Biosecurity Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 August 2024.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (17:30): Today, I rise as the lead speaker on the Biosecurity Bill for the opposition. I indicate that I have a number of amendments, which I will move in due course, and that I have a number of questions on a series of clauses for the mover of the bill in committee stage.

A technical directions paper and a range of consultation were performed to establish a new biosecurity bill under the previous Marshall Liberal government in 2020. Feedback received was compiled into a consultation summary on the building of a new biosecurity act for South Australia. Stakeholders subsequently had the opportunity to provide further feedback based on that summary, and submissions from the initial consultations were considered when developing the draft biosecurity bill.

The draft bill was then released for public consultation over an eight-week period, from 1 August 2023, on the YourSAy website. This feedback, it is my understanding, was further considered and some updates were made before the Biosecurity Bill 2024 was introduced to this chamber by the minister.

Biosecurity is a complex and incredibly important topic. There is increasing pressure on biosecurity, as international movement of people and uncontrolled online international trade increase. An increasing appetite among consumers for knowledge of the provenance of food and wine has led to more people wanting to visit farms, orchards and vineyards and to see firsthand where their food and wine come from. Few of these customers would understand the risks that uncontrolled traffic into agricultural areas may bring and how it could result in devastation to a crop or even an entire region.

Many agricultural engineering companies operating in Europe are situated in peri-urban and semirural areas. Insects and other pests may lodge in equipment before it is packaged and dispatched to Australia. Some years ago, a shipment of agricultural processing equipment exported to Australia from Europe contained adult brown marmorated stink bug, a prolific insect pest not yet present locally. It was only the diligence of staff unpacking those shipping containers at that warehouse that led to the potential incursion being controlled.

The point I make is that these risks are real. They are ever-present and they are increasing. It is vital that biosecurity preparedness, as well as reactionary measures, are effective. Recently, members of the South Australian chicken, egg and meat industry held concerns about the outbreak of avian influenza at several interstate sites.

The concerns were mainly relating to what was seen as a low level of preparedness for an outbreak locally. An FOI revealed that there was no discoverable communication from the state's Chief Veterinary Officer about the topic in the weeks leading up to and during the interstate management of that outbreak. Similarly, the bee industry held concerns at what many saw was a low level of information about the interstate outbreak of varroa mite, including one directly over the border in Victoria where there is significant orchard product reliant on bees for pollination.

More recently, the outbreak of tomato brown rugose fruit virus has caused more concern among the affected growers north of Adelaide, and several businesses have been affected by the resulting quarantine orders that require the businesses to cease trading activity, and the destruction of those affected plants. This virus is extremely contagious and causes heavy losses in production where it is endemic overseas. This detection, obviously as we all know, was the first in Australia, and therefore the quarantine measures are vital to underpinning the security of local tomato, chilli and capsicum production.

The need for care and quarantine is not being questioned. What is under the spotlight is the government's lack of preparedness, the lack of autonomy when it comes to testing facilities, which has resulted in significant delays in testing results, the lack of transparency and communication with affected businesses, and the fact that the minister continues to refuse to do an independent inquiry into her government's response to this outbreak and biosecurity in this state.

A large business impacted by the quarantine has already announced the loss of 500 jobs, and estimates that losses will be in the vicinity of $27 million for their company. Whilst in many cases the destruction of crop and plants, and imposition of quarantine orders are necessary to prevent damaging outbreaks from spreading, there are significant downsides, obviously, when dealing with a biosecurity outbreak, so it is vital that everyone has confidence that these outbreaks are well-managed.

However, one grower recently publicly said that he was more scared of government regulation than the virus itself, and suggested that if such an incursion happened in the future he would think twice about reporting it. This lack of confidence in the government's ability to manage an outbreak should not be happening, and it is a sad indictment on the government and the way it has managed this so far.

I gave notice of a contingency motion to send this bill to a select committee because of the minister's refusal to commit to an independent inquiry, and indeed because of the government's refusal to commit to an independent inquiry. I did so because it was the lever I could pull to be proactive, and not just listening but responding to the hundreds if not thousands of South Australians who contact me regarding their concerns with biosecurity in this state. I acknowledge and appreciate the sentiments from industry bodies that they want to see this bill debated on the floor of parliament forthwith, given it has been four years in the making, so I have decided not to move that motion, as I respect the voice of industry bodies who speak on behalf of their members across the state.

I do need to state, however, that there is an urgent need to inquire into this government's response and the resourcing that goes into biosecurity preparedness. I would strongly encourage the minister to listen to growers and to farmers, and to individuals right across the state, and commit to an independent inquiry. If she is not forthcoming, then I will look to seek my colleagues' support in this chamber for an inquiry into this incredibly important issue in the new year, because it is incredibly important that the security of our food and fibre production is protected around the state into the future.

As we all know, the importance of biosecurity cannot be overstated. Having been a mixed-practice veterinarian in a regional community for 15 years, and having lived on a citrus orchard all of my life, I have been on the ground on a daily basis with both producers and farmers, and so I absolutely understand the importance of biosecurity. It is there to protect our $18.5 billion primary industry sector in South Australia. This sector not only drives our state's economic engine but it also supports over half of our state's exports. I think we can all agree that the threats we face are significant and multifaceted and it is imperative that we address these with urgency and with clarity.

In speaking with industry and stakeholders, they have indicated some concerns with the proposed bill, including the ability to introduce new levies without the requirement to consult with industry stakeholders, and the additions that open the door for potential cost sharing with industry for incursions. Industries that are signatories under the Emergency Pest Plant Response Deed already have cost-sharing arrangements and there is already a considerable biosecurity cost burden on many sectors. But some have questioned how this is consistent with the government's pre-election commitment that there will be no new taxes, and there is little tolerance of any added cost or complexity in the current economic environment.

The opposition also have concerns about provisions around an employer's liability for an employee's offences. There is a desire to see provisions incorporated which place a requirement on a third party accessing primary production land to take certain steps to ensure biosecurity on primary production land is not compromised.

We are seeing and will continue to see an increase in shared land use across our state, particularly with the passing of the Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Bill last year. It is important that with that shared land use there is a degree of responsibility on those third-party entities to ensure they minimise the biosecurity risks of the agricultural land that they access.

Primary producers often express their concern around the lack of awareness, care and accountability of third parties seeking access to their land or accessing their land under existing arrangements, and it can be a significant risk for the introduction and spread of pests, diseases and invasive species, and needs to be addressed.

I have a number of amendments to deal with some of these concerns by industry and I will be seeking the members' support on those amendments. I also have an amendment around tightening the circumstances in which section 21 of schedule 2 can be enacted after concerns were raised with the opposition around the use of this section from the Local Government Association.

I am disappointed that the government of the day did not see fit or feel compelled to deal with the ever-pressing issue of neglected or abandoned orchards. This is a significant issue right across the state and is only likely to get worse due to the current federal Labor government's push for buybacks. These abandoned orchards have the potential to present huge challenges in terms of biosecurity for this state. I think that this bill provided an excellent opportunity to address this challenge but, disappointingly, it has not been a priority for this government.

The Biosecurity Bill before us arguably provides the government with greater powers, and in doing so we need to ensure that there are checks and balances with the use of those powers. Governments should not be given excessive powers without scrutiny and without parliamentary oversight of those powers. South Australians certainly deserve accountability and transparency around any government response to outbreaks.

We need flexibility to react quickly to disease incursions through legislature; however, we also need to ensure that proper resourcing is present to enable rapid responses. We also need to ensure that governments are continuously reviewing different pest species and disease threats around the globe, continuously reviewing the latest science and continuously reviewing their preparedness and response processes to potential disease outbreaks.

I note that much of the new powers of the new act will come from regulations and possibly even policy sitting underneath those regulations. I have had concerns raised with me around these powers. I think it is incredibly important that the government consults widely with industry stakeholders and farmers alike on those regulations, and, again, it must be about having a balance between sensible changes to allow government and industry to react quickly but not granting excessive powers to the executive of the day without parliamentary oversight.

With this bill there is an opportunity to allow for flexibility in a sensible and pragmatic way to support biosecurity in our state, but we need to ensure we support our primary producers as they implement their biosecurity obligations and requirements and ensure changes are not overly onerous. At the end of the day, we need to fundamentally let our farmers farm but ensure that they can do so with the confidence that disease risk is minimised.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:45): I rise to speak to this Biosecurity Bill today on behalf of the Greens. In doing so we welcome the bill and commend the government on the amount of work that has gone into this critically important bill. The bill seeks to protect and enhance South Australia's biosecurity through the prevention, detection and control of animal and plant pathogens, pests and biosecurity matter. The breadth of the bill is nothing short of significant, as it repeals several outdated bills, such as the Dog Fence Act 1946, the Impounding Act 1920, the Livestock Act 1997 and the Plant Health Act 2009, and amends both the Fisheries Management Act 2007 and the Phylloxera and Grape Industry Act 1995.

As such, the bill is a welcome improvement on this state's current biosecurity regime. Multiple acts allow for multiple loopholes, and as such things do slip more readily through the gaps. A significant body of work has clearly gone into this bill to ensure that as many of those loopholes as possible are closed.

Environmental best practice is of critical importance as we navigate the climate crisis that puts so many species, whether plant or animal, either under stress or under threat. The climate environment crisis means that outbreaks, such as those that we see across the various biosecurity sectors, continue to increase not only in volume but also in complexity. Business as usual is unacceptable, just as it is unacceptable to think that we can simply scale up our current approaches. The CSIRO suggests that continuing along a business-as-usual trajectory could expose Australia to significant triple bottom-line risks through to 2030.

Clearly, a transformational approach is necessary, and the Greens commend the government for pushing beyond a reactive business-as-usual approach and aiming for systems transformation. South Australia's economic wellbeing is reliant on nature. Recent work by the Australian Conservation Foundation found that approximately 50 per cent of Australia's economy, some $896 billion of GDP, has a moderate or very high direct dependence on nature.

Whether a sector is directly impacted, such as agriculture, forestry or fisheries, or is indirectly impacted, such as shops and cafes, where people will linger longer and spend more money, or whether it is the wellbeing impacts of access to tree canopy across our suburbs and the benefits of this to the bottom line of the health budget, it is fair to say that not a single dollar across the economy is not impacted by nature, whether directly or indirectly.

The entire state is impacted by whether or not we get biosecurity right, so it is fitting that this bill brings South Australia into line with other states and jurisdictions by establishing a general biosecurity duty and, of course, it is good regulatory practice to be more outcomes focused and less prescriptive. There is a whole education piece needed around this, but that is a good thing: well-informed communities are key to spotting and responding with appropriate speed to biosecurity risks.

A recent Queensland study demonstrated that for every dollar invested in community engagement on the red imported fire ant there was a 60-fold return, measured as the savings in active surveillance from reports by community members who had simply spotted the ant when out and about and reported the sighting. This bill's current focus is on protecting South Australia from 'pests, diseases and other biosecurity matters that are economically significant for the state'. However, the Greens will contend that 'economically and environmentally significant', not 'economically significant', is our preferred outcome. If we aim only to protect that which we know to be economically significant, we miss much of what lies beneath the surface.

All of nature is interconnected. Human beings are simply one part of the incredibly diverse web of life that this planet has sustained for so many millennia. So many plants and animals have already been wiped out simply because we only focused on economics. Putting environmental significance front and centre, with economic significance, will ensure that we protect everything and do not inadvertently fail to protect crucial species whose significance—indeed, whose very existence—may as yet be unrecognised.

If we look only to the dollar, we will fail to implement the best practice that will enable us to work proactively, and we will instead respond reactively to the situation. Bear with me on this, because this is a case where the old adage about prevention being better than cure is appropriately applied. Of course, the slower we are to respond to a biosecurity threat, the costlier it will be for us to contain and eradicate it. We should therefore be ensuring a precautionary approach.

Whilst scientific evidence is of course crucial, we should also ensure that a lack of evidence does not see us fiddling while Rome burns and delaying action, which would potentially see a greater risk to biosecurity occur—risk that, as we know, impacts not only our economy but nature and biodiversity, which we need to protect for the health of both our ecosystems and, of course, the people of this state. This bill also fails to incorporate space for First Nations perspectives and knowledges.

As such, the Greens will be moving and would like to see the bill establish an expert biosecurity advisory committee to advise the minister, either on its own initiative or at the request of the minister, on matters relevant to the operation of this act. The group should include at least one environmental biosecurity expert and representation from First Nations peoples, the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute and the Conservation Council of South Australia, and I am sure the minister may have other ideas on that.

We are all very well aware of the changes brought around currently in the way that we shop—by the internet. Changes that impact our daily lives and that extend to the way in which people trade illegally in protected and/or restricted matter have seen wildlife crime become a booming business. According to recent ABC reporting of a CSIRO study, more than 800 crayfish, reptiles and birds have been seized in the past 18 months. The bill in its current form, however, fails to capture these online spaces appropriately, so the Greens will be moving an amendment to ensure that this is covered. These proposed amendments we hope will go a long way to ensuring a good bill is a better bill, and I commend those changes to the chamber.

Before we conclude the Greens contribution at the second reading, I also place on notice, for the minister to respond to in her second reading contribution, a question. It is currently unclear how this bill proposes to treat species that are also within the scope of the landscape act. If an invasive animal or plant is posing a significant biosecurity risk but is not yet declared, could there be an amendment, perhaps, to clarify that the general biosecurity duty can be applied to enforce control in that situation?

I do believe that this would be something that the minister can place on the record for us, and if there is—as some in the sector have raised with us, perhaps because this does not replace the landscape act, we just want to make sure that we are not still leaving one of those loopholes that we seek to remove here. The landscape act has its own provisions for pest animals and declared weeds given vertebrate animals and plants still clearly fall within the definition of a biosecurity matter and/or other carriers. The Greens seek to make sure that those particular species are not lost. With that, I commend the bill.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:53): I rise briefly to address the Biosecurity Bill 2024 plus the suggested amendments put forward by the opposition. Our agriculture industry remains the heartbeat of our state's economy, and amid an era of primary production being made more difficult by rising input costs and generally unfavourable conditions for business, many created by government, any measures that genuinely aim to better protect these industries are welcomed.

The consolidation of a number of existing acts to streamline regulatory framework makes sense in terms of improving consistency across sectors. I note the lengthy turnaround time in tabling this bill and consider this troubling given the pressing nature of the many current and emerging threats to South Australia's $18.5 billion agriculture industry.

In reaching out to stakeholders about this bill, my office was informed of a perceived lack of urgency with regard to varroa mite, which impacts honey bees and the beekeeping industry but naturally has far wider implications for all horticultural and agricultural pursuits. Varroa is on South Australia's doorstep, and we were told again by those involved in the beekeeping industry that its arrival in our state is inevitable and that we should be doing more to be prepared, essentially clearing the red tape and bureaucratic decks to act immediately when it arrives.

Meanwhile, the citrus industry has been battling the impacts and fallout, including increased operating costs of South Australia's fruit fly outbreaks for several years now and we know how much taxpayer money has been invested in that program which is aimed at retaining our state's fruit fly free status.

The industry is broadly supportive of the bill, but concerns were also aired about what it believes is a lack of specific mentions of backyard and/or abandoned orchards, which are a source of fruit fly breeding. We were told that fruit fly breeding in these instances should be treated the same as potentially harmful weeds or pests like rabbits.

Much of our consultation with industry groups returned the same vibe: this bill is not perfect, but it is much better than what we have now, and it should be introduced without any further unnecessary delays and excessive toing and froing. Consultation time is over was the message.

The Liberals have today put forward some amendments to the bill. Our stakeholder engagement suggests that, while some or even all of these might be considered worthwhile, the short turnaround time on consultation may have limited the capacity of certain industry leaders to fully consider the changes, such as they are.

Livestock SA considers itself particularly impacted by this bill's rationalisation measures and is broadly supportive, though wary of the detail contained in regulations. Livestock SA and Grain Producers SA backed amendment No. 4, believing that decisions to collect additional levies may require consultation; however, with regard to amendment No. 1, Livestock SA pointed out that, on occasion, the fewer barriers between certain third-party figures realising they need immediate access to a property and actually being able to access that property the better. Time can be crucial to limiting and mitigating damage caused by certain biological threats and their spread. Like Livestock SA, Grain Producers SA was overall supportive of the bill but also cast a cautious eye towards regulation details.

Amendment No. 5 refers to the Dog Fence Board and the Dog Fence Act. This existing provision in the bill would, in the event of an emergency, give the Dog Fence Board power to make its own declarations regarding any council in South Australia. Essentially, it becomes a taxing power able to raise money from councils on behalf of the state government.

The Local Government Association of South Australia told us its preferred position would be to either adopt a more user-pays system, collecting fees from, for example, farmers living near the fence, or rather than use councils to raise funds, instead use funds collected via the state government's existing Emergency Services Levy. The hint about why this makes sense is in the title: Emergency Services Levy.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. L.A. Henderson.