do have growers who are able to sell some of their fruit on the side of the road.

Our primary industries and agribusinesses are enormous contributors to the South Australian economy. We have a very proud history in this state, in this all-important sector, that strongly underpins the wellbeing and success of our communities in a diverse range of ways. To track the advances in South Australian primary industries, the Department of Primary Industries and Regions (PIRSA) releases a series of industry scorecards. These provide value chain measures of annual performance.

The most recent industry scorecard tells us that in 2022-23 South Australian primary industries and agribusiness revenue increased by 7 per cent, to reach a record $18.5 billion. The value of South Australia's overseas exports of primary industries and associated processing, which is also referred to as food and agribusiness, totalled $8.8 billion in 2022-23, which represents an increase of 18 per cent relative to the 2021-22 figure and accounted for 51 per cent of our total merchandise exports.

Of course, through the hard work of the federal and state Labor governments we have seen the resumption of trade to China for many agricultural industries, including rock lobster and wine, and the undoing of the damage that the previous federal Liberal government did to our primary producers. In 2022-23, total employment in primary industries and associated processing was estimated to be around 78,000 FTEs. This represents an increase of 10 per cent from the previous financial year.

Overall, results for the full food and wine industry supply chain were up. Combined gross food and wine revenue increased by 10.7 per cent to reach $26.65 billion, with increases in food commodities, particularly grain exports, as the main driver. The strong results achieved over recent years despite global challenges and extreme weather events illustrate the importance and the value of a robust and resilient primary industry sector to our state. These industries have long been part of our identity, and long may they remain so. This is why a strong biosecurity system is so critical to underpinning the productivity and profitability of our primary industries.

There are also vital environmental and social benefits in protecting our unique flora and fauna, natural environments, culture and public amenity from a wide range of biosecurity threats. Biosecurity is the management of risks to the economy, the environment and the community of pests and diseases entering, emerging, establishing or spreading in an area.

It is the case that we are facing increasing biosecurity pressures. The National Biosecurity Strategy describes how various pressures at the national and global levels are driving increased and changing biosecurity risks. These include climate change, enabling pests and diseases to invade new areas. Climate change also affects the resilience of primary production and natural systems to pest and disease invasions, particularly in the face of more extreme weather events and natural disasters.

Changing land use and increased migration to regional areas, bringing people, primary production and wildlife closer together, brings more pathways for pests and spreads disease. I can recall this in my time living in Scott Creek, when once upon a time we had a conservation park that abutted our house.

At one particular time, it was completely planted with trees. While that is commendable on so many fronts, it also got rid of the natural grasslands, which resulted in the migration of an abundance of kangaroos. They found the backyards and paddocks of my neighbours and my family to be very tempting and appetising, and so as time went on life revolved around adapting to having many kangaroos as neighbours and, of course, to the security and safety threats that came with it; but I do digress.

I also want to add that global trade continues to increase. Coupled with more complex global supply chains, there is more pressure on border screening and increased freight within Australia. More shipping vessel movements raise risks of introducing new marine pests and, of course, diseases. Tourism and migration also continue to increase post COVID-19. This brings associated biosecurity risks, where people unintentionally or deliberately transport biosecurity matter.

Invasive species are a major cause of global decline in biodiversity, including for Australia's threatened flora and fauna. Let us not forget the cane toad. It might take a while, but he is coming. E-commerce is enabling greater volumes of trade, including illegal trade in declared pest species, both into and within Australia. Increasing biosecurity risks overseas are geographically closer to Australia and/or occurring in locations frequented by travellers; for example, foot-and-mouth disease, rabies, lumpy skin disease and African swine fever are present in South East Asia.

Increasing resistance to agricultural and veterinary chemicals can limit what effective controls are available to prevent and manage biosecurity pests that cause diseases. To effectively manage the increasing risks there is a need for South Australia to introduce more contemporary, flexible and consistent biosecurity legislation. South Australia's current biosecurity legislation has served us well; however, there is a clear opportunity to strengthen the regulatory tools to respond more effectively and more consistently to current and emerging risks.

As part of the national biosecurity system a consolidated biosecurity act is needed for South Australia to enable a harmonised, flexible and risk and evidence-based approach to preventing, controlling and managing biosecurity risks and to ensure South Australia remains a strong link into the national system.

The bill that we are now considering seeks to consolidate several existing acts to improve consistency across sectors, including the Plant Health Act 2009, the Livestock Act 1997, the Dog Fence Act 1946, the Impounding Act 1920 and relevant provisions of the Fisheries Management Act 2007.

I am proud of the significant biosecurity funding that both the federal and state Labor governments have made in the north of Adelaide in recent years. Partnering with the neighbouring South Australia Produce Market they have announced the development of a $50 million biosecurity facility based in Pooraka, within the northern suburbs and within a stone's throw of where I live in Parafield Gardens.

This is a state first for South Australia. The post-harvest treatment facility will provide inspection, quarantine and treatment of fruit and vegetable produce, which is vital for exporting South Australia's produce globally and supporting our primary producers from all across the state. The industry-led initiative is funded through $9.8 million in federal government funding, $4.2 million from the state government and $36 million from industry. The facility will use pressure cooling and treatment technology and will be the largest scale multi-treatment and inspection facility in South Australia. Once completed, the project will unlock an additional $100 million in fresh produce exports over a five-year period, creating up to 172 direct and indirect ongoing jobs and assist in cost reduction for the state's valued primary producers.

Currently South Australian producers are required to send their produce to Victoria or Queensland for treatment. This new facility is set to reduce those transport costs and improve profitability for South Australian producers which, in turn, will lower product wastage and help reduce the cost of produce at our supermarkets. South Australian growers have previously faced challenges in selling to certain markets in times of fruit fly outbreaks. In 2020 and 2021 South Australia had a medfly outbreak in metropolitan Adelaide and is currently experiencing a prolonged Qfly outbreak in parts of the Riverland.

As members in this place would know, we often face fruit fly outbreaks in metropolitan Adelaide. Currently there are two, one in Salisbury—rather close to home—and the other one in Glynde. This investment will allow producers long-term certainty to continue to trade their produce by allowing access to treatment options right here in Adelaide, as opposed to having to send their products interstate which eats into critical shelf-life days.

Built on the site of the SA Produce Market at Burma Road in Pooraka, the facility will play a vital role in protecting and expanding the state's growing horticultural industry. There are restrictions within Australia and export countries on what produce is allowed to enter each state or country based on what pests and diseases are prevalent in the region where the fruit is grown. The new biosecurity precinct will ensure produce coming from the fruit fly impacted areas within the state are able to be inspected, quarantined and treated if required before produce is distributed overseas and to retailers across South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

Stage 1 of the project is well under way and I look forward to continue to see this project develop and support our producers. The facility will also support and grow key industries identified by the state government, such as health and medical. The Biosecurity Bill is the result of a significant body of work to ensure that South Australia has fit for purpose, modern legislation to manage biosecurity risks now and into the future.

Obviously, it takes a lot of effort to bring one of these bills into the chamber. On behalf of this humble backbencher and a lot of my colleagues, I do want to pay my thanks to those who have worked hard behind the scenes to get this bill to where it is today. I have worked as both a member of a ministerial team and a member of the Public Service. Working behind the scenes, I know there is a lot of blood, sweat and tears that goes into a bill like this. I figure that it would be appropriate at this point in time to lay on the record how much we within the government and, I am sure, those opposite appreciate the effort that has gone into this particular bill. With that in mind, it is my pleasure now to commend it to the house, and I urge all members present to support it.

Ms HUTCHESSON (Waite) (16:55): I rise today to offer my support for the Biosecurity Bill 2024. As other members have acknowledged in this place, South Australia's current biosecurity legislation has served us well. However, there is opportunity to strengthen the regulatory tools to respond to current and emerging risks effectively and consistently. Disparate provisions in acts covering plant health, animal health and aquatic-related biosecurity also impede efficient, flexible delivery and can be confusing for system participants.

This is a crucial bill for ensuring the future sustainability of our state's primary producers, the environment and the wider community. A thorough review of existing legislation and the opportunity for multiple rounds of stakeholder consultation culminated in an eight-week public consultation on the draft bill in August and September 2023. That allowed us to make sure that the voices of system participants have been heard.

The bill brings consistency to the management of animal, plant and environmental biosecurity across industries by keeping and improving the best of what has worked in existing legislation and adding new tools and concepts to embed these in a single, modern, flexible legislative framework. The Biosecurity Bill 2024 introduces new concepts to the way biosecurity is managed and regulated in South Australia. The strong results achieved over recent years despite global challenges and extreme weather events illustrate the importance of a robust and resilient primary industry sector. A strong biosecurity system is critical in underpinning the productivity and profitability of our primary industries.

There are also vital environmental and social benefits in protecting our unique flora and fauna, natural environments, culture and public amenity from a wide range of biosecurity threats. Biosecurity is the management of risks to the economy, the environment and the community of pests and diseases entering, emerging, establishing or spreading in an area.

I understand that a fundamental concept of the bill is that of biosecurity matter, which includes any animal, plant or other organism apart from a human being, animal and plant pests and diseases, disease agents, contaminants and animal and plant products. The bill also defines a carrier of biosecurity matter, which is any living or non-living thing that has or is capable of having biosecurity matter on it, attached to it or contained in it. For example, a hive or vehicle may be a carrier of bees. Bees are a carrier of varroa mites, and varroa mites themselves may be carriers of serious viruses such as deformed wing virus.

Similarly, the bill allows for prohibited and regulated dealings to be declared by regulation. Prohibited dealings pose biosecurity risks in the same manner as prohibited matter and require similar regulation and controls to prevent, eliminate, minimise, control or manage those risks. Regulated dealings require anyone undertaking them to be registered for that purpose and to carry them out subject to conditions of their registration to ensure the dealing does not pose an unacceptable biosecurity risk.

The bill aims to build a culture of shared responsibility among government, industry and the community for protecting our state from the impacts of pests, diseases and contaminants. To support this outcome, it introduces a new key concept of 'general biosecurity duty', which is a duty on everyone to prevent, eliminate, minimise, control or manage biosecurity risks when dealing with biosecurity matter or a carrier.

The general biosecurity duty requires a person to take reasonably practicable measures in relation to the risk they know, or reasonably ought to know, exists. The standard for complying with the general biosecurity duty is set at that which can be expected for someone in their circumstances and with their knowledge and would be different, for example, for a professional researcher or agronomist than a member of the public. There is also guidance within the bill as to the meaning of 'reasonably practicable'.

Authorised officers also have a range of powers they can exercise for authorised purposes in administering and enforcing the act which includes the scope of powers in existing biosecurity-related legislation. They strike the right balance between allowing officers to act in implementing the bill and ensuring appropriate checks and balances are in place.

Importantly, the bill gives authorised officers authority to act if they believe or reasonably believe the situation requires action to prevent, eliminate, minimise, control or manage a biosecurity risk or impact. Provisions such as these are central to supporting the bill's aims of risk-based decision-making and acting early to achieve the best biosecurity outcomes.

The bill contains a number of provisions to support access to domestic and international markets for South Australia's produce, enabling it to be certified as pest and disease free, and traced through the supply chain meeting entry conditions of the receiving jurisdiction. These include registration of people engaging in regulated dealings and provisions to enable allocation of identification codes such as the existing Property Identification Code for livestock producers.

This can be extended under the new framework, for example, to property ID codes for producers of plants. Such identification schemes are increasingly important in supporting market access and are also critical in tracing movement of pests and diseases in emergencies. Biosecurity programs are an important new tool to prevent, eliminate, minimise, control or manage a particular biosecurity risk or impact. These can be proposed by an industry or community body or be led by government. They will foster partnerships, shared responsibility and co-investment in tackling issues of interest to specific industry or community groups.

I would like to take a little minute to talk about a couple of the orchards that I have in my community that continue to not only provide our community with fabulous fresh fruit but take their responsibility of biosecurity very seriously. The Magarey Orchard, also known as Nunkri Orchard, is a family-owned and operated pear and apple orchard located at Coromandel Valley. Established in 1909 by Thomas Charles Alfred and his wife, Agnes Magarey, the orchard has been operational for five generations with the sixth generation now working there—that is 116 years later.

The Magarey family work incredibly hard to produce award-winning fruit and, can I also say, the best pear jam you will get anywhere. The community can drive up to the orchard and buy fruit through an honesty system, and you are right there in the big shed where the fruit is processed so you can witness firsthand all of the work that occurs. They grow pears, including one of the best varieties that I have ever tasted known as the Josephine. The Josephine is not easy to find in stores but a trip to Magareys' can take you to a place where you have a delicious and healthy snack. They also have apples and plums. Last year, I invited the minister to visit the orchard and hear directly from Andrew and John and the Magarey family about their business: the history, their processes and also the challenges that they face.

Also in my community is Allan's Orchard in Upper Sturt. A much smaller-scale operation to the Magareys', Allan and Carol have a peach orchard and every summer, much to the delight of not only our local Upper Sturt residents but also those driving through Upper Sturt, you can go and buy some deliciously homegrown peaches. Allan and Carol work hard from dawn to dusk, on hot days and in the rain to ensure their crop is the best.

Both these orchards are well aware of the threat of pests, be they fruit fly or other issues. I remember as a kid travelling on holidays across the border and seeing the fruit fly warnings and we see them in our airports as well. We also have a personal responsibility to protect our growers. They are important to our state and our community and this bill adds to the protections and support that they need to continue to provide locally grown produce.

Not quite in my community but pretty close with joint namesake is the Waite research precinct. I have always been aware of the work that occurs at Waite as I grew up across the road from a family, many of whom worked there, led by their father, Tony Rathjen. Tony was a wheat breeder and made an enormous contribution to South Australia's agricultural community. He left a lasting legacy and led the way for his daughter to also work within the Waite Research Institute.

I have visited the campus on several occasions, most recently when they announced their Plants for Space program, growing duckweed and other varieties that are not only packed full of nutrients but also may be able to grow in other extraterrestrial spaces. Maybe some work still to be done on the taste but they are definitely on their way.

Waite through SARDI does a lot more than growing space weed. They are in the integral research arm in our war against pests and diseases and I thank all our researchers and scientists who work there. The South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) Plant Quarantine Unit is the hub of quarantine-related activity at the Waite Campus, providing plant quarantine services to industry and the research community. They provide a disease screening service for plant material imported from overseas and they have the capacity to do onsite screening from seeds through to whole plant and can do heat treatments, if needed.

Biosecurity is incredibly important, as we have said previously, to protect our animals, our environment and our agriculture. We all have personal responsibility. This bill is a result of a significant body of work to ensure that South Australia has fit-for-purpose, modern legislation to manage biosecurity risks now and into the future. There has been significant consultation which shows broad support for the proposed reforms and the creation of the consolidated Biosecurity Bill, which also resulted in some substantial improvements to earlier drafts of the bill. I commend the Biosecurity Bill to the house and I look forward to further debate.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (17:05): I rise to speak in support of the Biosecurity Bill 2024. At the outset, I would like to thank the members for Hammond, Chaffey, Playford and Waite for their contributions. Over the past few years, we have seen many challenges on the biosecurity front, which has required a response to protect South Australia's agricultural commodity groups. We have seen fruit fly outbreaks in both the Riverland and metropolitan Adelaide, heightened awareness of foot-and-mouth and lumpy skin disease from neighbouring countries, along with the ongoing response to the tomato brown rugose fruit virus in South Australia. Indeed, we continue to see a close monitoring of Australia's National Priority Plant Pest List. Identification of national priority pests enables governments to develop national action plans for key incursion risks to:

better allocate limited resources on a national basis to focus safeguarding efforts on pest or pest groups that are most likely to cause a significant negative impact to Australian primary industries and/or the environment and/or the social amenity and community;

enable governments to also identify gaps in systems and processes to manage a risk;

allow better targeting and monitoring of the most significant pests;

focus research, diagnostics, surveillance, risk reduction and preparedness efforts;

importantly, support market access and trade based on consideration of the public good through development of standards, protocols and accreditation processes; and

also work with trading partners to highlight pest threats of mutual concern and harmonise regional approaches.

In 2023, South Australian primary industries and agribusiness revenue increased by 7 per cent to reach a record $18.5 billion. As we can see, these are important industries to the South Australian economy and our general wellbeing. Overseas exports of agriculture, food, wine and forestry products increased by 18 per cent and totalled $8.8 billion, accounting for 51 per cent of Australia's total overseas merchandise exports.

The primary industries sector, along with the associated processing sectors, also supported 78,000 FTE jobs in 2023. This was an increase of 10 per cent from the previous financial year. Overall results for the full food and wine industry supply chain were up. Combined gross food and wine revenue increased by 10.7 per cent to reach $26.65 billion, with increases in food commodities (grain exports) with grain exports as the main driver.

The strong results achieved over recent years, despite global challenges and extreme weather events, illustrate the importance of a robust and resilient primary industries sector to our state. A strong biosecurity system is critical to underpinning the productivity and profitability of our primary industries. Without an effective biosecurity system, our whole industry could be at risk. There are also vital environmental and social benefits in protecting our unique flora and fauna, natural environments, culture and public amenity from a wide range of biosecurity threats.

Biosecurity is the management of risks to the economy, the environment and the community of pests and diseases entering, emerging, establishing or spreading in an area. We are facing increasing biosecurity pressures. The National Biosecurity Strategy describes how various pressures at the national and global level are driving increased and changing biosecurity risks. Some of these risks include climate change enabling pests and diseases to invade new areas. Climate change also affects the resilience of primary production and natural systems to pest and disease invasions, particularly in the face of more extreme weather events and natural disasters.

Change in land use and increased migration to regional areas are bringing people, primary production and wildlife closer together. This brings more pathways for pest and disease spread. It does not mean we should not be doing it, it just means we need to do it smartly.

Global trade continues to increase. Coupled with more complex global supply chains, there is more pressure on border screening and increased freight within Australia. More shipping vessel movements raise the risks of introducing new marine pests and diseases. Tourism and migration also continue to increase post COVID-19. This brings associated biosecurity risks where people unintentionally or deliberately transport biosecurity matter. Invasive species are a major cause of global decline in biodiversity, including Australia's threatened flora and fauna.

Ecommerce is enabling greater volumes of trade, including the illegal trade in declared pest species both into and within Australia. Increasing biosecurity risks overseas are geographically closer to Australia and/or occurring in locations frequented by travellers. For example, foot and mouth disease, rabies, lumpy skin disease and African swine fever are present in South-East Asia.

Increasing resistance to agricultural and veterinary chemicals can limit what effective controls are available to prevent and manage biosecurity pests and diseases, but even the uses of chemicals have their own challenges. To effectively manage the increase in risk, there is need for South Australia to introduce more contemporary, flexible, consistent biosecurity legislation and, as the member for Chaffey mentioned, a more nimble approach to biosecurity.

South Australia's current biosecurity legislation has served us well; however, there is an opportunity to strengthen the regulatory tools to respond to current emerging risks effectively and consistently. As part of the national biosecurity system, a consolidated biosecurity act is needed for South Australia to enable a harmonised, flexible and risk and evidence-based approach to preventing, controlling and managing biosecurity risks to ensure that South Australia remains a strong link in the national system.

The current bill consolidates several existing acts to improve consistency across sectors, including the Plant Health Act 2009, Livestock Act 1997, Dog Fence Act 1946, Impounding Act 1920, and relevant provisions of the Fisheries Management Act 2007. This is a crucial bill for ensuring the future sustainability of our states, primary producers, environment and the wider community.

This bill brings consistency to the management of animal, plant, aquatic and environmental biosecurity across industries by keeping and improving the best of what has worked in the existing legislation and by adding new tools and concepts to embed these in a single, modern, flexible legislative framework. It draws on the experience and lessons of other jurisdictions in developing their biosecurity legislation to ensure the bill is cutting edge and tailored to meet the needs of our state.

Businesses commonly operate across state borders and interstate trade is fundamental to our economy. Consistency in regulatory approach and terminology brings efficiencies in business operations supporting voluntary compliance. Consistency is especially important in conducting biosecurity emergency responses when incursion of a new pest or disease poses a threat to multiple states and territories. South Australia needs to play its part in having appropriate emergency powers that align well with those in other jurisdictions.

The Biosecurity Bill 2024 introduces new concepts to the way biosecurity is managed and regulated in South Australia. Under current South Australian legislation, there are different ways in which pests, diseases and contaminants are prevented and managed. Additionally, there are concepts of biosecurity risk and impact.

The bill aims to build a culture of shared responsibility among government, industry and the community for protecting our state from the impacts of pests, diseases and contaminants. This is an extremely important point to make sure that we all understand that we all have a role to play in the biosecurity of our state. It is not just an issue for primary producers; it is also an issue for government and also for consumers and what we do in our everyday lives.

A biosecurity breakout is not good for producers or their regions, nor for those communities they serve. The key new concept of 'general biosecurity duty' introduces a duty for everyone to prevent, eliminate, minimise, control and manage biosecurity risks when dealing with a biosecurity matter or a carrier, recognising that we all have a role to play. The general biosecurity duty requires a person to take reasonable practical measures in relation to the risk they know or reasonably ought to know exists.

The bill contains a suite of tools for implementation of responses to biosecurity risks and impacts. This includes tools to establish areas subject to certain measures necessary to regulate a biosecurity risk. These range from a short-term emergency order through to a medium-term control order or a long-term biosecurity zone.

Mr Speaker, as a former minister yourself in this area, you know that often tough decisions have to be made in terms of taking action. A decision has to be made for the greater or common good, and sometimes this does impact on individuals. Having said that, though, we need to make sure that those people who are actually impacted and for whom we make decisions about their capacity to produce are supported by us as a community and should not be left to shoulder the burden alone.

These tools are supported by individual and group directions that prohibit, regulate or control particular dealings and specify measures to be taken for the purposes of assessing, preventing or managing a biosecurity risk or impact. The range of tools and powers provided by this legislation enable reasonable and effective measures to be taken that are proportionate to the level of risk and have a proactive focus to protect our state by ensuring appropriate checks and balances are in place.

Importantly, the bill gives authorised officers the ability to act if they believe or reasonably believe the situation requires action to prevent, eliminate, minimise, control or manage a biosecurity risk or impact. Provisions such as these are central to supporting the bill's aims of risk-based decision-making and acting early to achieve the best security outcomes and minimising the risks to other primary producers, the environment and the community at large.

Biosecurity is a key enabler of market access, providing assurances for the supply of safe agricultural, fisheries and forestry products to local, interstate and overseas markets. One of our strengths as a state is that our primary industries have a very clean and green reputation, enabling us to sell products in other jurisdictions—and particularly overseas—when others are stopped from doing so. We need to protect the reputation we have or else our primary industry producers themselves will suffer.

The bill contains a number of provisions to support access to domestic and international markets for South Australia's produce, enabling it to be certified as pest and disease free and traced through the supply chain, meeting entry conditions of the receiving jurisdiction. These include registration of people engaged in the regulated dealings, and provisions to enable allocation of identification codes, such as the existing Property Identification Code for livestock producers. Such identification schemes are increasingly important in supporting market access and are also critical in tracing movement of pests and diseases in an emergency. These sorts of systems support both producers and also the markets at large.

Industry codes of practice, standards and market assurance schemes can be legally recognised under the bill, and so the bill itself and the new scheme also have a very educative role. It is not just about compliance; it is about educating our producers and the community at large on what their roles and responsibilities are. Further, both government and non-government organisations can be accreditation authorities to accredit biosecurity certifiers who can certify that products meet required conditions for market purposes. This is an important addition because it enables a quicker response at times and also enables us to share information and educate people about their responsibilities.

Biosecurity programs are a new tool to prevent, eliminate, minimise, control or manage a particular biosecurity risk or impact. These can be proposed by an industry or community body or can be led by government. They will foster partnerships, shared responsibility and co-investment in tackling issues of interest to specific industry or community groups.

The bill provides for a modern, flexible compliance framework, bringing outdated penalties into line with the risk and impact of the offences involved. Hopefully, these measures will deter those from doing the wrong thing. Of these, release of a prescribed agent with intent to harm or infect/infest animals or plants and cause substantial harm to an industry or the state economy is the most serious and carries a maximum penalty of $1 million or ten years in prison or both.

Another important provision in the bill relates to extraterritorial application of the act to ensure that it may apply to the greatest extent it can. This could be used, for example, to take compliance action against online retailers sending prohibitive matter into South Australia from interstate. The bill also provides the required flexibility where a person or group of people need to undertake an activity that would otherwise be unlawful under the bill, and this can be done with certain prescribed conditions to manage the risk.

The bill provides for review of decisions through the minister (an internal review) or, where appropriate, externally through the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. This right of review I think is very important. When we give government officers more powers and duties, it is important they can be subject to review to make sure that they are accountable for the decisions they made because the cost of making the wrong decisions or inappropriate decisions can be very high for primary producers.

The bill will also replace the Dog Fence Act 1946, continuing the Dog Fence Board in its important role of managing the dog fence to ensure wild dogs are prevented from entering pastoral and agricultural areas of the state. I recall the former minister and the former government had quite a bit to do with working to improve the Dog Fence Act.

The bill updates existing provisions while maintaining the essential functions related to the board and the dog fence. The 2,150-kilometre South Australian dog fence is fundamental to the security of the South Australian sheep industry. The fence prevents wild dogs from the northern two-thirds of the state from moving south into sheep production country. Wild dogs cost Australian agriculture about $90 million per year.

In 2018-19, wild dogs were estimated to have injured or killed approximately 20,000 sheep in South Australia, costing the livestock sector $4 million. The South Australian dog fence is undergoing a once-in-a-generation rebuild. The dog fence rebuild project has seen funds contributed by South Australian livestock industry amounting to $6 million, $13 million from the Government of South Australia, and the commonwealth government putting in $10 million to rebuild the highest priority 1,600 kilometres of the 2,150 kilometre-long fence. More than 1,030 kilometres of the fence has now been built, which represents about 64 per cent of the fence, with the remaining fence underway or contracted.

Management of wild dogs underpins the sustainability of South Australia's extensive livestock industries, particularly the sheep industry inside the dog fence. The pastoral cattle industry inside and outside the dog fence can also be seriously impacted by wild dogs.

The Biosecurity Bill is the result of a significant body of work to ensure that South Australia has fit-for-purpose modern legislation to manage biosecurity risks now and into the future. I also believe some of this work started with the previous government and has been continued and enhanced by this government. The bill has been presented to parliament following an in-depth review of existing biosecurity-related legislation, extensive consultation and consideration of the feedback received. I also note the bipartisan support for this bill, which augurs well for our industry, primary industry and also our state.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Treasurer, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Police) (17:24): I am very grateful to members who made a contribution, in particular those members representing regional communities in South Australia. I am very grateful for their firsthand understanding and reflections of why biosecurity is important to primary industries. I understand that there are some issues to be canvassed during the committee stage, so I will not speak at length. I look forward to working with members through those queries.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr PEDERICK: Minister, in regard to clause 1—and it is a broad biosecurity question around the recent tomato virus issue in this state and how that was managed—in regard to the management of that virus, is the government doing its own internal review of how it was managed to see whether there can be any improvements made? Also, is the government looking at getting an external independent review of the management of that virus for that vitally important industry to the state?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I thank the member for Hammond for his question. While the biosecurity act and the brown rugose virus share a common initial letter, I do not have with me the detail to fully answer the question, but I am happy to take the question on notice and perhaps provide what information I can either at the next session of this committee should we not conclude within the next period, noting it is a brief bill, or between the houses.

Ms PRATT: Minister, thank you for undertaking that. I would just add, as the local member representing a lot of growers impacted by this biosecurity threat, if in coming back to committee between breaks there could be an undertaking for the opposition to understand under what circumstances might a review be considered, noting you are not the minister responsible but acting on her behalf.

The bill obviously has a broader coverage of the threat of all biosecurity breaches to our grower economy. Noting the work of the shadow minister in the other place, feedback from industry about this bill—and any suggestion of an independent review—was broad support for the bill to progress, as we will see conclude through the committee stage. So in a gesture of goodwill, representing the very specific biosecurity issue that has not just been threatening the Adelaide Plains but been detected in Victoria, under what circumstances might the government consider a review separate to the progress of this bill?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to take that on notice and come back with some detail.

Mr PEDERICK: I am happy to get an answer back, as long as the committee progresses. That was my main point today. Perhaps as part of clause 1, if the minister is going to get some further information he could bring back to the committee an update—just an overview—of another biosecurity threat, being the fruit fly threat to South Australia, acknowledging that it is not just in the Riverland. There was another one at Glynde the other day. Could he bring back an update on the management there, because it is vital to make sure we keep that under control.

Certainly, I do not have a lot more questions to ask in regard to this until we get to schedule 2, which is part of the money bill side of things. My question to the minister is: are you happy to bring back an update on the current fruit fly management that has gone on when we were in government and now that the Labor Party is in government?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: While I understand the member for Hammond and also the member for Frome are concerned about the tomato virus that was the subject of their preceding questions, I would also say that pretty much every South Australian would be aware of biosecurity threats, probably principally because of fruit fly. There has been an extensive effort undertaken by government—and when I say by government I mean by Primary Industries—over a number of years now, which commenced under the previous government and has continued under this government.

I will check this figure so that I am providing accurate information to the house, but I think we have committed nearly $190 million to fruit fly eradication and control over the last five or so years. Of course, I am the Treasurer, so I would find that amount of money absolutely extraordinary, but I also think it is pause for thought about just how expensive these biosecurity challenges can be and how hard trying to maintain a fruit fly free status can be for South Australia. Once we are dealing with multiple outbreaks—as we have been doing for the majority of the last five years, whether it is up in the Riverland or in metropolitan areas and other parts of the state—it is not only remarkably impactful to the communities affected and the industries affected but it is extraordinarily time and resource-intensive to battle these things. I will come back with some further particulars about that as well.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.