Biosecurity Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In noting that states and territories are the first responders to any incidents that occur within their jurisdictions and have primary responsibility for emergency management activities, including biosecurity, can the minister inform the chamber how often South Australia's exotic disease preparedness plans are reviewed and updated? When was the last review and update?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that this bill does not affect the frequency of when such plans might be reviewed.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Noting that this bill does not revoke the Landscape South Australia Act 1999, the bill states that the minister may declare any biosecurity matter to be prohibited at, I think, clause 13(1), much in the same way the landscape act can be used to declare a specified class of animals or plants. If a new invasive animal or plant species needs to be declared, will this continue to be done under the landscape act or through this proposed bill to become an act?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that if the pest species was native to Australia that declaration would be under the landscape act. If it was exotic to Australia, it would be under this new proposed biosecurity act.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Has South Australia developed a resource plan for potential exotic disease outbreaks, including identifying the mission critical supplies that are needed to operationalise our response plans?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that this bill does not specify or impact the preparation of resource plans, supplies and so on.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [PrimIndRegDev–1]—

Page 16, line 8 [clause 3(1)(a)]—Delete 'species Apis mellifera L.genus Apis or Megachile' and substitute 'genus Apis or Megachile'

Subsequent to the introduction of this bill a minor error was discovered in the definition of 'bee'. This needs to be corrected to ensure that it is clear and taxonomically correct. The proposed change would be consistent with the approach in the Livestock Act 1997, in which bees are defined at the genus level and not the species. Genus Apis includes the species Apis mellifera L, which is more commonly known as the western or European honey bee. Genus Megachile includes the species Megachile rotundata, an introduced species that pollinates some crops, as well as around 120 to 150 species native to Australia. Unfortunately, the error in the definition of 'bee' was not identified during drafting, internal review or the consultation process. It is now proposed to make that correction.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate that the opposition will support this technical amendment to correct the error.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 4 to 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 25, after line 17 [clause 8(1)]—Insert:

(pa) accesses land used for the production of the biosecurity matter or carrier; or

This amendment to clause 8 of the general biosecurity duty provides clarity that any third party accessing land for primary production is assumed to pose a biosecurity risk and must take certain steps to reduce that biosecurity risk. One of the key biosecurity challenges our producers regularly encounter is a lack of awareness, diligence and accountability from third parties seeking access to their land, whether through existing agreements or otherwise.

This presents a significant risk for the introduction and spread of pests, diseases and other invasive species. For instance, under the Mining Act 1971 mining companies can obtain an exploration licence that permits them to enter land for search of minerals; however, there are no requirements for implementing biosecurity measures when accessing this land, except for PEPR agreements.

Whilst there are occasions when producers can negotiate access arrangements and enforce biosecurity protocols, this is not always the case, therefore establishing a legislative requirement for companies to implement measures to mitigate these biosecurity risks would be beneficial.

Specific measures could be outlined in regulations and tailored to different land uses. For example, the requirements for cropping land may differ from those for a horticultural property. Consequently, the bill should be revised to clarify that any individuals accessing certain types of land are presumed to pose a biosecurity risk and must take specific steps to mitigate that risk.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I appreciate that primary industry sectors are certainly very interested in and concerned about third parties creating biosecurity risks by entering premises. However, I understand that this amendment seeks to expand the meaning of 'dealing' to include any situation where a person accesses land used for the production of the biosecurity matter or carrier. It is in contrast to the existing definitions. This inclusion does not require any direct connection with or manipulation of the biosecurity matter or carrier, and as such is inconsistent with the other things listed in the definition.

I am advised that the existing meaning relates to a range of circumstances in which a person may deal with biosecurity matter or a carrier and the person has some connection with or in some way manipulates the biosecurity matter or carrier, as opposed to the person simply being in a particular place. The amendment would expand the definition in a way that may expose people who do not pose a biosecurity risk to criminal liability.

My advice is that the existing definition is already sufficient to manage risks associated with access to primary production land. For example, if a person has possession of or moves biosecurity matter or a carrier—such as a vehicle, machinery or dirty socks and shoes for that matter—that would be considered a 'dealing' and any associated risks may be addressed through that dealing. This includes the scenario where the person is accessing primary production land.

As their current definition of 'dealing' is sufficient to address biosecurity risks as needed, I indicate the government will not be supporting the amendment. One example that was proposed where this amendment, if it was successful, could be problematic is that it may actually mean that some personnel who might need to access land for a valid reason, such as to do with electricity infrastructure maintenance, may be unwilling to access the land at all and thereby cause unintended consequences for those landholders.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 9 to 12 passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister explain the need for a declaration of a prescribed matter by notice in the Gazette as opposed to declaring it through a regulation?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that it is necessary for prohibited matter to be declared by Gazette for the bill to achieve its aim of being both flexible and future proof. For example, there are hundreds if not thousands of potentially serious emergency pests and diseases that would require swift action to contain, eradicate or control if they were detected in South Australia. While many of these are known, others are new or emerging, and it is not possible to pre-emptively declare them all. A suitable mechanism is required that would allow new pests to be added to the prohibited matter list with great rapidity, and gazettal is the appropriate mechanism to provide this.

The current equivalent lists of plant pests and diseases under the Plant Health Act and animal diseases and contaminants under the Livestock Act are made by gazettal, and this has proven to be a sound and suitably responsive mechanism. This decision is made based on advice from technical subject matter experts, usually utilising a rapid risk assessment. In many cases decisions are made at a national level and subsequently require declarations to be implemented by jurisdictions.

Wherever possible and sufficient time is available, industry consultation is undertaken before varying the notice; for example, when removing something from the list if eradication is unsuccessful and a decision is made to transition to management. It is expected that this practice would continue. So, essentially, it may need to happen in a rapid manner and therefore the Gazette is considered the most appropriate mechanism.

Clause passed.

Clauses 14 to 18 passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 29, after line 17—Insert:

(d) without limiting a preceding paragraph, acts, transactions and matters done, entered into or occurring on the Internet or other e-commerce platforms or online spaces (wherever done, entered into or occurring).

This goes to the advice that I have received from the Wildlife Crime Research Hub at the University of Adelaide Environment Institute and the ARC-funded work that is going on there. Of course, we are, as I said in my second reading speech, all very aware of the changes brought to the way we shop, and that is often by the internet. Those changes have seen wildlife crime become a booming business, and this amendment goes some way to addressing that online environment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This bill is intended as a broad framework for managing all biosecurity risks and impacts for South Australia, including those arising through e-commerce. The existing provisions already exert the extraterritorial application of the bill to the full extent possible, and these could be applied to e-commerce. However, reinforcing the intent of this chamber for the bill to apply to e-commerce is not problematic, and therefore the government does not oppose the amendment.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate that the opposition will also be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 20 and 21 passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–1]—

Page 30, line 5—After 'economically' insert 'or environmentally'

This simply inserts an environmental imperative as well as an economic one. Indeed, if we only look to the economics we will fail to implement the best practice that would enable us to work proactively rather than just reactively to situations. As I noted, again, in my second reading speech, South Australia's economic wellbeing is indeed reliant on nature. The ACF has found that approximately 50 per cent of our nation's economy, some $896 billion of GDP, has a moderate or very high direct dependence on nature but may not be considered something that is purely economic. So the Greens would like to see the environment considered more heavily in this bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly, the government largely agrees with the sentiments that have been put forward by the Hon. Ms Franks. However, the objects of the bill have already been carefully crafted to include the environmental aspect. The three key pillars are included in clause 22(a). The first is the economy, the second is the environment and the third is the community. As it currently stands, the bill provides:

(i) pests, diseases and other biosecurity matter that are economically significant for the State…

Hence, pillar 1, economy. Next is:

(ii) threats to terrestrial and aquatic environments arising from pests, diseases and other biosecurity matter…

Therefore, the aspect of environment is also front and centre. The third is around community:

(iii) pests, diseases and other biosecurity matter that may have an adverse effect on public amenities, community activities and infrastructure…

So all three are very important and all three covered. Therefore, to insert as this amendment proposes is considered to be an unnecessary duplication.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate that, whilst we appreciate the intent of the mover's amendment, for the reasons outlined by the minister, the opposition also will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 23 to 25 passed.

Clause 26.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Given the function and powers of authorised officers, is there any requirement that an authorised officer is to be suitably qualified and, if not, why not?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Authorised officers undertake a wide range of duties, and the skills, experience, training and qualifications required are highly context dependent. This could range from inspectors whose sole function is to apply fruit fly bait and pick up fallen fruit from residential properties during a fruit fly outbreak, for example, requiring appointment to confer powers of access, right through to animal health inspectors dealing with complex and varied animal health issues requiring specialised veterinary training.

The instrument of appointment allows for the powers and functions of an authorised officer to be specified and limited. Hence, the approach is for the appointment of suitable persons rather than specifying particular qualifications and for the minister or delegate to use their judgement and discretion in ensuring that only people are appointed with appropriate qualifications, skills and experience for their specific role and that appropriate further training is provided where required.

Relevant skills, qualifications and experience are considered during the recruitment process for particular roles. It is also worth noting that neither the Livestock Act nor the Plant Health Act mandate specific qualifications for inspectors, despite the narrower focus of these acts.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister confirm then that there is no minimum qualification for an authorised officer?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The minimum qualifications would depend on the nature of the role in the given context.

Clause passed.

Clauses 27 to 34 passed.

Clause 35.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister please outline what the roles and responsibilities of a statutory corporation would be?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the clause simply allows flexibility to establish statutory corporations by regulation. There is no current intention to establish a new board. The provision is part of the broad flexible framework that this bill provides. The regulations would provide the details of any new statutory corporation and how it would be established in accordance with this provision. In terms of potential functions, as I mentioned, there is no intention to establish a new statutory corporation under the bill. The bill is intended to be flexible and allow us to adapt and respond to future needs.

Clause passed.

Clause 36 passed.

New clauses 36A, 36B, 36C, 36D, 36E and 36F.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Franks–1]—

Page 38, after line 11—Insert:

Division 4A—Expert biosecurity advisory committee

36A—Establishment of expert biosecurity advisory committee

(1) The Minister must establish an expert biosecurity advisory committee to advise the Minister, on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister, on matters relevant to the operation of this Act.

(2) The expert biosecurity advisory committee consists of up to 5 persons appointed by the Minister.

(3) The committee must include members that represent—

(a) First Nations people; and

(b) the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute (or its successor); and

(c) the Conservation Council of SA (or its successor).

(4) The Minister may appoint a suitable person to be the deputy of a member of the expert biosecurity advisory committee.

(5) A deputy may act as a member of the committee during any period of absence of the member in relation to whom the deputy has been appointed.

(6) A member of the expert biosecurity advisory committee will hold office on terms and conditions determined by the Minister for a term specified in the instrument of appointment and will, at the expiration of a term of office, be eligible for reappointment.

36B—Conditions etc

(1) A member of the expert biosecurity advisory committee will hold office on terms and conditions determined by the Minister for a term specified in the instrument of appointment and will, at the expiration of a term of office, be eligible for reappointment.

(2) The Minister may remove a member of the expert biosecurity advisory committee from office on any ground specified in the member's instrument of appointment.

(3) The office of a member of the expert biosecurity advisory committee becomes vacant if the member—

(a) dies; or

(b) completes a term of office and is not reappointed; or

(c) resigns by written notice addressed to the Minister; or

(d) is removed from office under subsection (2).

36C—Validity of acts

An act or proceeding of the expert biosecurity advisory committee is not invalid by reason only of a vacancy in its membership or a defect in the appointment of a member.

36D—Conflict of interest under the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act

A member of the expert biosecurity advisory committee will not be taken to have a direct or indirect interest in a matter for the purposes of the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995 by reason only of the fact that the member has an interest in a matter that is shared in common with those engaged or associated with the biosecurity community or industry (including the academic sector).

36E—Proceedings

(1) The quorum for a meeting of the expert biosecurity advisory committee is determined by dividing the number of members by 2, ignoring any fraction and adding 1.

(2) Subject to the regulations, the expert biosecurity advisory committee may determine its own proceedings.

36F—Annual report

(1) The expert biosecurity advisory committee must, on or before 30 September in each year, forward to the Minister a report for the preceding financial year.

(2) A report must contain—

(a) a report on the operation of this Act; and

(b) any other information required by the Minister and the regulations.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of a report provided to the Minister under this clause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 12 sitting days after receiving the report.

This amendment provides for the establishment of an expert biosecurity advisory committee of up to five persons—specifically that those members must represent First Nations people, the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute or its successor and the Conservation Council of South Australia or its successor—and, obviously, up to two others.

The Greens would like to see this bill establish this advisory committee to advise the minister either on their own initiative or at the request of the minister on matters relevant to the operation of the act that should include, of course, at least one environmental biosecurity expert and representation from those groups. We think that this would be a useful addition to the workings of this act when it comes to fruition.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: A central aim and theme of this bill is to provide a flexible framework that meets today's needs and can also be adjusted to address emerging and future needs and issues. Advisory committees have a role to play from time to time and it is important that such committees have the membership and diversity of skills and expertise to address the challenges concerned or to meet the needs of the time. Limiting membership to five and mandating the affiliation of three of those members, as proposed by this amendment, goes against this fundamental aim of the bill because it undermines its flexibility to meet South Australia's needs into the future.

Other existing organisations, subject matter experts or specialist groups could similarly be put forward as members, but are not in this amendment—whether it be Vinehealth Australia, the Dog Fence Board, the Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis or the Invasive Species Council, just to name some examples, and there could certainly be additional ones formed or identified in the future.

However, the ability to be responsive and assemble a group of people with the full diversity of skills, perspectives and expertise needed is paramount to ensuring the best available advice on biosecurity is considered. That is why the bill already allows for the formation of advisory groups in clause 301 with up to nine members and without setting the membership composition in stone. It is considered that to do so would be detrimental to the outcomes sought by this legislation and, therefore, the government does not support this amendment.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate that the opposition will also not be supporting this amendment, primarily due to the existing clause 301. The opposition also have concerns that this committee is likely to add another layer of bureaucracy to primary production at a time when industry is calling for a sensible reduction in red tape. We also note that three out of the five members of this committee which would be legislated for have no professional attachment to biosecurity nor food and fibre production.

New clauses negatived.

Clauses 37 to 48 passed.

New clause 48A.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Franks–1]—

Page 44, after line 17—Insert:

48A—Minister to notify sellers or agents dealing with biosecurity matter

(1) The Minister may, by written notice, require a seller or agent, including an e-platform providing third party sales services, to withdraw, or cause to be withdrawn, from sale any prescribed biosecurity matter.

(2) If a notice under subsection (1) has not been complied with within 30 days after the service of the notice, the person to whom the notice was served is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $10,000.

This again comes from the advice that the Greens have sought from the Wildlife Crime Research Hub at the University of Adelaide, where there needs to be a proactive measure to force those who are putting things online for sale to remove them in a more forceful way than currently exists.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Again, the government supports the intent of this amendment, but our advice is that the amendment is unnecessary. Clause 202 of the bill provides that the chief executive may issue a general biosecurity direction, and clause 204 provides that a designated entity may issue an individual biosecurity direction. Such directions may prohibit, regulate or control or require or authorise any of the things specified in schedule 3, which includes a prohibition or restriction on the sale or supply of any biosecurity matter or other thing. This is in addition to the power to prohibit, regulate or control an activity.

The bill provides for the parliament's intent for extraterritorial application of the act in clause 19. A direction in relation to an item for sale in South Australia, or for sale elsewhere for supply into South Australia, would be considered likely to have a sufficient connection to the state. Therefore, the government is satisfied that the bill enables appropriate action to be taken to manage the sorts of online risks that we understand are envisaged by the mover of the amendment.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate that the opposition will not be supporting this amendment. The sale and packaging and shipping for sale of a prescribed biosecurity matter is already a criminal offence under this legislation, and should the removal of prescribed matter from sale by a third party or at a third-party location need to be explicitly stated in this legislation then the power should rest with the law enforcement and not with the minister.

New clause negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am not pursuing amendment No. 5 [Franks-1] as it is consequential.

Clauses 49 to 78 passed.

Clause 79.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I refer to subclause (1)(a) of clause 79—Accreditation authorities. In what circumstances would an accreditation authority be someone other than the chief executive?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that this could allow for third-party accreditation schemes to be recognised under the act. This is an area of growing interest as part of the move towards greater recognition of industry biosecurity initiatives and shared responsibility.

An example of this could be Greenlife Industry Australia's BioSecure HACCP accreditation scheme. So if there is the ability to appoint a third party, then potentially that is less red tape and more streamlined in terms of the procedures and processes that need to be undertaken.

Clause passed.

Clauses 80 to 101 passed.

Clause 102.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I refer to subclause (3)(c). Under what sorts of circumstances would biosecurity auditors be able to enter private premises without consent, as per the regulations?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could you repeat the question?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Yes. Clause 102(3)(c) provides:

(3) Nothing in this section prevents a biosecurity auditor from—

(c) entering or remaining on premises or any public place in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

My question is: under what sorts of circumstances would biosecurity auditors be able to enter private premises without consent, as per those regulations?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that it is not envisaged that an auditor would need to enter such premises without consent. Subclause (3)(c) simply states:

(3) Nothing in this section prevents a biosecurity auditor from—

(c) entering…in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

So my advice is that this is simply directing to the regulations any particular additional processes or frameworks that might be required.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister just confirm then that in those cases the biosecurity auditor would not be entering private premises without the consent of the owner of those premises?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: First of all, I would just like to clarify that this clause is in relation to a biosecurity auditor as opposed to an authorised officer. They may be the same person, but not necessarily. A biosecurity auditor is the particular part that we are referring to here. I am advised that it is not envisaged that there would be any circumstances currently that could be envisaged that would necessitate an auditor who is only an auditor to enter premises without consent. There is the opportunity to prescribe, by regulations, particular circumstances, but it is not envisaged that that would be without consent if the individual was a biosecurity auditor only.

Clause passed.

Clauses 103 to 116 passed.

Clause 117.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister provide an example of an audit frequency policy?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that there is currently not an audit frequency policy in place. This is a new provision under this Biosecurity Bill and it is simply to enable, for example, a requirement that an audit must occur every five years in a particular circumstance or a particular sector. That would obviously be only where it was expected to be useful in terms of preventing biosecurity risks or minimising or mitigating them.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister indicate then who would have oversight of these audit frequency policies?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that an audit frequency policy would only have effect if approved by the chief executive. I am referring of course to the Chief Executive of PIRSA.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Perhaps, if the minister can then answer: will the audit frequency policies be codesigned with industry input with the chief executive? Will those audit frequency policies be codesigned with industry input and, if not, why not?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is a general policy to consult with industry about matters that will impact them. Anything that would be developed would be envisaged that it would have that close sense of collaboration and consultation.

Clause passed.

Clauses 118 to 125 passed.

Clause 126.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister explain what other powers would be prescribed by the regulations as per paragraph (e)?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Paragraph (e) refers to 'exercise any power prescribed by the regulations' and the regulations obviously are yet to be developed. Regulations will be developed, if this bill is passed, in close consultation with industry.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Why do additional powers need to be prescribed by regulations?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the question why they need to be prescribed by regulation as opposed to prescribed by some other mechanism?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Clause 126 states:

A biosecurity certifier may do any or all of the following before issuing a biosecurity certificate in relation to any biosecurity matter, carrier, thing or area:—

and—

(e) exercise any power prescribed by the regulations;

Can you give me an example of what one of those powers might be that is prescribed by those regulations, obviously other than what has been prescribed in (a) to (d)?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: On advice, there is no particular example that can be provided. This is simply in line with the intent of the bill to be as flexible as future circumstances might require and to enable anything to be prescribed within the regulations. Of course, as I mentioned, the development of regulations will be done in consultation with industry and other stakeholders.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Does clause 126(f) not cover that, when it states:

(f) do anything else that the biosecurity certifier considers necessary to be done for the purposes of determining whether to issue a biosecurity certificate and, if so, the contents of the biosecurity certificate.

I am just wondering why the need for (e).

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised it is because that will provide a more formalised structure, and obviously a power prescribed by regulations has more scrutiny here in this place.

Clause passed.

Clauses 127 to 163 passed.

Clause 164.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Referring to clause 164(2)(b)—an area outside of the biosecurity zone, can the minister inform the chamber whether this is akin to a buffer zone? If so, how will the size of these buffer zones be determined and who will be consulted on the size of these buffer zones?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that one potential application of this would indeed be something that has been described as a buffer zone. In terms of the size of a buffer zone, that would depend on what type of biosecurity incident was in question and what kind of movement of the biosecurity risk or cause was relevant at the time, and it would be determined based on the best advice wherever possible. Such things would be determined in consultation with industry, but clearly, in an emergency event, sometimes that consultation needs to be briefer than would otherwise be desirable.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: How often are these biosecurity zones reviewed and reassessed? Is it dependent on up-to-date science around the biology of the disease process?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that it would depend on the nature of the particular biosecurity risk. For example, if we are talking about a biosecurity zone set up for fruit fly it would be quite different from a biosecurity zone set up for the protection of, for example, the Kangaroo Island apiary industry. Essentially, it will depend on the circumstances of the individual case at the time.

Clause passed.

Clauses 165 to 235 passed.

Clause 236.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister indicate to the chamber in what other circumstances she envisaged an authorised officer being able to enter a residential premises as prescribed by the regulations?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am not sure if I have understood the question correctly. Clause 236 says:

(1) An authorised officer may only enter a dwelling—

This dwelling is referring to a residential premises—

under this Part if the authorised officer—

(a) is entering the dwelling with the consent of an occupier of the relevant premises; or

(b) is acting under the authority of a warrant; or

(c) is acting in the case of an emergency.

I am not sure if that provides enough clarification for the honourable member.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I am talking about entry to residential premises under 236(2):

(2) An authorised officer may only enter any other part of residential premises under this Part if the authorised officer—

And then it says:

(e) is entering the premises in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

Can the minister indicate to the chamber in what other circumstances does she envisage the authorised officer being able to enter?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the honourable member for the clarification of the question. Again, there is nothing specific envisaged at this time, but this is included in order to enable futureproofing of this bill as it becomes an act and to be as flexible as may be required in any given circumstance.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Given we are talking about property rights, though, why is the minister not more prescriptive around what circumstances an authorised officer is able to enter a residential premise?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The reasons that are currently in clause 236 outline those that are expected to be necessary and appropriate. However, by including 236(2)(e), enabling additional circumstances to be prescribed in the regulations, it enables there to be flexibility in the event that that should be required in the future. Given that regulations are subject to the scrutiny of parliament, it is considered that that is an appropriate mechanism to ensure that any such circumstances are only those that would be appropriate.

Clause passed.

Clauses 237 to 243 passed.

Clause 244.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In regard to subsection (3)(a)(vi) with 'any regulation', in what other situation would destruction be authorised?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the rationale for including this is similar to what we have just outlined in the previous discussions on clauses enabling maximum flexibility in the event that in the future there should be an appropriate reason to have an additional purpose. Again, given that it would be through regulation, there would be parliamentary oversight of any such regulation.

Clause passed.

Clauses 245 to 253 passed.

Clause 254.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 143, after line 18 [clause 254(2)]—Insert:

or

(c) that the employee or agent has acted contrary to a direction given by or on behalf of the employer or principal.

This amendment is around liability for offences, and it removes the liability of employers in situations where biosecurity breaches have occurred by an employee, where that employee has directly contravened instructions given by the employer when committing an offence. Currently, clause 254 reads that, if an employee or agent commits an offence under this Act, the employer or principal is taken to have committed the same offence, except under certain circumstances.

I am simply adding in another circumstance where it will be a defence for an employer in proceedings for an offence under this act if the employee or agent has acted contrary to a direction given by or on behalf of the employer or principal.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government is not supporting this amendment. The proposed amendment would limit the responsibility and liability of an employer and make it more difficult to prosecute employers in the event an employee or agent commits an offence in the course of their duties. This undermines the intent of the bill to provide a strong biosecurity system to protect our all-important primary industries now and into the future. It is not clear what would constitute a direction. For example, could it be a verbal or written direction, and who could issue the direction? This lack of clarity would likely lead to confusion for employers and employees regarding their responsibility.

I think, though, most importantly, the bill already provides defences for an employer or principal if they establish that they could not by the exercise of due diligence have prevented the commission of the offence or that the offence did not occur in the course of the employment or agency.

This is considered sufficient to limit the liability of employers who have appropriate biosecurity practices and procedures to ensure compliance with the bill and where an employee has acted outside of the bounds of their employment. The amendment would limit the vicarious liability of employers to an unreasonable expectation and could restrict compliance and enforcement efforts. As such, the government does not support it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will not be supporting the opposition amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 255 to 302 passed.

Clause 303.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 164, after line 5—Insert:

(2a) The Minister must establish a scheme for oversight by an individual of anything done, determined or created under subsection (2).

(2b) Without limiting subsection (2a), the scheme must provide for public reporting of decisions or determinations made under subsection (2) on an annual basis.

This amendment makes additions to clause 303, which is the use of equipment or computers to make decisions. As written, the proposed legislation grants the ability for a computer program or AI model to be used in order to make automatic determinations. The amendment seeks to create mechanisms for review of these decisions by, one, creating provisions for oversight through a scheme which records all decisions made and, two, enforces the department and minister to create public report of all listed decisions. Given artificial intelligence is a new technology, the opposition feel it is important to review these decisions and ensure that there is a level of oversight over those decisions made by that artificial intelligence.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I understand that this amendment would require a scheme to be established for oversight of anything done, determined or created, which could include a device used to make a decision, to perform a function or to give notice of any decision or determination. If each action required this oversight, it would create an unacceptable inefficiency.

The public reporting requirement would also create an administrative burden and raises concern about the level of disclosure that would be required under such a scheme, noting that any reporting should not result in the release of a person's confidential information. If such a system is used to make a decision that is a reviewable decision, the person would be able to seek a review of the decision and therefore their rights are not in any way diminished.

I think it is probably worth using an example of why this amendment would make efficiencies virtually unworkable. For example, if maybe AI was being used and a questionnaire was filled out by someone who has an accreditation or needs renewal of their accreditation, someone could fill out a questionnaire saying that nothing has changed on a number of questions and then that might automatically say, 'Nothing has changed. Therefore, that particular registration can be renewed.' What is being proposed by this amendment is that every time that happens there would need to be a public report of that, which would clearly be detrimental to efficiency and effectiveness. Essentially, it would add red tape and reduce efficiency.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: We do not support the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 304 and 305 passed.

Clause 306.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 165, after line 17—Insert:

(2a) However, the Governor may only make a regulation imposing a levy of a kind referred to in Schedule 5 item 18 on the recommendation of the Minister.

(2b) The Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (2a) unless the Minister is satisfied that consultation has occurred with bodies (including industry bodies) that the Minister considers represent persons liable to pay any proposed levy.

This amendment adds a provision to clause 306, under regulations, notices and instruments, and ensures that any additional levies imposed through the bill will require consultation with all relevant stakeholders and will require ministerial review before gaining approval. Schedule 5 of the bill specifies various matters in relation to which associated regulations may be made. Clause 18 of schedule 5 of the bill provides that regulations may be made in respect to the imposition of levies to fund the establishment or operation of any body, facility, program or activity for any purpose under this act and for the payment, recovery, enforcement, reduction or waiver of any such levy as if it were a charge under that item.

The provision for cost recovery related to biosecurity programs or activities is not universally supported by all major commodity groups; therefore, it is crucial to establish appropriate safeguards that allow each industry to evaluate any future proposals for levies based on their specific risks. Whilst it is acknowledged that such regulations may be necessary down the line, it is vital to implement proper checks and balances. This is important because the imposition of such of these levies could unintentionally affect the wrong parties, face public backlash or fail to achieve the intended results.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This amendment appears to be mandating what would occur in any case, and in fact consultation would be far more expansive than what is proposed by this amendment. It is basic common practice consultation, particularly with industry bodies. Therefore, it is not considered that the amendment is needed, but at the same time there is no harm in the proposal, so the government does not intend to oppose this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: For the record, the Greens are supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule 1 passed.

Schedule 2.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Centofanti–2]—

Clause 21, page 180, line 2—Delete 'The board may, with the approval of the Minister' and substitute:

Subject to subclause (1a), the board may, with the approval of the Minister and the Treasurer

Amendment No 2 [Centofanti–2]—

Clause 21, page 180, after line 17—Insert:

(1a) A declaration may only be made under subclause (1) in relation to a council if—

(a) the board has taken action in the area of the council (other than action involving the construction or maintenance of an effective barrier against the movement of wild dogs) either—

(i) pursuant to subclause 13(3) on the basis that the owner of any part of a dog fence has failed to comply with subclause 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d); or

(ii) to deal with an emergency related to movement of wild dogs; and

(b) the board is satisfied that the rates levied under the other provisions of this Part are insufficient or will be insufficient to defray the board's costs of taking such action; and

(c) any contribution to be paid pursuant to the declaration is calculated to defray no more than those costs referred to in paragraph (b).

Amendment No 3 [Centofanti–2]—

Clause 21, page 180, after line 19—Insert:

(2a) Subclause (1a) applies to the amendment or variation of a notice in the same way as it applies to a notice making a declaration under subclause (1).

I will speak to the essence of the amendments in their entirety. The proposed legislation ensures the entirety of the current Dog Fence Board provisions through the Biosecurity Act. However, a provision for the Dog Fence Board to raise contributions by councils as alternative to rating by the board in clause 21 of schedule 2 has raised concerns with the Local Government Association. It is worth noting that this provision has been present within the Dog Fence Act for some time but has never been enacted. Nonetheless, given the update of the act and the movement of the Dog Fence Board into the Biosecurity Bill, this has been raised as a significant concern.

The amendment seeks to retain the provisions in clause 21 for the raising of contributions through local councils when required, but attempts to tighten the circumstances in which this can occur and ensure the provision must have ministerial approval and approval from the Treasurer of the day. Hence, this measure would only be enacted following consultation with the LGA and approval of both the minister and the Treasurer.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would like to ask the mover of the amendment what consultation she undertook with industry, particularly the Dog Fence Board and Livestock SA, on these amendments.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I have had conversations with both the Local Government Association and the Dog Fence Board. I do want to raise the point that it is my understanding that the Local Government Association raised clause 21 as an issue with the government back in September of last year, more than 12 months ago. However, it seems that those concerns were not communicated to the Dog Fence Board until the opposition recently raised the issue.

I think this highlights the importance of communication and collaboration, because I do think that ultimately there is an opportunity to ensure that the clause remains within the schedule but the circumstances surrounding the activation of the clause are tightened to provide some comfort to councils and ratepayers around the state.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the mover of the amendment advise whether the Dog Fence Board supports these amendments?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The Dog Fence Board has indicated that they would prefer that the clause stay as is, but that they acknowledge the concerns of the LGA.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The mover of the amendment acknowledged that in the current bill that simply replicates the existing provisions in the Dog Fence Act. Can she explain why she considers they need to be changed?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Because there has not been an incident for the entire time that these provisions have been within the act, the Local Government Association raised concerns. They were unaware that this provision was even within that act. They have raised concerns about this provision within that act, now the schedule, so that is why I am moving this amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the mover of the amendment concerned that this amendment would undermine the security of the dog fence and therefore undermine confidence of pastoralists and others in the commitment of those opposite to the dog fence?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: No, I do not believe so in any case. I am still seeking to retain the provisions of clause 21 but simply tightening the circumstances in which that can occur.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The amendments seek to limit the circumstances in which the board may declare a council a 'participating council' under clause 21 of schedule 2 for contributions to be paid to the Dog Fence Board as an alternative to a rating by the board. The effect of the amendments, according to our advice, would mean that essentially the board could not make a declaration under this clause. This unreasonable constraint of the clause is on several fronts, including:

the amendment requires that the board has already taken action, potentially putting it in an untenable financial position of not being able to access necessary funding to carry out the action in the first place; and

the amendment requires that the action must be on the basis that the owner of any part of a dog fence has failed to comply with its duties under clause 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d), which is to take all reasonable steps to destroy all wild dogs in the vicinity of the relevant part of the fence and any other action required by the regulations.

This would essentially limit a declaration on this basis to recovery of costs for shooting, trapping or laying poisoned baits for the destruction of wild dogs. The bill already provides for the board to recoup costs incurred in these circumstances from the owner of the fence.

The amendment also provides for action taken to deal with an emergency related to the movement of wild dogs, but importantly the amendment does not allow for declaration in relation to costs for construction or maintenance of the fence or an effective barrier against the movement of wild dogs. This is a serious and unreasonable constraint on the Dog Fence Board.

Finally, under the amendment a declaration would only be able to be made in relation to a council if action had been taken in the area of the council. The board's powers to take an action relate to the fence itself or to destroying wild dogs within the vicinity of the fence. In view of this a declaration would only be able to be made in relation to a council area which the fence is within or which is in the vicinity of the fence. The vast majority of the dog fence is within the area of the Outback Communities Authority and not a local government area—that is, not a council area. Given the lack of proximity of the dog fence to local government areas in this regard it is likely the District Council of Ceduna would be the only council which could be declared under this amendment.

Further, the bill already provides that a declaration cannot be made in respect of a council whose area is comprised of or includes rateable land. Based on the current rateable area, the District Council of Ceduna includes rateable land which, unless the rateable area changed in the future, means the amendment would make the entire clause unusable.

The committee divided on the amendments:

Ayes 9

Noes 7

Majority 2

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendments thus carried.

Remaining schedules (3 to 6) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (23:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I have been advised that it might be prudent to make a clarification in regard to a question that was asked by the Hon. Tammy Franks early in the committee stage of the bill. That is simply to clarify that, in regard to determinations under the landscape act versus the Biosecurity Bill, this does not make any changes to the existing arrangements of what is covered in regard to that question under the landscape act.

Bill read a third time and passed.