Motions

Biosecurity

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. N.J. Centofanti:

That this council—

1. Recognises the importance of biosecurity to South Australia, in particular with regard to the state’s primary industries, and the potential impact on production.

2. Acknowledges the significant and ongoing concerns from industry sectors regarding Biosecurity SA’s preparedness and response capability.

3. Calls on the Minister for Primary Industries to:

(a) establish an independent review into the Department of Primary Industry and Regional South Australia’s response to the tomato brown rugose virus incursion, and its capacity and capability to deal with future pest and disease incursions; and

(b) table the report of the review as well as the government’s response upon completion.

(Continued from 5 February 2025.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (21:17): I rise to support this motion and indicate I will not be supporting the amendments.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (21:17): I have a proposal to change the motion, and I will move that ahead of commencing my speech. I move:

Leave out paragraphs 2 and 3 and insert new paragraphs as follows:

2. Acknowledges the importance of a bipartisan approach to biosecurity as a matter of state importance, rather than political opportunism that undermines confidence.

3. Recognises that a national review occurs after any national disease incursion and that this will occur once the tomato brown rugose virus (ToBRV) response in South Australia has been completed and eradication is achieved; and

4. Acknowledges that both the national review and PIRSA input to the review will be used for continuous improvement for responses to the many exotic pests and diseases that are creating increasing risks to Australian primary production.

The motion would now read:

That this council—

1. Recognises the importance of biosecurity to South Australia, in particular with regard to the state’s primary industries, and the potential impact on production.

2. Acknowledges the importance of a bipartisan approach to biosecurity as a matter of state importance, rather than political opportunism that undermines confidence.

3. Recognises that a national review occurs after any national disease incursion and that this will occur once the tomato brown rugose virus (ToBRV) response in South Australia has been completed and eradication is achieved and

4. Acknowledges that both the national review and PIRSA input to the review will be used for continuous improvement for responses to the many exotic pests and diseases that are creating increasing risks to Australian primary production.

I am advised that, as a signatory to the national Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed, the state government is obliged to respond to exotic diseases like tomato brown rugose virus under a national agreement. The Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed is a formal, legally binding agreement between Plant Health Australia, the Australian government, all state and territory governments, and national plant industry bodies. As a government-industry partnership, the deed outlines national governance and investment in responding to and eradicating emergency plant pests and has provided the consistent and agreed national approach for managing incursions since it was ratified in 2005.

The South Australian Department of Primary Industries and Regions is leading the nationally coordinated and funded response to tomato brown rugose fruit virus under an agreed national response plan to eradicate the disease. The Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus Eradication Response Plan was approved in November 2024 by the National Management Group, which is comprised of all Australian governments and affected industries who are signatories to the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed.

The response plan includes agreed measures including ongoing testing, surveillance and monitoring to achieve eradication and support a pathway back to the production and trade of tomatoes. The National Management Group has committed $5 million to achieve the response objectives. Clause 11.5.1 of the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed states that:

Plant Health Australia must monitor and report to its members on:

(a) resource usage in the implementation of a Response Plan;

(b) Deed policy issues;

(c) the implementation of Biosecurity measures; and

(d) the implementation of the provisions of this Deed relating to Owner Reimbursement Costs.

In order to fulfil this obligation, I am advised that Plant Health Australia holds debriefs in order to gather, analyse and report on information arising from incidents and response plans. These debriefs are conducted in accordance with the Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR) Lessons Management Handbook. In addition, PLANTPLAN, which is part of schedule 5 to the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed, guides activities under the deed and states on page 32, part 1, the following:

Incident debriefs are a critical component of the stand down phase as they provide an opportunity for participants to highlight areas requiring improvement as well as positive outcomes.

Incident debriefs will be held at local, state and national levels following termination of the EPP response. It is essential that relevant personnel involved in the response are included in the debriefing process.

[Plant Health Australia] and the [Australian Chief Plant Protection Officer] will coordinate a debriefing in regard to the operation of the [Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed] and PLANTPLAN to help inform any appropriate changes to PLANTPLAN or the [deed].

Debrief reports contain confidential information under the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed and for this reason cannot be made public without contravening clause 29 of that deed. The government is satisfied that the independent oversight provided by Plant Health Australia and the Australian Chief Plant Protection Officer through this debriefing and reporting process is sufficient and appropriate for identifying any areas requiring improvements and positive outcomes of the incident responses and will update its processes as required to incorporate new information or address gaps identified by the outcomes of the relevant incident debriefs.

In addition and in response to any requests from industry nationally, the requirement for an efficiency order has been built into the Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus Eradication Response Plan and agreed by all parties. This is a routine independent assessment applied to a national response to ensure that they are being applied as efficiently as they can be. It should be noted that PIRSA undertakes after-action reviews of all its incident responses as part of its ongoing commitment to continuous improvement in emergency management.

It is for these reasons that we seek to amend the motion being moved by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti. It is disappointing that the opposition has changed its approach to biosecurity in South Australia. Whereby previously bipartisan support has been offered from all sides of politics in the event of a major biosecurity incursion, this is not the case with the current opposition. We have seen constant attempts by the shadow minister and other Liberal MPs to score cheap political points, despite the very real risk of spooking interstate and overseas trade markets. We have seen the opposition deliberately take actions that divert much needed resources away from the response.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: We have seen the opposition take up valuable time at growers' meetings, meetings designed for growers to ask questions and to be provided with critical information. Instead they found themselves having to share that time with grandstanding opposition members trying to stoke more fear in what is already an extremely stressful time for producers impacted by this virus.

It is critically important that we have a bipartisan approach to matters relating to biosecurity, and we once again urge members of the opposition to engage in a more productive and bipartisan manner. The state government agrees and supports the independent review being conducted into this matter at the time once the ongoing response has concluded.

It is important to note that the response to the tomato brown rugose fruit virus is still ongoing and complete eradication has yet to be achieved. We are confident that the spread of the virus has been contained, but now is not the time to take away precious resources from the ongoing response and instead be tied up in a review that will mean less time being able to be devoted to the response to these eradication efforts.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (21:24): I rise today to speak in support of the Hon. Nicola Centofanti's motion to recognise the importance of biosecurity to South Australia. Effective biosecurity measures are essential to prevent the spread of animal and plant diseases, pests and pathogens, to protect community health and to maintain the productivity of primary industries. The importance of biosecurity has been highlighted by the tomato brown rugose fruit virus incursion which has crippled South Australia's tomato industry since it was first detected at a Two Wells tomato farm in August 2024.

The Department of Primary Industries and Regions' (PIRSA) response and management of the virus has raised significant and ongoing concerns about Biosecurity SA's preparedness and response capabilities. Attempting to eradicate and exclude a virus that was globally widespread and already present in imported seed came at a significant cost to the industry.

The discovery of the virus in South Australia threw the industry into a meltdown. Three South Australian tomato producers were forced to close and destroy millions of dollars' worth of tomatoes, resulting in job losses and immense financial and mental toll. It is truly heartbreaking, and I want to highlight the devastating impact on one of the growers. South Australian tomato grower Peter Petsios said he was $4 million in debt and his physical and mental health had nosedived, forcing the closure of his 65-year-old business.

'This has taken a toll on me,' he said. 'This is the worst thing that's happened to me—it's like a death in the family. How the hell am I going to come up with $4 million? How am I ever going to recover from this?' He continued to say, 'I could have had a heart attack. I could have been dead. I have been to the doctor lots of times. My chest hurts. I've got a permanent headache, vision loss, things like that. Just enormous grief, enormous anxiety.'

It was not just the growers themselves who were affected, but the nurseries supplying the farms and the suppliers and markets at the other end of the supply chain who have also been greatly impacted over the last year. In November 2024, I joined parliamentary colleagues, including the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, to stand with tomato growers and primary producers on the steps of Parliament House at a rally in protest of the national response that attempted to eradicate the virus.

We have now seen the National Management Group announce that it is no longer feasible to eradicate the virus in Australia and that it will move to a management approach in line with international best practice. Growers in Australia now need clear, timely guidance on managing the virus effectively under the new national guidelines. Some local tomato producers have said that this change comes too late. It does little to boost their confidence in PIRSA's response capability.

An independent inquiry into the government's response to this virus incursion is essential for ensuring transparency and accountability and to learn lessons to help improve future responses. I once again extend my support and empathy to everyone who has been impacted by the tomato brown rugose fruit virus and join their calls for an independent inquiry to ensure that government does better to safeguard both plant and animal health and the economic stability and viability of our primary producers. With those words, I indicate that I fully support the motion and will oppose the amendments by the government.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (21:28): I thank all members who have contributed to the debate on this motion: the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Justin Hanson and the Hon. Jing Lee. Whilst I welcome engagement from the government benches, we will not be supporting the amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Hanson. The government's amendment significantly alters the intent of the original motion. Rather than supporting transparency and accountability through an independent review, it attempts to deflect responsibility yet again, pushing everything into a future national process, which the minister knows will be government-driven. This is not leadership. It is just another example of a government more interested in spin than substance.

We stand by the original motion, and we call on the government to do the right thing: commission an independent review, table it in the council and demonstrate the transparency that South Australians expect and deserve. With that, I commend the motion to the chamber.

Amendment negatived; motion carried.