Biodiversity Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 June 2025.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (12:14): I rise today as the lead speaker on the Biodiversity Bill 2025, but before I speak to the second reading motion of this bill, I move:

to leave out all words after 'that' and insert—

the bill be withdrawn and referred to the Natural Resources Committee.

While we recognise the importance of protecting our environment and conserving biodiversity, this bill, in its current form, represents a sweeping and heavy-handed legislative overreach that threatens to undermine landholders' rights, recreational access and the practical management of South Australia's natural environment.

Let me be very clear: no-one in this place is arguing against the need to protect and enhance our state's biodiversity, but good intentions do not automatically make good legislation. This bill, at 175 pages, affecting more than a dozen pieces of existing legislation, raises serious and legitimate concerns about fairness, about practicality, about enforcement and about the potential for perverse outcomes.

From the outset, the sheer complexity of this bill should give us pause. It repeals the Native Vegetation Act 1991. It modifies the Fisheries Management Act, the Mining Act, the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act and even the Fire and Emergency Services Act, just to name a few. Yet, for all its complexity it lacks the one thing it most desperately needs, and that is clarity. The government has failed to adequately explain how all of these moving parts will work together, particularly in real-world, real-time situations, such as fire emergencies or routine land management.

In its current form, the bill does not reflect a careful balance between environmental protection and the rights and responsibilities of landholders. Instead, it reflects an expanding bureaucracy that risks criminalising ordinary responsible activity, activity that supports not just food and fibre production but also regional livelihoods, tourism and recreational pursuits.

I am moving to refer the Biodiversity Bill to the Natural Resources Committee, because it is clear that a wide range of stakeholders—including landholders, recreational users, conservation groups and primary producers—have raised serious and substantive concerns about the current form of the legislation. These concerns range from the scope of regulatory powers to the lack of clarity around definitions and potential unintended consequences for land use and access.

Given the significance of this bill and its potential impact across sectors, it is imperative that these issues are thoroughly examined through a proper inquiry process to ensure the final legislation is robust, balanced and fit for purpose. We firmly believe that the Natural Resources Committee, which is a standing committee of this parliament, is the right committee to inquire into this particular bill.

Let me start with what this bill potentially means for the people on the land: our farmers, our graziers and our regional communities. These are the people who live and breathe the natural environment, and they do not need a lecture on conservation from the city. They need legislation that supports, not punishes, their role as stewards of our landscape. Primary Producers South Australia, which represents more than 15,000 businesses and over 78,000 full-time equivalent jobs, is just one group that has raised serious and measured concerns with this bill.

They have been deeply engaged in this reform process, providing a detailed submission outlining 22 specific recommendations, essentially advocating for legislation that balances biodiversity conservation with food and fibre production. However, the final bill presented to this parliament contained few of their recommendations. In fact, some changes, such as the addition of the precautionary principle, have further increased regulatory uncertainty for landholders.

Primary producers care deeply about the condition of their land. They are already delivering positive environmental outcomes across vast areas of this state, but they do need certainty and they do need clarity and they do need support, not complexity and compliance risk. Primary Producers South Australia continue to seek incentive-based approaches over punitive ones when it comes to biodiversity, transparent and science-based regulation, and alignment with emerging biodiversity markets so that landholders can fully participate in stewardship opportunities. In their submission PPSA also rightly pointed out that the expanded definition of a native plant to include any species indigenous to Australia, regardless of whether it naturally occurs in South Australia, will unnecessarily complicate land management and discourage revegetation efforts.

The so-called 20-year rule, which restricts the clearance of native vegetation that was intentionally planted more than 20 years ago, is a perverse disincentive. It will actively discourage farmers from planting native species for windbreaks or paddock regeneration out of fear that they or future owners will be trapped by rigid bureaucratic obligations.

But it is not just the farmers, it is also the conservation groups that have raised some concerns with several aspects of this bill. Although they welcome the modernising of the South Australian threatened species listing process, they recommend that a Scientific Committee should be making threatened species listings. They are also concerned about the map of the regulated clearance areas, which is currently in the Native Vegetation Act, and the proposal in this bill is that the minister will determine this map via a deposited plan in what they say is a dramatic step backwards and sets itself up to be prone to interference from vested interests rather than the public interest.

Recreational users of our natural environment—four-wheel drivers, fishers, campers and hunters—should also be alarmed by the sweeping powers this bill confers. It enables authorised officers to enter private land, inspect vehicles, seize properties and even demand access to recreational equipment, all under the broad banner of biodiversity enforcement. This is disproportionate, intrusive and even somewhat chilling.

The questions need to be asked: will recreational fishers face prosecution for inadvertently disturbing aquatic vegetation? Will four-wheel drivers be fined for crossing terrain that might contain fungi or algae deemed to be ecologically significant? These are actually not far-fetched scenarios, they are logical outcomes of an overreaching law that includes algae and fungi in its definition of a plant and creates criminal offences for non-trivial biodiversity harm.

We must also consider the imposition of a new general duty, an obligation on every South Australian to avoid what is again termed non-trivial harm to biodiversity. But the question has to be: what constitutes non-trivial harm and what constitutes reasonable measures? There is no clarity in the bill, no examples, no thresholds; instead, landholders, fishers, four-wheel drivers and even suburban residents may find themselves subject to potential prosecution based on vague and subjective standards.

This lack of legal certainty is exacerbated by the expansion of third-party enforcement rights. Under the bill, individuals or organisations, regardless of their connection to the land, will be able to launch legal proceedings against landholders for alleged breaches. Let's be blunt: this opens the door to activist litigation. We could see frivolous, ideologically driven legal action that undermines responsible land use and ties up producers in costly, stressful and protracted disputes. This is not environmental stewardship; this is bureaucratic overreach with a courtroom sting in its tail.

Then there are the enforcement powers granted to authorised officers. Under clause 102, officers may enter and inspect any land, stop vehicles, board boats, seize property and demand documentation, all without a warrant. These powers exceed those of our own police force in some respects and they are being granted to undefined officials whose training and oversight remains unclear. This should raise red flags for every South Australian concerned with civil liberties and the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's property. We are giving sweeping powers to enforce laws so ambiguous that even experts are struggling to define them.

I want to speak to the impact again on recreational users, because they too are stakeholders in our state's environment. In fact, on communications with the president of the Four Wheel Drive South Australia association they were unaware of this piece of legislation. Given the potential impact that this piece of legislation could potentially have on four-wheel drive enthusiasts, the fact that they were not consulted on this bill is absolutely outrageous because the legislative reality is that four-wheel drive clubs, recreational fishers, campers and even bushwalkers should all be concerned that their access to public and even private land may be restricted under this new regime.

Will crossing a seasonal creek or bush track require clearance approvals if algae and fungi are present? Will a family driving to a remote fishing spot risk being in breach of biodiversity protection simply because their route traverses 'critical habitats'? Let's be clear: this bill gives the minister sweeping powers to declare areas of land, inland water or marine spaces as critical habitats with very little recourse for review and if you happen to find yourself in one of those areas, knowingly or not, you could be subject to penalty.

The bill also creates real risk for the viability of popular outdoor activities like hunting and fishing, especially where native animals are given new layers of protections without exemptions or practical management tools. Emergency management is another major red flag. In the heat of bushfires in South Australia every second counts, but this bill creates confusion over who can authorise vegetation clearance during fire events, raising the risk that vital action will be delayed while operators wait for written approvals. This is not just bad policy, it is actually dangerous.

Let's talk about the so-called balanced governance this bill proposes. The Native Vegetation Council will be dissolved. In its place, a series of new advisory bodies will be appointed but without guaranteed representation from either primary producers or pastoralists. Those who manage over half of the state's land mass may be excluded from the decision-making processes that directly affect them. This is not reform; it is regression. It replaces practical management with process and local knowledge with centralised control. It makes criminals out of landowners for doing what they have always done: manage their land sustainably and responsibly, with an eye to future generations.

The bill also imposes new and increased penalties, up to $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for body corporates. That is an extraordinary level of liability in an environment where rules are vague, the definitions are unclear, and the obligations are not well communicated.

There are also major gaps around how this legislation interacts with existing frameworks like the Landscape South Australia Act and the Fisheries Management Act or recreational access legislation. Will this create overlapping permit systems? Will this create more red tape or higher fees? No-one seems to know, and the bill does not say.

We were told that this bill will foster transparency, yet it centralises decision-making powers in the hands of the minister and does so without adequate safeguards, checks or guarantees of community representation. This is not democratic accountability; this is centralised control. We in this chamber have a duty to not just protect the environment but to protect the people who live within it. That includes ensuring that recreational users can continue to enjoy our state's parks and landscapes, that landowners are not punished for planting trees, and that local councils are not bankrupted by roadside vegetation clearance permits.

We cannot protect biodiversity by alienating the very people who live on the land and manage it every single day. We cannot build trust enforcing regulation through surveillance, intrusion and threat of litigation, and we certainly cannot deliver sustainability if we suffocate innovation, investment and responsible land stewardship under a blanket of red tape.

If this bill is not referred to the Natural Resources Committee, which we believe is a sensible place to publicly inquire into this bill, to inquire into this huge amount of issues, then let me be clear: we will not be supporting the Biodiversity Bill 2025 in its current form. I call on the government to take seriously the concerns of industry and the concerns of regional communities and of everyday South Australians.

I urge the government to pause, to listen and to reconsider. I urge the government to support the motion for an inquiry because once this law passes this place without significant amendment the damage it may do to communities, industries and livelihoods could take decades to undo. This is not how we want to build sustainable futures. It is how we build resentment, red tape and retreat from what this bill is aiming to achieve, which is responsible environmental management.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (12:30): I rise today to speak on the Biodiversity Bill before the chamber. This bill is approximately 175 pages of centrally driven legislation that reflects a metro mindset and will have sweeping consequences for regional South Australians, people who already shoulder the responsibility of environmental stewardship. Nobody is more invested in the long-term health of the environment than our farmers, our graziers and our regional landholders. They live in it, they manage it and they depend on it, yet this bill treats them not as custodians but as liabilities, an attitude that is fundamentally out of touch.

Powers given to authorised officers under clause 102 are of particular concern. They allow for entry onto private land, inspections of vehicles, seizures and a broad range of discretionary actions. This goes far beyond what is reasonable in an environmental management framework. The opposition amendments, which my honourable colleague has spoken to and which ensure that authorised officers are protected from personal liability if acting in good faith, help to address this concern. It gives confidence for those doing the right thing and sets a limit on the legal exposure created by vague enforcement powers.

Likewise, the opposition amendment requiring the minister to reimburse councils when their officers are appointed as authorised officers is a practical measure. Councils should not be carrying the financial burden of enforcing state legislation. This is a matter of fairness and of good governance.

The significant issue in this bill is its definitional overreach. The inclusion of fungi, algae and any part of a plant, however small or incidental, within the meaning of 'native plant' creates a situation where nearly every parcel of land could fall within the scope of regulation. The opposition amendments that properly define fungi and algae and clarify what constitutes a native plant of a relevant kind will help avoid confusion. They bring more precision to a bill that, as drafted, reads more like a trap for the unknowing than a road map for responsible land management.

There is also a matter of restoration, an idea that, while noble in intent, needs clear boundaries in the law. The opposition amendment defining restoration of biodiversity as efforts to return diversity to pre-1400 levels, while acknowledging that this may not be achievable, is a welcome inclusion. It adds historical context but recognises the practical limitations of modern land use.

Another concern is the extraordinary level of control handed to the minister, including who gets appointed to key advisory committees. The opposition amendment that requires the minister to keep requesting nominees from peak bodies until a suitable candidate is found is a basic but important safeguard. It ensures that those most affected by this biodiversity policy have a seat at the table and are not overridden by ministerial preference.

Importantly, consultation obligations have been strengthened. The opposition amendment that requires notification and feedback from key organisations, including Primary Producers SA, the LGA and the Conservation Council, before a biodiversity policy is implemented brings the sort of structure that should have been baked into the bill from the start. It means policy will not be made in a vacuum. It means that people on the ground will have their say.

The bill also allows for policy instruments or regulated area changes to be enacted with little or no warning. This creates massive uncertainty for landholders and councils trying to plan ahead. Opposition amendments requiring at least four months' notice before changes take effect are a clear improvement. They ensure communities are not blindsided by sudden regulatory shifts. Other changes to clearance distances, extending fence line and building clearance zones make sense. These small increases reflect real-world conditions and give landholders a margin of safety and workability that the original bill has overlooked.

There also is a broader risk here. Many farmers have spent decades planting native vegetation—shelter belts, windbreaks, buffer zones—not because they had to but because it was the right thing to do. Under this legislation those actions could become a liability. The very people who have done the most to improve biodiversity may end up being punished for it, and that is a perverse outcome that we must avoid.

This bill in its current form still represents a fundamental overreach. It does not encourage conservation through cooperation—it imposes it through control. It hands sweeping powers to bureaucrats, creates confusion through ambiguous definitions and elevates ministerial authority at the expense of community input.

The amendments moved by the opposition go some way to restoring some balance. They are measured, sensible and aimed at improving workability without gutting the bill. They will not solve every issue but they make this legislation less hostile, more transparent and a little more in touch with the reality on the ground in regional South Australia. If this government is serious about genuine environmental management, not just symbolism, then they should adopt these amendments in full.

We do not protect biodiversity by alienating those who manage it—we do it by working with them. Right now, this bill fails the test. I cannot support this bill in its current form, but I thank the Hon. Nicola Centofanti for her efforts to improve it through these opposition amendments. I urge the government to take these proposals seriously. Regional South Australians deserve no less.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (12:36): I rise to support the Biodiversity Bill before us. This well-intentioned bill recognises the importance of biodiversity and seeks to bring South Australia in line with other jurisdictions by responding to the current inadequate protections.

Globally, biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation are major concerns. Species extinction is at previously unimaginable levels. Human health is positively and directly impacted not only by biodiversity but by the quality of biodiversity. Whilst we often fail to recognise the extent to which we depend upon them, the ecosystem services are invaluable to the provision of clean air, water and food. Indeed, when we fail to protect biodiversity we fail to protect those very resources that are so fundamental to all life on earth—and all our lives on earth.

Evidence shows that exposure to a range of plants within a landscape, whether it be natural or created, may contribute both directly and indirectly to reductions in both acute and chronic health effects of air pollution such as allergies, asthma, cardiovascular diseases and premature death. Not only do we benefit from biodiversity as humans but the higher the quality of biodiversity the more we benefit.

It is absolutely in our best interests as a species to better protect biodiversity. Indeed, evidence shows that the loss of species from an ecosystem can significantly impact the capacity of that ecosystem to deliver these critically important ecosystem services, whether those services mitigate heat, noise or air pollution, or mediate human health and wellbeing.

It is great to see that recognition also of First Nations knowledge is embedded in this bill. This sees, as far as practicable, First Nations knowledge sought, considered and applied in a range of instances. In what is a groundbreaking move for South Australian legislation, the bill recognises a much broader range of animal species, with invertebrates being included, many of which play crucial roles in our ecosystems.

While there have been concerns expressed about the Native Vegetation Act being absorbed by this bill, it does put into place stronger requirements than the existing Native Vegetation Act. For instance, it requires evidence that the mitigation hierarchy has been worked through by those applicants who seek to remove native vegetation. The current Native Vegetation Act has no such requirement.

This bill requires that not only is the Native Plants Clearance Assessment Committee satisfied that the mitigation hierarchy has been applied with respect to the proposed clearance but also that they take into account the potential cumulative impacts, both direct and indirect, that are reasonably expected to result from the proposed clearance. There are many across the state who will be pleased to hear this, as there has been a developing community awareness of the cumulative impacts of losses such as we see with these.

Those who have advocated for stronger tree protections have cited cumulative impacts as being fundamentally missing from the decision-making process. I also commend the government on the requirement for the Native Plants Clearance Assessment Committee to be convinced that the mitigation hierarchy has been exhausted before accepting the need for an applicant to pay into an offset fund, rather than carry out that offset planting themselves.

For clearances that relate to safety and fire prevention, the bill explicitly spells out the circumstances under which such clearances are permitted. They are much clearer than what has been seen elsewhere regarding emergency removal of protected trees, whether native or exotic, for instance. It is this level of clarity that removes the wriggle room that has for far too long allowed the removal of large native trees under questionable circumstances.

There will be amendments to this bill to further improve it, ensuring, for instance, that native vegetation clearances designed purely for primary production properties apply only to those properties, rather than applying to significant parts of the metro area. I also will see amendments that increase transparency and accountability and look forward to supporting those, such as that consultation is not solely at ministerial discretion but remains part and parcel of reviews of the bill to become an act.

We intend, of course, in the debate to bring back the capacity for the Conservation Council to nominate a representative for the environment sector to the Native Plants Clearance Assessment Committee. As the peak body for the environment in this state, it is fitting that the council is able to nominate a representative. I also intend to use my vote to ensure that all native vegetation clearances, from application through to approvals, are listed on the PlanSA portal in addition to any other sites where they may be required to be listed.

The PlanSA portal is part of the state's new Planning and Design Code and was sold to us as being the one-stop shop for all development applications and approvals. Native vegetation clearances are inevitably tied to development of some kind, so it makes sense to include them in this portal. This will also ensure that the register of clearances would be more accurately updated.

Finally, the bill concentrates much power in the hands of the Minister for Environment. Indeed, entire areas can be carved out either temporarily or permanently or the act suspended for a period of time.

This bill has much to recommend it, and I do commend the Malinauskas government and the department for the work that has gone into it. I would also like to acknowledge the significant community input that was received during the consultation period, which was extensive. This is a key aspect of participatory democracy and has ultimately led not just to this bill but to an improved bill and, hopefully, to support for the amendments that I have outlined.

On that note, I would like to thank my adviser, Joanna Wells, for the extraordinary level of effort she has put into supporting me on the debate on this bill and, indeed, also Emily Gore in Minister Close's office for the fine work that she has done and continues to do as we work through the amendments that are tabled. I recognise in particular the good work of the EDO, which has made quite an extensive submission to this bill, and Michael Cornish, who I know has gone above and beyond in lending his expertise to ensuring that the debate on this bill sees the best bill this parliament can produce at this time. With that, I look forward to the committee stage.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (12:43): I rise today to speak on the Biodiversity Bill 2025, which aims to modernise the protection of native animals, plants and ecosystems in South Australia and consolidate and replace the Native Vegetation Act 1991 and components of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. Currently, biodiversity is regulated through a patchwork of laws across a range of acts, and this bill intends to simplify and consolidate existing laws into one unified approach and streamline decision-making processes.

At the same time, the new biodiversity act intends to strengthen biodiversity protection by expanding the definition of native plants and protected animals, recognise and protect habitats that are critical to the survival of threatened species and embed First Nations knowledge into environmental management. It will also improve enforcement mechanisms, strengthen penalties, facilitate increased restoration and enhance transparency with increased access to state biodiversity data. These are worthy considerations and aspirational goals, recognising both the importance of protecting increasing biodiversity in South Australia and the need for more streamlined, transparent and practical legislation.

As other honourable members have outlined, this is an immensely complicated bill, which not only consolidates and modernises a patchwork of existing legislation but also makes a wide range of significant changes, which have regulatory implications for stakeholders across our community and industries, from farming and primary production to Aboriginal communities, housing and infrastructure development, mining and local government.

Some of the key changes and new provisions in the legislation include a new general duty to take reasonable and practical measures to prevent or minimise harm to biodiversity. This duty applies broadly across industries and activities and, while failure to comply will not constitute an offence, it may trigger compliance, reparations and other regulatory orders. New governance structures, such as the Biodiversity Council, the Native Plants Clearance Assessment Committee and advisory bodies such as an Aboriginal Biodiversity Committee and the Scientific Committee, will oversee regulations and policy development and implementation.

There is the introduction of a new State Biodiversity Plan that will be developed by the minister, with input from the council and committees, that will shape decision-making, including restoration targets, biodiversity indicators and conservation priorities. The bill also expands the scope of current environmental protections to include all native plants indigenous to Australia, not just South Australia, and recognises algae, fungi, threatened invertebrates, amphibians and fish. This brings a wider range of vegetation under regulation and will increase requirements for clearance approvals, including native plant species that were intentionally planted and/or more than 20 years old.

The areas where unauthorised clearance is prohibited will be increased to include all public land within South Australia. All native animals will be protected from interference by default, with exemptions to be made specifically in the regulations. New critical habitat areas that are deemed essential for the survival of a threatened species or ecological communities can be declared by the minister. Where a plant is part of a declared critical habitat, the Native Plants Clearance Assessment Committee must not approve clearance unless satisfied that the activity will not cause or contribute to an increase in the risk of extinction or collapse of a threatened species of an ecological community.

I want to focus now on a range of concerns that have been raised across the community, particularly from the within the development sector, about the impacts of the new legislation. Significant elements of the legislation are to be addressed in the regulations, including any transitional provisions. This lack of clarity in the bill creates significant uncertainty for businesses, developers and the community. Peak bodies, such as the Property Council of Australia and the Urban Development Institute of Australia, raised concerns during the public consultation on the draft bill that the lack of transitional provisions is particularly concerning for those with projects in planning or currently seeking approval. There is no indication of how such proposals may be affected by the legislation.

The lack of consultation with the development sector on key elements, such as the significant environmental benefit (SEB) scheme, has also been highlighted in the feedback on the bill. The SEB is enshrined in the legislation, but will be developed by the minister following the passage of the bill and will ensure offsets generally compensate for the impacts and loss and leave biodiversity in a better state. While the minister has stated that the SEB policy will be developed with significant consultation and that the policy will have regard to the practical implications for business and industry, the bill does not specify that the development sector must be involved in the consultation at all.

The government has stated that the new biodiversity act will help streamline approval processes and improve existing links to current legislation, such as the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. However, concerns have also been raised that infrastructure development and residential subdivisions may be required to seek native plant clearance approvals from both the Native Plants Clearance Assessment Committee and also as part of any development approvals under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. If this is the case, it creates duplications and increases regulatory processes rather than streamlining and reducing red tape as the bill intended. Ecological assessment to identify controls to mitigate the risk of harming biodiversity or native plants or animals could significantly affect project timelines and budgets.

The Local Government Association also raised concerns about the bill's proposal to expand the spatial application to include public land. The LGA has strongly urged for consultation with councils directly affected by this change to ensure that they can still undertake necessary maintenance and act in the best interests of public safety.

The LGA has raised further issues about road safety, maintenance and management. The bill states that consent can be given by the Native Plants Clearance Assessment Committee for 'clearance of native plants incidental to work being undertaken by or on behalf of the Commissioner of Highways', and the LGA has asked for similar provisions to be applied to roads that are under the care and control of local councils.

Further, the LGA has highlighted that there are longstanding issues with accessing rubble pits for suitable road base for road construction purposes. The cost of transporting road base material for roads over long distances is prohibitive and significantly increases the cost per kilometre of road building and maintenance. The LGA suggests that the SEB scheme should facilitate the use of rubble pits, with native plant considerations accounted for in an efficient manner.

Further feedback from the LGA recommends that expert input from road safety advisory bodies should be considered to harmonise road safety and native plant management requirements on roadside verges. Where native plants that exceed two metres in height pose a risk of personal injury or property damage, an assessment by a plant health expert is required for clearance approval.

The LGA has also stated that councils rely on qualified and experienced staff to make informed risk-based decisions about tree management and that local government being required to seek expert reports would be unnecessary and oppressive. These are the areas that the LGA would like government to consider.

Finally, I note that, during the consultation on the draft bill, a range of stakeholders raised concerns about the lack of an appeal or review process in relation to decisions about the clearance of native plants. I understand this has now been addressed in the final version of the bill before us, but I remain concerned that the review process may not be transparent or adequately able to cover these issues.

I note that a range of amendments by many honourable members in this place has been filed. I will consider the merits of all the amendments during the committee stage of the debate. I will also give my consideration to the proposition by the Liberal opposition to refer the bill to a committee. I would like to hear explanations given by various members before decisions are made.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (12:53): I rise on behalf of the government to speak on the Biodiversity Bill. The Malinauskas Labor government made an election commitment to South Australians to introduce this bill. It brings together the Native Vegetation Act and key biodiversity provisions from the National Parks and Wildlife Act, ensuring that they work together to provide stronger and clearer protections for nature.

South Australia's landscapes and seascapes are very much a part of our identity, our economy and our future prosperity, yet we know that biodiversity is under increasing pressure. This legislation meets that challenge head-on. The state's first Biodiversity Bill consolidates a range of laws into one coherent framework, making the rules clearer, stronger and easier to apply.

The World Wildlife Foundation's 2024 Living Planet Report found an average 73 per cent decline since 1970 in global populations of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians. The Malinauskas Labor government knows protection alone is not enough. We must also fix or heal what has been harmed.

The bill mandates a State Biodiversity Plan. This requirement will see the development of a collaborative road map with statewide priorities and measurable targets. New and existing tools, such as biodiversity agreements, sanctuaries and action plans for threatened species will help give greater certainty to private landholders, developers and community groups. This will help clarify biodiversity priorities and guide development and restoration planning.

This bill gives greater certainty to a range of people and groups. Whether you are a farmer, a miner, a developer, a council or conservation volunteer, the bill explains what changes and what stays the same. For example, mining and major projects can retain current vegetation clearance exemptions; however, stricter offset rules where critical habitat is involved will be implemented. The introduction of this new process will identify and safeguard habitat vital for the survival of threatened species.

Agriculture will keep practical exemptions for day-to-day land management while adopting the general duty policy to avoid harm so that all South Australians play a role in protecting biodiversity. The introduction of general duty will require anyone undertaking an activity to avoid non-trivial harm to biodiversity and recognise habitat that is critical to our threatened species. Faster enforcement powers, higher penalties and new third-party civil enforcement provisions will ensure that misconduct is dealt with quickly and decisively.

The conservation sector gains a modern listing process and the power to nominate species for protection. The bill expands the definition of 'native plants' and 'protected animals' to include algae, fungi, threatened invertebrates, amphibians and fish. Aboriginal peoples gain a formal voice through the Aboriginal Biodiversity Committee and retain cultural rights to gather and hunt native species.

Developers and infrastructure providers will see better alignments with planning laws. The bill streamlines decision-making and sets clear boundaries on what is and what is not regulated. It establishes four expert committees: the Biodiversity Council, the Aboriginal Biodiversity Committee, the Clearance Assessment Committee and the Scientific Committee.

In addition, the bill is supported by three dedicated funds aimed to restore and conserve our natural assets. The Biodiversity Restoration Fund and Biodiversity Conservation Fund are largely rolled over from the Native Vegetation Act and National Parks and Wildlife Act respectively. A new Biodiversity Administration Fund will be set up to ensure better transparency and accountability in expenditure of funds.

These structures will place science, Aboriginal knowledge and community voices at the centre of every key decision through this legislation, and we will commit to three simple but profound objectives, and those are: protect what is irreplaceable, repair what is damaged, and, finally, share the responsibility. I therefore commend this Biodiversity Bill to the house and urge members to support it.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:16.