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 The breadth of the bill is nothing short of significant, as it repeals several outdated bills, such as the Dog Fence Act 1946, the Impounding Act 1920, the Livestock Act 1997 and the Plant Health Act 2009, and amends both the Fisheries Management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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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