Motions

Biosecurity

Ms PRATT (Frome) (10:59): I move:

That this house—

(a) recognises the importance of biosecurity to South Australia, in particular with regard to the state's primary industries, and the potential impact on production;

(b) acknowledges the significant and ongoing concerns from industry sectors regarding Biosecurity SA's preparedness and response capability;

(c) calls on the Minister for Primary Industries to establish an independent review into the Department of Primary Industries and Regions South Australia's response to the tomato brown rugose virus incursion, and its capacity and capability to deal with future pest and disease incursions; and

(d) tables the report of the review as well as the government's response upon completion.

I take great delight in bringing back to the chamber an update for 2025 on the tomato brown rugose fruit virus that struck the Adelaide Plains in August last year, and therefore giving it an opportunity to have an airing in the house today to make sure that we are not losing sight of a really important food bowl, a workforce and a primary industry that are significant to not just the local economy but the state economy.

In August last year it was discovered by a business in the Adelaide Plains, in Two Wells in my electorate of Frome, that the tomato brown rugose fruit virus had been detected not just in South Australia but in our nation for the first time. I recall the shock waves that extended through the local community.

I want to make sure that I am always on the record as representing primary producers as understanding the very important approach that we have as a nation to biosecurity. There is no question that our primary industry—our farmers, our primary producers—are as successful as they are because as an island nation we have done our very best to maintain standards that are world leading, I think, when it comes to protecting our capacity to farm organically if we choose to.

Biosecurity is important; that was never in question. But the opposition has maintained its fierce commitment to growers in the Adelaide Plains and its strong advocacy for growers, pickers and the supply chain as we walked alongside them, experiencing for the first time the arrival of this virus and the impact that it was to have on the industry.

In the last month, it has been made public that Michael Simonetta, the CEO of Perfection Fresh, has announced his retirement from the largest greenhouse in the Southern Hemisphere. It is a fantastic business based at Korunye at Two Wells. I want to take this opportunity to recognise the input, the leadership, the innovation and the work ethic from Michael Simonetta and thank him for the extraordinary work that he has done in leading this industry.

It has been innovative. Many people will recognise familiar terms that were coined and are now trademarked by Perfection Fresh during his leadership, like broccolini, which is a fantastic addition to most meals and a quick way to prepare fantastic green, fresh veggies. There are also the baby Qukes that are a very popular snack and are bite-sized for lunchboxes, and I am sure they feature in many refrigerators across South Australia. The lunchbox Quke is a big hit.

To return to my celebration and recognition of the work that Michael Simonetta has done, it is so important to celebrate someone like Michael, who has brought Perfection Fresh to the rest of Australia, for his endeavours and his capacity to support a business that employs so many people at the local level. While it was with great regret that a number of businesses were quarantined as the virus was detected across the Adelaide Plains, it really was only detected in three locations. Michael's approach to responding to this biosecurity threat was measured, it was mature, and it was one from a leader demonstrating a capacity to reassure a workforce and to maintain communication lines with interstate counterparts and stakeholders.

I know from the number of times that I have interacted with Michael that he felt keenly the very difficult decision that he had to make on behalf of his business when the management of the virus and the processes and protocols implemented by PIRSA ground his business down to minimal production of other products as many tonnes of plants were ripped out and destroyed. The virus never killed one plant. Protocol required the plants to be ripped up and destroyed. While we are many months on, one fateful day last year Michael Simonetta had to make a very big decision and demonstrate what leadership looks like when managing a wicked problem, which was to stand down 500 employees who were part of the Perfection Fresh family.

People who live locally in Lewiston, Korunye, Two Wells, Virginia and Angle Vale had to be given the hard news that there was no work for them at the time. While the government, including the Premier, did make contact, I think it has been a missed opportunity by the government to demonstrate its commitment to primary production, to have boots on the ground, to be available, to show up, to follow up, to keep calling, to check in and to manage the welfare, the wellbeing and the human element of what was taking place across that community. These were jobs. These were families who did not have money then to pay their bills. These are very simple concepts to understand.

We heard a similar story of 250 people losing their jobs in Whyalla, and the government's response was very different. There has not been a word of complaint from Perfection Fresh. I do not mean to put any words in their mouth. My observations have been of how the government has responded to workforce challenges that we have seen in the last six to 12 months taking place in our state, and it has been a chalk and cheese response.

What does it mean if you are the CEO of the largest greenhouse production facility in the Southern Hemisphere, to lead your workforce, to remain positive, to be always looking for opportunities to innovate and enhance, to coin phrases that are now household terms, to promote from within, to create or build capacity that allows other people to succeed and be promoted? Perfection Fresh deserves more recognition than I am worthy of giving it. It is the privilege that I get to have, to offer my humble reflection on the many decades of leadership that Michael has brought to Perfection Fresh.

In farewelling him from his very formal role, of course, we note that he is not going anywhere. After 40 years of transformative leadership in that industry, Michael will continue to be involved in a number of ways, and that will include keeping a close eye on the board. We welcome the appointment of Rod Quin as the new CEO. He will be commencing very shortly, through a transition period, his role in leading Perfection Fresh into the future. He has an extraordinary background and global experience with agribusiness and food production, and we welcome the leadership that he is going to bring.

The motion that I am bringing to the house today is trying to achieve a number of things. Biosecurity is important and there would not be one primary producer in South Australia who would want to see any vulnerability in how we manage biosecurity for primary production. Those protocols and our approach to biosecurity were tested last year by the discovery of the tomato brown rugose fruit virus, and I think we have seen many examples where PIRSA has been found wanting or caught short.

An under-resourcing of the agency itself has meant we did not have the workforce to stand up the labs that we needed to urgently conduct those tests. When the rubber hit the road, we found ourselves in a queue behind Victoria, because we were dependent on their lab and the testing that needed to take place interstate. Fair enough, they said, 'We will test our plants first, thank you very much.'

We have not excelled in our agency response to a really significant industry that extends across the Adelaide Plains and therefore the bottom end of my electorate. There is a human toll, the collateral damage from our lack of preparedness to manage the arrival of this virus that has been known by the sector for over a decade and that is being managed in Europe, and not in the ways that we have quarantined; the fruit is edible.

The collateral damage has been to businesses, to family businesses, to mum-and-dad businesses like Oriana and Peter Petsios, whom I think of often. Their tomato nursery business has really been at the epicentre of our inability to manage our relationships with other states. We are still locked out of Queensland and WA, according to national protocols, and it is the Petsios family business that is now closed, stood down and suffering the consequences of yet more jobs that have been lost to the industry.

Who is looking after them? Who from PIRSA is standing up to say, 'We've had to do our job, but we understand the consequence that has had on this business and we are here for you.' They have not done anything wrong. There has been no malicious intent in their desire to rebuild their business, respond to the virus, supply interstate growers and be part of a supply chain that is so crucial to the Adelaide Plains food bowl.

I hope that in bringing back to the house this important example of where biosecurity protocols have a real-life impact on our growers there is a reminder to the government that, while they may not be talking about it anymore, the industries through Lewiston and Two Wells are still hurting. It does not stop at the Gawler River; it extends into my neighbouring areas represented by members opposite. There is an opportunity, when the government deems the timing is right, to call for and establish an independent review of how PIRSA has responded to this virus, to make sure that the questions that we ask get some answers for those who are suffering.

Mr DIGHTON (Black) (11:14): I move the following amendments to the motion:

Retain paragraph (a)

Replace paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) with:

(b) acknowledges the importance of a bipartisan approach to biosecurity, as a matter of state importance, rather than political opportunism that undermines confidence;

(c) recognises that a national review occurs after any national disease incursion and this will occur once the ToBRV response in South Australia has been completed and eradication is achieved;

(d) acknowledges that both the national review and PIRSA input to the review will be used for continuous improvement for responses to the many exotic pests and diseases that are creating increasing risks to Australian primary production.

I am advised that the state government, as a signatory to the national Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed, is obliged to respond to exotic diseases like the tomato brown rugose fruit virus under national agreement. The Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed is a formal, legally binding agreement between Plant Health Australia, the Australian government, all state and territory governments, and national plant industry bodies. As a government industry partnership, the deed outlines national governance and investment in responding to and eradicating emergency plant pests, and it has provided a consistent and agreed national approach for managing incursions since it was ratified in 2005.

I am also advised that the South Australian Department of Primary Industries and Regions is leading the nationally coordinated and funded response to the virus under an agreed national response plan to eradicate the disease. I am also advised that a Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus Eradication Response Plan was approved in November 2024 by the National Management Group, which is comprised of all Australian governments and affected industries who are also signatories to the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed.

I am advised that the response plan includes agreed measures, including ongoing testing, surveillance and monitoring, to achieve eradication and to support a pathway back to production and the trade of tomatoes. The National Management Group has committed $5 million to achieve the response objectives. Clause 11.5.1 of the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed states:

11.5.1 Plant Health Australia must monitor and report to its members on:

(a) resource usage in the implementation of a Response Plan;

(b) Deed policy issues;

(c) the implementation of Biosecurity measures; and

(d) the implementation of the provisions of this Deed relating to Owner Reimbursement Costs.

In order to fulfil this obligation, I am advised, Plant Health Australia holds debriefs in order to gather, analyse and report on information arising from incidents and response plans. These debriefs are conducted in accordance with the Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience's Lessons Management handbook. In addition, PLANTPLAN, which is part of schedule 5 of the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed, guides activities under the deed. It states in part 1, page 32:

Incident debriefs are a critical component of the stand down phase as they provide an opportunity for participants to highlight areas requiring improvement as well as positive outcomes.

Incident debriefs will be held at local, state and national levels following termination of the EPP response. It is essential that relevant personnel involved in the response are included in the debriefing process.

[Plant Health Australia] and the [Australian Chief Plant Protection Officer] will coordinate a debriefing in regard to the operation of the [Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed] and PLANTPLAN to help inform any appropriate changes to PLANTPLAN or the [deed].

Debrief reports contain confidential information under the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed and, for this reason, cannot be made public.

This side of the house is satisfied that the independent oversight provided by Plant Health Australia and the Australian Chief Plant Protection Officer through the debriefing and reporting process is sufficient and appropriate for identifying areas requiring improvement and positive outcomes of incident responses and will update its processes as required to incorporate new information and address gaps identified by the outcomes of relevant debriefs.

In addition, and in response to requests from industry nationally, the requirement for the efficiency order has been built into the Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus Eradication Response Plan and agreed by all parties. This is a routine independent assessment applied to national responses to ensure that they are being applied as efficiently as they can be. I commend the motion in its amended form to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:20): I rise to support the original motion from the member for Frome:

That this house—

(a) recognises the importance of biosecurity to South Australia, in particular with regard to the state’s primary industries, and the potential impact on production;

(b) acknowledges the significant and ongoing concerns from industry sectors regarding Biosecurity SA’s preparedness and response capability;

(c) calls on the Minister for Primary Industries to establish an independent review into the Department of Primary Industries and Regions South Australia’s response to the tomato brown rugose virus incursion, and its capacity and capability to deal with future pest and disease incursions; and

(d) tables the report of the review as well as the government’s response upon completion.

The impact of this tomato virus on our state's primary industries has been severe, to say the least. That is not to say that we do not need to have a protocol in regard to biosecurity, but I think it is quite timely that we are talking about this because this had a severe impact, especially on the glasshouse industry, and the glasshouse industry is not the glasshouse industry of 50 years ago. It has gone into an industry where tomatoes are vertically grown under a completely different setting from just being planted in the ground. They are in a very controlled environment with nutrients and water pumped through the system.

Many, many millions of dollars have gone into various operations throughout South Australia—obviously, the ones at Two Wells and Port Augusta, just to name two amongst the many others that are operating in this state. We met at multiple times with growers who were heavily impacted by what was happening with the testing protocols in regard to whether or not they had this tomato virus impacting their crops. It was not just the people growing the crops; it was the nurseries that were impacted as well, and it took a long time to get that activity working.

As the member for Frome indicated, we had to get laboratories operating in Victoria, and we became second stringers in the line-up to have tests done to see if their operations had been infected or not. What we saw over time is private laboratories coming on line, and I commend Ray Borda and his team from Macro Meats who set up a private lab so that they could assist their fellow primary industry people in this state in getting those turnarounds a lot quicker.

If you are running any business and you are impacted by something where you are waiting on test results, you want them done as quickly as possible and turned around in three days if that is possible, not three to four weeks. We saw these delays that were heavily impacting on people's livelihoods, and not just the owners of the businesses who would have paid a heavy psychological price as they had to walk into their operations. As we heard with Perfection Fresh, they had to put off 500 workers. Even though there are 500 workers, these businesses are essentially like a big family working together to grow this great produce, not just for South Australia but for sending around this country as great produce from this state.

We do need to make sure that we have a proper review of how these sorts of viruses can be tested—and it is not just this tomato virus. We need to check that we have all the appropriate procedures in place and what can be done to do these things in a timely manner because we do need to make sure we get things right.

As we see with fruit fly outbreaks and what happened at Glynde the other day—and we saw some Berri producers, because it is the national protocol with Queensland fruit fly—they were encased in the 15-kilometre boundary and they have essentially thrown in the towel and given up business. They have said, 'We can't deal with it, we can't sell our fruit the way we did and so we're chucking it in.' That is a huge outcome for those people and I acknowledge that is under a national protocol, but we must continually keep checking to make sure that we have the appropriate protocols in place.

Just reflecting on fruit fly, I look at the many years that we have been working, both colours of government, in the Riverland to make sure that we can stay fruit fly free. There are many hundreds and thousands of hours of work going in with people visiting properties throughout the Riverland and many millions of dollars being spent to keep that status up and there has been some good work done over time in that regard.

I know some people get upset about the no-tolerance protocols with fruit going into the Riverland, but unless you have those no-tolerance protocols, you are never going to get the result that the state needs and the Riverland needs and what we desire.

We just need to make sure the protocols are right. We see in the livestock industry where farmers have Property Identification Codes (PICs) and the electronic identification which has been used for years now in the cattle industry. It is an expensive process as it transfers through to the sheep industry, because obviously there are a lot more hooves and bodies on the ground. It does come at a huge cost for primary producers and especially if you are running, say, 10,000 sheep, which is not that unusual—maybe not during the current drought we are in, because people would have destocked heavily—but there would be producers in a normal year who would be running up to that level of stock and more, so it can be a significant impost.

Just like the tomato brown rugose fruit virus, whether the farmers are in the tomato industry, whether they are in the fruit industry or whether they are in the livestock industry, they will do their bit. But they need to know that they are getting backed up by the appropriate protocols endorsed by the Minister for Primary Industries and the government of the day to make sure that there is a problem, because it does come at a huge cost to the owners of these businesses throughout South Australia no matter what section of primary industries they are in.

They want to know that they have the backing of the government of the day and to know that those protocols can be instituted in a timely manner so that they are not going out of business completely—and some leave entirely—or it has such a huge impact that it puts, as we heard in one case, 500 people out of work for a significant amount of time. People need to know that the protocols are in place.

The government needs to have protocols heading into the future, where people like Ray Borda and his team at Macro Meats can utilise their labs and make sure there are other labs in place that are already operating in the food sector which could be amped up in a really quick amount of time to make sure those tests can be rotated quickly. I think that was the biggest issue in regard to this tomato brown rugose fruit virus impacting growers and their staff across the state.

It came at a huge physical cost and a huge mental cost to these operators. As I indicated before, the primary producers of this state—no matter what they are involved in as far as primary production is concerned—need to know that as long as they are doing the right thing, if things do go pear-shaped, as they did here, they have the backing of the government so things can turn around a lot more quickly than they did with this virus incursion and they can get on with their job of producing quality food for this state and this country.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (11:30): I stand to support the amendment, and I support the amendment because I think it is much more productive, focusing on the importance of biosecurity and also on what needs to be done in the future. In doing so I think it is also important to perhaps focus on what the amendment states.

Before I do that there are a couple of things I would like to pick up on that the member for Hammond said. There are some things there I agree with and I think they need to be reinforced, and I am happy to do that.

Having said that I can understand why but was disappointed that the member actually supported the motion, because part of the motion was discussed when we were discussing the biosecurity bill and an explanation was provided. I was chairing the committee stage, and I understood that the member for Hammond understood the answer provided at the time, which very clearly contradicts paragraphs (c) and (d) of the substantive motion. Putting that aside, as I said I understand, and that does not detract from the other comments he made which I think are worthy of supporting.

The honourable member mentioned that biosecurity should be a bipartisan thing; to use his words, 'both colours of government' have made this a priority—and quite rightly so. Certainly the member for Chaffey did when he was primary industries minister; I remember him being very strong on zero tolerance on that as well, and that was a reasonable approach.

The member for Hammond also referred to testing, and this is where I think we need to do more work. If there is capacity in this sector, whether it is in government or private hands, we need to make sure we ramp up that capacity. I have had discussions with a private testing firm and suggested that perhaps if they were not ready this time what they should be doing is making sure they get nationally accredited.

It is not a case of whether we in this state accept their testing; we are part of a national scheme, and if their testing is also accepted at the national level then they can be utilised. I think it is very important to do that, and I certainly encourage them to go to the national bodies and get their testing regime accredited so that should we actually need it in another incursion it would be available to utilise. I am hoping they have done that.

In terms of the amendment and why I support it, it is important to reinforce how important biosecurity is, because it underpins our whole primary industries sector. Lack of primary industries can actually wipe out regional communities and also whole industries, and reduce our good reputation internationally for having clean, green and disease-free foods, etc. It is really important to have that, because our trading partners look to that when they purchase their products. We need to do that, and that is why I differentiate between the amendment and the original motion: the amendment is a much more positive and clear statement of what we believe in and what we should be doing.

We also acknowledge the importance of the bipartisan approach, which I have touched upon. It is important that we retain a bipartisan approach in biosecurity because the costs of getting it wrong are too high, as has already been mentioned by the member for Hammond.

Paragraph (c) of the amendment recognises that a national review occurs, and again that was fully explained when we had debate regarding the Biosecurity Bill. I remember, as I said, because I was in the chair and we had quite a lengthy discussion about that. The member for Hammond—and I cannot recall if it was the member for Chaffey but certainly the member for Hammond asked a number of questions regarding that. They were quite detailed questions that were provided with answers, and quite rightly so because the questions were relevant, and the answers were, I think, on point as well.

There is a range of protocols in place nationally, and we are part of the national system because viruses do not recognise state boundaries, and so we need to make sure that we play our part in national protocols to protect the industries in our state. The sorts of things that have been raised are happening or will happen in due course.

Paragraph (d) of the amendment acknowledges that both the national review and PIRSA input to the review will be used for continuous improvement for responses to the many exotic pests and diseases that are creating increasing risks to Australian primary production. The reality is that we are a much more mobile society, people travel more globally and there is obviously going to be more risk, so it is important that we learn from each incursion.

There is another thing I would like to touch on which is to look at, and do better at, the times when governments have to make some really difficult decisions. It does not matter which party is in government, there will be some really important decisions to make regarding a breakout. In the end, the government of the day will try to protect the industry or the sector and sometimes that comes at a cost to some individuals because of the action they take. What we have to do there, though, is make sure that burden does not fall purely on those individuals.

We need to make sure, as the new Biosecurity Bill makes quite clear, that biosecurity is everybody's responsibility. It is not just the growers' but everyone in the community's responsibility, so we need to share that responsibility at the appropriate time because it is for the common good that often very difficult decisions are made. We need to make sure those people who sometimes carry the greatest burden of a government decision are recognised in some way, and that we share that burden. Whether it is tomato brown rugose fruit virus or any other decision, I think that principle should be right across the board.

If we do not, the perverse thing will happen and if something goes wrong people just will not report things. If they are going to carry the full burden, they are less likely to actually report things in the early days so that we can make quick responses. We need to have a scheme and policies in place which encourage people to do the right thing and so, if something goes wrong, it gets reported and action is taken, and then we make sure that the appropriate financial assistance schemes are in place to make sure that that burden is shared across the community.

They are just a few comments I wanted to make in support the amendment. As I said, the amendment is worthy of support. It is a better indication of where we are at on reflection, and it takes out some of the politics of it. If we are going to be bipartisan then we need to take politicking out of this and make sure that we all look after our primary production sectors.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (11:38): I rise to make a contribution to the member for Frome's motion. I think the member for Frome has rightly stated that the level of frustration that she and her constituents experienced through the tomato brown rugose fruit virus was demonstrated by the government's, I think, lack of action quickly enough. As I have said throughout the debate on the Biosecurity Bill, governments have to be nimble and they have to act accordingly. There is no biosecurity outbreak, risk or breach that should not be reported and acted upon immediately.

I am a little alarmed that the member for Black, obviously a new entrant into this place, has had a brief prepared by the minister's office, no doubt. It would have been good if there was a little bit of background that he might have experienced before coming into this chamber and giving a verbatim explanation by the minister's office.

It is no secret that I have been critical over a number of breaches and, as I have said previously on the Biosecurity Bill, the way that governments have been slow to act and slow to input. A number of concerns that have been raised with government have been basically pushed under the carpet and run over, which equates to a lack of transparency.

The tomato rugose virus has been very well documented. It created a lot of hardship for a number of businesses that felt unfairly dealt with and that had their business doors shut. It also flowed on to the nursery stock.

I might add that the tomato rugose virus is a seed-borne virus. It comes out of imported seed. It is a virus that has been around for a very long time, but it raised its head through the circumstance of seasonal variation. What it has done is push breeders, seed breeders particularly, into action mode. They are going to breed seeds that will be tolerant to that virus and we will move on, but we continue to see the pressures on our borders that are giving our horticulture and food production facilities heartache and heartburn at every opportunity.

The reason that the member for Frome has raised this issue over and over again is because her constituent, as I said, felt harshly dealt with when it came to transparency and when it came to understanding what the impost of this virus meant.

Yes, it is a visual downgrade of fruit, and yes, there was a lot of repatriation of those facilities that was put in place. A lot of seed stock was destroyed, a lot of nursery stock was destroyed, a lot of planting material was destroyed and a lot of produce was destroyed in preparation to eradicate what is now very well documented.

I did see the amended version of this motion and it does not mention industry. It does not mention the consultation process of industry input. It talks about PIRSA, it talks about the commonwealth bodies and it talks about everyone else who was impacted. For everyone else who was impacted, it does not appear that they will get the opportunity to appear in front of a committee hearing to make sure that governments do a better job next time, because there is always going to be a next time. There are always going to be ways that governments and industry can better prepare or better respond to biosecurity threats.

As a former tomato grower and former horticulturalist, I have had a number of issues when it comes to growing seed stock out, growing nursery stock out and eradicating any form of virus, whether it is wilt, whether it is spot or whether it is a psyllid that will come into a growing area. I must say that growing quality produce nowadays requires a lot of controlled environments. In a controlled environment we see more pressure on growing a disease-free product because the environment is contained within a glasshouse, a poly house, a carbonate house or whatever the structure may be to control the environment, to control the temperature and to control natural impacts on those fruits, and it has to be dealt with in a different way.

That is why the Biosecurity Bill should have been amended. It was, but I think it should have gone further because we are facing more and more pressure every day, as I said, importing seed stock and having material come in from overseas. We are now also propagating much more sophisticated tech when it comes to growing food and growing produce. The days of just growing a seed and growing a nice tomato bush—it is much more complex than that.

We are growing rootstocks now that have a host root, and it has a bud implanted into its cell and then it grows and becomes more resistant to some of these diseases. We look at ways that we can actually better prepare a plant and grow a plant without the pressures of having those diseases that we occasionally have to experience, and those incursions are costing much more money nowadays because of the inputs and the infrastructure that food is now grown under.

It is a responsibility of government to be more transparent, to work closer with industry and not just be reactive to these incursions and outbreaks. Our facilities like the Waite facility, which is a world-class facility, are losing funding at every opportunity. PIRSA is losing funding at every opportunity because primary industries is not in this current government's DNA. It is clear that it is not. The funding that has dried up over a long period of time is alarming.

The food economy, the export economy, the dependent economy around growing sustainable, renewable products has never been more important. The tech sector has never been more important, and yet it is not in this government's DNA to actually enact new measures, new ways in which we can respond to biosecurity outbreaks, prevent biosecurity outbreaks, and make sure that we have the expertise here at hand so that we can respond more quickly, better and be more engaged with industry.

What I did witness with the tomato brown rugose fruit virus outbreak was a lot of catastrophising around shall we, shan't we, when do we, now, tomorrow? There was a lot of he-said, she-said along the way. There needs to be much more dedicated leadership in making sure they attack a biosecurity outbreak so it does not send a huge wave through that industry and bring it to its knees. We saw businesses go broke, we have seen a lot of reputations scarred, and we saw a lot of heartache, particularly in the markets.

Of course, then the flow-on effect is price spikes. We are in a cost-of-living holocaust at the moment and yet what we saw was a blanket approach to closing down the industry just so we could work out what we were going to do next. I think there needs to be more preparation, there needs to be more funding and there needs to be more resources put in to better prepare for these biosecurity outbreaks. There are many biosecurity threats to food production here in South Australia but, by and large, South Australians should hold their heads high because we are doing a good job in preventative maintenance, and we are doing a good job in growing some of the best produce on the planet.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:48): I rise to say a few words on this motion. I think parts of the motion are incredibly important and both sides have referred to the importance of bipartisan support when it comes to biosecurity and I think that is essential. Whenever we have any incidents, especially ones that have a major impact, there is that need for a review and for a critique to see how we can improve things, irrespective of which government happens to be in power.

We stand here today on this carpet that reflects the importance of our primary industries in this state. Indeed, we have a motion after this one that goes into some detail about how much our primary industries generate for the state. We are talking about a multibillion dollar industry so, when it comes to biosecurity, it is incredibly important that we get it right.

As has been said, there is a whole series of threats when it comes to our primary producers, but not just our primary producers. There is also the potential with some of these threats for a jump over from mammalian infections. It could be cow herds or bird flocks, whether it is chickens or turkeys or whatever. There is always that potential, especially at the moment with avian flu, for that jump over, so it is incredibly important that we address biosecurity threats.

Obviously, there have been mistakes made in the past in Australia, but largely our approach to biosecurity is a fairly tight one, both at a national level and at a state level. That is something that I do not think we will retreat from, but it is interesting to reflect on what is going on in the United States at the moment. They see our initiatives, our programs and our policies when it comes to biosecurity as being a non-tariff form of protection, and there will be pressure on to actually reduce the degree of biosecurity that we engage in in this country. That is something that we should strongly resist, as we should strongly resist the other attacks that are going to be made on non-tariff options that we pursue in Australia to make us a better society. Biosecurity will be targeted by the Trump regime when it comes to Australia.

I briefly mentioned avian flu, which is inevitable. There are some variants already in this country and there are some real variants of concern. When we look at what has happened overseas, once again we can talk about the United States, where it has jumped from bird flocks, both wild and domesticated bird flocks, over into mammals. The dairy industry in parts of the United States has been seriously impacted as a result of that jump over to mammalian species.

When we talk about biosecurity, there is that threat to primary industries but, with some of the virus variants, we are facing prospects of something far more serious. We have been fortunate so far. There is a variation of avian flu that has been around for 30 years and it still has not become easily transmissible amongst human beings. However, given the level of mammalian infection now, there are some real risks. The reason it has not become something that is easily transmitted amongst humans is that it has not been able to bind to the cells in the upper respiratory tract. If we get a variant that can do that, we could be in all sorts of trouble globally, and it might well make COVID look like a hiccup.

We did have an outbreak back in 1997 in Hong Kong, and there was a 50 per cent mortality rate. There was a very particular set of circumstances that occurred at that time but, with the rate of infection now across a whole range of species, it is one of those areas that we need to pay very close attention to, and it will be an area that will probably initially impact primary industries in Australia, so we need to recognise the potential threat here. Hopefully it will not eventuate, but we know the way viruses operate; they are total opportunists and there are a lot of variants around now, so it is a concerning thing. It brings home that sheer importance when it comes to biosecurity.

Initially, it is about our primary industries and ensuring that we do the best that we can. When we have incidents—whether it is with tomatoes, whether it is with other crops or livestock—we should always be in a position to review what has happened to look at how we can improve the situation, and it should be something that goes from one government to the next of different persuasions, because bipartisan support is incredibly important. When a critique is made about what has been done, being part of this government I have no issue with having a look at it in a dispassionate and objective way to see how we can improve things.

As has been said, we have some great research institutes here in Australia. In South Australia we have the Waite facility, which is an incredibly important facility. It is one of those things that is also incredibly important when you look at how best to support primary industries. A lot of that is going to come down to the investment, the funding, for good quality research in order to develop a greater degree of resilience amongst primary industries in South Australia and, indeed, in Australia. For many years, South Australia was a bit of a leader when it came to arid lands/semi-arid lands agriculture. We were a bit of a trailblazer. So it is an area where investment is needed, and sustained investment, over an extended period of time.

I just want to touch on one thing. It was a bit of a triggering event when I heard the member for Frome comparing what was happening in Two Wells and elsewhere with what was happening in Whyalla, that the government reacted when, I think she mentioned, 250 jobs disappeared in Whyalla. Well, there are over 700 direct jobs in Whyalla, but the reason for the intervention in Whyalla is that a whole community was going to be wiped out. We are not talking about 700 jobs: we are talking about 4,000 jobs and an industry that is not replicated anywhere else in Australia. It is the only integrated steelworks that produces structural steel and rail. So the comparison, I think, was a very unfair comparison.

The tomato industry will get back on its feet, but what we were facing in Whyalla was the Gupta regime running that plant into the ground to the point where it would no longer be viable. We still have major challenges there, but that intervention—that incredibly creative intervention, that incredibly smart intervention—was a massive circuit breaker for the community of Whyalla. So I do not think it is a fair comparison, but I will finish on a positive note and say, yes, it is incredibly important that we have a bipartisan approach to biosecurity in this state and, hopefully, nationally.

Ms PRATT (Frome) (11:57): I really want to thank all the members who have contributed to the debate on this motion today and to name specifically the member for Black, the member for Hammond, the member for Light, the member for Chaffey and, with concluding remarks, the member for Giles, who I thought brought a really thoughtful, insightful and informed response to the two motions that are before us, and I thank him for his contributions.

While we might disagree on my comparison between the government's response to jobs lost in Two Wells versus Whyalla, it is appropriate for any government of the day to respond to a mass jobs loss. For the current government to recognise the pressures that were being felt in Whyalla is not my criticism. The challenge that I put back to the government is that the community around Two Wells, Lewiston, Virginia and the Adelaide Plains felt invisible, felt unseen.

Primary producers—whether they are grapegrowers, farmers experiencing drought or tomato growers in the Adelaide Plains—complain about what they perceive is a lack of compassion from the government when it comes to responding to these biosecurity threats and these weather events that impact large farming districts. So I take the feedback—and it will not surprise the member for Giles that perhaps I do not disagree—but I think the motion that has been put forward today has, if nothing else, highlighted a joint concern and interest in our primary production from this state.

As the person bringing the motion on behalf of the opposition, I declare already that we cannot support the amended motion for a number of reasons. The word 'bipartisan' is being thrown back at us from the government. We welcome a bipartisan approach to farming industries, if for no-one else the member for Giles, representing such a large part of regional South Australia. We share this state together.

To test the motion or to challenge my original motion as being riddled with political opportunism really affords me the opportunity to push back on this particular issue about the tomato virus strangling and crushing an industry on the Adelaide Plains. As far as I know, when those jobs were laid off, the Premier picked up the phone in good faith, reached out to the CEO of a very large business, said everything that was appropriate and, on the next day, got on a plane and went off to the AFL and has been absent from this primary industry challenge that his government is managing. So the bipartisanship is missing from this space. There have not been boots on the ground. It has to be two ways. There has not been evidence—and not only is it my observation, it is the feedback that I am getting from those communities.

I do not represent Virginia, but when I talk about Peter and Oriana Petsios, who have effectively lost their business called SA Tomato, that leads me to challenge the next clause around the government's suggestion that instead of a localised state-based review that we can control, that the government can control, we are going to rely on this loosely worded clause that says that the government, we the state, the house recognises that a national review occurs after any national disease.

We have learned through this experience that we are a small player as a state when it comes to national protocols and negotiations. If you grow a sapling, like the Petsios family do, when it comes to compensation you are part of a national deed, but if you actually grow the fruit you are not. So there are flaws in the discussion or the debate that is coming from the government about this being a national opportunity to review—yes, but when? When? These businesses are going to get the answers too late; they have already closed. We reject and oppose the amendment.

The house divided on the amendment:

Ayes 23

Noes 16

Majority 7

AYES

NOES

Amendment thus carried; motion as amended carried.