 Hi everyone and thank you for coming along. So my name is Jen Barwick and I am a project and policy officer in Perza and I'm one of the team that are working towards developing the new Biosecurity Act here in Perza. Many of you attending today will have already would already know Andrew who is online and Andrew is the program manager here and leading the development of the Biosecurity Act and joining us also online as today who is Nathan Rhodes Executive Director and give everyone a wave Nathan and John Virtue and he's a biosecurity essay. So yes, so my role today is very brief. I'm going to do some quick housekeeping, introduce you to today's agenda and then I'm going to be turning my camera off and providing some of the tech support for Andrew as he presents. So if by any chance this goes pear shaped by Nathan. Today's agenda will involve Andrew is going to go through is going to introduce you to the approach we're developing we're going to it's going to be pretty content heavy but we are going to encourage you to be involved and be part of the conversation. There's some multiple ways that you can do that. Can I get you to flip to the next slide Andrew. So we're going to, we're going to break up the content section and the next one with a few tools in this webinar so we're going to be asking some poll questions and we're going to get you to give you a feedback in the Q&A. And then we're also going to have a bit of a Q&A at the end. So, but I guess the first thing I want to say that webinars are a bit different to the team meetings and the zoom meetings we may have all had where we all have access to our camera and our microphone and this one's a bit different. We, we haven't opened the microphone or the camera to everyone but you're still going to be able to have a participate in this webinar so one of the ways that you are able to do it is in the Q&A. So if you look down on the bottom of your screen you should have a little Q&A icon down there. If you click it, a little panel will pop up and you can add your comment or add a question in that panel. And if you seeing those questions come through and you think they're pretty good you can actually fight the questions by hitting the little thumbs up button and it just means that it will raise that question to the top and when we get to the point where we want to talk to some of those questions or comments that are in the box. And then you'll start from the top and it will be the one that's that's the highest rank so and work his way down. The other option there is your raise your hand so this is for the braver people in the room. So if you would like to talk to your question if you want to talk to and provide some context to one of the poll responses that you do. And that's a little icon down should be at the bottom of the participants list where it says raise a hand and you will be able to turn your microphone I will be able to turn your microphone on for you and and and give you the floor. So don't forget to unselect it though once you've had your chance to have your say so the other and next one. And finally the way that we're also going to try and grab some of your feedback and input today will be through the poll questions with base these poll questions on the your say if you've had a chance to check out your say you'll see that there's a survey there. And this one's a little different like unlike the your say where you get free text and you can provide some context around, you know why you strongly agree or strongly disagree to to the question. This one's just going to be the straight agree disagree but again that's where we're going to encourage you to use your Q&A box and to add some context and some some feedback on those questions so or raise your hands so again. And I will hand over to Andrew to do the next part. Thank you, Jen for that introduction and give you a bit of an overview of how the webinars operate. You may have worked out that Jen's in the room with me here I might just get her to mute her mic so I don't get the echo in my ear. So thank you for all logging in today. It's good to see so many people here and quite a number of familiar faces as well. So my name is Andrew Copers and I'm the privilege of having the role of project manager for the delivery of the Biosecurity Act and working a lot with a lot of you over the last 18 months to get to this point through the target consultation and the development of the technical directions paper, which is a lot of the basis of the content that we'll be working through today. So as Jen said, we're really keen to get your feedback and your views to please make use of the Q&A box, ask your questions, raise your hand, interject and ask your questions, make comments. And John and Nathan and Jen here as well to help support providing any answers and context around any of the questions or clarity that you might be seeking. So what we really want to do is seek your views and get some feedback around, you know, what we're proposing and use the content, the feedback from this webinar to really feed into the broader feedback that we'll be receiving through the your say process to help inform the drafting of the Biosecurity Bill, which is then we'll present another opportunity for a review of where things are heading and provide some feedback to help us refine the bill before we then go through the parliamentary stages. But I'll touch on next steps a bit later in my presentation. Now to start off, Jen was going to do a poll around just to get a, you know, it's an opportunity to practice the poll and see how it works, but also just to get a sense of where everyone's coming from. So I'll just launch the poll now for that will pop up on your screen. So the question will be what industry sector do you represent and there's a number of categories there. So hopefully you'll be able to find a category that fits you. If not, there's another box as well. So I'll launch that now and I'll just give us a few, you know, 20 seconds or so to respond. And that will give us a bit of a hands on go of how the polling will work. And there'll be a number of poll questions throughout my session just to sort of break it up, but also to get some feedback from you as well. So I'll launch that now. Here we go. So you should see that up on your screen now. So I'll just give you a few, few seconds to respond to that. Okay. So I've still got a couple more coming in. All right, I'll just end that now. Excuse me. So you should see, no, I've got to share the results. So I'm getting used to this myself as well. So you should see up on your screen the results of the poll. So seeing that a third of it's from government and then almost a third from industry body or association and then primary producers and others represented there as well. So the questions that we have will have a similar experience and come up with a result that just gives an opportunity to get a feel for how you're all feeling and your views. And also just to see how are the other participants responding to some of the questions that we're asking as well and some of the content we're covering. I'll just take that away now. So I'm just sorry to my screen. So I just want to first touch off with the purpose and objectives of the new biosecurity acts. What are we trying to achieve? So I think we can all be in agreement that primary industries are a real critical part of South Australia's economy and the contribution that they make. And so they're very much worth protecting and making sure that we have good practices in place to secure our biosecurity. Biosecurity risks are continually increasing both in complexity and their scale. And they're always growing through increased trade and travel that we are seeing globally but also in Australia as well. So the new Biosecurity Act is an important step to improve our biosecurity system while continuing to provide strong powers for the prevention, detection, management and eradication of pests and diseases. So what is the purpose of developing the new act? The fundamental purpose is to protect South Australia from pests and diseases that are economically significant, threaten our terrestrial and aquatic environment or the main effect public amenities, community activities and infrastructure. So what we're proposing is building a contemporary legal framework, which will have all the components required to in a comprehensive biosecurity act to achieve this fundamental purpose. As we develop the new act, we will aim to keep the best part of our current approach, the current legislation and the current system that we have, but also while building in those opportunities for improvement as well. And a lot of the consultation that we have done and will continue to do is really sort of trying to identify those opportunities to make sure that we're building them in the opportunity of developing a new act, which doesn't come around very often. So this approach is really about improving the consistency in our biosecurity and making sure that the current innovative approaches that we have in one sector-specific piece of legislation can be applied across all sectors. So again that consistency, so we have good things in animal health, good things in plant health, they should be expanded across those other sectors to enable those opportunities to be available as well. So that not only creates consistency in our approach, which of course brings about efficiency and clarity, but also presents those opportunities for those sectors in a more efficient regulatory environment. We're looking at some core concepts as part of building in the new act or the new legal framework, and they're really modern principles, but we're referring to them as core concepts. And they are shared responsibility, risk-based decision-making, and the third one being proactive management of biosecurity risk, which I'll touch on in a little bit more detail soon. So we all know that good biosecurity requires every South Australian to work together, and for everyone to take responsibility for their actions, and that's why shared responsibility is so important and is a core concept. The other core concept around risk-based decision-making, you know, it's about matching the levels of regulation that we're building into the new framework to match the level of risk that we're trying to manage. So having an appropriate regulation matched to the risk. So we want that to be efficient and fit-for-purpose regulation as much as possible. The third core concept around proactive biosecurity management is about the ability to proactively manage biosecurity risks, and to take action based on a reasonable suspicion that a risk is there, is present, but without having the actual evidence necessarily to prove that the risk is there. There needs to be a reasonable suspicion, you know, a high level of assurance or a high level of suspicion or confidence of the risk is there, but the ability to take proactive quick action, which is really important in biosecurity responses while we continue to assess the situation. So that helps with prevention and also early detection of biosecurity risks. Nationally and, you know, the national biosecurity system working with other jurisdictions is really important. So we want this framework to continue to support the national arrangements and be consistent and as harmonized as possible and continue to support those important market access requirements and trade arrangements. So we can continue to benefit and trade on South Australia's, you know, good quality food, fibre and beverages. And also to give effect to those intergovernmental agreements that South Australia has signed up to as well. To make sure that what they're committing to at those national forums, our legislation is able to enact and put into place for the benefit of South Australia and again the national system. And so there's been a heavy focus in working with other jurisdictions who have consolidated biosecurity acts throughout this project. So we've had a number of conversations with Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia. And also starting conversations with Victoria and ACT as well around the system just to make sure that we're all sharing our better practice and aligning as much as possible and as appropriate. In terms of the outcome of the reform that we're trying to achieve. So with the new biosecurity acts, South Australia will for the first time have a consistent legal approach to biosecurity management under a single set of principles. So that is, you know, having a single act, a single set of objectives, a single set of processes brings about a consistent approach and that single focus, which will be a real benefit. And that's not to say that biosecurity essay at the moment don't have a consolidated focus or a set of principles. You know, we have the state biosecurity policy and the team works collaboratively together. But the legislation they work to is a patchwork of acts that have been developed independently. We're considering the age of the impounding act over the last century. So that means animal health, plant health, fisheries and agriculture, biosecurity and the management of wild dogs will be sitting under the same consistent act. So one of the outcomes that we want to look at is how we can modernize. So we want to introduce greater flexibility to respond to biosecurity threats and enable that action based on a reasonable suspicion of risk, which I've touched on already. We want to enhance South Australia's ability to meet trade and market protocols and improve market access. So for example, about establishing pest free areas, which are recognized by key export markets. We want to enable the identification and uptake of new technologies in biosecurity management and methodologies to support the strong biosecurity system. And we want to be able to appropriately share responsibility for biosecurity between government, industry and community. Some of these things I've touched on already, but you know, so in terms of that modernization sort of approach. The other outcomes we want is around improvements. So we want to reduce red tape as much as possible, you know, to use the government buzzword. And that will come about through consolidating administration. So it's efficiently reducing red tape for government, but also how businesses industry interacts with biosecurity and the government and the legislation. We also want to empower industry to be able to take a lead leading role through being able to be accredited to the third party under the act and recognizing appropriate existing industry practices to avoid any unnecessary duplication. So we don't accept the government requirement when an industry requirement gives us the same outcome or a better outcome. We want to be able to recognize that and the industry do what industry does best in managing biosecurity where appropriate. We want to enable consistency in applying evidence-based risk analysis approach to biosecurity management and events. We want to improve government's arrangements and interaction with other related South Australian acts. We want to ensure clear and strong powers for biosecurity officers and comprehensive compliance framework to manage biosecurity risks and establish effective deterrents for those that seek to do the wrong thing. And it's also an opportunity to enhance the knowledge of biosecurity across the South Australian community. So, you know, I think the current pandemic has done a lot around making people raising people's awareness around the spread of diseases and viruses and what that can mean. And so, you know, developing a new biosecurity act is again is another opportunity to make people aware of what are the risks here, how are they managed and what sort of tools do we need to actually effectively address the situation. The other area is around consistency and efficiency as well. So, you know, it's creating a single act as an efficient harmonized system for both government industry, but also the community as well. As I've touched on before, consistency with the national biosecurity management with the Commonwealth, but also other jurisdictions where possible. And also around the ability to establish any additional industry based boards and funding mechanisms to achieve specific industry based biosecurity outcomes as well, which I'll touch on a little bit more in a minute. I just want to touch on as well briefly around how the legislation will be designed. So we're looking at designing framework legislation. So what that means is that it'll essentially result in a general head of power. So a general biosecurity act that will contain provisions required to give effect to a particular policy or a particular system. So all the matters of importance will be contained within the biosecurity act. But then the implementation or the detail of those matters will sit within subordinate instruments. And generally speaking, subordinate instruments is referred to regulations, but it's not always just regulations. So with this approach, you have a number of regulations supporting the detail in the act or, I guess, conveying the detail of how the legislation will be applied. And that gives a number of benefits in terms of the flexibility of the system. So regulations can be easily maintained and changed as new approaches and new innovation comes into the system without the need for completely redesigning the act as well. So it gives that level of flexibility and also sort of future proofs the arrangements as well. So because the head of power doesn't need or the act doesn't need to continue to be redesigned every time you want to make improvements that can be done through the regulations. And so the bill that comes out will be that general head of power. But we will also, and I'll touch on this later as well, we will do what we can to provide as much detail around the subordinate instruments in parallel with the bill as well to try and give the complete picture of the entire framework. Because some of that detail will be important in terms of explaining where we want to learn ahead. So moving on now, we've got a poll question here, which I'll just launch. It looks like we have a Q&A coming in as well, so I'll launch the poll and then I'll just have a look at that question. Here, so the question will pop up on the screen, so same as before, just provide your response and then we can have a quick chat about the results. All right, so Jen and I were just taking the opportunity to talk about some technical issues we've got with who's able to host and control what's going on. So you weren't missing anything in terms of content. So thank you for those that have voted. So it looks like in terms of the new modern act and how important that is to your sector of business. So a strong response there for very important and important and a few not sure. So it's good to know that the new act is important and that there's going to be some opportunities, but also watch closely to make sure that we are continuing to maintain the things that are important to industries, businesses at the moment as well when we go through and develop a new act. Oops, sorry, I didn't actually share the results, getting ahead of myself. Sorry, I'm still new to this. So yeah, there's the results up in your screen. So majority coming back is important, but a few there is very significant amounts are very important and a few not sure. So hopefully you can all see that. So just touching again, I'll touch on these briefly, but just a little bit more information around the core concept, the three core concepts that are underpinning the legislation that we're proposing. So the first one around shared responsibility. So that will underpin and further strengthen the relationship between government industry and the people of South Australia and how we work together to protect our economy, our environment and community from the negative impacts of pests and diseases. And that's to the benefit of all South Australians. So a strong and effective by security is in everyone's best interest. And it really does rely on a partnership approach. So not one part of that partnership can actually do it all by themselves. We really need everyone to work together. So to continue protect South Australia's by security, so government, you know, will still continue to fulfill its role in by security and provide adequate resourcing and lead and coordinate where we're appropriate. And one example would be by security responses and emergencies. But we also want to empower industry and the community to be able to take, you know, take ownership of by security as well. So the mechanisms in the accident able industries, communities to be recognized and undertake by security programs. So that's not to mean that government is no longer going to be fulfilling its current role in by security. And so shared responsibility is not a new concept and especially not new in South Australia. But we will require some new will be composing some new aspects to our legislation to further express the concept of shared responsibility. So, you know, arrangements for sharing responsibility of becoming more prevalent in by security management as you look across examples across Australia but internationally as well. In terms of codes of practice, regulatory standards, quality and market assurance scheme, but also joint management plans are just a few examples of government industry partnerships in by security. So one of the one of the more prominent ways of shared responsibilities that proposed to be expressed in the new act is around the general by security duty. So the new act proposes to establish this duty which will create a legal obligation for all South Australians to use reasonable standards of care when dealing with any material that presents a by security risk. So that mean that a person will be legally required. So the person is aware or reasonably should be aware that by security risk exists. They need to ensure as far as reasonably practical that the risk is mitigated, eliminated or reduced. So similar requirements actually already exist in South Australia. So, for example, there's the prohibiting of movement of disease stock to sale yard sale yard under the life stock act or the selling of fruit with fruit fly onto the plant health act. So that's examples of, you know, a duty of care and a responsibility that people need to take when managing by security. So it's not it's not an entirely new concept in South Australia. And section six of the plant health act requires a person to report a pest, pest affected plants and products and take reasonable measures to prevent any spread. Again, that's an example of a duty of care. So a general by security duty exists in other jurisdictions. So New South Wales, Tasmania and Queensland all have a general by security duty or sometimes they're referred to as a general by security obligation. And that's within their by security acts and within the technical directions. There's actually a case study coming out of Queensland around how the general by security duty has been used to address an issue with cattle being moved with cattle tick. The next area around expressing shared responsibility is accreditation authorities. So the new act proposes that the state government is able to recognise non government organisations as accreditation authorities who will be authorised to a credit by security certifiers and auditors to order and inspect business, inspect business operations and provide product certification. Again, not a new concept in South Australia, but it's not consistently applied across our legislation. It exists within the plant health space, but it doesn't exist within the animal health under the livestock acts. There's an opportunity there for accreditation in the animal health industry. This approach could also see a formal recognition of industry based quality assurance programmes for regulatory purposes. So there's some opportunity here in terms of empowering industry to take more of a leadership role. Another area where shared responsibility could be expressed is around by security programmes. So we've looked at examples in Western Australia and Tasmania. So in Western Australia, their by security and agricultural management act, the BAM Act enables landholders to come together and establish a recognised by security group. So this is an expression of shared responsibility as it enables communities and industries to partner with a range of organisations, and that can include the state government agencies and potentially access funding for their by security programmes. So the Western Australian Act allows a rate to be raised or amount of money to be raised for the purposes of by security in a recognised group under the operational area. And then the funds that are collected can be matched by the state government. So there's a process that they need to step through in terms of proposing and having their programme assessed. But if it's approved, then it gives them options under the by security act to enact that community or industry or organisational based by security programme. So Tasmania has taken a similar approach in their by security act, which provides for by security programmes that can be administered by government or an industry group or a nonprofit organisation such as an environmental organisation. So in Tasmania's Act, the by security programmes can be established for outcomes such as eradicating weeds or managing feral animals from a particular regional area or to promote the adoption of an industry wise disease control and prevention measures or by a particular commodity sector. So programmes are another way of promoting the shared responsibility for by security and partnerships between government, industry and the community. And so we're considering that as part of the by security act. So it's an area you might see opportunities for and wish to give some feedback on. In terms of risk based decisions as another area of the core concepts. So one of the guiding principles currently for by security in South Australia is that risk management is used to set priorities and investment across by security management. And this is proposed to continue as part of the new by security act. So the aim of risk based decision making is to ensure that the steps taken to manage a by security risk are effective and proportionate to the risk being addressed. So the by security act as currently is the case it will propose it proposes to focus on by security risks that are or are likely to become a significant problem for the economy, the environment or social amenities. So the identification assessment and prioritization of by security risks will help ensure that any resources that need to be deployed deployed to the highest risk areas and a most appropriate response is provided. So to manage by security risks all reasonable and practical steps need to be taken to mitigate eliminate or reduce the risk. And the steps taken may depend on the likelihood of the risk occurring and how serious the impact could be. So again it's about matching our response intervention to the level of risk that it poses. So a risk based framework would provide the highest level of regulation in relation to by security matter declared as prohibited matter. Which is another matter that's likely to have significant adverse impacts and therefore needs to be tightly regulated. As the by security risk decreases the need for direct regulatory control would also decrease. So with low risk at the bottom end of the scale low risk by security manage matter could likely be managed through the general by security duty. So any risk management approach and the decisions based on that risk management approach would absolutely be underpinned by science and risk analysis. And also would include consultation and engagement to inform those risk analyses and also the policy development and the decision making based on those risk analysis when it comes to preventing and responding to managing by security risks in South Australia. The third core concept around proactive by security. So, you know, good by security. You know, it has that focus on prevention and early detection because if you're getting early and address the situation early have much more success of actually getting a better outcome. A ratification where it's possible feasible. So that that focus on prevention early detection will provide the ability to be proactive in response to emergency emerging by security risk. And then also making sure that we do have those strong and appropriate powers to actually respond in those emergencies as well where you know something is detected we also then flip into that response we need to have good tools could power to be able to do that. So, you know, the by security practices will follow that continuum of prevention detection eradication and ongoing management is that's required. So our current legislation already provides the ability to be proactive in managing most by security risks. And we look to build on that capacity and ensure that gaps are addressed and where we can continue to take immediate action to manage by security risk. So one of the areas that we do want to address is around by filing of vessels moving and so by filing being sort of organisms or, you know, plants animals being attached to the holes of vessels or infrastructure and moving from different states or different regions within South Australia and just the risk that things being carried on a whole present, you know, either through invasive species but also any diseases they may be carrying. So, you know, building in better tools we can be more proactive in terms of managing vessels that prevent sorry, and present a risk to to South Australia. So the plant health act and the livestock act already enable action based on a reasonable suspicion and have proactive management tools. So, you know, one example under plant health is the plant quarantine standard, which imposes entry conditions to manage the risk of our plant into to our plant industries. And section nine orders under the plant health act also put actions or the ability to put actions in place quickly, while further information is gathered so that proactive is not. And it's very important to continue on in that with that intent. Registration certification and auditing, which I'll touch on a bit more in a minute is also important contribution to regulate business dealings with by security and to proactively manage any risk that those business dealings create. And so that the new the proposal in the act to be able to take action based on that reasonable suspicion, you know that precautionary principle is really important without him to wait for that scientific confirmation. So that will enable that rapid response and improve South Australia's ability to prevent new pest diseases establishing and protect our industries and also our environment as well. So just moving on now to another poll question for core concepts. So, just bear with me. So question popping up about whether you support the three core concepts of shared responsibility risk based decision making and proactive management. I'll just give you a few moments to respond to that. And just a reminder as well that the Q&A box is available. So if you have any questions or comments that you want to put in there, feel free to do so. And also the ability to raise your hand as well if you want to have your microphone turned on to ask your question or to make a comment. Okay, I might just call that to a close. Okay, so hopefully you can all see that on your screen. So thank you for your responses. So in terms of three core concepts, you know, we've got tied between strongly agree and agree. And again, a few that are not sure. And I'm guessing that, you know, the need to desire to see a bit more detail about how they're going to be expressed and what impact those approaches may have on industries is maybe feeding into some of those not sure responses which is completely fine. So, you know, we're on a bit of a journey here together and but that detail become available as we step through the project with the ultimate detail being captured within the bill. So look forward to sharing that with you when that's available. I'll just move on from there. So I just want to touch on now in terms of the scope of the act. So what what acts are we looking to actually include in the new by security act. Touch on a bit of this content before but I want to talk about some of the core features of the accident scope and then what some of the opportunities are as well. So the first act being the livestock act so manages animal health. So the fundamental outcomes that we currently provide for an animal health will remain in the new by security act. So they're things around the strong powers that we need for prevention detection management and eradication of tests and diseases, but also contaminants as well. And also, you know, the ability to enable proof of freedom for market requirements is very important. So those days will be carried over into the new by security act. We're also continuing on for that requirement for certain activities or industries to be registered with some traceability systems in place as well. And the new act will still have the ability to list by security matters of concern. So under the livestock space, you know, notifiable conditions and still require mandatory notifications on their presence or their suspected presence which is really important for that rapid response. The new act will also continue to provide the ability to implement restrictions on movement and put control orders in place or declare a by security zone to ensure actions are taken day by day to manage the risks. And also important prevention initiatives. So for example, regulation of materials such as swill and ruminant feed will continue to be part of by security management. And some of the highlighted some of the opportunities in animal health space. So, as I've touched on animal health doesn't currently live for that doesn't currently allow for accreditation schemes, which enable assurance certificates to be issued. The consumer products is free of a pest or disease or is undergone a specified treatment. So that's an innovation in the plant health space that will be now available under this proposal in the animal health space. So that will be available for the livestock industry. The accreditation system will also have the ability to be applied to a third party non government provider. So empowering an industry to take the leading role in product certification where that's appropriate and the requirements can be met. So government can now do it for life will propose the government be able to do it for livestock, the animal health industry, but also empowering third parties to do that as well. And then the new act is also proposed to have the ability to recognize appropriate existing industry based quality assurance schemes as well. So that's about empowering industry to take a leading role, which is partly tax again call concept of shared responsibility and avoiding any duplication for any requirements and helping the cost and efficiency of doing business in South Australia or with South Australia. And so essentially looking around animal health for the act will still have the ability to maintain that standard of by security that we need and effectively manage those that fail or fall below that standard. Moving on to the plant health back to the plant health industry. So the fundamental again fundamental outcomes we currently provide for in plant health will remain in the new by security act. So we still have the ability to regulate material through listing and we still require mandatory reporting of their presence or suspected presence. Accreditation and certification schemes that currently existing plant health will continue along with the listing of importers that we have in place, which is a critical component of managing plant by security status. And the plant quarantine standard will remain as well, which will outline the important requirements for important plant importing plant and plant materials into South Australia. In terms of opportunities for improvement. As I've already mentioned the new by security act will have a consistent approach across all industries with a single set of principles that provides that opportunity to support further traceability in our plant industries. Through the proposed introduction of property identification codes. And that's in line with the national property identification reforms that have been discussed at the national level. So the by security act will be set up to enable that to happen even when that's required. So, you know, because it will be there for animal health and it's being a general act across all industries. If the plant health property identification codes come online and the by security act will be there ready and waiting to enact that even when that's required. Traceability is important for any market access requirements. And so along with enhancing our ability to trace any by security issues along the supply line. So, you know, bringing that traceability into the plant health or bringing additional traceability to plant health would be an opportunity. And as you've also heard the new act proposes to have the ability to recognize the appropriate existing industries based quality assurance game. So, again, that's across all sectors. So that as I've said in the animal health space, this will empower the plant industries to take a leading role in managing their by security and avoiding duplication in the system. In terms of the dog fence acts of wild dog management and so it's proposed that the new act will continue to establish the dog fence board. And it's just because, you know, their their important role needs to continue along with their current funding arrangements and their the operations and responsibilities and forward. But by bringing the dog fence board into the new act, it provides an opportunity to address any sort of outdated and unworkable parts of the dog fence acts as a quite an aged piece of legislation. So some of the issues that we have there's an inability to revoke a declared section of the act or transfer ownership, which is a problem with some of the new approaches or some of the things that we want to achieve to get a better outcome for the dog fence. We also have an opportunity to better define and permit the control of wild dogs and the government arrangements around the management of the fence. So there's an opportunity here with a new legislation bringing this quite an old act into the mix. And so person will continue to work closely with the dog fence board and stakeholders to ensure that the new act actually provides those opportunities and gives us a better outcome and improves on the current arrangements that we have. The impounding acts or our oldest act gives me the ability to say over the last century and being of 1920. So land managers currently have a responsibility to ensure that stock do not wander from their property onto private land or public areas, public property. So the impounding act provides an impounding of livestock and isn't and so we're proposing to include that in the scope of the new by security act. So majority of the impounding act is no longer use no longer relevant. So therefore the new by security act will pick up on those provisions around the responsibilities and rights in relation to the management of stray and abandoned livestock in the context of managing the by security risks that they pose to the public. Sorry, said landholders, but then that also address public safety issues as well. So, you know, having a clear pathway for anyone who is in possession of stray livestock where they don't know who owns them, having the ability to keep sell or destroy. But they need to go through a process of a reasonable opportunity for the owner to be located and notify that their livestock have strayed and that they're in someone else's possession. So it's about giving someone a clear pathway to be able to take action with stray livestock and just modernizing that approach. In terms of fisheries and aquaculture by security. So the development of the new act is a real opportunity to clarify roles and responsibilities in by security between what fish what is fisheries and aquaculture responsibility and what is the by security as a responsibility. The by security considerations will still form part of fisheries and aquaculture management and decision making but the new by security act will is proposing to establish mechanisms to enable by security issues in fisheries and aquaculture to be managed in a legislative sense as a by security matter under the new act. So this will work by the by security act complementing the fisheries management act and incorporating similar powers in the fisheries management act to enable noxious species to be managed under the by security act. And the powers will still remain in the fisheries management act to ensure that management of put and take fisheries release and escape of aquaculture fish and conservation restocking can continue to be appropriately led by fisheries and aquaculture under their legislation. So the powers that we're looking to move into by security still have application in fisheries and aquaculture. So we want to make sure that it's a replication without duplication if that's not too being too cute. And the other point to touch on as well is that section 130 of the fisheries management act is the relation to the prevention control and eradication of the exotic organism organism will be repealed and replaced with the new by security act because it more appropriately resides there so that will be a change to the fisheries management act. But regardless of the legislation by security essay and fisheries and aquaculture are in the same department and they work very closely together have a very good working relationship. And that will continue to do so it's just about where the clarity sits within the legislation. So if we have any situation we're trying to manage we're not going is it this act or is it that act is a lot more clarity in place. And that will help as well with the management of diseases. They'll be improved under the new act because currently powers to manage aquatic animal health resides within the aquaculture act, the livestock act and the fisheries management act. And domestic or captive aquatic animals are actually classified as livestock under the livestock act which manages notifiable diseases. But for wild aquatic organisms, the fisheries management act is used. You can see there's a number of different pieces of legislation coming in there and playing in that space. In addition to the scope of the direct, I guess, impact on this legislation, the new act will need to work closely alongside with other pieces of legislation to make sure that they're talking to each other well. And that they're not, I guess, overriding or creating any issues that are unintended. So there's a lot of relevant acts that, you know, help manage by security or are closely related that they'll need to talk to each other and complement each other. So there's the Fox Room Grape Industry Act, there's the Landscapes South Australia Act, the Emergency Management Act, and also, you know, public health legislation as well in terms of, you know, who knows diseases as well managing those. And with animal health. Moving on now to another poll question. Whoops, what's that one? The scope of the act. Just give you a minute or so to respond to that one. Okay, I might just call an end to that one. Okay, so, so, oops, I haven't shared the results, I'm sorry. So quite a good response there for agree, strongest response there. So, you know, the Biscuity Act is largely covering what you expect. Again, a few not sure. And then, you know, some strongly agree as well. So that's good that the scope of the act, I think, is generally as people are expecting it to be. So just chatting to Jen then while I was muted about, I probably need to pick up the pace a little bit. There's a lot to get through and we're already 50 minutes in looking to finish in 40 minutes time. So I will just speed up. So hopefully you can still stay with me. But, you know, raise your hand if you need me to cover any ground again or clarify anything. The next area I just want to touch on is governance and administration in the new act. So the, we currently have what we refer to as statutory positions in the current legislation. And we're proposing that that continues in the new act. So we're proposing a chief veterinary officer and a chief plant protection officer as the principal authorized officers. They're not new, as I've said, so the livestock act and the plant health act already have chief officers. So it's a continuation of that model. So they would have legal roles and responsibilities in the act and would take on a lot of the day to day operations and technical decision making under the legislation. One of the areas that we can make an improvement from, I guess, in terms of the way government interacts with legislation is around the deputy chief officers. So having the ability to appoint a number of deputy chief officers who have the same powers as the chief officers. So we can have continuation of decision making and resourcing, which is particularly important in an emergency situation because the chief officer is not available 24 seven. So that gives the ability to, for a chief officer, deputy chief officers to step up and keep capable rolling, so to speak, keep the balls in the air in those circumstances. So that's this approach is proposed rather than establishing a single chief by security officer, which is another option as ensures the roles are clearly defined. And also that the distinct technical expertise for plant health animal health is in place and it's getting involved in the decision making that affects those industries and also creates a level of independence and separation of powers. And so they have their own role their own decision making powers rather than having those delegated by a chief executive or a minister. So as I said, the statutory positions along with the authorized by security officers would be a lot of the day to day technical and operational functions from the act. Statutory authority so by security in South Australia is delivered in partnership with some key statutory authorities. And each of those authorities have their own defined roles and responsibilities as articulated in the acts that established them. So they provide a really important contribution and share responsibility for our by security and facilitate really strong engagement and those partnerships. So this can be an excellent model for by security outcomes. And so we want the new by security act to have the power to establish any additional statutory authorities by regulation in the future if that's what is desired either by government or by industry. So in recognition of it being a good model, the by security act will be able to establish additional authority and that will obviously happen in consultation even when the time comes. In terms of registration and traceability so registration system is fundamental for the operation of effective traceability systems and by security responses. The livestock act already requires registration and as does the plant health act as well. So again, not a new concept. So we'll continue with proposed to continue to provide for registration. And the, I guess what triggers the requirement for registration either activities or businesses or or dealings that detail will be expressed in regulations. The registration system, you know, of course we need to be flexible so there's no unnecessary burden on industries. And, you know, so we want to build in some flexibility so the ability to have exemptions either general or case by case in certain circumstances but also having permits that can be used in lieu of registration. So if someone wants a zoo or circus wants to move a line then they can have a permit rather need to registering and go through that process. And then we're thinking through the ability to have enterprise registration so there's a business that deals with a number of registrable dealings and they register once for a number of things rather than having to register for each individual thing. And also the ability to recognize in state registrations be proposed as well. So, you know, businesses that reach across borders, you know, that meets South Australia's requirements for that that registration can be recognized. And in terms of traceability, so being able to track produce through all stages of production processing and distribution is important, including importation and retail. And so that's critical to managing by security as it enables rapid identification and relevant properties in response to a pest or disease outbreak. It's also important for product assurance and assessing domestic and international markets, as well as assisting to identify where properties with susceptible crops or relevance of fly chain premises are located. And so the new bus through that will continue to support traceability through registration property identification codes and current traceability systems will continue. But we also want to fill up the act in such a way that it can facilitate any expansion of traceability systems in the future. In terms of accreditation authorities, part four of the Planned Health Act already provides the establishment of accreditation scheme. And enables an authorized person to issue assurance certificates in relation to the movement of the plant or plant related product and also verify assurance certificates or other documents or the packaging or labeling of plants or plant related products. But the livestock act doesn't provide for these accreditation scheme. So the new by security act is proposing to provide for accreditation accreditation schemes across the board. And so then, you know, that can be applied more broadly and providing further opportunities. So again, I've touched on this, but the new by security act also proposing the ability to recognize non government organizations as accreditation authorities, and then giving them the ability to intern accredited by security certifiers and by security auditors to order and inspect business operations and provide product certification. In terms of auditing, so you know, we need to provide for an auditing scheme that's very important for interstate and international market access agreements and also for compliance and managing risk. So it's proposed that the new by security act will require auditing as a condition of registration for high risk by security dealings to check and compliance and that those risks are being appropriately managed. Audits could also be used during the assessment of applications for registration and accreditation or to check compliance with the conditions of registration and accreditation. Moving on to certification. So the new by security act will continue to support certification schemes. So the new concept with South Australia's current involvement in the national certification scheme, which relates to the movement of plant and plant products known as the the ICA or the interstate certification assurance scheme. The new by security act will be developed to enable certification of produce to be expanded across other industries. If required, so to enable the, for example, to enable the certification that livestock free of a pestle disease would be an opportunity. And, you know, by continuing to provide for certification in the new by security act and provide assurance that allow for the transit certified produce within South Australia and digital state. I'm touching on permits. So we're proposing that permits would be issued that allow for a broad range of actions to be undertaken that would otherwise be in contravention or in breach of the act. The permits would only be provided where the chief officer is satisfied. There is a good and valid reason for the proposed activity and maybe subjective conditions or limitations. And before approving a permit, there would need to be consideration of factors such as the by security risk of the pestle disease or the proposed activity, the level of risk management required and also the length of time for the permit. So they would all need to be considered by the person approving the permit. The last point around prohibited matter. So the new by security act will continue to provide for all prohibited matter to be declared and publicly listed, along with a requirement to notify persons by security essay if prohibited matter is discovered. So prohibited matter is a by security matter that would have significant adverse impact on the economy or the environment entered the state. Prohibited matter could be pest diseases, pathogens, you know, plant animal or aquatic or carriers of disease or pathogens. The plant health act also enables the declaration of things other than tests and diseases to be regulated. For example, packaging timber equipment machinery and that important requirement will continue within the new by security act. And at the moment, listening is currently through publication in the government Gazette, but talking to those that will draft the bill, we want to have a conversation around if there's a more modern way of doing that, whether or not publication on the website is sufficient or it might be the government Gazette and the website, but most people go to websites these days rather than picking up the government Gazette. So just put in another poll question. And there's actually two questions for this poll. So I'll, I'll measure these pretty quickly. So that's one round. Do you support continuing to provide for a chief veterinary officer and a chief plant protection officer. So that's the dual statutory position. The other option of course is having a single chief by security officer. Let's give you a moment there to respond. Okay. Sorry, I'm just checking my change my headset. Yes, so you should all think you can all still hear me if you can't let me know. So, yes, strongly agree and agree to the dual statutory positions and again, if you're not sure, just fine. So I'll just move on to the, I didn't share those results. You think I'll be used to this by now I apologize. So there's the results there on your screen. I'll just move on to the next question now. Interest of time. So this one is around do you support non government entities being accredited under the act to undertake certification auditing. So this is the third party accreditation that government doesn't need to do all of these things. Industry can take a role as well. Okay, so a few more not sure in this one. So this is, I guess, how this is going to be expressed and how this is going to be what how this is going to work in the new act will be a really important area for us to explain and highlight. And what the opportunities are, you know, if there's any current systems out there, or programs out there that maybe good candidates maybe looking at those and seeing how they fit with the legislation. There's also some agreement as well and but also some disagreement. So that's an area we'll need to talk more about once we have some more detail at the end. All right, so moving on. So compliance now I'm on the home stretch here. I'll continue to keep up pace because I really do want to provide that opportunity for questions of the panel at the end. So in terms of compliance, what we're proposing is an approach. So pleasure, you know, being administrated in the Bisecurity Act and the current legislation we're responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with our with the legislation. And but what we're proposing in the new Bisecurity Act is a flexible and responsive responsive compliance framework that is commensurate to the risk being managed that's that's not one size fits all that's a scalable model. A scalable approach would focus on promoting voluntary compliance at one end, which creates effective deterrence and responding to non compliant in a way that takes into account the circumstances and behaviors and the public interest. So the model of compliance assumes this model assumes that most people will comply or try to comply with their obligations under legislation. So despite having good intentions, some people may inadvertently fail to comply because they don't understand their requirements. So therefore in this situation, there may be an increase in monitoring or audit rates until compliance be established, for example. Then as you step up through the scale, some people may choose to knowingly do the wrong thing, even opportunity arises. So it's important to ensure there are effective deterrent strategies in place to deter people from making the wrong choices. So there's an opportunity you need to make sure that the risk of taking that opportunity is strong as it is an effective deterrent. Then at the more extreme end of the scale, there's a small number of people who may choose to deliberately contravene the law to avoid regulatory actions or gain an advantage. So the government will respond with the appropriate enforcement action available and that may include criminal prosecution before a court of law. Authorised officers is critical that authorised by security officers have sufficient powers to take action under the new by security act when required. So the new by security act is not looking to remove or diminish any of the current powers from the current system that are available, but we want a street to strengthen appropriate powers of the officers by consolidating and having consistency across the legislation and looking to that nationally accepted best practice model for the standard set of powers and compliance tools available. So having standardised and contemporary powers for by security officers with a broad focus across all by security management will be really important in the act. And that would also be consistent with other jurisdictions who have introduced modern consistent by security officer powers to investigate, monitor and enforce compliance with their legislation. By security direction. So we want the new by security app to provide the ability for by security officer to issue a direction. So that might be, you know, washed down this equipment or, you know, take this action before leaving an area. And there'll be two types of directions available. We're proposing the one being a general direction that would apply generally across an industry or an activity or an individual direction, which would be to an individual or a business. So authorized officers by security officers will have the ability to issue a by security direction if they reasonably believe it's necessary to manage any by security risk or impact or to enforce the act. By security directions, again, not a new concept in South Australia under the current livestock act general notices can be issued by the minister published in the Gazette and also provides the individual orders to control or eradicate a disease or contamination to be issued as well. In the plant health space, there's the ability for the chief inspector to issue an order to prevent or minimize the outbreak or spread of a pest. And so again, it's just building on those concepts and make sure they're consistently applied. The by security directions will set out any actions that must be taken the grounds for the directions and if applicable the nature of the non compliance that's seeking to be addressed. And if a person doesn't comply and the by security of the option of applying a penalty, but there's also the ability for the act by security officer to either undertake the action themselves or cause the action to be undertaken and cost to be recovered. Control orders. So both the plant health and livestock act currently provide the orders. And, you know, proposing that the by security act continues along these lines. So that would enable directives to be given that can be applied regionally or statewide that so orders will provide for rapid response where a new by security risk is identified but an emergency response is not warranted. So as proposal control order will be able to prohibit regulate or control activities to prevent the introduction or eradicate by security matter. And so control orders are not intended to be long term management tools. But they'll have the ability to be made quickly providing an immediate response to a by security risk while longer term management options and arrangements are being developed. They could also be used to transition out of emergency orders as well. We need some medium term measures in place before we get to long term measures if they're required. By security zone. So under the plant health act the minister is already able to declare the whole portion of the state is a quarantine area for the person is controlling or eradicating a disease or contamination. And under the livestock act the minister is able to prevent so prohibit entry into or movement within or out of the state or a specified area of the state of livestock products or other property. So it's proposed that the by security act will continue to enable this supplement by security. To allow flexible response to buy security risks where situations where specific management arrangements are required. So by security zones are more for your long term management of ongoing by security issues or impacts. So by security zones will be related to a specific defined area where action must be taken when interacting with a by security zone. And the defined area of the by security zone could be either the whole of the state or any part of the state. They'll generally be used when eradication is not feasible, but there's still a high by security risk requiring action to manage impacts. They could also be used with different management actions are needed in different parts of the state or to protect part of the state from a by security risk that occurs elsewhere in the state. The by security zones would be established by regulation is what we're proposing. And they'll be similar to control water will work by defining certain actions that are required, either in or outside of the by security zone. And then to manage that by security risk. In terms of just for an example of the zone. So the proof of the fruit fly zone in the river land that could be a by security zone. You can make Kangaroo Island a by security zone to manage the by security issues around the be population. And they're just examples of what could be considered and establishes by security zones under the new act. And offenses so under the current as per the current legislation and you act will have a series of them and range of offenses. And they will be clearly listed in the draft bill. So they will be there for you to see in terms of what the offenses and what the penalties for that fence. So it'll be an opportunity to provide feedback on those once the draft bill is available. But there will be a move to increase penalties because their age legislation, the penalties are not no longer effective deterrence to some of the risks that they're trying to manage. So I'm just in the interest of time. I'm going to skip the poll question and just move on to emergency management. So by security emergencies and the new act will still provide the legal framework required to deal with by security emergencies and will continue to be guided by national approaches. And, you know, as well as the national emergency response to agreements and plans. So we already have emergency management procedures in place. And we already have plans in place and we already interact with state emergency management approaches as well. So that will continue, but we'll also look for how we improve the governance arrangements and any tools that we need to improve in that area. The new bar security act will have the ability to establish emergency orders and to take quick action strong action in a case where, you know, situation is emerging and needs to be addressed immediately. And also emergency zones as well, which will have their own emergency measures. So that will the difference between sort of control orders will be the speed in which they can be enacted. They're not for as long a period of time and some of the measures that can be put in place and also the penalties for non compliance as well would be stronger in an emergency situation. Again, I'll skip that poll question because I want to get the opportunity for you to ask questions. And the last point for me is just around next steps. So we've at the start of this I've touched on some of the work we've done just very briefly, you know, the last 18 months with this project has been running with we went out as early as possible to have conversations in a targeted way with key stakeholders to get feedback in the direction that we wanted to head. So there's been a number of conversations have led into the draft directions paper feedback on that paper number of workshops forums that have led led up to the version that has been released for this public consultation. The next step is to, you know, consider and look at all of the feedback that we're going to receive through webinars, survey responses and submissions and use that to inform how we are actually going to approach the drafting of the by security bill. And once we have a draft by security bill will actually and give another opportunity for you to have a look at that and provide feedback on the bill. And we'll also make sure we provide supporting information around that because you know legislation is not always the easiest thing to read that we want to provide explanatory guide and also want to provide a document that I guess you could say translate the current legislation into the new legislation. So some of the things I've talked about in animal health and plant health are really important. Where can they be found in the new act for people can make those linkages. In parallel to that and as much as possible we're going to be looking at the draft regulations and board of instruments because one they inform the design of the bill, but also you know how those policy positions how that detail is going to be expressed is really important. So we want that to be available as much as possible in parallel to the bill. But the usual course of things is you have the bill passed parliament and then regulations follow but you know there's also a lot of work so getting started on that early and and doing as much consultation around that as we possibly can. Once the by security bill passes through parliament and there will be the commencement and implementation of the act and there's a you know a time limit on that so two years for an act to be implemented. And once it's commences and so there'll be a period of time there to then refine regulations go through policy positions and do further engagement before the framework is complete. So we're looking to introduce a bill next year but the work to actually complete the legal framework will continue on beyond 2021. I just want to just invite John and Nathan to I guess unmute and turn on their videos if they if they feel that way inclined and just an opportunity for any of you to ask a question that you may have and we'll do our best to respond. That's the three I can see on my screen. Okay, so the first one. So from Andy around cynics may say that the shared responsibility principle opens up the door to cost shifting to industry. However, it enables stronger inputs by technical capability and sits in industry. John, I believe you wanted to have a go at this one. Yeah, thanks, Andrew. Thanks Andy for your question and intended meaning of that shared responsibility. I know it sort of differs in terms of what government thinks the shared responsibility versus industry with the intended meaning is certainly as you intimated that we all need to participate in the South Strait's biosecurity system in terms of not bringing in new pest or diseases. That's a community. It's a government. That's an industry role. And also in terms of controlling ones we have that aren't spread further. So this, this certainly includes industry leadership and farm and industry by security best practice. We don't want to everybody's government is not the only go to in terms of where that technical expertise and that that does both industry best practice information lies. Thanks John. So interjective if you want to add anything, Nathan, that's fine. So moving on to the next. I think that the thing that is a primary benefit to industry on that point is that it provides them the opportunity to undertake those biosecurity activities at the time that suits them. You know, if we had to provide an officer to inspect or undertake a certain function on the site, that would be through our certain span of hours. Whereas, you know, if industry wanted to offer operate 24 seven and certify their own goods under a scheme approved by us and orders by us and accepted by interstate trading partners and that would give the flexibility to operate. You know, as they wish. So there's an efficiency to go in there. Thank you. And the next question from Shawna from my experience with by security action Queensland use as well the introduction introduction sorry of a general by security duty or application and risk based decision making also reduces the prescriptiveness of the act. So why you know this makes sense if you're wanting to match the response to the risk. This has less led to confusion both by regulators and landholders or industry. And so on that one. So the general duty right is, you know, how does someone discharge their duty when when are they failing to meet their duty. When do they have a duty. There is some, I guess, some questions being raised in that space and I know that when Queensland talking to some of the local government areas in Queensland that was something that they grappled with as well. And so it really is around what people have a duty is about providing information around how do you discharge that duty and providing that support and then there's also the reasonable test as well. So when should someone reasonably aware. And so the, you know, the case study that we included in the directions paper around the cattle teeth. I think, you know, highlights that, you know, that's that's the the only one I'm aware of in Australia where there's been a prosecution under the general by security duty. And it's a pretty clear case that, you know, there was cattle from a non-cattle tick area move through sorry cattle from a cattle tick infected area move through non-cattle tick. Cattle were allowed to escape. There was an infection situation. That's a very clear breach of duty. And so those sorts of situations where, you know, it's a lot more clearer but then, you know, does that need to provide supporting information to help people understand their duty and how it's discharged. I don't know if John or Nathan, if you want to add anything around that. Hi, John. I suppose you can add in there that there is still that under the proposed by security actually still looking at declaring sort of specific high risk pest or diseases and that will probably still be the primary mechanism around which compliance will be focused and you've got restricted movement requirements control all that would still apply. So if you might be the general by security duty compliance would be in maybe as you said earlier in your presentation where it's a low risk species that doesn't justify by declaration. Then use of that GVD in compliance would need to be informed by a standard risk assessment process and backed up by educational programs on what is best practice. I mean, the key thing there is that you want a broad understanding in the industry community of what is expected behavior to minimize by security risks. And an example comes to mind for me in terms of where a general by security could come into play as someone is taking farm machinery or construction machine is heavily covered in mud and taking across a new region into South Australia or obviously across to Kangaroo Island. And that's not necessarily about a specific pest or disease but clearly you would be at risk of introducing land around all diseases in that soil or even weed seeds. Thanks, John. So another question from Sean. Nope. So, is there any thought from sorry from Sean or again, is there any thought to include weeds and pet animals under this act in the future. So I think on this one is this is about the interaction of this legislation with other legislation. So we have the landscape South Australia Act, which has the, the governance arrangements around it for managing weeds and pest animals. And there's the regional landscape boards which have their connection to the community and the governance and funding arrangements around those. So it's about how does this act actually work with that legislation. But we've got the man with the detail here as well, John Virtue. So I might just hand to him as well if you want to make any points around this one. Thanks Andrew. Yes, the governments just decided that the landscape act wouldn't be included in the by security act and clearly you've just got the landscape boards getting underway in the landscape act and that's been a major government initiative. As you say, it would be how to those two acts interact, certainly in other jurisdictions, weeds and pest animals are within their by security acts, but we've got a different situation in South Australia. I think the key thing and where we sort of value feedback is how those two extra interact so that you are getting that the prevention, the importance prevention early detection, the by security act and you're getting that that similar similar. scope within the landscape system. Thanks, John. Okay, so that's that's it for the questions that have been put in the Q&A box. So if you do have another question, please. No, here we go. We have another one coming from Richie. So by security property signage seems to have little or no effect on visitors entering a property and informing owners of their movements. So from our experience it is ignored. Is there anything in the new act that will support the implementation and education on the importance of this? So I guess, so I know through the issue around come up around farm trespass, other jurisdictions have required signage as I guess a point where if signage is clearly visible on the outside of a property and someone ignores that signage and enters the property then that triggers some of the protections that have been built into their farm trespass legislation around Queensland is the need to have a by security plan. So it's it's it's not adhering to that by security plan which then opens up a trespasser to prosecution. So the farm trespass in South Australia is managed separately as a criminal issue on the summary offences act and will continue to do so. So there's no legislative. We're not proposing any legislative basis of signage on properties, a requirement to have that. But that said, you know, you point around, you know, it's about educating and notifying people then, you know, how do we use this opportunity of building a new act to actually educate the public around the importance of by security is really important. That's back to by security and raising that awareness. So, yeah, so again, no legislative basis plan for signs. But you know, if you've got good ideas and feedback around that, please let us know that John Mason, if you have anything you want to add. Good. Okay, I just so Robbie, I see your question, but Andy point and has raised his hand. So I'm just going to unmute Andy and let him ask these questions to Andy. And I do. Oops. Sorry. Andy you have to unmute yourself. I'm sorry. I'm not that powerful. We go. Okay, how's that. That's good. We can hear you loud and clear. This is just an observation. It's not a question. I had a call from a producer the other day where he had to a cost a truck of people lopping trees. They're contractors to the power of the power network in South Australia. And basically, when they approached them, they're driven past the biosecurity science saying, ring this number to gain entry. And when they're approached, SA power networks, when they're approached, the guy said, oh yeah, we do that. We drive past them all the time. We just ignore them. And just an observation. Education. All right. That's a good comment. So I'll take that on board. We're having conversations with SA power networks. So a good comment. Thank you. Okay. So we've got a question here from Robbie Davis. So as I say, it's the only state with a landscape arc separated from by 38. Are there any issues at a national level? John, did you want to. Yeah. No, I don't think sorry. I mean, well, obviously we don't have the vice-cue act at the moment, but I think in terms of the landscape back, we do seek to through say the intergovernmental Committee, the environment and basis committee. There's a lot of collaboration that goes on between jurisdictions in terms of one example there, I suppose is weeds of national significance. There was agreement that they should all be declared out of the respective acts around the country. So I don't, I don't see that as a major issue at this point in time. I think it's still, it's still a reasonable level of collaboration and coordination amongst jurisdictions in the field of weed and pest management. Okay. So that no one's got their hand up and there's no questions in the Q&A. So unless you have a question, I might just. Thank everyone for your participation. Thank you for coming along with some, you know, I've done a lot of talking as a huge amount of information. I appreciate that. But thank you for for listening and everything I've covered is captured in the technical directions paper. So if you want to read, go over what I've said or get a bit further detail. And within that document, but we are also available for any conversations or meetings that you want to have. So please reach out to us and I encourage you to go to the your site website as well, where there's the opportunity to take a survey or provide us with a general submission, either by post or email or both. So we'd love to hear what you think around what we're proposing and help us really get the best outcome in designing the new bill as well. So really looking forward to receiving your feedback and just reiterate we are here if you need us and want to reach out and have a conversation. So thanks again for your participation and we'll talk to you all soon and best of luck for the rest of your day. What's left of it. Thanks very much.