Bills

Biodiversity Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. S.L. GAME (15:25): I rise to speak on the government's Biodiversity Bill 2025. The initial engagement and consultation for this bill goes back to January 2023. Since this date, there has been extensive review, investigation, workshops, discussions, policy development and some amendments throughout early 2025, until May this year, when the bill arrived in the other place before passing through to this chamber in its current form.

Given such a long period of preparation, you would expect to see a polished, balanced, well-considered, well-supported proposal, fully equipped to achieve its stated objective of simplifying and streamlining existing processes and clearly defining regulated and excluded activities related to the protection and restoration of biodiversity in this state. Unfortunately, what we have before us is the South Australian arm of an international environmental movement, backed up by 175 pages of incredibly complex policies and procedures, accompanied by an administrative and regulatory framework that will be implemented and enforced by an increasingly powerful executive bureaucracy.

Not surprisingly, there has been resistance from industry and stakeholders, many of them concerned about duplication of existing compliance measures under current legislation, as well as ongoing concerns about government encroachment of landowners' rights and the potential impact on the future of the South Australian economy.

While I appreciate that this bill is intended to fulfil this government's election promise to the South Australian people, and I share the government's commitment to protecting our native plants, threatened species and habitats, there remains widespread concern about the potential consequences of this proposal, which indicates that more work is needed before sending this bill out into the community.

Many stakeholders and industry representatives remain concerned about the lack of clear guidelines regarding the determination of critical habitats and species declarations, as well as expressing the need for further consultation before such declarations are made. The South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy and Livestock SA have also raised concerns about the general biodiversity duty, with SACOME calling for greater clarity regarding compliance expectations and better alignment with existing approval processes to avoid unnecessary duplication.

Livestock SA also noted that under the objects of this bill there was no recognition of the contribution made by this state's primary producers to the conservation and restoration of biodiversity, despite 170 years of managing close to 50 per cent of South Australia's land mass. In contrast to this, the important role of First Nations people to this state's biodiversity is explicitly recognised, along with requirements to incorporate First Nations knowledge and entities into the decision-making process. There is some uncertainty about how this knowledge will be applied and its impact on livestock producers, as well as concerns about exactly how the penalties for breaching this general duty will be enforced.

The significant increase in penalties includes fines of up to $500,000 for noncompliance, which reflects the need to deter breaches of environmental protection measures. However, it should also be noted that such penalties could disproportionately impact small and medium-sized businesses and create unintended economic consequences.

In addition to this, my office received concerns that council workers and other authorised officers might inadvertently breach the provisions of the act in the course of carrying out their duties. No doubt similar concerns have been communicated to other members of this chamber, and the Hon. Nicola Centofanti has moved several amendments, including a sensible insertion of clause 106A, which is intended to exclude authorised officers acting in good faith from criminal and civil liability.

There are numerous and widespread concerns about this bill, and this is further confirmed by the amendments moved across the political spectrum in this place. Although there has been limited time to consider these amendments in detail, I am inclined to support any measures that offer some restriction or check on the broad powers given to the minister under this bill. I am also inclined to support any measures designed to prevent the minister from controlling membership of proposed committees or councils, as well as any measures that will ensure the inclusion of input from a wide range of expertise and industry representatives.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:29): I rise to speak on the Biodiversity Bill 2025 on behalf of the Greens, and in so doing I indicate that I will of course be supporting the bill with some amendments. I also understand that the Leader of the Opposition will be moving to refer this matter on to a committee, as she indicated in her second reading remarks. I indicate that I will not be supporting that.

Whilst I recognise that this bill is one of some complexity, I do not accept that it is necessary to refer the bill on to a committee at this time. In particular, I am concerned that to do so could burden a committee that already has quite a full workload at the moment and also potentially kick this bill down the road and prevent there being action on this important area before the election. I think that would be a regrettable outcome.

I note the comments of the Hon. Ms Game. I welcome the fact that she has freed herself from One Nation. I do encourage her, now that she is free of the shackles of that political party, to think more deeply on these issues, because a number of the statements that she has made about the impact of this legislation in creating some master bureaucracy that does not deliver real outcomes are simply not true. I urge her to think again with respect to some of these issues now that she is no longer wedded to the toxic One Nation brand.

Biodiversity is one of the most important elements of environmental protection. This bill gives an opportunity to make a huge impact on protecting our natural environment. Since colonisation here in Australia, it is estimated that in South Australia 73 species—41 plants and 32 animals—have become extinct. That is devastating when we consider that South Australia is home to many unusual species of flora and fauna as a result of our unique climate and environment. These extinct species were destroyed as a result of that colonisation, and they have been wiped out in the last 200 years.

The 2023 State of the Environment Report paints a harsh picture. The report states that, unless urgent measures are taken, the climate emergency and biodiversity losses will become crises for the environment and our communities. Our remaining native ecosystems are collapsing under the combined weight of habitat destruction, climate change, invasive species and pollution. Globally we are witnessing what scientists are now referring to as the sixth mass extinction event. This era is defined as a rapid decline in biodiversity driven by human activity.

Previous mass extinction events have been caused by natural phenomena. The sixth mass extinction is caused by the unsustainable use of land, water and energy, combined with the change in climate. Unless we act decisively, as called for by the State of the Environment Report, we will see further destruction of our biodiversity in the future.

Not only is this a matter of protecting our precious environment, there is also, of course, an important economic argument as well. South Australia's unique environment is a tourism drawcard and allows us to have a healthy agricultural sector when paired with regenerative farming practices. Our approach to date, however, has not fully considered the importance of critical habitats or the long-term value of our native flora and fauna. Our laws to date have been too easy to get around, poorly enforced and easily overcome by those with vested interests in making money from our state's precious resources.

We invest a fraction of what is needed in conservation, while we subsidise those very industries that drive habitat destruction. The Greens have been calling for many years for the Labor Party to end subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, because we know that those industries are driving climate change and driving the extinction of some of our native flora and fauna. Let's not forget the catastrophic algal bloom event that we have seen in recent months and the destruction that has caused.

The bill before us today brings a positive approach to protecting our biodiversity. It puts the responsibility on all of us to promote biodiversity. By introducing a general duty on everyone to not harm or potentially harm biodiversity, this bill makes clear that we do not accept any excuses when it comes to protecting our environment.

Importantly, the bill also embeds First Nations knowledge and care for country. As custodians of this land for millennia, First Nations people have been the most successful environmental managers on these soils. Their traditional ecological knowledge offers proven pathways to living sustainably within natural limits. This bill ensures that First Nations people are consulted in changes, ensures their strong connection to the land is considered and also enables cultural practices to continue, which of course is appropriate.

A number of statutory bodies are established in this bill to oversee the administration of the act, and we are pleased to see that many of these functions are conferred on those with sufficient experience, not simply those who shift their positions in light of the political environment of the day. This will ensure we have strong protections that are consistent and unable to be eroded by poor decision-making.

This is a significant bill, so I will not go into all the detail about all the individual provisions. I understand we are going to have a bit of time to do that at the committee stage. I do want to acknowledge, however, that this bill establishes some good governance for our biodiversity moving forward. We do, however, think there could be some improvements, and it is for that reason that the Greens will be advancing a number of amendments. I will talk through some of those in general terms now, but of course I will have an opportunity to go through those in more detail during the committee stage.

Firstly, we believe that climate change is key to this bill, so we will be moving an amendment that inserts into the objects of the act a clause that requires biodiversity to be linked to climate change and that notes that addressing biodiversity is important in addressing climate change.

Secondly, we aim to insert a principle that biodiversity should not be lost to new gas projects. We have seen, in the Lock the Gate campaign, that people in rural areas, in particular, have strong opposition to gas exploration on their properties. It is equally important that we protect native vegetation and habitat from incursion by gas exploration. The Greens have long stood against new gas exploration, as our country already produces far more than our domestic need. We do not need to allow the export of gas to ruin our environment.

We will also move to ensure that the minister responsible for the Commissioner of Public Works Incorporation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be given this new act to administer. If we are going to carve out the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Mining, we should also consider the conflict that could arise if the minister is undertaking major transport infrastructure projects and also taking responsibility for this act.

We do not see why we need to have a member on the Biodiversity Council who is recommended by the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy. This is going to create a serious conflict as there are often tensions between the need to protect biodiversity and the desire to derive profits from resources that govern the focus of these companies. We will move amendments that replace that member of the Biodiversity Council with someone who is recommended by the South Australian First Nations Voice to Parliament. We believe that the First Nations Voice should have a seat at the table when the Biodiversity Council is providing advice, preparing guidelines and administering the biodiversity fund.

The environment sector have asked us to consider that the Scientific Committee are best placed to make listings under section 6 of the bill, rather than the minister. I agree with that assessment, and so I will be moving a series of amendments to bring that into effect. It is important to make sure we have clear, evidence-based decision-making when it comes to these matters. Our amendments will ensure that lists maintained to protect threatened species are not subject to the whim of political leaders; instead, the Scientific Committee will be charged with making those decisions.

The cost of ecosystem collapse could result in failed harvests, water shortages, climate disasters and the mass extinction of species. The cost of such collapse is much higher than if we take action now to prevent those ecosystems from failing. Every species we save is worth it. Future generations will judge us not by the short-term profits that are generated but by the world we leave behind. Every time we make a decision that harms our environment we are further from leaving this place better than we found it. We hope that the changes in this legislation provide sufficient protection to promote further biodiversity across our state.

Before concluding my remarks, I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Deputy Premier and environment minister, the Hon. Susan Close, in bringing this bill forward. I know that the minister is passionate about environmental protection, and I welcome this matter coming before the chamber today. I also want to thank the minister's office for the collegial way in which they have engaged with my team, in particular Emily Gore, who I understand has been providing assistance to my office. I also want to acknowledge the work of Melanie Selwood, my adviser, who has been working through the details of this over the last few weeks. With that, I conclude my remarks and look forward to the committee stage.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:39): I indicate that I will not be supporting this bill without it first being referred to the Natural Resources Committee, and I will be supporting the amendments filed by the opposition, but I reserve my judgement on the ones by the Greens. I will briefly outline my concerns about this bill. It is quite complex and imposes quite stringent measures in the name of restoration of biodiversity and environmental protections. It contains aspects that have merit in the protection of native plants, protected species of animals, marine animals and their ecosystems, habitats, and tackling organised crime in wildlife—no doubt, the trafficking of these creatures.

You can tick off on many of those, of course; however, there are many things also buried in there which to me look like booby traps or back doors to stopping activities close to the minister's heart—pardon the pun.

Let's start with the potential Trojan Horse that seems designed to ban the hunting of birds like ducks and quail. The department has already moved in that direction by imposing hefty new permit fees, which are designed to deter hunters from coming across the border to take part in the shooting season, should the minister decide to declare one, and we know that if she can pull the trigger on that, she will.

The permit fees have caused a lot of angst in that community and also interstate. There is a view that it will actually prevent many shooters from coming across the border and I am told that they actually contribute quite a considerable amount to the local economy. That is the sort of first step that the government has done to get to its end game of banning duck shooting, quail shooting, even though there was a recommendation in the select committee last year, which I was a member of, which supported it ongoing.

In part 10, clauses 167 and 169 I find particularly troubling, and I would like a proper explanation from the government about these clauses. Clause 167 deals with hunting by Aboriginal persons, and it states that Aboriginal persons can hunt without a permit if it is for non-commercial, cultural or spiritual practice, which includes consumption of the animal. That is fine, and I have no objection to that; however, why does this also not include the rights of non-Aborigines to be able to hunt animals for the same purpose? Why the discrimination?

Non-Aboriginal people also hunt for cultural reasons and for consumption. Does the minister believe this cultural desire only applies to Indigenous people? Indigenous people were most supportive of contemporary methods of hunting for food like ducks and quail, and appeared before the committee saying as much.

Clause 169 is worrying because this is the Trojan Horse the minister has built into this hefty bill to get her way into eventually imposing a ban on using firearms to hunt birds and animals. All it would take would be a proclamation by the Governor at the behest of the government to restrict or prohibit the use of firearms or taking devices. By that it could mean anything from traps to specially trained hunting dogs used in duck and quail hunting—'for the taking of specified species of animals or for the taking of animals generally'.

The minister will not give an ironclad guarantee that it will not affect the current duck and quail hunting seasons, but I bet the government will move on this after the 2026 election. Who is to say there will not even be restrictions on fishing in our already troubled gulfs? I see they also want to establish four committees to make decisions. They will be funded, but how? Who will appoint them?

I will point out here that I have received calls from concerned Kangaroo Island farmers about native vegetation growth on verges to the edge of the roads and the huge penalties they face if they even dare trim them back from their properties. It must be pointed out that the native vegetation on roads helped contribute to the spread of the wildfires on Kangaroo Island in 2020.

These farmers fear they will be watched, impeded and even heavily penalised by overzealous government officials. It is already threatening. It is already happening over on Kangaroo Island, with threats being made over dams that may not have been built with some kind of development approval.

I can see problems and unintended consequences arising from new provisions applying to mining—major projects could be impacted and it could also add to the costs of developing these resources—to development and housing infrastructure, agriculture and primary production. All I can see here are roadblocks and traffic jams, adding unnecessary costs and the likelihood of litigation.

I agree with the Hon. Nicola Centofanti's sentiments about the threat this bill poses to landowners, particularly the agricultural sector and the regions of South Australia. Another disturbing aspect is the government's position on conservation areas and national parks, where it is now supporting preventing access to declared national parks, like on Lake Eyre, based on vague native title considerations. Many believe that this is also creating divisive policy. With that, I look forward to the debate on the bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (15:47): The Biodiversity Bill is a crucial piece of legislation that will modernise and strengthen protections for South Australia's biodiversity. The passing of this bill will be a testament to this government's commitment to arresting biodiversity loss, restoring habitat and capitalising on a nature-positive green future for South Australia. I am pleased to hear that there is also support for this bill from a number of other members in this chamber.

The government will be introducing some further amendments which do not change the scope or intentions of the bill but clarify references to existing provisions to avoid doubt. I note that further amendments are being proposed by the Hon. Rob Simms, the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, and I look forward to traversing these amendments further during the committee stage. I thank honourable members for their contributions thus far to the debate, and I also thank the very dedicated officials who supported the development of this bill, including extensive stakeholder and community engagement. I commend the bill to the house.

The PRESIDENT: Before I ask that the bill be read a second time, I note the Hon. Ms Centofanti's amendment. The question is that the words proposed to be struck out stand as part of the question.

The council divided on the question:

Ayes 9

Noes 8

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Question thus agreed to; bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I would like to go to the points I made when I was addressing the chamber relating to, firstly, part 10, clause 167, Hunting by Aboriginal persons. I have made it quite clear that I have no objections. In my speech, I made references to certain sections of the legislation: part 10—Miscellaneous, at clause 167, which is Hunting by Aboriginal persons. As I have pointed out, I have no objections to that clause whatsoever, but I was wondering why non-Aboriginal persons are not included in there who may actually have a need for hunting for non-commercial and cultural purposes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I can certainly answer some of it from my own understanding of how other bits of particularly commonwealth legislation interact. Certainly, there are specific provisions under the Native Title Act and native title rights for traditional hunting that, by definition, are only enjoyed by traditional owners for that particular area as there are no other groups who are traditional owners who have those millennia of traditional hunting in those areas. So I am aware that there are certain rights that Aboriginal people have as traditional owners of particular areas in terms of traditional cultural practices and hunting.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister indicate whether this legislation will override the mining or energy approvals on existing agricultural land?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it will be subject to the same approvals as under the Native Vegetation Act.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister give an outline as to what engagement has occurred with local government regarding roadside vegetation maintenance and also rubble pit access?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there has been consultation with local government and my advice is that there is a commitment to work with local government in relation to updating guidelines in relation to roadside vegetation.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister outline what mechanisms exist to review or revoke designations like critical habitats or threatening processes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might just get the honourable member maybe to explain the question a bit further. Is there a particular section—

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I guess it is in regard to critical habitats, which is outlined in the bill, and whether or not there is a mechanism there to review designations like critical habitats and potentially revoke them.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that, yes, there is the ability to do that under clause 84(4)(b).

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister outline how the bill will interact with native title, especially where Aboriginal land use rights might conflict with conservation designations?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is this bill does not impact on native title rights, which is a commonwealth creature and statute.

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, it does not impact on it. We cannot override native title.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Thank you. Finally for clause 1, can the minister indicate how the bill will ensure that bushfire preparedness activities are not delayed by red tape?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the ability to clear for bushfire mitigation or preparation does not change; what is proposed here does not change from native veg regulation at the moment.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just to confirm, what is there currently under native vegetation will not change in regard to bushfire preparedness activities?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, yes, that is correct.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: And then, again, in regard to bushfire response activities and the making of breaks and things?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that also does not change.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I would like to take the Attorney to part 10, clause 169(1):

The Governor may, by proclamation, restrict or prohibit the use of firearms, ammunition or taking devices of a specified class for the taking of specified species of animals or for the taking of animals generally.

Firstly, what is the definition of 'taking devices'? Do they have descriptions of what taking devices are, and do they also include hunting dogs?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that this particular aspect has been carried over from section 66 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. I am advised it introduced an ability to restrict certain types of ammunition, in addition to firearms generally, should it be necessary in the future to lessen the effects of certain ammunition types known to have significant environmental effects.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Regarding 'taking devices', can you give me a definition of what is a taking device? What are they?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that taking is defined in the act as capturing or killing an animal, so it is a device that does that.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Does a hunting dog used for the purposes of duck and quail hunting and other purposes fall under 'taking device', because that is what they do?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that that is not the intention.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Does the minister see that it could actually be an unintended consequence here that taking devices could also include hunting dogs?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I have said, my advice is that that is not the intention.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Does the government view this section as a way of banning duck and quail hunting?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, frankly, no. As I have said, this clause, clause 169, is carried over from the relevant provision, section 66, of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. So I guess if the honourable member thinks that when that came into force that was a way to do it, which clearly has not happened, then that is the only way you could interpret that this new clause, which carries over from what already exists, could do that.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can the government give assurances that duck and quail hunting will not be impacted by this bill, should it pass, and this clause, 169?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I have said, the bill carries over what is already there. As I am advised, this is not introducing new provisions; it is carrying over what already exists.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I would like to draw the Attorney-General to page 17 of my copy of the bill here.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, just before we do that, are these issues that we should be dealing with at the clause when we get to it?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: This is my last one, Chair, if you are okay with it.

The CHAIR: Okay, let's do it.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It is just a curious question I have.

The CHAIR: We love your curiosity, the Hon. Mr Pangallo.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Thank you very much. I am actually quite curious about page 17 at line 30:

native animal means—

(a) an animal of a species that is indigenous to Australia or was present in Australia before 1400 AD…

I just wonder how the government settled on that specific date?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that this is to keep consistent with the commonwealth EPBC Act and many other states in terms of how we do that. It is not something, I am advised, that we have come up with ourselves in South Australia.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What native species from before 1400 AD are still present today?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is this is designed to be those animals that were indigenous to Australia and have not gone extinct since then at that sort of date since Europeans started landing on the shores—I think sometime in the 1400s, on the coast of WA from memory—and since then. So it is those animals that were here at that time, which would obviously include many of the animals we see today, like kangaroos and emus and wombats, etc.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have one question for the minister and it is more a point of clarification. I am trying to remember the name of the bill, but I cannot. Just as a matter of the record, the minister responsible has previously said in recent months that if there is going to be a ban on hunting it will be dealt with in a special-purpose piece of legislation, not through any of the other bills that we are debating.

Can the Attorney actually confirm that that is the case—that this will not be used for those purposes, as the minister responsible did when we had that previous debate on that bill? Can someone help me with the name? I do not remember what it was called.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I previously answered to the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the provisions in relation to this are largely carried over from provisions in previous legislation, so this is not what this bill is about. This bill carries over provisions in relation to restriction on use of certain devices. As I have said, it is clause 169 and it has largely been carried over from section 66 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can I ask some questions of the minister in regard to clause 3 first, please, before moving my amendment?

The CHAIR: Tear into it.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Thank you. Can the minister clarify why the definition of 'native plant' includes species indigenous to Australia rather than being limited to South Australia, and whether this captures plants that are potentially considered weeds in South Australia currently?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised there is a mechanism within the bill before us to effectively unprotect any species—for example, species that are indigenous to Australia but from outside South Australia that may pose a risk to South Australia.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can I ask how that is done through this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is there is an ability, in terms of clearance, to clear non South Australian species unless there is a large tree, but there is an ability to remove completely by regulation.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just for the record, those regulations are yet to be drafted?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is my advice, but there is also an ability to promulgate further regulations into the future, not just in the immediate future.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Given that fungi and algae are included in the definition of plant in this bill, does that mean that activities that are disturbing soil or water, such as a fire track or even potentially recreational fishing, could require assessment and, potentially, a permit?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to fungi or algae, my advice is they would need to be prescribed. My advice is it is likely only if they were threatened species would they be prescribed.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just to confirm and for the record, I am assuming they are prescribed by regulations.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is my advice, yes.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is the minister able to step me through the rationale for including fungi and algae in the definition of plant?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is this is in terms of a drafting choice. Fungi and algae are included in plant so they do not have to be replicated every time 'plant' is used throughout the bill.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister provide evidence to justify the inclusion of seeds, seed pods or other minor plant elements under the enforceable provisions?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that is a carryover from existing legislation that includes all parts of plants.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Going back to the fungi and algae, and not to harp on about them: how does the government propose that landholders distinguish between prescribed fungi and prescribed algae versus non-prescribed fungi and non-prescribed algae?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, like everything we do and prescribe in terms of how we regulate in all sorts of bills, that will be a communication and education campaign.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is the minister able to step us through what that communication campaign might look like, given that these are significant changes, and whether there will be any grace period for landholders within these changes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that they will become apparent because they will be listed on the biodiversity register, and I am advised the government will give consideration, particularly with industry groups, to how that is communicated.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I think it is important to point out that probably most landowners will not be looking up a biodiversity register, so it is worth the government considering a significant communication and education campaign around these changes. Has the government undertaken an audit of how much land will now be affected by the broader native plant definition?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that, as far as it relates to the clearance of native plants, it is intended to be a carryover from what the existing legislative scheme protects under the Native Vegetation Act.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: To confirm, you are suggesting that there will be no increase in land that is now affected by the broader native plant definition; is that correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, that is my advice.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Given the fact that you are broadening the definition of 'native plant', albeit then stepping through plants that are exempt within the regulations, if those regulations have not been drafted yet I am not sure how you can guarantee that there is not more land now affected by this broader native plant definition.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is that regulation-making power, but initially the intention is to carry over the same area.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: To confirm, it is not the government's intent to increase the plant species that may be deemed now a native plant under that broader definition; is that what the minister is telling me?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is not the intention that it extend to more land but that it could include more vegetation that is on that land.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: So if there is more vegetation that is on the land and that is being captured, can the minister outline what land is not involved? My understanding is that both public and bits of private land are also part of this bill. I am just a little bit confused with that answer, so if we could clear that up that would be good.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I hope this will clear it up: my advice is that the use of the terminology 'public land' and 'private land', when they are brought together in this bill, is not intended to increase the amount of land but is intended to capture definitions from both the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act and the Native Vegetation Act. I am bringing those two together, and that is why we have a change in the way it is described in this one act—it is because we are bringing both of those acts together under the one act.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Thank you, minister. I appreciate that, but I guess I am still confused as to why the government is suggesting that they do not need to undertake an audit of how much land will now be affected, given the fact that you have broadened the definition of what a native plant is. If you have a landholder who has a piece of scrub and within that piece of scrub there is a native plant that is now defined as being native but previously was not—that it is now defined under the broader scope of native plants—it is clear, is it not, that that landholder is now going to be subjected to the provisions of this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that doing an absolute and complete audit of where things might be is not a possible task. As I have said, the way it is described is because we are bringing together two different pieces of legislation.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: So then to go back to my question of whether the government has undertaken an audit of how much land will now be affected by that broader native plant definition, the answer to that is no.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that would be an impossible task to do so.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister inform the chamber as to whether any assessment has been done, and, if so, what assessment has been done to ensure consistency with federal environmental law and, in particular, I guess, the EPBC Act?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is we have taken into account that federal legislation to ensure that this works as best it can.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister just clarify the term I think you used, 'as best as it can be'?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is this takes into account federal legislation and ensures that it works in harmony with that federal legislation.

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

Amendment No 1 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 13, after line 9 [clause 3(1)]—After the definition of Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary insert:

algae means a polyphyletic grouping of primarily aquatic eukaryotic plant-like organisms;

This amendment introduces a precise and standalone definition of 'algae' within the interpretation section of the bill. Algae was implicitly included under the broader definition of 'plant', which obviously currently reads:

plant includes—

(a) fungi; and

(b) algae; and

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

There was no scientific definition provided, so this amendment fills that gap by clearly defining algae as 'a polyphyletic grouping of primarily aquatic eukaryotic plant-like organisms'. This definition is in line with modern biological understanding, recognising that algae are not a single evolutionary lineage but a grouping of organisms that share similar ecological and morphological characteristics.

This definition ensures that when the term 'algae' is used throughout the act, it has a consistent scientific meaning, reducing the risk of ambiguity or misinterpretation. It also brings the legislation into alignment with the way algae are treated in biodiversity science and policy.

This amendment provides technical precision and legislative clarity by defining algae as a distinct group of aquatic organisms and whilst algae was previously captured under the term 'plant', this formal definition ensures that their unique biological and ecological characteristics are explicitly recognised within the act's framework.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate the government will not be supporting this amendment. It is the government's preference to leave algae undefined so that the bill will rely on ordinary interpretation. The government considers this to be sufficiently broad and the most flexible approach to ensure the bill can keep up to date with scientific understanding.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I am persuaded by the government's arguments in relation to this amendment, so I will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 2 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 16, after line 13 [clause 3(1)]—After the definition of forest reserve insert:

fungi means any species of the fungus kingdom, whether alive or dead, and includes—

(a) lichen; and

(b) sporing bodies, mycelia and any other part of a fungus;

I think I know where the numbers are going to lie with this one as well. This amendment adds a clear and comprehensive definition of 'fungi' to the interpretation section of the Biodiversity Bill 2025, Although, as we know, fungi were broadly captured under the definition of 'plant', there is again no standalone or scientifically precise definition of what constitutes a fungus. The amendment addresses that gap, as I previously explained with my similar amendment regarding algae, by providing a definition that reflects current biological understanding and ensures clarity throughout the operation of the act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will not be supporting this amendment for the aforementioned persuasive arguments per se.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 9

Majority 2

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived.

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

Amendment No 1 [Franks–3]—

Page 16, line 38 [clause 3(1), definition of infrastructure, (d)]—Delete paragraph (d)

Amendment No. 2 [Franks-2] is consequential to this, I will note. This deletes 'social infrastructure' from the definition of infrastructure. The inclusion of social infrastructure means that infrastructure exempt from the act is significant. Specifically, this removes the scope for social infrastructure—such as the wide range of infrastructure thus defined, including schools, arts, recreation, housing and so much more—to be used as a way of overriding the ordinary considerations relating to the clearance of substantially intact stratum of native plants. I note that there are also government amendments following that will reinstate the definitions for schedule 2, and so I anticipate perhaps that there will be support for this.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to amendment No. 1 [Franks-3], which I understand we are on the moment, the government will be supporting this amendment. I understand the motive for this amendment is related to the inclusion of the reference to social infrastructure in the broader definition of infrastructure, and its effect on matters relevant to application for the clearance of native plants contained within clause 51, and more specifically subclauses (11)(c) and (d).

The effect is that the proposal to clear native plants relevant to social infrastructure will no longer be constrained by the rules concerning intact stratum of native plants. This has been identified as being inconsistent with the current arrangements under the Native Vegetation Act 1991, though this is not the intent of the bill and therefore this amendment is supported on the basis that similar interpretations are instead inserted into schedule 2, which the government intends moving as an amendment, and which I will explain when we get to it.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I indicate that I will also be supporting the amendment and, in the interests of time, I might use this opportunity to indicate that I will be supporting all of the amendments from the Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: We will not be opposing this amendment. We think it is a pretty sensible amendment, but I would like to make the point that I do hope our amendment, in regard to another sensible amendment in regard to native vegetation and road safety, will be supported because, similarly, that is a pretty sensible amendment. I just put that on the record.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 3 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 18, line 5 [clause 3(1), definition of native plant]—Before 'but' insert:

and includes a native plant of a relevant kind

This amendment inserts the phrase 'and includes a native plant of a relevant kind' immediately before the world 'but' in the definition of native plant. Whilst 'native plant of a relevant kind' was previously defined, it is not explicitly included in the broader definition of native plant under clause 3(1). This amendment fixes that by linking the two definitions ensuring that all relevant kinds of native plants are conclusively covered under the general term 'native plant'.

This avoids ambiguity in enforcement and consent provisions around several sections of the act, particularly those dealing with regulated acts, clearance permits and regulated trees. Essentially, by inserting this language, the amendment ensures that relevant kinds of native plants are legally recognised as native plants for the purpose of the regulation, protection, offence provisions and exemption clauses.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will not be supporting this amendment. It is the government's view that it is unnecessary and could change the intended meaning of the defined terms. By its definition 'native plants' will always include native plants of a relevant kind because native plants of a relevant kind is a narrow subset of native plants. It is the government's view that it is clearer for interpretation within the act to keep these defined terms separate and any possible confusion between the terms can be addressed in the development of communication materials to support the operation of the act.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 4 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 20, after line 35 [clause 3(1)]—After the definition of reserve insert:

restoration of biodiversity—see subsection (8);

Mr Chairman, with your indulgence, can I speak to both amendment No. 4 and amendment No. 5?

The CHAIR: Yes, 4 and 5 are a set.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Essentially, this amendment creates a formal statutory definition of 'restoration of biodiversity' as it is used throughout the bill. These amendments together define what is meant by restoration of biodiversity, which is a key object of the bill and particularly seen through clauses 7 and 8.

'To restore' are words that are really key and underpinning for the Biodiversity Act. We believe understanding their definition in the context of this act is crucial for anyone attempting to interpret the act, so in consultation the common question was: what is meant by restoration? What exactly does that term mean? If, for instance, you had an old limestone farmhouse that was built in the 1800s and you restore it, does that mean that you do not have power, running water or flushing toilets? I think we really need to define the term 'restoration', so amendments Nos 4 and 5 create a definition for 'restoration', which again is a key term that is applied 75 times in the Biodiversity Bill that we are currently dealing with, yet is not actually defined itself.

However, I think agreeing on a definition in the spirit of the intention of the bill presented some difficulty, because obviously it is difficult to try to determine what we are restoring it to, essentially. The definition we have provided creates a knowing for those working with the act. A confidence in terms of that can lead to better intended outcomes, noting that it was difficult as it is important to understand that it is not an arrival point but an endeavour to improve or increase biodiversity and obviously it does not just apply to plants, or it should not just apply to plants.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will not be supporting amendment No. 4 [Centofanti-1] and amendment No. 5 [Centofanti-1]. It is the government's view that restoring biodiversity in today's age will require novel approaches and it is likely that in many situations achieving the naturalness as defined by pre-European colonisation standards will not be possible and, in some cases, may not even be desirable. The preference is for the Biodiversity Bill to rely on the ordinary meaning of 'restoration', which in a conservation context includes restoring ecosystem functions regardless of whether those ecosystems look exactly as they did prior to European colonisation.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 21, line 3 [clause 3(1), definition of SEB policy]—Delete '175(4)(c)' and substitute:

175(4a)(a)

As I said before, this reflects an interpretation of the amendment that requires the Biodiversity Council to make a biodiversity policy relating to both significant environmental benefits, the SEB policy, and environmental benefit credits. Under the Native Vegetation Act, the power to set the price of environmental offsets through the significant environmental benefits policy and the environmental benefits credit policy sits with the independent Native Vegetation Council.

It is important that this price-setting power continues to sit with an independent body, in this case the Biodiversity Council, rather than with the minister, as the bill is currently drafted, as the price of an environmental offset needs to reflect the true cost to government of delivering it, rather than be influenced by any short-term political priorities. The idea of an independent price-setting authority is not dissimilar to the approach used to set interest rates, for example, by the Australian government and the Reserve Bank of Australia. With that, I commend the amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government will be supporting this and the more than a dozen further amendments that relate to this; as I understand, it looks like 20 through to almost 39 that relate in the series that revises one of the functions of the Biodiversity Council so it becomes responsible for making the policies for significant environmental benefits and environmental benefit credits rather than simply providing advice on these policies. The government considers the change allows for appropriate oversight from both the independent council and government for these important policies to be provided. We will be supporting this and the significant number of amendments that relate to this.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate the opposition will not be supporting this series of amendments.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 2 [Franks–3]—

Page 21, lines 14 to 18 [clause 3(1), definitions of social infrastructure and social services]—Delete the definitions of social infrastructure and social services

This is consequential on amendment No. 2 [Franks-2]. It removes the definitions of social infrastructure and social services from the bill and tidies up the definitions relating to the removal of social infrastructure from the bill and is consequential on that first amendment in this set of Franks-3 amendments.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: The next indicated amendment was consequential. It is amendment No. 5 [Centofanti-1] which you spoke to but did not move because you could not.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I will withdraw that amendment, as it is consequential.

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 4 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

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

Amendment No 2 [Franks–1]—

Page 24, after line 36—After paragraph (c) insert:

(ca) to promote halting and reversing biodiversity loss; and

This requires that the objects also, quote, 'promote halting and reversing biodiversity loss'. The first goal within the Global Biodiversity Framework under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, as signed by the Australian government back in 2022, was about halting and reversing biodiversity loss. The vision contained within Australia's subsequent Strategy for Nature is that 'Australia will halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030'.

Along with other states and territories, South Australia as a government has committed to this strategy and indeed, given there are international, national and South Australian government commitments to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, there should be no objection to the inclusion of this proposed object in the bill. It would be concerning, of course, if a biodiversity act were not about stopping the extinction of our unique nature. I welcome, hopefully, the government's affirmation of their support not just in word but indeed in the actual legislation that governs this in our state.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government supports this amendment. This proposed additional object is similar in nature to an object stated at subclause (c) of this clause; however, we appreciate that the phrasing better reflects the national and international intentions regarding biodiversity, so we will be supporting it.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 24, after line 39—After paragraph (d) insert:

(da) to ensure that biodiversity management takes into account the importance of biodiversity in addressing climate change; and

This inserts a new section into the objects of the act, which is to ensure that biodiversity management takes into account the importance of biodiversity in addressing climate change.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can indicate that the government will be supporting this amendment. It will be important in our solutions in responding to climate change that we are cognisant of the important role that biodiversity plays.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate that the Hon. Mr Simms has a number of amendments, but the opposition will not be supporting them.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Simms–1]—

Page 25, after line 26—After paragraph (e) insert:

(f) that biodiversity should not be lost for new gas projects.

This amendment makes it clear that biodiversity should not be lost for new gas projects. We know that gas exploration has adverse consequences for our environment and, indeed, for flora and fauna. This amendment provides another layer of protection against the impact of gas.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that, despite a lot of love being felt so far in the chamber for some of the amendments, the government will not be supporting this amendment. The principles set out at clause 8 are intended to operate as guiding principles for those tasked with administrating the act; that is, they guide how to make decisions and are not intended to pre-empt or limit decisions at the outset. The proposed amendment is considered by the government to be inconsistent with the scope of clause 8. Any new gas project will be subject to the operative provisions of the bill that consider the impacts on biodiversity.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I have already indicated that I am supporting the Hon. Rob Simms' amendments.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 9 and 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In relation to general duty, can the minister outline what constitutes non-trivial harm under this clause, and will it be defined in regulations or through policy?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is not intended to define exactly what non-trivial is, but non-trivial is given guidance by:

having regard to—

(a) the extent and scale of the impact; and

(b) the sensitivity of the affected environment; and

(c) any matter that may be prescribed by regulations or a biodiversity policy.

Those things will be given consideration to, so there is guidance about what non-trivial is by having regard to those factors.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister understand the difficulty in not defining what constitutes non-trivial harm, particularly when it comes to recreational users and landholder users on their own land, and that that lack of clarity could create a level of quite significant anxiety for recreational users and landholders?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will say that this is not a novel approach in any way, shape or form. We regularly put in our legislation things that have various levels of consequence. Certainly, in the criminal law, 'serious' is regularly used. We do not define what 'serious' means but leave that up to the interpretation of the application, with changing circumstances and changing behaviours. The fact that you do not define every single term that you ever use in legislation is often done throughout our statute books very deliberately, so as not to limit what you are doing. As I have said, particularly in the criminal law statutes, 'serious' is used exceptionally frequently without having it often defined in there. I do not accept that 'non-trivial' creates a problem because you have to use the ordinary definition of it.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I appreciate what the minister is saying. I might try this another way. Will existing land uses, such as grazing and cropping, automatically comply with the general duty, or must farmers seek independent verification of that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the Leader of the Opposition asking, 'Will a farmer have to go to someone to understand what non-trivial means every time they do something on their land?' Is that the question?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The clause refers to a general duty to avoid harm. I am asking whether existing land uses, such as grazing or cropping, will automatically comply with the general duty, or will the farmer have to independently verify whether or not that is a definition of harm?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If they are operating reasonably as they have previously, my advice is that they will comply, so there will not be a need to apply.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: On that, could a farmer be penalised under this clause for unintended impacts caused by, let's say, potentially drought, weather or natural pests?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, no, they could not be.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In regard to satisfying the duty to protect biodiversity, will compliance with industry best practices, such as those under Grain Producers SA's framework or Livestock SA's framework, satisfy the duty to protect biodiversity?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that that is the intention, to write policies to support current practices for those sorts of industries.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Finally, how will the government ensure that decisions are based on peer-reviewed science rather than ideology or activism?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can the honourable member elaborate on what decisions she is referring to?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: General duty, clause 11(4) provides:

A person will be taken not to be in breach of the duty under this section if they are acting—

(a) in accordance with a requirement under this Act or another Act; or

(b) in accordance with a permission, right or entitlement under this or another Act; or

(c) in prescribed circumstances; or

(d) in compliance with a biodiversity policy…

My question is: how will the government ensure that the decisions made in regard to those breaches are based on peer-reviewed science rather than ideology or activism?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not entirely sure what the question means, but perhaps I can answer by saying that, in my experience, those involved, whether it is the environment, primary industries or a whole lot of other areas, rely on the best possible science, not on any sort of particular view of the world that is outside science. That is my very strong experience with the very dedicated public sector in South Australia.

Clause passed.

Clause 12 passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Simms–1]—

Page 28, after line 5—After paragraph (b) insert:

(c) the Minister administering the Commissioner of Public Works Incorporation Act 1917;

(d) the Minister administering the Motor Vehicles Act 1959.

This amendment adds the Public Works Incorporation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act to the list of ministers who cannot administer the act. In other words, a number of exclusions are included within the act. This amendment includes the minister who administers the Commissioner of Public Works Incorporation Act 1917 and the minister administering the Motor Vehicles Act 1959. The intention behind the amendment is to seek to reduce some of the conflicts of interest.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment as it does not consider the amendment necessary. Unlike the other acts specified in this clause, the Commissioner for Public Works Incorporation Act 1917 and the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 do not contain mechanisms that require or would allow for those making decisions under those acts to have a direct negative impact on biodiversity, so we will not be supporting this particular amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 14 passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Simms–1]—

Page 29, lines 9 to 11 [clause 15(4)(c)]—Delete paragraph (c)

This amendment removes the requirement for a member of the Biodiversity Council to come from the Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy. I am concerned that a recommendation from the Chamber of Mines and Energy would give them a seat at the table on the Biodiversity Council, which has the potential to lead to a skewed decision around reducing biodiversity in order to enable mining operations. I see no reason for a representative from that sector to be included.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The proposed amendment is not supported by the government. Nominations by the identified bodies are not made on the basis of being representative of the respective organisations; they are nominated by the relevant sector body based on the specified skills for that sector. The role of a nominee on the council is not to represent a sector but to act in accordance with the purposes and objectives of the council.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister outline to the chamber why peak bodies, such as the Conservation Council and Primary Producers South Australia, were not guaranteed a role in nominating members to the Biodiversity Council?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can you repeat the question, Nicola?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Why are peak bodies like PPSA and the Conservation Council not guaranteed a role in nominating members to the Biodiversity Council—or are they? My understanding is that they are not.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Clause 15(4)(a) provides that:

(a) 1 member must be a person selected by the Minister from a panel of 3 persons nominated by the Conservation Council of South Australia…'

If you go down three more paragraphs, paragraph (d) provides:

(d) 1 person must be a person selected by the Minister from a panel of 3 persons nominated by Primary Producers South Australia…

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: On that, why is it that if the minister does not agree with the three persons who are put forward—whether it be the Conservation Council, the local government or Primary Producers—the minister can instead recommend for appointment to the council any person whom the minister considers to have the required skills, knowledge and experience?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that, when taken in conjunction with amendments that have been filed for some time and are to be proposed later on, if the minister does not consider that any of the three persons put up by one of those groups possesses the necessary required skills, knowledge or experience, the minister may ask that particular organisation to recommend three more people. That is an amendment that comes later on, to put that in, and that is what the government will be supporting.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Simms–1]—

Page 29, after line 18 [clause 15(4)]—After paragraph (e) insert:

(f) 1 member must be a person selected by the Minister from a panel of 3 persons nominated by the State First Nations Voice established by the First Nations Voice Act 2023 for the purposes of subsection (2)(b)(ix).

This amendment replaces the requirement that the Chamber of Mines and Energy will make a recommendation for appointment. It instead replaces this with a representative from the First Nations Voice. New paragraph (f) would read:

1 member must be a person selected by the Minister from a panel of 3 persons nominated by the State First Nations Voice established by the First Nations Voice Act 2023…

I do not feel that it is appropriate for the Chamber of Mines and Energy to be able to recommend someone for inclusion here, but I do think that a representative of the First Nations Voice would add real value, so I urge the government to consider this.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his amendment. I understand the honourable member's point of view. The government does not support the proposed amendment. The Biodiversity Bill does set up an Aboriginal Biodiversity Committee and requires two members of the Biodiversity Council to be members of that committee. The honourable member would be very aware of my very strong support for making sure that Aboriginal voices are heard at the very highest levels.

Without having consulted with the First Nations Voice, I would be hesitant to support imposing a further obligation on the First Nations Voice. In meeting frequently with the Voice I see that they do an extraordinary amount of work already. I do not know what the First Nations Voice view would be on undertaking a further role required by statute. However, I appreciate the intent of the amendment, although we will not be supporting it.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: We have competing amendments. The first filed amendment is amendment No. 3 [Franks-3] and then we will have amendment No. 6 [Centofanti-1].

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I believe the amendments are identical; is that the case?

The CHAIR: We thought they were almost identical. They are striking out the same thing but the insertions are different, so move your amendment and then we will get the Hon. Ms Centofanti to move hers and then we will put the questions as to how we support.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My riding instructions are that the opposition solves the same problem and it is probably a better solution, but it does not have the support of the government. I move:

Amendment No 3 [Franks–3]—

Page 29, lines 22 and 23 [clause 15(5)]—Delete 'may instead recommend for appointment to the Council any person who the Minister considers has the required skills, knowledge or experience' and substitute:

must request that the body nominate a panel of 3 persons or a panel of 3 different persons (as the case requires)

This is a fail-safe mechanism so that the minister cannot simply outright reject nominees and make their own political appointment. It is important that the Biodiversity Council contains the appropriate knowledge, skills and experience. It is also important that members of the council have access to civil society views and concerns on the management of South Australia's nature.

This amendment seeks to ensure that the minister cannot so easily set aside the nominees provided to them by peak bodies, which, of course, include the LGA, Conservation Council South Australia, and Primary Producers SA. Specifically, if the minister is not satisfied with the initial panel of nominees that they are provided with, the proposed amendment at least provides those peak bodies with the opportunity to provide a new set of names for the minister's consideration before the minister can choose their own separate appointee. I commend my amendment and indicate I do support the opposition as well, but understand procedurally that may not eventuate.

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

Amendment No 6 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 29, lines 22 and 23 [clause 15(5)]—Delete 'may instead recommend for appointment to the Council any person who the Minister considers has the required skills, knowledge or experience' and substitute:

must request that the body nominate a panel of 3 persons or a panel of 3 different persons (as the case requires) and must continue to do so until a suitable person has been nominated by the body

I think the important point is that this amendment replaces ministerial discretion with a requirement for continued engagement with stakeholder nominating bodies until a suitable appointment can be made from their panel. It strengthens the representative and participatory nature of the appointments to the Biodiversity Council, enhances stakeholder confidence and limits the potential for politically motivated appointments.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, they are similar amendments but the government will be supporting the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment in relation to this.

The CHAIR: For me to proceed, the first thing we are going to do is put it that the words proposed to be struck out by the Hon. T.A. Franks and the Hon. N.J. Centofanti in subclause (5) stand as printed. So if you are supporting the Hon. Ms Franks and the Hon. Ms Centofanti, you are going to vote no. Then I will put the next question. So the question is that the words proposed to be struck out by the Hon. T.A. Franks and the Hon. N.J. Centofanti in subclause (5) stand as printed. Those for the questions say aye; against, say no.

Question resolved in the negative.

The CHAIR: The next question is that the words proposed to be inserted by the Hon. T.A. Franks in subclause (5) be so inserted. So if you are supporting the Hon. Ms Franks, you are going to vote yes; if you are supporting the Hon. Ms Centofanti, you are going to vote no. I will put the question. Those for the question say aye; against say no.

The committee divided on the question:

Ayes 9

Noes 8

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Question thus agreed to.

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

Amendment No 4 [Franks–3]—

Page 29, after line 23—After subclause (5) insert:

(5a) If, after the Minister makes a request under subsection (5), the body fails to nominate a panel, or the Minister considers that none of the 3 persons on a panel nominated has the required skills, knowledge or experience, the Minister may instead recommend for appointment to the Council any person who the Minister considers has the required skills, knowledge or experience.

This is consequential on the amendment we have just voted on. It allows the minister to ensure that an appointment is made once the process has been run through in a more transparent and exhaustive process than would currently be allowed for under the bill as it stands.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 16.

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

Amendment No 3 [Franks–1]—

Page 29, line 40 [clause 16(d)]—Delete paragraph (d) and substitute:

(d) to make the SEB policy and a biodiversity policy relating to environmental benefit credits and to provide advice in relation to other biodiversity policies;

Amendment No 4 [Franks–1]—

Page 30, line 2 [clause 16(f)]—Delete 'and the SEB policy'

Amendment No. 3 is consequential to amendment No. 1 [Franks-1], which ensures that rather than the Biodiversity Council providing advice in relation to biodiversity policies they would be required to make the SEB policy and a biodiversity policy relating to environmental benefit credits and to provide advice in relation to other biodiversity policies. Amendment No. 4 [Franks-1] is consequential, again, to amendment No. 1 [Franks-1], which removes 'and the SEB policy', as the council now makes this policy.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 17 to 24 passed.

Clause 25.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Simms–1]—

Page 33, lines 2 to 4 [clause 25(1)]—Delete subclause (1) and substitute:

(1) The primary function of the Scientific Committee is to make final listing decisions and provisional listings in respect of the designated lists.

This amendment transfers the role of listing the threatened species to a Scientific Committee rather than the minister. It is certainly my view that this decision-making should be based on the scientific evidence rather than the whims of the minister of the day.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will be supporting this amendment revising the primary function of the Scientific Committee, which becomes responsible for making final listing decisions. This, together with the consequential amendment, we think provides for appropriate oversight and strengthens transparency, and we will be supporting it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate I will be supporting this amendment. Whether native species, ecological communities or the like are threatened or not, and which category or threat they currently face, is a matter of scientific evidence and not appropriate to be a political decision by the minister.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Simms–1]—

Page 33, lines 11 and 12 [clause 25(2)(c)]—Delete paragraph (c) and substitute:

(c) to review and provide advice on nominations and assessments in relation to listing decisions under Part 6;

I understand this amendment is consequential.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 5 [Franks–1]—

Page 33, lines 15 and 16 [clause 25(2)(e)]—Delete paragraph (e) and substitute:

(e) to make critical habitat declaration decisions under Part 6;

This requires the Scientific Committee to make declarations of critical habitat. Whether habitat is critical or not, as per the definition in the act, is a matter of scientific evidence and not appropriate to be a political decision of the minister, whether it is animal or plant.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate the government will not be supporting this amendment and its consequential amendments posed by the Hon. Tammy Franks in part 6 of the bill that would see the Scientific Committee assume the role of making critical habitat declarations rather than the minister. The government does not support those further amendments coming up so therefore does not support this one.

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 26 to 41 passed.

Clause 42.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister indicate how this clause will interact with ordinary day-to-day property maintenance tasks like clearing fence lines, roadside verges and potential firebreaks?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the activities the honourable member has mentioned are catered for in schedule 2, which, on my advice, make them non-regulated activities.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Will planted native vegetation that is over 20 years old, often used for windbreaks or soil stabilisation, be subjected to the same clearance restrictions as naturally occurring vegetation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that windbreaks are specifically exempted in schedule 2.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: What about plantation for soil stabilisation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that schedule 2 refers to farm forestry, so it would be dependent on the purpose for which it was originally planted.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: So if it was originally planted for soil stabilisation, would it be exempt?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It may be captured, is my advice.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: So the minister cannot give me a precise example as to whether that would be captured or not under schedule 2?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that that sort of activity covers a huge range of circumstances so you would need to know the exact circumstances in which those activities were undertaken at the time.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Has the government consulted with the CFS and MFS about requirements to approve removal of native vegetation in accordance with fire plans?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, as we have traversed already, if it is cleared in accordance with the fire management plan it is not a regulated activity because of schedule 2.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: How will landholders obtain permission to remove invasive native species that pose potential operational or safety risks?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that invasive species could be under schedule 2 or under the Landscape South Australia Act.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Finally, has a regulatory impact assessment been done to quantify how many routine activities will now require permits or be restricted under this new legislation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there are no substantive changes from how it currently operates, so, no.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is there the potential for future changes to be made via regulations?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that schedule 2 can be varied by regulation, but there is no current intention to do so, just like this legislation could be varied by a future parliament.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I want to go back to my previous question about consulting the CFS and MFS about removing native vegetation. Why has the government not consulted with those authorities, or is it based on what appears in the Native Vegetation Act?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there has been consultation with the CFS.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What did they say? Do they approve of what is in the bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there was broad support for bringing over what already applies in the native veg regulations.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In this bill it says 'must not' grant approval, whereas the Native Vegetation Act says 'may grant'. What is the difference in relation to approving the removal?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the scheme of what you can clear in relation to what you are asking is brought over from what the current scheme is, which is why there is broad support from the CFS.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I want to go back in relation to the Attorney's response to one of my previous questions in regard to the 20-year-old plantings for primary production or forestry. Your response sort of indicated that it depended on what they were planted for. Does that now mean that landholders will need to document the reason for the planting of the trees to essentially ensure that that 20-year rule is exempt?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, no, they will not need to document it.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: So how can you determine then whether or not they are creating an offence by chopping down a tree that was planted 22 years ago for a windbreak if it is not then documented and they are just chopping down the tree for any other purpose? What I am essentially asking is: how is this going to be policed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it will be taken on a case-by-case basis based on the reasonable position put forward.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Who is going to be the umpire of that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is the Clearance Assessment Committee under this bill.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: On that, what criteria will be used by the Clearance Assessment Committee in assessing these applications?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is it is whatever information that is put forward that will be assessed.

Clause passed.

Clauses 43 to 61.

Clause 62.

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

Amendment No 7 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 53, lines 12 and 13 [clause 62(1)]—Delete 'to refuse to give its consent to the clearance' and substitute 'in relation to the application'

This amendment broadens the scope of decisions that can be reviewed by the Biodiversity Council from just refusals to any decision relating to an application for vegetation clearance. It strengthens the applicant's rights, improves procedural fairness and ensures that conditional or partial decisions by the Clearance Assessment Committee (CAC) can also be scrutinised. So it is really a mechanism for applicants to seek a review of a decision by the Clearance Assessment Committee regarding applications to clear native veg under part 4.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will not be supporting this amendment. The government does not support it in opening up and significantly widening the review possibilities, for example, in relation to significant environmental benefit (SEB) to be achieved. In terms of this example, SEB payments and requirements are calculated based on a formula, and the government does not view it as efficient or helpful to appeal individual decisions related to SEBs. Instead, the development of any revised SEB formula will involve public consultation, providing an appropriate time for the public and industry to contribute.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 8 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 53, line 17 [clause 62(3)]—Delete 'not'

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Consequential?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is it consequential?

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. D.G.E. Hood): I am advised it is not consequential.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I will take the advice of the Clerk. Apologies, Attorney. This amendment proposes just a simple one word change within clause 62(3), and that is deletion of the word 'not'. So rather than the original wording that the council must not consent to the clearance unless, etc, we are proposing to amend it so that the council must consent to the clearance unless. So really, it is reversing the meaning of the clause, and it is shifting the emphasis from restriction to a more permissive approach, shall we say, and it is intended to reduce red tape and compliance barriers for landholders that are seeking clearance approvals.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government, perhaps unsurprisingly, will not be supporting reversing completely the meaning of a particular clause.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 63 to 72 passed.

Clause 73.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Simms–1]—

Page 59, after line 31—After subclause (2) insert:

(3) Before recommending eligibility criteria to be prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister must consult with the Scientific Committee on the proposed criteria.

I understand this amendment is consequential to amendment No. 6.

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Does the government wish to agree that it is consequential?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is closely related, but we support it because we supported the last one.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 74 passed.

Clause 75.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Simms–1]—

Page 60, line 6—Delete 'The Minister may make a listing decision in respect of a designated list, being' and substitute:

For the purposes of this Part, a listing decision in respect of a designated list is

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. D.G.E. Hood): We understand it is consequential, the Hon. Mr Simms.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: If that is your advice, I will follow that advice.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 76.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I had intended to move amendments Nos 10 to 14 en bloc, if that is agreeable.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That makes sense.

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The government has accepted that. That seems fine, the Hon. Mr Simms—and, in fact, even amendment No. 15, I am informed.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes, that is fine. I move:

Amendment No 10 [Simms–1]—

Page 60, line 22 [clause 76(2)]—Delete 'decision' and substitute 'assessment'

Amendment No 11 [Simms–1]—

Page 60, after line 30—After subclause (3) insert:

(3a) Before the Minister rejects a nomination, the Minister must seek the advice of the Scientific Committee.

Amendment No 12 [Simms–1]—

Page 61, after line 4—After subclause (6) insert:

(6a) After the Minister has complied with subsection (6), the Minister must refer the preliminary listing decision to the Scientific Committee for a final listing decision.

Amendment No 13 [Simms–1]—

Page 61, line 5 [clause 76(7)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'Scientific Committee'

Amendment No 14 [Simms–1]—

Page 61, line 5 [clause 76(7)]—After 'decision' insert:

in accordance with any requirements prescribed by the regulations and

Amendment No 15 [Simms–1]—

Page 61, lines 7 to 13 [clause 76(8) and (9)]—Delete subclauses (8) and (9) and substitute:

(8) Before the Scientific Committee makes a final listing decision, the Scientific Committee must consider any submissions received in relation to the preliminary listing decision, insofar as the submissions relate to biodiversity conservation.

(9) The Scientific Committee must cause a statement of reasons for the final listing decision to be published on the Biodiversity Register.

These amendments give the department the power to carry out key functions, with the final decision to be made by the Scientific Committee. In practice, I understand the department will be responsible for the administration process, with the final listing decision resting with the Scientific Committee. This is based on some of the experience that comes from another jurisdiction, New South Wales, where it was recognised that significant resources were required to run the process in that state. As a result of this amendment, it would also be ensured that the minister, upon receiving a nomination, would begin the process for the Scientific Committee to make a decision.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government is supporting this block of amendments, which are closely related to others we have traversed.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 77.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 16 [Simms–1]—

Page 61, line 18 [clause 77(1)]—After 'Minister' insert:

and the Scientific Committee

I understand that this is consequential to amendment No. 6 [Simms-1].

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. D.G.E. Hood): We agree, the Hon. Mr Simms. Does the government wish to make a comment?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It might be that deleting 'Minister' and substituting 'Scientific Committee' on clause 78 goes all the way to, I think, amendment No. 21 [Simms-1]. I wonder if they might be moved en bloc?

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. D.G.E. Hood): They are different clauses, though, Attorney, so we are just dealing—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: So clause 77 and then move this?

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Yes, that is right.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Alright.

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Let's deal with this first.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 78.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 17 [Simms–1]—

Page 61, line 31 [clause 78(1)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'Scientific Committee'

Amendment No 18 [Simms–1]—

Page 61, line 34 [clause 78(1)(a)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'Scientific Committee'

Amendment No 19 [Simms–1]—

Page 61, line 36 [clause 78(1)(b)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'Scientific Committee'

Amendment No 20 [Simms–1]—

Page 61, line 39 [clause 78(1)(c)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'Scientific Committee'

Amendment No 21 [Simms–1]—

Page 62, line 3 [clause 78(1)(d)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'Scientific Committee'

As the Attorney has indicated, these are consequential, relating to amendment No. 6 [Simms-1].

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. D.G.E. Hood): And the Attorney is accepting of that? Good.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 79 to 83 passed.

Clause 84.

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The next amendment we have is amendment No. 6 [Franks-1]. We believe it is consequential on amendment No. 5.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I believe it is consequential on amendment No. 5, which failed, so I will not be proceeding with it.

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The next amendment is amendment No. 7 [Franks-1], which we do not believe is a consequential amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Then I have that amendment No. 18 [Franks-1] is not strictly consequential but should not be moved if amendment No. 7 is not successful, and amendment No. 7 was defined as consequential. If the government could indicate whether they have any support for these, that might help.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If it is put, we will not be supporting it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will not be proceeding, because they are in some way consequential, even though they are not technically consequential.

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. D.G.E. Hood): So you are not proceeding with that one, the Hon. Ms Franks?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Not in clause 84, Chair.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 22 [Simms–1]—

Page 65, line 6 [clause 84(4)]—Delete 'a listing decision under' and substitute:

the making of a final listing decision of a kind referred to in

I understand this is consequential to that original amendment No. 6 [Simms-1]. There are a few that are related to that.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 85 to 97 passed.

Clause 98.

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. D.G.E. Hood): In clause 98 we have some suggested amendments from the Hon. Ms Franks.

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

Amendment No 1 [Franks–2]—

Page 72, line 1 [clause 98(7)]—After 'biodiversity agreement' insert:

(the original agreement)

Amendment No 2 [Franks–2]—

Page 72, line 2 [clause 98(7)]—Delete 'biodiversity agreement' and substitute:

original agreement

Amendment No 3 [Franks–2]—

Page 72, line 7 [clause 98(7)]—Delete 'biodiversity agreement applied' and substitute:

original agreement applied that, in the opinion of the Council, offers the same or more protection for biodiversity on the land than the original agreement

This replaces 'biodiversity agreement applied' with 'original agreement applied that, in the opinion of the Council, offers the same or more protection for biodiversity on the land than the original agreement'. This is because the original agreement could have also have been a heritage agreement, a management agreement or an agreement of a class prescribed by the regulations, so it simply picks that error up. The three amendments, as I say, are intertwined.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that the government will be supporting this package of amendments for the reasons outlined by the honourable member.

Suggested amendments carried; clause as suggested to be amended passed.

Clause 99 passed.

Clause 100.

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

Amendment No 9 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 74, after line 19—After subclause (2) insert:

(2a) If the Minister appoints an officer of a local council to be an authorised officer under this Act, the Minister must reimburse the local council for any reasonable costs incurred by the local council in connection with the appointment.

This amendment inserts a new subclause (2a) into clause 100 of the bill, which deals with the appointment of authorised officers. Essentially, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure cost recovery for local councils when their staff are appointed by the state as authorised officers under the legislation and recognises that using local government resources to enforce or administer a state act may place an additional financial burden on councils and also can create a statutory obligation on the minister to compensate councils rather than leaving reimbursement to discretion or informal agreement.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will not support this amendment because we do not believe it is necessary. The Biodiversity Bill already requires the consent of a local council prior to an officer of that local council being appointed as an authorised officer. The government's view is that this is considered to provide sufficient opportunity to negotiate the terms of any such appointment, including should local council want as part of the discussion negotiations any requirements for reimbursement.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I will be supporting this amendment from the opposition as I think this is a pretty sensible proposition.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 101 passed.

Clause 102.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In regard to entry and inspection powers, can the Attorney outline under what circumstances an authorised officer can enter private land without a warrant? Is there a requirement to notify the landholder in advance?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the powers under clause 102 bring together the powers that currently exist under the national parks legislation and the native vegetation legislation. It brings together what already exists. I am advised that it is not giving extra powers to do that. There was a second part to the question that I cannot remember.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I will repeat the question: under what circumstances can the authorised officer enter private land without a warrant, and is there a requirement to notify the landholder in advance?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is again bringing together what already exists. It is in connection with the administration/operational enforcement of the act. The second part of the question was whether you have to give advance notice. My advice is that, no, you do not, and in some circumstances that would be entirely inconsistent with the purposes of the previous two pieces of legislation if you are investigating possible breaches.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Therefore, can officers enter private land for the purpose of potentially inspecting fungi or algae under the new definitions?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that only if it is involved in the breach of the act and it is not giving powers that do not already exist under the current pieces of legislation.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: What limits exist on what authorised officers may inspect, remove or photograph on private property?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it can be read pretty plainly in the first clause:

...as may reasonably be required in connection with the administration, operation or enforcement of this Act…

So it needs to be reasonably required in connection with that.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I know we get nervous when it comes to the powers of authorised officers, but can we just confirm that these are, in substance, the same as what we would normally see in other pieces of legislation—the Natural Resources Management Act, for instance? So it is a lift from those—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There are many pieces of legislation that have authorised officers. Dozens of pieces of legislation, would be my guess, have authorised officers with powers. My advice is that these are powers that come from the national parks legislation and the native vegetation legislation and are put together in this one act.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Even for those that are not being brought together, is the premise around these broadly consistent with what we normally do around the powers of authorised officers in those other pieces of legislation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, that is my advice. As I said, I suspect there would be dozens of pieces of legislation that have authorised officers in relation to those pieces of legislation.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: On that as well, I would note that it also speaks to the fact that the authorised officer can exercise any power prescribed by the regulations. Is it the government's intention to not significantly change those powers through regulations?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is my advice—that there is no intention to. Again, similar to many other pieces of legislation, there may be circumstances that none of us have contemplated that would give rise to that. But my advice is that there is no intention to vary it from what already exists.

Clause passed.

Clauses 103 to 106 passed.

New clause 106A.

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

Amendment No 10 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 80, after line 35—After clause 106 insert:

106A—Liability of authorised officers

An authorised officer who takes action under this Act in good faith does not incur any civil or criminal liability for taking that action.

This amendment inserts into the bill new clause 106A, titled 'Liability of authorised officers'. The purpose of this amendment is to provide legal protection to authorised officers acting in good faith under the legislation. During the committee stage debate on this bill in another place, the minister was asked about the exposure to civil liabilities of authorised officers appointed by the minister pursuant to section 100 of the act. The minister's response, unfortunately, was not very reassuring.

The bill in its current form will provide immunity from civil liability to state public servants, and that is obviously appropriate and a common provision in legislation across departments. The reality is that the Biodiversity Bill will have an impact on the work performed by council employees exercising powers and functions under this act and others. That includes, for example, council officers pruning trees on the verge of council roads for road safety purposes, council officers maintaining firebreaks as part of their bushfire prevention and mitigation programs, and council officers maintaining and upgrading railway crossings and other dangerous intersections. Council officers also detain and return to home lost dogs and cats and deal with a wide range of litter and nuisance issues.

The intention of this amendment is to recognise that council employees perform a range of statutory functions to protect and serve local communities. The amendment recognises that council employees are just as deserving of statutory immunity from civil action as their state government counterparts.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her contribution. The last part of that we do not disagree with, but we are not going to support this amendment because we do not think it is the appropriate vehicle. Rather than address any liability of authorised officers in a piecemeal way—different act by different act—we would much prefer to work with the Local Government Association on any concerns they have and fix them under the Public Sector Act. If we do it in this act and if there are similar concerns in other acts, we think it risks getting out of kilter as acts change over time.

We do recognise the issue the honourable member has raised, and I advise that the government is committed to working with local government to further understand their concerns, but we are very firmly of the view that the appropriate place to fix this is in section 74 of the Public Sector Act and not by doing it in individual acts.

As the honourable member has pointed out, there may be other acts where local government officers act as inspectors, and we would not want to do something that only gives changes to this one particular act. We recognise the concerns but we think it is much better to progress in the Public Sector Act, which would have the potential to cover all those other acts, not just this one individual act.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am just wondering if that view has been relayed to the LGA in advance of this debate, that you are committed to addressing this issue through the Public Sector Act with them so it is consistent across all pieces of relevant legislation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it has been communicated to the LGA that we are keen to work with them to further understand the issues, but we are not keen to fix it in one particular act and risk one act standing alone and getting out of kilter. Again, this requires further work, but if there are concerns that need addressing, we are keen to be consistent across all acts that may apply to local government officers and remedy that within the Public Sector Act.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: To be honest, I do not find that argument very compelling. I respect the fact that the government wants to address this issue, and I take the Attorney's point that we should have a holistic approach to this, but if there is a gap in this particular legislation then surely we should address that now, and then, of course, it is incumbent on the government to make sure that gap is filled in other pieces of legislation where appropriate. I actually do support the principle the Leader of the Opposition has raised, that workers in the council sector should get the same level of protection as other public sector workers. I think that is a compelling argument.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am very sympathetic with what the LGA and the Liberal opposition have raised, and I raised it myself with government and sought a briefing, and in that briefing was given the response that the minister has just given us, which is that this is better placed under the Public Sector Act. My response to that was. 'Great. Put it on the public record so that we can hold you to account in ensuring that this is done through the Public Sector Act.'

So while I do support the intent of the opposition and the LGA's concerns being addressed, I am comforted by the minister's public assurance on the public record that the government will do it not in a piecemeal way but in an appropriate way. I understand they were already seeking legal advice well before I raised the issue with them.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My response to that is that it is the case that there has been legal advice sought to see if there is in fact a problem that needs to be remedied, but if it does need to be remedied then I reiterate that the Public Sector Act will then cover all other sorts of acts that the honourable member has mentioned. Some of the things the honourable member has mentioned are specific local government functions, they are not necessarily functions that the state has an inspector for, they are actual local government functions. It may not be something that the state indemnifies local government for what their functions are, but in terms of where acting as inspectors, such as these, we would be very keen to make sure it covers holistically, not in a piecemeal way.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I just confirm or clarify then: in those discussions, and given the commitments that have been made, are we talking specifically about the liability of authorised officers and keeping that contained, as opposed to other issues that may exist that you may not have been so forthcoming in terms of addressing in the Public Sector Act with the Local Government Association?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is for the purpose of the specifically authorised officers, but of course there may be other pieces of legislation that authorised officers, for state government purposes, are appointed under. For officers that are conducting things that are solely local government functions, of course we will be happy to talk to them, but it may not be appropriate to offer a state government indemnity for them. I can reassure the honourable member that we are committed—and I know I have had communications with the minister responsible for this legislation, the Deputy Premier—to those conversations in relation to this issue.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If we are to take that in good faith, then we are talking specifically about, in essence, what we are trying to achieve through this particular amendment. So that is the issue that you are undertaking to address, as far as it extends to local government and whoever else it needs to extend to, but in this instance we are talking about local government authorised officers. So that is what you are willing to address?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is my advice: authorised officers, yes.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister provide a timeline in and around that commitment that he has just made to the chamber? Will he commit to bringing those changes back as soon as possible, so that they can be corrected before the end of the year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: On behalf of the government, I am happy to commit that we will have those discussions as quickly as we can. We regularly have portfolio bills that deal with a whole range of changes that if we can get that resolved we will bring back to the extent that it is necessary. Again, that is why we are seeking further advice, to see the extent that it is necessary. We will be happy to bring it back as soon as we are able to.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am just thinking out loud now: in the alternative, if this particular clause were to get up, the concern that remains for you in the meantime is the inconsistency that that provides between this piece of legislation and other pieces of legislation that do not offer the same security?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, indeed, that is the case. We want to try to retain that consistency.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 7

Noes 8

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

New clause thus negatived.

Clause 107.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In regard to authorised officers, can the Attorney advise the chamber as to whether third parties can be appointed as authorised officers under this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What does the honourable member mean by 'third parties'—someone from a local council as a third party?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I was thinking more in terms of an organisation like the RSPCA. Could they be appointed as an authorised officer under this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there is the potential for anyone to be appointed as an authorised officer, and I think that is very similar to authorised officers under many other pieces of legislation.

Clause passed.

Clauses 108 to 174 passed.

Clause 175.

The CHAIR: We have a number of consequential amendments from the Hon. Ms Franks. The Hon. Ms Franks, you can move amendments Nos 20 through to 29, which are all consequential.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Alright. I had 20 to 39.

The CHAIR: No, we have one from the Hon. Ms Centofanti in between.

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

Amendment No 20 [Franks–1]—

Page 123, line 40 [clause 175(1)]—After 'Act' insert:

(other than policies relating to the matters referred to in subsection (4a))

Amendment No 21 [Franks–1]—

Page 124, line 1 [clause 175(2)]—Delete 'The Minister' and substitute 'A designated entity'

Amendment No 22 [Franks–1]—

Page 124, line 15 [clause 175(4)(c)]—Delete paragraph (c)

Amendment No 23 [Franks–1]—

Page 124, line 16 [clause 175(4)(d)]—Delete paragraph (d)

Amendment No 24 [Franks–1]—

Page 124, after line 21—After subclause (4) insert:

(4a) The Council must make a biodiversity policy relating to each of the following:

(a) significant environmental benefits (the SEB policy);

(b) environmental benefit credits.

Amendment No 25 [Franks–1]—

Page 125, lines 1 and 2 [clause 175(8)]—Delete subclause (8) and substitute:

(8) Before making the SEB policy, the Council must refer the proposed policy to the Minister and take into account any advice provided by the Minister.

Amendment No 26 [Franks–1]—

Page 125, line 4 [clause 175(9)(a)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'designated entity'

Amendment No 27 [Franks–1]—

Page 125, line 5 [clause 175(9)(b)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'designated entity'

Amendment No 28 [Franks–1]—

Page 125, line 8 [clause 175(9)(b)(i)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'designated entity'

Amendment No 29 [Franks–1]—

Page 125, line 10 [clause 175(9)(b)(ii)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'designated entity'

These are indeed consequential to amendment No. 1 [Franks-1] mostly replacing 'minister' with 'designated entity' and should be seen as consequential.

Amendments carried.

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

Amendment No 11 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 125, after line 10 [clause 175(9)(b)]—After subparagraph (ii) insert:

(iii) notifying and inviting comment on the proposed biodiversity policy from the following entities:

(A) Primary Producers SA Incorporated;

(B) the Conservation Council of South Australia Incorporated;

(C) the Local Government Association of South Australia;

(D) if the proposed policy relates to pastoral land, the Pastoral Board;

(E) if the proposed policy relates to land within the Murray-Darling Basin, the Minister responsible for the administration of the River Murray Act 2003;

(F) if the proposed policy relates to mineral exploration, the Minister responsible for the administration of the Mining Act 1971;

(G) any other entity prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subparagraph;

This amendment requires that when preparing a proposed biodiversity policy the minister must notify and invite comments from a defined list of key stakeholders. These key stakeholders are to include Primary Producers SA, the Conservation Council of South Australia Inc., the Local Government Association of South Australia, the Pastoral Board if it relates to pastoral land, the Minister for the River Murray if it relates to the basin, the Minister for Mining if it relates to mining, exploration, and any other entity prescribed by the regulations.

The purpose of this amendment is to really mandate formal consultation with key affected sectors and levels of government before finalising biodiversity policy, and ensures that conservation bodies, local government, primary producers and sector-specific authorities have an opportunity to provide input. It introduces transparency, accountability and cross-sector input into biodiversity policy making.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment. The preparation of biodiversity policies already requires public consultation and there is a provision to include consultation requirements for specific stakeholders in regulation. It is the government's view that these prescriptive requirements, in terms of naming particular stakeholders, need to be more flexible than legislation allows and are much better in regulation.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I indicate that I will not be supporting this one either. I do think it is problematic if we go down the path of listing specific organisations in legislation. I think the Attorney makes a persuasive point. What happens if an organisation changes and they have been named in legislation? It potentially creates an unworkable model.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 30 [Franks–1]—

Page 125, line 11 [clause 175(9)(c)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'designated entity'

Amendment No 31 [Franks–1]—

Page 125, line 13 [clause 175(9)(d)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'designated entity'

Amendment No 32 [Franks–1]—

Page 125, line 15 [clause 175(9)(d)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'designated entity'

Amendment No 33 [Franks–1]—

Page 125, line 16 [clause 175(9)(d)]—After 'it' insert:

, or causing it to be published,

Amendment No 34 [Franks–1]—

Page 125, line 17 [clause 175(10)]—Delete 'the Minister' and substitute 'a designated entity'

Amendment No 35 [Franks–1]—

Page 125, line 18 [clause 175(10)]—After 'made' insert:

by the designated entity

Amendment No 36 [Franks–1]—

Page 125, line 20 [clause 175(11)]—Delete 'The Minister' and substitute 'A designated entity'

Amendment No 37 [Franks–1]—

Page 125, line 24 [clause 175(13)]—Delete 'The Minister' and substitute 'A designated entity'

Amendment No 38 [Franks–1]—

Page 125, line 24 [clause 175(13)]—After 'policy' insert:

made by the designated entity

Amendment No 39 [Franks–1]—

Page 125, after line 26 [clause 175(14)]—Before the definition of minor amendment insert:

designated entity means—

(a) in relation to a policy referred to in subsection (4a)—the Council; or

(b) in any other case—the Minister;

This is mostly replacing 'minister' with 'designated entity'.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 176 to 184 passed.

Schedule 1.

The CHAIR: I have identical amendments in the name of the Hon. Ms Franks and the Hon. Ms Centofanti. The Hon. Ms Franks, your amendment was filed first.

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

Amendment No 40 [Franks–1]—

Page 131, after line 34 [Schedule 1 clause 1]—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) The plan or plans deposited under subclause (1) must define the regulated clearance area so that it constitutes the area to which the Native Vegetation Act 1991 applies at the time the plan is, or plans are, deposited.

Indeed, it is identical to amendment No. 12 [Centofanti-1]. It requires that the map that is deposited match the plan in place under the Native Vegetation Act (i.e. there cannot be suddenly a much smaller area to which it applies.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate the government will support the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Centofanti, your amendment is now superfluous because it has just been agreed to.

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

Amendment No 41 [Franks–1]—

Page 131, after line 40 [Schedule 1 clause 1]—After subclause (4) insert:

(4a) Before varying the Regulated Clearance Area Plan, the Minister must undertake public consultation on the proposed variation in the manner the Minister considers appropriate for a period of at least 30 days.

This requires public consultation to be undertaken on any proposed changes to the regulated clearance area plan (i.e. maps for where the native veg layer applies.)

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 13 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 132, after line 2 [Schedule 1 clause 1]—After subclause (5) insert:

(5a) A notice referred to in subclause (4) must operate so that the instrument referred to in that subclause takes effect at least 4 months after the notice is made.

This amendment inserts a new subclause (5a) into clause 1 of schedule 1 and mandates a minimum four-month delay between when a notice is made under subclause (4) and when the related instrument takes legal effect.

Those of us who sit on the Legislative Review Committee are well versed with early commencement certificates and simply this amendment ensures that an early commencement cannot occur and that that four-month minimum delay occurs between when the notice is made and when that related instrument takes effect. This will provide affected parties, whether that be councils, industry or landholders, with adequate time to not just understand but to potentially respond to any new obligations or restrictions imposed by the instrument and obviously allow for time consultation, time adjustments and review before the instrument comes into force.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It goes without saying that I support this amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To bring a little bit of joy into the opposition's life, I will put on the record that the government will be supporting the opposition's amendment.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Schedule 2.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AboriginalAff–1]—

Page 133, after line 7 [Schedule 2 clause 1]—After the definition of forest vegetation insert:

infrastructure includes social infrastructure;

This amendment relates to amendment No. 1 [Franks-3] and amendment No. 2 [Franks-3]. It is intended to ensure that, while we have deleted social infrastructure from the definition of infrastructure more broadly, and for the purpose of clause 51 of the bill, clearance can still be undertaken for the purpose of maintaining social infrastructure or for the provisions of social infrastructure in limited circumstances set out in the council guidelines as per schedule 2.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [AboriginalAff–1]—

Page 133, after line 21 [Schedule 2 clause 1]—After the definition of SAMFS insert:

social infrastructure means buildings or areas that facilitate the delivery of social services;

social services include health services, disability services, aged care, childcare, education, justice and emergency services, arts and culture, sport and recreation, social housing and any other service provided for community benefit.

This amendment is exceptionally closely related to the one I have just moved and that the opposition did not oppose.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 14 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 134, line 34 [Schedule 2 clause 4, heading]—Delete '3 m' and substitute '4 m''

Amendment No 15 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 134, line 35 [Schedule 2 clause 4(1)]—Delete '3 m' and substitute '4 m'

What these amendments do is increase the threshold for that three-metre clearance zone. What we are proposing is to delete 'three' and insert 'four', so increasing the threshold to four metres, which will allow for a more flexible and permissible approach—that is, in regard to clearing vegetation along a fence line, a track or a firebreak. Essentially, it widens the permitted clearance area without requiring formal consent or triggering additional regulatory hurdles. Whilst a one-metre increase may seem minor it can make a significant practical difference not just for landholders but for council officers, etc.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not think it will surprise the opposition that the government will not be supporting this. The current distance of three metres—

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sir, I seek your protection from the Leader of the Opposition. The current distance of three metres aligns with rules for clearing trees around dwellings in relation to regulating significant trees under the state's planning system, and we think it is appropriate here.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Leader of the Opposition just confirm who was consulted with in relation to this particular change? Where did it come from?

The Hon. K.J. Maher: The shadow minister?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The Attorney does make a good point. In terms of consultation, I would probably have to take that on notice, to be honest, because I am not the shadow minister. So I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a reply for the honourable member.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will not be supporting this amendment. It increases from three to four metres the area where clearance is allowed without permission. Of course, clearance can occur where permission is sought and agreed if it is appropriate.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Ditto.

The CHAIR: One of your better contributions.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I am not supporting it either.

Amendments negatived.

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

Amendment No 16 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 139, line 34 [Schedule 2 clause 14(1)(e)(i)(B)]—Delete '1 m' and substitute '2 m'

This amendment modifies clause 14(1)(e)(i)(B) in schedule 2 by changing a clearance measurement from one metre to two metres. Whilst the exact wording of clause 14(1)(e)(i)(B) is not quoted, this provision is really about allowing clearance activities such as vegetation around fence lines and pipelines, firebreaks, maintaining track access or visibility, or ensuring asset protection zones. It doubles the permitted clearance width in the context from one metre to two metres, and again allows greater flexibility for landholders or infrastructure managers to maintain safe and practical access around specified features.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will not be supporting this. I am advised the current distance of one metre is consistent with the approach currently applied under the Native Vegetation Regulations. We will not be supporting a change.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 5 [Franks–3]—

Page 145, lines 33 and 34 [Schedule 2 clause 29(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

This ensures that pastoral grazing is not exempt from the need to gain permission to clear, and would see the act revert to the existing policy under the Native Vegetation Act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government will be supporting this amendment, along with the following two amendments Nos 6 and 7 [Franks-3], to ensure that the circumstances in which grazing of native plants can occur without the need to apply for a clearance authorisation are treated consistently throughout the state. The government accepts that this will provide greater clarity for graziers.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 6 [Franks–3]—

Page 145, lines 35 and 36 [Schedule 2 clause 29(2)]—Delete 'that is not pastoral land'

Amendment No 7 [Franks–3]—

Page 146, lines 1 and 2 [Schedule 2 clause 29(3)]—Delete 'that is not pastoral land'

These are consequential to amendment No. 5 [Franks-3].

Amendments carried; schedule as amended passed.

Schedule 3 passed.

Schedule 4.

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

Amendment No 42 [Franks–1]—

Page 148, line 20 [Schedule 4 clause 1(b)(ii)]—Delete subparagraph (ii)

This removes the capacity for a landowner to remove a dingo merely on suspicion. Dingoes are apex predators and there is a good amount of evidence to show that they make a huge contribution in controlling the numbers and impacts of feral species such as goats. Mammals form the main part of their diet—especially rabbits, kangaroos, wallabies and wombats—and only when native species are scarce do they hunt domestic animals and farm livestock. In fact, the kangaroo is the species most often taken by dingoes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am afraid on this occasion the government will not be supporting the amendment. My advice, and the government's view, is that the proposed amendment is not consistent with the South Australian Wild Dog Management Strategy and will not be supported.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate, and it probably does not surprise the member, that the opposition will not be supporting her amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I do support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 43 [Franks–1]—

Page 148, lines 33 to 35 [Schedule 4 clause 1(d)(iii)]—Delete subparagraph (iii)

This removes the capacity for habitat to be removed merely on suspicion. Again, we are going to hopefully have legislation that does not rely on suspicion rather than established fact.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will not be supporting the amendment. It is the government's view that the current provisions relating to circumstances in which a permit is not required to destroy, damage or disturb protected habitat reflect the current policy settings carefully inserted into the National Parks and Wildlife Act to provide an appropriate pathway to landowners to continue to practically manage their property, especially in relation to the appropriate management of, for example, wombat burrows outside declared habitat protection zones. Within such zones, however, permits will still be required.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 44 [Franks–1]—

Page 149, after line 15 [Schedule 4 clause 1]—After the present contents of clause 1 (now to be designated as subclause (1)) insert:

(2) The following provisions apply to taking a dingo in accordance with subclause (1)(b):

(a) a person who proposes to take a dingo must provide evidence to the Minister of the need to take the dingo;

(b) non-lethal and targeted methods must be used to take a dingo;

(c) sodium fluoroacetate, strychnine and leg-hold traps must not be used to take a dingo.

In regard to dingoes and requiring that any decisions to remove these dingoes are based on evidence—while that has slightly failed—this would seek to ensure that the methods used to do so are non-lethal, targeted and humane. In fact, 1080, which is far too often used, inflicts a painful death on those animals that consume it and has knock-on effects that are incredibly harmful, so it would eradicate that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: While the government appreciates the intention of the honourable member, the government will not be supporting the amendment. For similar reasons to the previous amendment, I think two amendments ago, it is not consistent with the current policy in relation to wild dog management. I am further advised that it is the government's view that such amendments may be better in the Animal Welfare Act, to be replaced by the new Animal Welfare Act, rather than biodiversity conservation matters, but primarily in relation to the wild dog management strategy.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate the opposition will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived; schedule passed.

Schedule 5.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [AboriginalAff–1]—

Page 173, after line 19—After Part 29 insert:

Part 29A—Amendment of State Development Coordination and Facilitation Act 2025

95A—Amendment of section 19—Interpretation

(1) Section 19(1), definition of protected area, (e)—delete 'and Wildlife'

(2) Section 19(1), definition of protected area, (f)—delete 'heritage agreement under section 23 of the Native Vegetation Act 1991' and substitute:

biodiversity agreement under the Biodiversity Act 2025

95B—Amendment of Schedule 1—Designated Acts

(1) Schedule 1—after the item relating to the Aquaculture Act 2001 insert:

Biodiversity Act 2025;

(2) Schedule 1—delete the item relating to the Native Vegetation Act 1991

This amendment is moved as a consequence of amendments arising from this bill to update references to particular legislation in the recently passed State Development Coordination and Facilitation Act.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I just want to indicate I do not support this amendment. I understand that this bill amends the State Coordinator bill to allow the provisions of this bill to be incorporated within those functions. I spoke at length during the debate about that particular legislation around my concerns and the fact that it was a bill that is being used to enable the dud AUKUS deal and all of the consequences around that. I expressed my concerns at the time that that bill could be used to circumvent existing pieces of legislation. I do not want to see the new State Coordinator being given the power to circumvent or call in some of the functions with respect to this legislation either. I urge members to oppose this provision.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister explain what this amendment does, please?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, in relation to the State Coordinator bill, it replaces references to the Native Vegetation Act with the name of this act that we are currently talking about.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: That was my understanding, so on that basis the opposition are happy to support the government's amendment.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (18:29): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The council divided on the third reading:

Ayes 8

Noes 7

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.

Sitting extended beyond 18:30 on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher.

At 18:33 the council adjourned until Wednesday 18 June 2025 at 11:00.