Biodiversity Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 May 2025.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:21): I want to advise the house that I am not the lead speaker on this bill, but I am here to speak about the Biodiversity Bill 2025. This bill has far-reaching implications right across the state, and I believe there will be much debate not just at this stage of the bill but during the committee stage to get some ratification around many of the complex areas involved in this bill.

This bill is quite complex and it does have a broad reach. Just to explain some of that broad reach, I will go through a list. This bill repeals the Native Vegetation Act 1991 and makes amendments to a significant number of acts, including but not limited to the Biosecurity Act 2025, the Coast Protection Act 1972, the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary Act 2005, the Crown Land Management Act 2009, the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995, the Environment Protection Act 1993, the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005, the Fisheries Management Act 2007, the Landscape South Australia Act 2019, the Mining Act 1971, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989, the Recreational Greenways Act 2000 and the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016.

As I indicated, this is a very complex act which I believe will impact every South Australian in one way or the other. As I indicated, we need to do a lot of unpacking in this place, especially during the committee stage, on what is an offence, what is not an offence and what people can safely do in their day-to-day lives without the fear of breaking the law, so to speak.

Coming into this place as a farmer and coming off the land, I have witnessed changes in legislation over time, throughout my life, and there have been some perverse outcomes with some of those changes over time. I remember coming towards the end of the 1970s and broadacre clearing was coming to an end for farmers who provided that valuable food for our state, our nation and for export and what happened? Because people knew that the legislation was about to change, the anchor chains towed between the bulldozers were going 24 hours a day to clear as much country as they could.

Obviously, since then there have been some very strict rules—and I acknowledge that—around native vegetation clearance and there are some very strict enforcement guidelines if people break the law, but I also want to acknowledge that many farmers have done a lot of plantings. They have also locked up areas for heritage that cannot be utilised for agriculture and they are set aside for native flora and fauna. I think it was in 1992 that my father and I planted six kilometres of trees on the property. Notwithstanding the current drought, they appear to be hanging on, but that is a bit of a recipe of living in the Mallee: things have to be tough to survive at any time, let alone the significant never before recorded drought in this state.

But what we need to be mindful of with the repercussions of this legislation is that the penalties are increased significantly for people who are found not to comply with certain parts of this legislation. Body corporate penalties can be a million dollars and for an individual the penalties can be $500,000, so we need to make sure that everyone has a good idea of what is happening with this legislation, including what appears to be the right of officers to come onto your land to have an inspection at any time not only for grasses or scrubland or native plants but whether there are certain fungi present, etc. So it could see people turning up on your property for all of these activities.

I do not think this will just affect the broader farming landscape. I think it will affect people across the board because this does affect the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Some people think this is just something that will affect rural areas. Well, I do not think so. We have to have sensible tree regulation right across the board and not only sensible tree regulation in the light of planning decisions but in the light of safety decisions.

One thing I reflect on here is the safety of people during fire events, whether they be in an urban boundary, a semi-urban boundary or a rural living area, because they do impact everyone and that is where the populations are. Certainly, I am well aware of the fires that impact our lands in the broadacre areas. Obviously, we saw the massive fire that burnt half of Kangaroo Island 5½ years ago, which burnt out a massive part of the national parks over there, Flinders Chase, etc., and a lot of private land and that literally threatened Kingscote, which is essentially at the other end of Kangaroo Island.

I am frightened of more perverse outcomes in the management of fire safety and fire management in the broadacre regions. I will tell a couple of stories. I know I have told them here before, but I think they are significant in light of this. From my reading of this bill, for clearance of native vegetation to take place the chief officer of the Metropolitan Fire Service, the Country Fire Service or the State Emergency Service has to give written authority.

When you are in the heat of a fire, you have bulldozers already out there cutting breaks at great threat to the operators who are not on a fast-moving machine, and usually if it is that bad they have a fire truck up behind them to protect their safety. They are cutting breaks. You are out there trying to control a situation, and it is obvious that some native vegetation, whether it is parkland or scrubland on a farming property, needs to be burnt back to get the desired outcome to extinguish the fire. Yet, people are either too scared to make that decision, because they are frightened of the weight of the law coming down on them, or they believe that they do not have the right to make that decision and do not think or do not believe that they are protected by legislation.

Then you have firefighters questioning the people from the Department for Environment about what they can do. You can end up with some very perverse outcomes—very perverse outcomes. We saw it over 20 years ago with a fire coming out of Ngarkat Conservation Park in the Mallee towards Lameroo. It was on a section of the Mallee Highway before you get to Lameroo, where it was going to come out. It was going to come out, they believed, at 90 km/h. People just wanted to do a back-burn to pull it up, and it would have pulled it up, just like that. They could just light a fire and it would have burnt into the country that it was going to burn anyway, which it did burn.

No, that did not happen. The fire break was decided to be the Mallee Highway, and that was not going to help much in a situation like this. Sure enough, the fire came out of the Ngarkat Conservation Park. It burnt many hundreds of acres of agricultural land, took out many fences and took out lots of wildlife, because there were exclusion fences, especially on one property which had put up very good exclusion fences against the park and, basically, kangaroos and emus. We lost a lot of country and a lot of farming land.

In relation to fighting a fire at Carcuma, out the back of Geranium and Tintinara, a few years ago now, we were out there with private units and alongside the CFS. The fire was burning in scrubland on a property. On the cleared land next to it, there were farmers with tandem disc ploughs ploughing firebreaks to protect that country, behind eight-wheeler tractors. That was all going in place. There was at least one bulldozer cutting firebreaks up one side. It was pretty obvious what needed to happen and that this fire was going to keep, as the wind changed, blowing in different directions in the scrub area up on the hill. It was going to keep going for days and days and days.

It was drawn to a fairly hasty conclusion, I think, because this was 23 December and there was a bit of discussion amongst the various people, including people from the Environment section. They said, 'Well, we will just stick it out and do what we can.' Some of us gave the helpful advice that, 'Well, it's Christmas Eve tomorrow. We are not going to be here tomorrow night.' The sensible decision was finally made to do a burn-back, and we pretty quickly managed the situation by doing what we needed to to control it.

That is just one of the concerns I have with this legislation in regard to real-time management of fires, where people will be too frightened to make appropriate decisions on the fireground, waiting for messages to come from above. I can assure you, as other people in this place on either side of the house can attest, having been involved in the CFS or with farming families with private farm units and have been at the fire face and seen the reality of what has happened or is happening, that real decisions need to be made in real time.

Even with the advances in technology and waiting for authorisation, whether it is written or verbal—and you have to be careful with verbal, because that could be challenged if someone decides that you did a terrible thing by doing a burn-back and you were not authorised—we have that to deal with and we will be asking questions about that in committee.

There also could be some perverse outcomes with the planting of native plants. The legislation is talking about native plants having been planted beyond 20 years—I am not sure how the powers that be are going to identify whether or not the plants are 20 years old; that is a better science than I know of—not being able to be cleared under this legislation, which is a significant change. With my father, I planted six kilometres of windbreak trees and shrubs to assist in the farming capability of my land and to try to protect it partly from wind damage.

We might have a perverse outcome here where people decide—and it might not be in the farming areas, it could be in the peri-urban or urban communities—to simply plant exotic plants, non-protected plants, so that people have protections if, for whatever reason down the track (and it might not be them, it might be a future occupier of the property) somebody wants to remove those plants, whether it is a few or many, to change operations on their property.

There are significant changes under this legislation that include a new general duty ensuring that all South Australians play a role in protecting biodiversity, with stronger native plant laws providing supposedly clearer regulations to safeguard native vegetation and tougher penalties to create stronger deterrence against environmental harm. It includes critical habitat protections by introducing a new process to identify and safeguard habitats vital for the survival of threatened species, and a new process for listing endangered species and threatened ecological communities, which aligns with other Australian jurisdictions and receives expert input from the scientific committee.

As I indicated, that will be one committee that will be formed. There will be four committees formed under this legislation. The first one will be the biodiversity council, which will set the policy direction for biodiversity protection and restoration in the state and provide the government with advice. The bill requires that, in appointing members to the biodiversity council, peak bodies are able to nominate qualified people to ensure that a strong mix of skills and relevant experiences are brought together to provide balanced advice to government.

There is a clearance assessment committee, which will review and assess land clearance proposals. The Aboriginal biodiversity committee will ensure that Aboriginal knowledge informs biodiversity management. A scientific committee will provide technical and ecological expertise. My understanding is all of these committees will need to do an annual report, prepared for the minister of the day and the government.

There are also three funds in regard to this bill, some of which have already been established. The Biodiversity Restoration Fund and the Biodiversity Conservation Fund are largely rolled over from the Native Vegetation Act and the National Parks and Wildlife Act. There is also a new fund to be established under this bill, called the Biodiversity Administration Fund, to provide better transparency and accountability in the expenditure of funds.

Certainly, we have had some feedback from people in the field in regard to this legislation, including Primary Producers South Australia; Dr John Wamsley OAM, a noted environmentalist; and the Australian Land Conservation Alliance. They have provided feedback directly to us. It is to be noted that the repeal of the Native Vegetation Act and inclusion into the Biodiversity Bill occurred between the discussion paper and the draft bill.

There are people from peak bodies concerned about the minister controlling membership of the committees. There are, as I talked about, the possible perverse outcomes involving native plants where people might sow exotic plants. It will be interesting to see how the regulations are rolled out in regard to the removal of native plants of a relevant kind. There were also issues raised by Primary Producers South Australia around the clearance and extra fence lines—four fence lines—and we will need to ask some questions about general duty in regard to this legislation.

I certainly understand what this legislation is looking to achieve with this bill, which is a large piece of legislation. It needs to be debated long and hard in this house so that all South Australians can see what the future looks like under this legislation.

Ms CLANCY (Elder) (11:41): I rise today in support of this bill, which seeks to establish South Australia's first ever biodiversity act. When people overseas think of Australia, more often than not they think of koalas and kangaroos, or our deserts or coastlines. The Sydney Opera House likely sneaks into the top five if we are doing a Family Feud situation, but beyond that, it is our natural environments that make us special and we have already lost so much.

More than 10 per cent of South Australia's native species are threatened with extinction and Australia has the highest mammal extinction rate in the world. While so many of us in our community are rightly concerned about the threats caused by climate change, we also need to look to the dangers we face if global biodiversity loss continues.

South Australians take pride in our state's nation-leading history of advocacy for the environment and sustainability, and we can all take pride in this bill which puts South Australia back at the forefront of the protection of nature. From the largest of animals to the smallest of little microorganisms, biodiversity encompasses all species and the way they interact together in the ecosystem.

Biodiversity protection is so vital to protecting the way species work together to maintain environmental balance and, ultimately, our way of life. The loss of this balance causing ecosystems to collapse is the second highest long-term risk facing the globe, second only to extreme weather events.

Protecting biodiversity is not a niche environmental issue; this is an economic issue that impacts all South Australians, with more than 80 per cent of our exports and over one-third of employment in our state depending on nature. These are industries like food, wine, tourism and agriculture, all of which would not survive without protected, healthy ecosystems.

From the bleeding-heart environmentalists like me, to the steak-loving or red wine enthusiasts—I am also one of those; I love red wine—we all rely on biodiversity loss being taken seriously. This bill will ensure that conservation outcomes are fully integrated into how we all live sustainably and prosper. We can and we must not only protect what we have left but begin to restore and put back what we have lost.

This bill seeks to establish a new framework for how we protect, restore and interact with biodiversity in South Australia, consolidating biodiversity considerations previously spread across several pieces of legislation. For example, it brings together the Native Vegetation Act and key biodiversity provisions from the National Parks and Wildlife Act, to ensure they work together to provide stronger, clearer protections for nature.

Our first biodiversity act will also provide for stronger native plant laws and critical habitat protections in establishing a new process for listing threatened species and threatened ecological communities. We are also introducing tougher penalties for a stronger deterrence against environmental harm.

First Nations South Australians have played a crucial role in caring for and living sustainably on country for tens of thousands of years and this bill not only acknowledges that role but respects and enshrines that role into law. Furthermore, this bill provides for a new general duty ensuring that every South Australian plays a role in protecting biodiversity.

In addition to the bill before us today, we will be developing a state biodiversity plan, a strategic roadmap to protect and restore biodiversity in South Australia. This plan will set a long-term vision for biodiversity protection, guiding investment in conservation to ensure that funding goes where it is needed most. With the support of the Biodiversity Restoration Fund, the Biodiversity Conservation Fund and the new Biodiversity Administration Fund, South Australians can rightfully expect better transparency and accountability of the expenditure of funds on preserving our natural environment.

The importance of biodiversity is being increasingly well understood right across the globe, but we are still learning how to protect and manage humanity's needs without causing further loss to ecosystems. To support the bill before us today, our state government, and those that follow, must continue to listen and follow best practices and advice to ensure that our children, and our children's children, inherit a thriving, sustainable environment.

This bill will be supported by four committees, each appointed on the basis of their skills and expertise. These include a biodiversity council, a clearance assessment committee, an Aboriginal biodiversity committee and a scientific committee.

In closing, Mr Speaker, I would like to thank our Deputy Premier and Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, and her team, for their leadership and commitment to tackling climate change and taking biodiversity protection and restoration seriously. Your leadership continues to build South Australia's legacy at the forefront of the protection of nature and you should all be incredibly proud of the legislation before us today. We are very fortunate to have a Deputy Premier and Minister for Environment who is so fiercely protective of what makes our state so special—our natural environment and all that lives within it.

Through this bill the Malinauskas Labor government is showing our commitment to three simple but important objectives: protect what is irreplaceable; repair what is damaged; and share the responsibility. I commend the bill to the house.

The SPEAKER (11:47): Before I call the member for Bragg, I would just like to add a few words to the member for Elder's contribution about our natural environment. I was fortunate enough last week to be up at William Creek with Trevor Wright, who owns the pub there and about 23 aircraft. For anyone who gets the opportunity to get out and see Lake Eyre in flood this year, it is a tremendous experience. I get up to the outback at least once a year and I have never seen it looking so good, and it will be like that through to October or November. So if you get the chance, please do get up there. Thanks for the indulgence, member for Bragg, you have the call.

Mr BATTY (Bragg) (11:48): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a contribution on the Biodiversity Bill 2025. In his 2020 book A Life on Our Planet, David Attenborough described the spiralling decline of biodiversity as the 'true tragedy of our time'. He said:

For life to truly thrive on this planet, there must be immense biodiversity. Only when billions of different individual organisms make the most of every resource and opportunity they encounter, and millions of species lead lives that interlock so that they sustain each other, can the planet run efficiently. The greater the biodiversity, the more secure will be all life on Earth, including ourselves. Yet the way we humans are now living on Earth is sending biodiversity into a decline.

Our country is home to around 600,000 native species, which, sadly, are not immune from that decline. Many of these are found nowhere else in the world, and our state is home to many of these species. Indeed, according to the latest South Australian State of the Environment Report, more than 1,100 species of flora and fauna are listed as being at increased risk of extinction, with 41.6 per cent of our native flora species and 44.1 per cent of our native fauna species declining. This is getting worse, not better.

The imperative to act is clear. There are three reasons, therefore, why I see a biodiversity bill as important. Firstly, and most importantly, a biodiversity bill can deliver environmental benefits. We owe it to our generation and those who will follow to promote biodiversity conservation and restoration and arrest these concerning trends. At its core, a biodiversity bill aims to prevent extinctions and stop biodiversity loss. These are worthy pursuits.

Strengthened protections, including a general duty to prevent harm to biodiversity, stronger native plant laws, tougher penalties, new critical habitat protections and a nationally aligned process for listing threatened species will be beneficial, as will provisions to facilitate increased restoration found in the bill, including the development of a state biodiversity plan and, importantly, mechanisms for recognising and incentivising private land conservation and restoration.

Secondly, I often view environmental issues with an economic lens. Loss of biodiversity is not just an environmental issue but also an economic issue. Over 80 per cent of our exports—whether it be our food, our wine or our tourism—depend on nature. I have spent years working at the Australian High Commission in the United Kingdom and have seen firsthand that our major trading partners are increasingly linking environmental standards to trade and investment. This is a huge opportunity for South Australia, but only if we keep up with the green economy.

Biodiversity is also a market in itself, and this bill will introduce a framework for creating new types of conservation agreements that I hope in future can adapt to emerging conservation finance models, such as nature markets. The proposed biodiversity register in this bill will record our state's green credentials and highlight high-value biodiversity areas, which will support nature markets and philanthropy and restoration projects. We should be more ambitious in our approach to nature markets, and my hope is that this bill is only the beginning of what we can achieve in this space.

Thirdly, a biodiversity bill aligns with my values and, in my view, with Liberal Party values. I said in a press conference the day after my election that people in Bragg should know that if they care about the environment they can still vote Liberal. I said in my maiden speech that we must constantly be relating enduring Liberal values to the challenges of today, or in this case, to use David Attenborough's words, to the tragedy of our time. So, as a Liberal, I believe in preserving Australia's natural beauty and the environment for future generations.

I am proud of the previous Liberal government's work in taking practical action to protect biodiversity, whether it was our record expansion of national parks, including Cleland in my own electorate that protects habitat; the Greener Neighbourhoods program, delivering thousands of trees and boosting biodiversity in our city and suburbs; or innovative work with shellfish reefs and seagrass restoration.

I am proud of my own work to protect and preserve the environment, including as shadow assistant environment minister for most of this parliament. In 2021, I was a member of the Australian delegation to the Glasgow COP conference where, for the first time, our country signed up to net zero by 2050. In 2022, I led a campaign to save Park 21 West in the Adelaide Parklands after a proposal from the Malinauskas government that would almost certainly fall foul of the general duty proposed by this bill. The parcel of Parklands saved was the most biodiverse remnant vegetation in the Adelaide Parklands, filled with rare wildflowers and sanctuary to many varied species of birds, reptiles, insects and other fauna.

I get my hands dirty with practical local projects regularly, whether it be planting trees with Friends of Cleland National Park, Clean Up Australia Day at Hazelwood Park, or promoting important recycling projects with some of our youngest residents at Rose Park Community Childcare, as well as some of our eldest residents at Pineview Retirement Village. These small projects can make a big difference.

The Biodiversity Bill has been three years in the making. I have had the opportunity to consult with a number of peak bodies on the bill over the last three years, and I thank in particular the Australian Land Conservation Alliance, Trees For Life and the Conservation Council for their considered input.

In my view, and in the view of many stakeholders, this bill is far from perfect. Many are disappointed that the bill represents an evolution rather than a revolution. Under mostly Labor governments' stewardship over the last two decades, biodiversity has continued to decline in South Australia. If the objects of this act were serious, they would include an object to halt and reverse the decline of South Australian biodiversity to align with national and global commitments to nature. With COP31 likely to come to Adelaide next year, and with the land sector being the only sector that is a carbon sink and with native vegetation being the most effective way to sequester carbon, there is a huge opportunity to attract private investment in South Australian nature.

So what has the government done to drive investment in nature protection and restoration? How will this bill actually help the private sector to invest in nature? Public protected areas for conservation, such as national parks and conservation parks, are important tools to conserve our nature. However, they are notoriously under-resourced by government and, as a result, are often the source of invasive species, such as weeds or ferals, for the surrounding communities. How will this bill help to address these issues?

Many stakeholders have also raised particular concerns about the final drafting of the bill, including the fact the minister is granted extraordinary power under the bill rather than any of the independent committees established by the bill. For example, many in the environment sector welcome the modernising of South Australia's threatened species listings process to broadly match the common assessment method as used elsewhere across Australia. But some have recommended that the scientific committee should be making threatened species listings decisions as a matter of scientific fact rather than as a matter of ministerial discretion, as is currently the case in the bill.

It has also been suggested that the power to set the SEB policy, including the formula and the SEB credit policy, are price-setting instruments that should be in the hands of the semi-independent Biodiversity Council rather than the minister. This is the current policy setting with the Native Vegetation Council. The map of the regulated clearance area is currently contained in the Native Vegetation Act, whereas in this bill concerns have been raised that the minister will determine this via a deposited plan. This is a dramatic step backwards and sets itself up to be prone to interference from vested interests rather than the public interest.

The power of the minister to appoint someone in lieu of choosing the nominees put forward by the LGA, the Conservation Council, SACOME and PPSA has been described by some as a breach of the good faith understanding those organisations had with the government as to how the Native Vegetation Act nomination process was going to be reinstated in this final bill.

It is a shame that the government seeks to ram 176 pages and 184 clauses of this bill through the house this week, notwithstanding a three-year wait before they got around to introducing it. I hope that at least some of these concerns and many others that have been raised can be explored during this debate, and indeed between the houses, because it seems the final drafting of this bill pleases no-one. Nevertheless, the intent of the bill is a start at better protecting biodiversity in South Australia, and we must start.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Tourism, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11:57): I rise today to speak on the Biodiversity Bill and share my support, especially in my role as Minister for Tourism, as this bill protects and enhances South Australia as a destination for nature and wildlife. You have already heard how this bill repeals the Native Vegetation Act and parts of the National Parks and Wildlife Act and how it ensures that conservation outcomes are fully integrated into how we all live sustainably and prosper for the long term.

One of my election commitments for tourism at the last election was the establishment of the South Australian Aboriginal Tourism Operators Council (SAATOC), and it was through the support of the Tourism Industry Council of South Australia (TiCSA) that we have been able to establish this council. SAATOC, as it is known, was established recognising that traditional knowledge and stories should be shared by the traditional owners, and this bill further strengthens that recognition by enshrining Aboriginal South Australians in the management of land and knowledge ecosystems.

I have made a lot of announcements recently about our increased aviation connectivity, particularly the historical announcement about United Airlines flying directly from San Francisco to Adelaide. We have also seen the reinstatement of Cathay Pacific and China Southern, and of course Emirates is back to flying daily as well. When we talk about these connections, we actually know that our nature and wildlife is what international tourists are really keen to see. Of course, they love our food and wine, but what they talk about the most is nature and wildlife.

The statistics tell us that more than 70 per cent of international travellers are keen to have an authentic Aboriginal experience when they are here, but actually only 20 per cent achieve that. We know that there is a gap in connecting to nature and wildlife, but particularly in regard to our First Nations stories and the importance of their stories in connection to the land, so there is still some work to be done there.

I would like to recognise the work of Haydyn Bromley, Mark Koolmatrie and the team that is there. We are inspired by WAITOC, which is the Western Australian Indigenous Tourism Operators Council, which has seen enormous growth of operators over 20 years. We are just at the start; we look forward to that growing.

Recently, the South Australian Tourism Commission launched our new marketing campaign and brand platform, Celebrate the Simple Pleasures. When we were developing our brand, access to nature and wildlife was a key brand pillar. Our access to diverse ecosystems, both from and within our capital city, is something we often take for granted. I hear time and time again when we are doing international events or people are here for conferences and conventions how easy it is to access nature in South Australia. I could put it to you, as a very parochial South Australian tourism minister, that you do not have to go to any other state—you can just come to South Australia as an international traveller and experience all the best of what you want to see in Australia when you are here.

We know that visitors to our state are in disbelief at how we locals wander through our 'city in a park' with our abundant birdlife—and a few bats as well, of course—seemingly unaware of how unusual it is to have this sort of biodiversity on our doorstep, let alone our metropolitan beaches only a short distance from the CBD where bottlenose dolphins, eagle rays and spotted Port Jackson sharks are regular visitors.

One of the key aspects of this is the accessibility and how in a very short time, just later in the same day, a visitor could hike through the Morialta Conservation Park, where kangaroos and koalas have views of the city skyline. One of the things that we have, which we probably do not even realise is such a great asset in South Australia, is how easily we are connected to nature and that you can drive there in a very short period of time.

The Deputy Premier has described that biodiversity is the foundation of life. Humans are not separate from the environment; we are part of it. Biodiversity is an asset, if for no other reason—and there are many—than our biodiversity is a tourism drawcard. We know more and more that tourists are choosing destinations for their access to nature, wildlife and the biodiversity that we have in abundance. But as this bill goes to, and the importance of the bill is, we must protect it.

For the last few thousand years we have been focused on growth and industry development, often with an impact on nature and animals. Now we have seen what that damage has done and we acknowledge that biodiversity enables us to live together collectively and grow together, but we must value it. I think we have valued industrial and economic growth above nature for many hundreds of years and we have been the beneficiaries of that in the way we live and the opportunities that have been presented to us in a western environment. But now we are recognising the work that has to happen and how important it is. We cannot be here without biodiversity around us.

The Deputy Premier, along with my colleagues, already outlined how the loss of biodiversity is not only an environmental issue but an economic risk and, as we know, it is such a key driver for international tourism. We have the opportunity to be a leader in this space. South Australia has already led the way on climate action, committing to net zero emissions by 2050. This commitment, as well as our use of renewable energy, has been a significant contributor when attracting global conventions and conferences. It is also something we are aware of when talking to airlines and attracting international tourist investment.

This is a great story to be shared. It has not happened overnight; it has been two decades of a focus around renewable energies. This bill adds to that conversation and adds weight to us leading in this space. We can capitalise on becoming a nature-positive destination by taking two key actions: protecting and strengthening what we have and restoring what we have lost.

There are many examples of key tourism drawcards in our state that rely on biodiversity and a strong ecosystem. We are always looking for that winter activation, which is notoriously a quiet time for us. The cuttlefish congregation in Whyalla is absolutely stunning and only available in that winter months period. So that has been a great drawcard.

There is Seal Bay of course, on Kangaroo Island, one of the most sought after activities for Australian, South Australian and international tourists. We also see the wonderful miracle of birdlife returning to Lake Eyre to nest and the desert wildflowers blooming in the Sturt Stony Desert. We know, of course, people have been attracted to connecting with nature, including with the great white sharks off the coast of Port Lincoln.

These attractions and the industry connected to them rely on a healthy environment. They rely on the balance and the recognition that we have to be grateful to have this access. Nature and wildlife tourism is not only about specific drawcard attractions; it is also about the simple pleasures and ease of access to a diversity of environments, from coastlines to forest to scrubland to desert, to the river and our lakes, and, of course, to our beaches and sea. This is what attracts people when they come to South Australia.

Many of us would have heard terms like 'ecotourism' and 'sustainable tourism'. There is a new frontier emerging in this space called regenerative tourism, where sustainable tourism encompasses practices that promote sustainability within the tourism sector. It is defined as tourism that fully considers its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts while addressing the needs of visitors, industry, the environment and host communities. Regenerative tourism is for travellers seeking experiences that can reconnect them with nature and enable them to have authentic engagement with local people and experience the culture and the special qualities of local places.

We know that particularly younger generations are very interested in regenerative tourism. We often call it tourism for good. We are just at the start of exploring what this looks like, but we believe that South Australia could be a true leader in this space. By committing to this bill and enshrining biodiversity considerations into our agencies across government we can step forward as leaders in this space as part of our role as leaders in the green economy.

I thank the Deputy Premier in her role as Minister for Environment for her leadership. It is not leadership in the short term; it is leadership in the long term. Our Deputy Premier has talked about what we need to do to have that balance and to restore for many decades, and I thank her for her leadership.

I look forward to the ways that our tourism industry can fully strengthen our destination pillars of nature and wildlife. Most importantly, I look forward to us going forward to be a global leader in this space. The Biodiversity Bill that we are debating today gives a lot of support for that to become true and for that opportunity to be realised.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:07): I rise to address the Biodiversity Bill 2025. I say that because here we are legislating, and in circumstances where there is a government election commitment to legislate in a rolled up way for the integrity of biodiversity in the state—and the government will tell us this is fulfilling that election commitment. It should therefore be addressed with some seriousness in terms of the legislative process, well and truly beyond the title and subject and some of the broader—if I might say so, without being too terribly pejorative—grandiose aspects of context of what we are debating here. This is a matter of legislating and the quality of provision of legislation.

It is not lost on me as well that the government has seen fit to progress this bill in the week that we will celebrate—on Thursday—World Environment Day. So we focus on what biodiversity means, what protecting the environment means and what legislating in this space is likely to do in the interests of not only South Australians but the whole country and the rest of the world.

Korea is going to host World Environment Day on Thursday, and it has a particular focus on the fight against plastic pollution, and so we know that we are going to hear a lot about the pollution of plastics, particularly on Thursday. I expect that might be the case during the week. Just to place that in some context, have a look at what we have done in this state over recent years.

I am very glad that this government has taken up and continued on the practical work that was done by the former Liberal government in saying, 'Alright, we have a plastics pollution problem. What are we going to do? We are going to identify the causes of the worst of plastic pollution and we will introduce bans'—and that is exactly what we did, and you saw single-use plastics commenced to be banned on a scheduled basis. That is, once market and community and all the various necessary systems to avoid major disruption were in place, it could be added to as we went along. It is practical action that can reduce plastic pollution.

We will hear more about that during the week. World Environment Day is coming up later in the week and that particular focus. I say all that because here we are legislating for this overarching addressing of biodiversity. The Deputy Premier, in introducing the bill and commencing the second reading debate a couple of weeks ago—and others who have contributed on the government side—have talked about the objective of the bill to do a certain amount of restoration and a certain amount of protection, and to, in a more coherent way (I think it is fair to characterise the objective) ensure the strength of biodiversity in our state.

I say all this as the member for Heysen in the Adelaide Hills, right smack bang in one of the 15 commonwealth biodiversity hotspots and therefore I am hugely conscious of the fact that this is my local backyard and this is my community, and protecting biodiversity is hugely important. Indeed, with all humility, because I do not claim any particular outstanding achievement, I have co-chaired the Parliamentary Friends of Landcare since I was here on day one. I was also fortunate, and very much enjoyed, a period of years as the Chair of one of our parliament's standing committees, the Natural Resources Committee, and enjoyed some years on that committee together with the Deputy Premier. That committee gave members an opportunity to get deeply involved in all kinds of aspects of biodiversity, as well as natural resource challenges and opportunities across the state.

I am very conscious of the environmental challenge and opportunity that we see very much in my own backyard in the Hills. As is well known, in a day-to-day way, I also bring the perspective of my family background in farming, both locally and interstate. It is very dear to me the care and responsibility of those who live and work on the land and derive their living from the land—whether that be in the pastoral country, in the productive agricultural areas of the state, and all areas in between—and just how much of a central and vital role they play, and need to continue to play, in ensuring that we have a thriving biodiversity in the state.

With all of that in mind, I want to focus my second reading contribution on what I think is work that is needing to be done in relation to the treatment of fungi in the bill. It is a good illustration—among perhaps others we will hear in the course of the second reading debate and as the bill is unpacked in committee—of a test of just how effective the bill is in taking a step towards improvement; improvement in knowledge and practice, and the capacity of individuals who are engaged and who are expert, to do things to ensure that we see biodiversity improvements.

If we look first to the bill as it is presented to the parliament, the first point of contention and concern for those in the community working on fungi and its importance in biodiversity is that the bill is concerned primarily with defining, first, plants and then native plants, and then native plants of a certain kind. We see a lot of flowing out in the context of the bill around that structure of definition.

Plants are defined in clause 3 to include fungi. It also includes, curiously, algae, as well as flowers, seeds, and parts of plants, perhaps less controversially. Key there, therefore, in the structure of the bill, is the incorporation of fungi in the definition of plants.

I turn then to clause 8 of the bill where we see—after clause 7, that sets out objects—that clause 8 sets out the principles that the bill endeavours to give effect to. At paragraph (b) one of those principles is stated as follows:

(b) that the community has a right to know about and participate in environmental decision-making;

I just put decision-making somewhat in the middle ground for the moment, but 'community has a right to know about and participate in' this environmental work. That is in the context of objectives and principles around working towards an improvement in the state of biodiversity.

What I think is a cause for concern, led by those who are most actively engaged in relation to fungi, is that we then have a wrapped-up definition in which fungi—which might reasonably be described as being fundamental to the maintenance and resilience of biodiversity—is not separately provided for as it presently stands. I understand the department is conscious of this and, in the course of engaging with stakeholders, has had the opportunity to hear the reasons why it is not appropriate to wrap up fungi in that definition of plants and why it is necessary to deal with it separately.

That has not occurred, and it then leads to the concern that—if we are really talking about biodiversity, and we are really talking about the fulfilment of an election commitment, and we are doing it in the context of the recognition of World Environment Day, and we want to be able to say that we know what we are talking about on biodiversity in South Australia—we are not getting to grips with the role of fungi. Then one has to say, 'Hang on, is this more of a wrap-up of existing legislation and a zeroing in on a kind of command-and-control approach to, essentially, tree cutting, or is it really getting to grips with what is going on in terms of the constituent parts?'

I note clause 42 of the bill dealing with regulated acts and activities. It is the clause that, as I said earlier, deals with the structure of definition, including the regulation of the clearance of native plants and including native plants of a relevant kind and native plants of prescribed species. I draw attention to this clause because clause 42(2) refers us to the general category of carve-outs that we then find in schedule 2 of the bill.

There is quite a wide range of those carve-outs, but I will just refer to where fungi gets a mention at division 9 of schedule 2, under the heading 'Miscellaneous'. We see in division 9 of schedule 2, at clause 25 of that schedule, a reference to fungi and algae which provides that 'Clearance or taking of fungi or algae, other than fungi…of a prescribed species' is carved out from that regulation at clause 42, which clause would otherwise regulate its clearance.

Other than a prescribed species, I say that we know that there are about 12,000 species of fungi that are important, locally recognised and required in order to, firstly, better understand what is going on on the biodiversity front and, secondly, maintain biodiversity. The Department for Environment and Water highlights to us at least 10 of those, and yet, the way that this bill is structured and what we are told on the face of it, (1) fungi are included in plants and (2) there is a general carve-out for dealing with fungi, and the only proviso to that is the fungi that might be prescribed.

So it is in those circumstances that it is not surprising that those who are most focused on fungi—and, dare I say, among their number are those most focused on what biodiversity in this state looks like—are concerned about this bill progressing in its present form, absent such proper treatment.

Now my chance to celebrate someone who I hold in particular regard in the Hills: my neighbour. Again, I do not regard myself as a collaborator—she is the expert—but Dr Jasmin Packer is well known in fungi circles and is leading the way at the University of Adelaide in this area. Jasmin is also well known to the member for Waite and has drawn both of our attentions to this matter.

I have been in communication, if not collaboration, with Jasmin for the whole period of my time as member for Heysen, and if I was to look to somebody as an exemplar of what commitment to biodiversity in the Hills looks like, I would be first wanting to seek Jasmin's view, as I am sure would many others. Jasmin has been at the forefront of the project called Fungimap, which would be well known to many in this place, and Jasmin will point as well to the leading work of Tom May, including his work at the Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria. They are just two.

I highlight Jasmin because she is here in Adelaide and she is also in the Hills, but she is part of a group of researchers and volunteers who are leading the way to highlight the central role of fungi in biodiversity in South Australia. I think it is fair to say that Dr Packer's point and Dr May's point, among others, will boil down to a starting point that says, 'It is great to talk about biodiversity, and protecting and enhancing biodiversity in the state is a good idea, but you are not going to be getting over the starting line unless and until you are actually identifying the important difference between fungi on the one hand and plants on the other.' There will be a lot more to say about that, I am sure, in committee.

S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (12:27): I rise to speak in support of the Biodiversity Bill. With the introduction of South Australia's first ever Biodiversity Bill, we are taking this necessary move to protect what makes this state so extraordinary: our nature. We are doing this because the stakes could not be higher. We are living through a global biodiversity crisis.

The World Wildlife Fund's 2024 Living Planet Report shows a devastating 73 per cent decline in global populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians since 1970, and the World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report 2025 ranks biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse as the second highest long-term threat to our planet, second only to extreme weather.

Here in Australia, the crisis is even more acute. We have the highest mammal extinction rate in the world, and in South Australia alone we have lost an estimated 73 native species since European settlement. But this is not an environmental issue alone. It is an economic risk. Over 80 per cent of our exports and more than a third of South Australia's jobs depend on nature, from agriculture and food production to tourism and wine. If we do not act, not only do we risk our environment but we risk falling behind. Our major trading partners are setting ambitious biodiversity standards. Investment and trade are increasingly tied to sustainability. Failing to act means falling behind in the global green economy. That is why we need this bill and why it matters to everyone.

This bill does not just patch up the old system, it consolidates and strengthens it. It brings together key parts of the Native Vegetation Act and the National Parks and Wildlife Act creating a single, modern framework that finally gives biodiversity the attention it deserves. It includes significant improvements, including:

a general duty to protect biodiversity so all South Australians play a role, not just government;

stronger native vegetation laws with clearer protections;

tougher penalties: up to $500,000 for businesses that cause serious harm;

a new process to identify and protect critical habitat—the places that threatened species cannot survive without, and;

a scientific, transparent process for listing threatened species and ecological communities, aligning us with national standards and backed by expert advice.

But this is not just about laws, it is about having a plan. The bill establishes a state biodiversity plan: a strategic road map that will guide us over the long term. It will set the vision for biodiversity restoration, define indicators to measure our progress, guide conservation investments so we are spending where it matters most, use advanced tools like spatial mapping to direct efforts regionally, align with national and international biodiversity goals and give clarity to developers, planners and landowners by setting clear priorities for development and restoration.

The bill also introduces biodiversity policies—practical guides to help individuals, businesses and communities understand how to meet their responsibilities. These policies will be developed with the community through consultation, ensuring transparency and shared ownership. Importantly, this bill also acknowledges and respects the leadership of Aboriginal South Australians whose care for country spans tens of thousands of years. It recognises their unique role in conserving and sustainably managing the land, and commits to embedding that wisdom in our shared path forward.

So what does this mean for South Australians? If you are living along the coast, this bill gives us stronger tools to protect our homes, ecosystems and livelihoods from the impacts of climate change; if you are watching our cities grow faster than our green spaces, it means smarter, science-based planning that keeps nature in our suburbs and backyards; if you are on the land facing drought and water stress, it means restoring healthy ecosystems that strengthen your farm's future; and if you are young South Australian demanding action on the climate and nature crises, it means real systemic change backed by law, science and vision—because biodiversity is not a luxury, it is the foundation of everything we depend on.

This bill is about creating a South Australia where people and nature thrive together, where our economy grows sustainably, where our cities remain liveable, where our coastal and regional communities are resilient and where future generations inherit not just clean air and water but a rich, living, diverse, natural world. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (12:33): I rise to speak on this bill and I do so with a number of concerns about what this means for people, especially people in regional South Australia. I understand and respect the rhetoric that is coming from the government, and the pre-prepared speeches that are talking about the importance, absolutely, of the proper management of our natural environment is well understood across our state, but the best understanding of that comes from the people who are actually living within regional South Australia in particular and those who are responsible for managing significant swathes of that natural environment.

There is no doubt that we need to protect our natural environment, and farmers and landowners have been the ones who have been at the forefront of that and know this better than anyone else. They certainly know it better than decision-makers or bureaucracy within Adelaide because, at the moment, we have a Yes Minister-style scenario: 'Here's a problem, there is something that needs to be done about the problem, this is something, so this is the thing that needs to be done.'

This is 175 pages of real concern for me about the long-term impacts on people just going about their lives and their businesses within South Australia. It seems the circular aspect of this piece of legislation is counterproductive and concerning with what the ramifications are going to mean for people within my electorate and within other aspects of regional South Australia. It starts with the definitions that are put in. It is intriguing to try to unpack a bit the definitions around what a native animal is and the definitions around, firstly, what a native plant is:

(a) a native plant that is indigenous to the State; or

(b) a native plant that is not indigenous to the State that comprises a regulated tree; or

(c) a native plant of a class brought within the ambit of this definition by the regulations;

But then we follow on to the other part of the definition within this preliminary part of the bill, which speaks about the fact that a plant includes:

(a) fungi; and

(b) algae; and

(c) flowers, seeds or any other part of a plant;

I have spoken in this place about my concerns about the onerous nature of the existing Native Vegetation Act. Indeed, we are currently debating changes to the Native Vegetation Act in this place. I am on my feet speaking, as far as process goes, on my concerns about the existing Native Vegetation Act and what it means for those who are living in regional South Australia that the act actually affects.

It is all well and good for there to be big speeches made about the importance of proper management and how important it is that we get the balance right, as I have heard spoken about already in the course of this debate, but in reality the people actually impacted are not the people within the metropolitan area of Adelaide: they are the people further out who are having to deal with some of the onerous nature of what I see put forward within this Biodiversity Bill. It is unique because, in the short time that we have had this bill, I have spoken to stakeholders, landowners, industry groups, conservation groups, the whole range of stakeholders, and I have not had one say to me that they think it is a good bill.

There are concerns across the board with, firstly, what powers have been given to the minister within this piece of legislation and, secondly, what it means for landowners and landowners' rights. Throughout the 175 pages, there are concerns about what the reality of the situation is going to be under this act. Let us have a look a little bit at some of the powers that have been given to the authorised officers within this bill in clause 102. There are two pages here of powers that are being given to authorised officers under this bill.

We already know about the structure that has been put in, as I have spoken about, with the definitions of a native plant. It is not just a tree or a significant bush that we might have discussed previously in the Native Vegetation Act but it includes fungi, algae and seed pods. I would struggle to find a piece of land anywhere in South Australia, certainly within regional South Australia, that does not have fungi, algae or seed pods. Under the definition, that is what a plant is in this bill. The powers of the authorised officers are actually really concerning. Firstly:

An authorised officer may, as may reasonably be required in connection with the administration, operation or enforcement of this Act, at any reasonable time—

(a) enter and inspect any place…

They may enter and inspect any place, any piece of property within the state, as reasonably required in connection with the administration, operation or enforcement of this act. This is a massive step. This is a massive step in the capacity of an authorised officer. We do not know who that authorised officer might be. It might be a landscape board officer or a staff member of the EPA or of PIRSA, whoever it might be. They have been given authorisation from the minister to enter and inspect any place and:

(b) enter and inspect any vehicle and for that purpose require a vehicle to stop, or to be presented for inspection at a place and time specified by the authorised officer, and board any vessel or craft…

These are powers that are over and above even what our police force have been given. These are powers 'as may reasonably be required in connection with the administration, operation or enforcement of this Act' to do with a biodiverse South Australia. That includes native vegetation. That that includes plants, which includes the whole gamut of plants—all native fungi, all native algae. I am sure there are native fungi and algae that have not even been defined in South Australia that are native or could be considered native to South Australia. The broad nature of the powers that have been given in this bill should ring alarm bells for South Australians in general.

Once again, I get the motivation behind putting together a biodiversity bill and what that means as far as signals to South Australia and the world about how important we see the biodiversity of South Australia and Australia. Speakers before me talked about kangaroos and koalas and all the rest of it. That is all well and good, but what this actually means for South Australians and their landowner rights should be of real concern. The powers of authorised officers, which goes over two different pages, about which I will have a number of questions, as I am sure we all should and will throughout the committee process, are significant. I do not think there is a full understanding within the community, within stakeholder groups, of what those impacts are going to be in the long term.

It is fine to set up legislation with the mind of a minister—and those opposite have been speaking glowingly of the minister who is in charge of this bill—but we as lawmakers should not be setting up legislation for the judgement of one minister who is in place at this point in time. We should be putting legislation together which actually is appropriate for South Australians, no matter who the minister with the responsibility and authority is, because the powers that have been given to the minister within this legislation could well be abused. They could well be abused on either end. It could be abused in a way which is detrimental. It could be abused in a way which is actually impactful on, as I said, landowners' rights and the potential for what the future economic opportunities for South Australia could be.

It was only last sitting week that we were finalising some of the discussions around the State Development Coordination and Facilitation Bill. The discussion and debate which we had at the time was around the responsibility of government with regard to coming onto people's private property. The changes and alterations which were accepted by the government, which I certainly appreciated, recognised that indeed there is an extra responsibility for government and what that means for the potential damage to private property. They did not go as far as I was hoping, but at least there was a little bit of recognition that indeed there is a responsibility.

If the Treasurer was 'good cop' when it came to landowner rights, unfortunately the minister here seems to be 'bad cop', because this is an over and above, onerous authority which has been given to authorised officers. As I said, that list of powers across the two pages is pretty significant. It includes, obviously, not just coming onto land but taking photos, taking private property. It includes requirements for people in their interactions with these authorised officers. Whoever these authorised officers are, only time will tell.

What my concerns about this bill continue to be are what the impacts are going to be in regional South Australia. That is where the vast majority of our native vegetation and our native flora and fauna are. The reason regional South Australians love to live in regional South Australia is to be a part of the natural environment, to experience it every single day and to not be caught up in the hubbub of this crazy city that I have to come to way too often.

We have to always get that balance of management right in regional South Australia. That also includes the opportunity for residential township growth within the regions. For a long time, I have been a supporter of putting changes in place to take away the onerous nature of native vegetation restrictions on township areas in particular.

Within the existing legislation—and it is only exacerbated within the legislation we are debating at the moment—is actually a disincentive for residential expansion of our regional centres. Why should there be within the township boundaries of a regional city or town an additional cost and obligation put onto anyone who is wanting to expand that regional town, whether that is for residential, economic, industrial or commercial growth? Those restrictions are not in place within metropolitan Adelaide, but they are within our regional centres. It is counterproductive and it is only exacerbating the challenges that have been faced at the moment in the constant debate we have about urban sprawl versus urban infill.

We have more hurdles in place for regional centres that are absolutely unnecessary. What is the advantage as far as biodiversity goes and also when it comes to some of the native vegetation management more generally? I have certainly heard from local government, not just in response to this bill but in the years that I have been in the role of shadow local government minister, their concerns with the existing restrictions on roadside vegetation management capacity because at the moment the restrictions are onerous, costly and unachievable, let alone with additional obligations that are baked into this biodiversity bill.

I am hearing from regional councils that are having to spend tens of thousands of dollars to go through an application process with the department for native vegetation clearance underneath an existing borrow pit—a rubble pit—for road construction or, if they are looking to open up a new rubble pit to provide a safe roadway for their community, the tens of thousands of dollars they are having to expend to go through a bureaucratic process that achieves no positive outcome for native vegetation or biodiversity. All it does is help fund the ever-increasing bureaucratic load that we have in this state.

That is becoming an actual barrier to councils being able to deliver safe roadways in an affordable way. If we have worse outcomes when it comes to road safety, for instance, or productivity for those agricultural businesses that are having to deal with a lesser quality road because of the green tape and cost that is in existing and proposed legislation, what are we doing as decision-makers? We are trying to pat ourselves on the back for positive outcomes in one area, but we are costing those communities in the long term—gee, even in the short and medium term.

Concerns with this bill as proposed, especially when it comes to emergency management and bushfire management, have already been spoken about a bit and I share those concerns because with an ever-increasing risk of bushfire within our regional centres, anything that adds to a fuel load certainly would concern a local member of parliament, especially those of us who have unfortunately had to deal with bushfires in our area throughout history but also in recent times.

For there to be an extra obligation put onto the decisions that are made in literally the heat of the moment around how to deal with an increasing risk of bushfire, both in preparedness and in response, when we are adding extra obligation to that process, extra levels of bureaucracy in the decision-making, I think that is something that quite rightly should concern not just regional South Australia but the whole state because we know the financial and social impacts that these emergency situations—these fires—will have and have had in the past.

As has already been spoken about, we recognise absolutely that we need to be wise and conscientious environmental managers—absolutely. As I said, you will not find people who are more passionate about a long-term sustainable environment than the people within my electorate, because we are living in it. We have lived in it for generations and we will continue to live in it for generations. However, we should not be putting obligations in place. We should not be putting in hurdles that we know will trip people up. We should not be putting laws in place that people, all too readily, will inadvertently be breaking. We should not be putting that level of obligation onto our communities. We need to get the balance right.

There are 175 pages of this legislation; it could knock someone out if you had a swing with it. If we were to put this in place at the moment, the detrimental effect that it would have, in regional communities in particular, should not be underestimated. I hope there is a mind to adjustment and amendment, not just in this place but between the houses perhaps or in the upper house, to make sure that we get the balance right when it comes to encouraging and ensuring the future biodiversity of our state, and also when it comes to the liveability for South Australians and the capacity for South Australians to have productive businesses and for farmers to be able to continue to provide the food and fibre for our community and not have that extra obligation at the moment.

I hear countless times from people in my community with concerns about the way that they are effectively managing their landholdings and being restricted and constricted by the existing legislation. If we are introducing further hurdles, I think I would be doing a disservice to my electorate, to the individuals, businesses and constituents within my area, if I, as the member for Flinders, was not on my feet voicing those concerns about what impacts are going to be felt and what risks there are with the extra obligations and powers that have been given to those people who are charged with ensuring the administration, operation or enforcement of this act.

That is where the rubber really hits the road: the impacts on what it means for South Australians and the risk factors for them of additional cost. Some of the penalties within this bill are significant—absolutely. Some of the penalties are significant, and I worry people could inadvertently be breaking the law when it comes to this piece of legislation that we are considering. I look forward to the committee stage to try to unpack it and get some reassurance, perhaps, from the minister.

Mr DIGHTON (Black) (12:53): I rise to speak on the Biodiversity Bill. The Malinauskas Labor government made an election commitment to introduce South Australia's first ever biodiversity bill, and this bill delivers on that commitment. Why is biodiversity important? Environments and ecosystems that are more diverse are more balanced and better able to recover from natural disasters, climate change or disease outbreaks. We know that each species within an ecosystem plays a role in supporting that ecosystem and so removing that impacts on its health.

I note that the World Wildlife Fund's 2024 Living Planet Report found on average a 73 per cent decline in global populations of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians since 1970. Biodiversity supports food security, medicine supply and a wide range of important businesses in our economy, including agriculture, fisheries, forestry and tourism.

I also note that the World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2025 identified biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse as the second highest long-term risk facing the globe, second only to extreme weather events. The importance of biodiversity also extends to other parts of our environment, including helping to manage pollution and soil erosion. Additionally, biodiversity is critical to the advancement in science and innovation. Given that major trading partners around the world are setting ambitious biodiversity targets, we risk being left behind in the global green economy without having this legislation.

As has been articulated, the bill commits the parliament and the government to three simple but profound objectives: protect what is irreplaceable, repair what is damaged, and share the responsibility. Other members have articulated in more detail how the legislation does this, so I will not add too much to that, but I want to emphasise some key improvements of the new legislation:

a new general duty, ensuring that all South Australians play a role in protecting biodiversity;

stronger native plant laws, providing clearer regulations to safeguard native vegetation;

tougher penalties to create stronger deterrence against environmental harm;

critical habitat protections, by introducing a new process to identify and safeguard habitats vital for the survival of threatened species; and

a new process for listing threatened species and threatened ecological communities, which aligns with the with other Australian jurisdictions and receives expert input from the scientific community.

The bill also seeks to enshrine, respect and acknowledge Aboriginal South Australians and the role they have played in caring for and living sustainably on country.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of a number of environmental groups within my electorate that currently support biodiversity. Since my election last November, I have made it a priority to visit all of the conservation and national parks, including the friends groups associated with those parks within my electorate. I did so because of the importance that these volunteers play in helping to support biodiversity, and I briefly pay tribute to these groups.

The Friends of the Hallett Cove Conservation Park are a dedicated group of volunteers who have been guardians of this unique coastal park since 1987. Over the past decades their commitment has transformed the park into a thriving refuge for native flora and fauna. The friends have adopted a bushcare method in conjunction with a significant planting program, which has removed invasive woody weeds, such as olives and African boxthorn, as well as feral garden escapees. It has also included a revegetation program, including reconstruction of native woodlands, which formerly covered significant area. Approximately over 35,000 plants have been planted across the park.

The Friends of Marino Conservation Park have supported that park over the past 30 years and helped create two distinct biodiversity zones—coastal heath and open grassy woodlands—which include species such as the she-oak, mallee box and elegant wattle. The habitats support a rich diversity of native plants, including 130 indigenous species, with more than 40 considered of conservation significance. The coastal heath is very significant, because it is one of the largest parts remaining along our metropolitan coastal area. This biodiversity within the park enhances the ecological value of the park and also provides resources for native wildlife and contributes to our overall environment.

The O'Halloran Hill Recreation Park, which recently became part of the broader Glenthorne National Park, connects multiple green spaces across Adelaide's southern region, creating a wildlife corridor and a community resource that has been of benefit and will benefit generations to come. That biodiversity has not happened just by chance: the work of the Friends of the O'Halloran Hill Recreation Park for over the past 30 years have worked to restore and protect the area's native ecosystems. I recently toured the park and got a firsthand appreciation of the systematic process needed to remove invasive species, such as olive trees, from the park. The process includes chopping down the trees and a drill and fill method before a sweep back over the same space—a significant exercise that involves a disciplined and organised approach.

The Friends of Glenthorne National Park—another group who have been dedicated to returning biodiversity to Glenthorne National Park—are very active. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.