 Hi everyone and welcome to today's webinar on the Building the New Biosecurity Act. My name is Jen Baik and I am a project and policy officer here at PERSA and I am working with the project team here who's working to develop the new Biosecurity Act. Many of you will already know the gentlemen that are above and below me in the video call. So today's host is Andrew Copas who's the program manager, give a wave and leading the development of the new Act and above us is Executive Director Nathan Rose for Biosecurity SA and he's obviously helping lead the development of the Act. So my role today, I am here to do a little bit of housekeeping at the start and then I'm going to turn my video off and I'm going to sit in the back and monitor the questions and just help with the general sort of housekeeping and tech behind the scenes. So should it all go wrong? I suggest you blame Andrew. So today's agenda is going to involve obviously a bit of welcome but we're going to introduce to you the approach we're taking to develop the new Act which is what we're consulting on at the moment. So and we're going to encourage your feedback as much as possible so we've got a few ways of doing that and I'll take you through in just a second. But and then we're going to wrap up at the end with a Q&A and we want to hear from you, we want you to ask questions, we want you to provide feedback. Everything that is done and spoken about today, the webinar will be recorded and we'll also be using the feedback and as part of the overall reporting that we do during consultation we'll be putting it all in and considering it so as we move forward. Yes so first thing I wanted to say is webinars are a bit different. You're going to see that unlike the team meetings and the Zoom meetings that we've all been attending for the last six months that you do not going to have access to your camera and your microphone but we can still hear from you in a multiple of ways. So the first thing is down the bottom you're going to see a bit of a Q&A button at the bottom of your screen and a little panel and a window should pop up. If you have a question or you want to make a comment to something that Andrew is saying or one of the polls that we ask, you want to provide some more context into what you're saying, add it there and we will collate that Q&A and we'll talk to it at the end of the session that Andrew does. So you can also upvote the questions. You'll see a little thumbs up icon beside some of the comments and you can upvote it and the ones that get the thumbs up, they'll go to the top of the list and be the first ones that Andrew can respond to. You can also raise your hand. So you'll see the hand at the bottom of the chat box I think or the participant box and so if you raise your hand we will see that and we can turn your microphone. I can turn your microphone on in the back end and then you'll be able to actually speak up and have the floor so you actually be able to talk to your your query or your comment and you're welcome to do that throughout but particularly in the Q&A section at the end and then we are going to I'll get the next slide Andrew and we're going to have some poll questions. So these poll questions are based on the Your Say survey so some of you may have come to this webinar through the Your Say site which we're using to get submissions and and share the information about how we're developing this new act but these are going to be a little bit different so on the Your Say site the survey questions have an option for free text. Today's webinar it's it's not so easy so what we're going to do is it's just a it's a multiple choice you know do you agree do you disagree or are you not sure but also if you do want to put some further context around it you can put it in the Q&A box so we encourage that we'd like to hear the more context the more we can understand how you're feeling about this and what you what you support what you don't support the better this will be for everyone so that's I think oh I'm going to I'm going to road test the polls so I forgot to do that in the last webinar so I'll do this one now so the first poll we have today is it's just a it's just a rough one it's not a rough one it's a it's just a general one we want to know where you're from so I'm going to launch the poll now and you should be able to see it up in front of you it's just asking what industry sector do you represent if you can have a go and start filling that out let us know where you're from that would be great make sure it all works it's working fabulous all right I'll give you a few more seconds that's great you do actually have some private business people here today I saw you guys register and welcome it's great to have you participate and and have you engage with what we're doing in this world in the biosecurity act so it's fantastic to see all right well I think I'll wrap that one up for there and I will share the results great and as you can see industry the board industry board and association is representing and that's fantastic there are people we are working really closely with to develop this new act so I'm going to stop that now and hand over to Mr. Copes thank you thank you Jen for that introduction so Jen said I'm Andrew Copes and I got the privilege of being the project manager for the delivery of a new biosecurity act for South Australia working closely with the biosecurity essay and Nathan Rhodes who's with us here today so what I really want to do is give everyone an overview of the proposed approach to the new biosecurity act what I'm talking through today actually represents 18 months of quite intensive targeted consultation so there's been quite a lot of work to engage early on this project with some key stakeholders and a number of you are familiar with the project so far and we've had some engagement with you today and what we've done is really use that engagement to inform the direction that we're proposing to head and capture a lot of that information within the technical directions paper which has now been released for public consultation and is available on our website and also the your site website and so a lot of what I'll cover today for those of you that have been engaged in the project will feel very familiar for those of you that are joining us and engaging for the first time welcome and any further information that you'd like to get feel free to contact us or as I said it's available within the technical directions paper and also within some of the other information like fact sheets that have been listed up on the department's website and the your site website so really today is about giving that overview that understanding of where we're proposing to head before we start drafting legislation and again undertake further consultation once we have a draft bill and really we'll want your feedback we want your views to help inform that stage of the project so please as Jen said use the Q&A function love to hear your feedback formally through the your site website either through responding to the survey or providing a submission and also you know feel free to reach out and contact the team for any additional meetings or conversations or you know if you want to have a chat on the phone and give feedback in that that way then that's completely okay as well because all of this is going to be really important excuse me in informing the draft bill and the direction that we want to head so to start off just to give a bit of an overview of the purpose and the objectives that we're trying to achieve in the new bi-security act so I'm sure we can all agree that primary industries are a critical part of South Australia's economy and as we all know and live every day bi-security risks are a continued challenge they're growing in their scale and their complexity excuse me through increased trade and travel and excuse me so I've got a bit of hay fever today and I'm struggling a bit today so you know a new bi-security act is an important step to making sure that we strengthen our system and you know stay ahead of the curve of these continuing and growing risks in bi-security so we don't have a broken system we have a very good system but what this is about is looking to any opportunities to actually improve our system so we can continue to provide a level of protection into the future as our world becomes more complex and continues to change so the fundamental purpose of developing a new bi-security act is to protect South Australia from pests and diseases that are economically significant they threaten our terrestrial or aquatic environments or they may affect public amenities and community activities or maybe even infrastructure so what we're proposing is really a contemporary piece of legislation a legal framework which will have all the components required in a comprehensive bi-security act to achieve that fundamental purpose and as we develop the new act we aim to keep the best part of our current approach so you know we don't we don't want to throw out what's working well and there's a lot that is working well but we also want to build in those opportunities for improvement in the future and look at those contemporary approaches and especially looking at examples across other jurisdictions that we're working closely with that have already developed and consolidated bi-security acts so by doing that we'll increase consistency across the the model that we have but we'll also be able to build in those innovative approaches that may exist within one sector specific piece of legislation and broaden that out and apply it across all the sectors that we work with so that's not only consistency in our approach but it also brings about those new opportunities and it's a more efficient environment for us to operate in both you know for government but also for those that interact with bi-security legislation and policies you know so you know industries and communities businesses those sorts of things. The core concepts form part of the new act and we're building in it and it's the foundation for the new legislation and that is again on those modern principles that we can see in examples across other jurisdictions so we refer to them as core concepts with those sort of those foundational principles those new modern approaches and for those the three core concepts being shared responsibility risk-based decision making and proactive bi-security management but I'll touch on them a little bit more detail later in the session and thinking nationally the South Australian Bi-security Act will look to continue to work within the national model and align as much as possible nationally and with the other jurisdictions you know for those the benefit of that national model and looking you know to make sure that we can continue to support and enhance trade arrangements for South Australia's food fiber and beverages and give effect to some of those inter-governmental agreements that we're signed up to so we want to align our arrangements where appropriate you know both nationally and with the other jurisdictions states and territories that we work with as part of that national model. In terms of outcomes of the reform what are we trying to achieve? So with the new Bi-security Act South Australia will for the very first time have a consistent legal approach to bi-security management across all sectors under a single set of principles so it means that we'll have the same consistent framework for both sort of plant health and animal health and also fisheries and aquaculture bi-security and also the management of wild dogs so there's a real opportunity here for that consistency and that single focus. That's not to say that bi-security is not focused and consistent at the moment it's you know the different acts are managed by the same team and they all work under the state bi-security policy and obviously work very well together so we do have that good management practice in Bi-security SA but this is about the consistency across the legal framework that the number of acts that manage bi-security is what I'm referring to. So one of the areas we want to do is about modernising our approach so we want to introduce that greater flexibility to respond to bi-security threats and we want to enable action based on a reasonable suspicion of risk. We also want to enhance South Australia's ability to meet trade market protocols sorry and improve market access as an example there would be by establishing PESFRI areas which are recognised by key export markets. We also want to modernise by enabling the identification and uptake of new technologies and methodologies to support a strong bi-security system and we also want to appropriately share responsibility for bi-security between government industry and the community to get the best outcome. We want to make improvements so we want to reduce red tape we you know and that will come about by consolidating the administration of legislation empowering industry to take a lead where that term is possible and appropriate and that will be through you know accreditation programs or recognising appropriate industry-based practices to avoid any duplication with government requirements and industry practices. We want to enable consistency in applying an evidence-based risk analysis approach to bi-security management and events and we want to improve governance arrangements and interactions with other South Australian acts. We want to ensure clear and strong powers for bi-security officers and a comprehensive compliance framework to manage bi-security risks and establish effective deterrence for those that seek to do the wrong thing. It's also an opportunity to enhance knowledge and understanding of bi-security among the South Australian community so by doing this project and having some communications and profiles these webinars around the new act is an opportunity to actually raise awareness about what is bi-security why is it important and why do we need to maintain that standard of practice within our industry and the third area we want to bring about is consistency and efficiency which I've touched on a little bit already but that efficient harmonised system not only for government but also for industry and the community as well and then as I've spoke of you know that consistency in bi-security management with other jurisdictions and the national model is a big opportunity there and the ability to establish additional industry-based boards and funding mechanisms to achieve specific industry-based bi-security outcomes is there's potentially opportunities there as well and I'll touch on those a little bit later. I just want to also just be clear on the type of act that we're looking to develop and that is what we commonly refer to as framework legislation. So what this will be is a general act or a head of power as it's sometimes called that contains the provisions in a general sense that are designed to give effect to a particular policy. So the act will contain all matters of importance for the implementation of a particular policy but the detail of how that policy is triggered or it applies will be contained within subordinate instruments or secondary legislation which are commonly you know one of the most common forms is a regulation. So with this approach the benefits are the regulations will support the operation of the act by prescribing the detail but that also brings about a measure of flexibility and responsiveness so any future changes that need to be made to our legislation or any innovation that we want to build in can be done by changing regulations or other instruments rather than having to open up and completely redesign the legislation. So just to reiterate having a general act that gives the effect to all of the policies all the powers that we need and then all of the details sitting in regulation and other instruments to give effect to those policy positions. So we're just going to jump now into a poll question so I'll just hand over to Jen to quickly do that one. All right thank you for that. So interesting results so one you know sort of neck and neck tired for important and not sure with a very important rating high as well so what we've found through some of the conversations that we've had already is that some of that uncertainty around the new bi-security that comes with wanting to see some of the details so you know the proposals that a general high level sense you know sounds good to people generally speaking but then you know just a little bit of caution uncertainty around well how is that going to apply how is that actually going to affect me my industry my business so you know if that's if that's the case completely understandable and we will continue to try and provide as much detail as possible and giving some insight into what the regulations are planning to achieve in parallel to the act as much as we can but if that's not the case is there's something else driving your uncertainty I'd love to hear about it in the Q&A section or contact us outside of the webinar so moving on I just want to touch a little bit more about the core concepts that I've already briefly mentioned so the first one being shared responsibility so this proposed core concept of shared responsibility would underpin and further strengthen and strengthen government industry and the people of South Australia so our community working together to protect our economy environment and the community from any negative impacts of pests and diseases and that's to the benefit of all of South Australia so strong and effective by security is is in the best interest of everyone and it very much relies on a partnership approach so not one person entity can do everything so it really needs everyone sort of working together for those common goals those common outcomes so to continue to protect and support our by security so the government will continue to provide adequate resourcing and lead and coordinate where a response where we're responsible and it's appropriate to do so so you know in the case of an emergency outbreak it'll be you know clear role for government there to lead those responses so we're not looking at stepping away from our responsibilities but you know when we talk about shared responsibility what we want to do is be able to provide the tools and the ability for industry to be empowered and have an option to take a stronger leadership role in managing their own by security outcomes so shared responsibility is not a new concept for South Australia but it will require some new additions to our legislation to express the the concept that we're proposing and there's also going to be a requirement for education and training in terms of you know what is what is someone's responsibility and how can that responsibility be met so arrangements for sharing responsibility in by security are becoming more common and more prevalent so examples would be codes of practice regulatory standards quality and market assurance schemes and joint management plans that just a few example where government and industry are partnering to the by security outcomes the second expression of shared responsibility is the general by security duty so we're proposing to establish a general duty a legislative duty which will create an obligation for all South Australians to use a reasonable standard of care when dealing with any material that prevents a by security risk so the general duty will legally require anyone who is aware or reasonably should be aware that a by security risk exists to ensure as far as reasonably practical that the risk is mitigated eliminated or reduced so similar requirements already exist in South Australia so for example prohibiting the movement of disease stock to a sale yard or the selling of fruit infested with a fruit fly so they're examples of a current duty of care so it's not a new content concept in South Australia and section six of the plant health act requires a person to report a pest affected plant or product and take reasonable measures to protect the spread so it's building on that existing concept and we're broadening it out to a general duty of care South Australia is not unique with this either so if we do end up having this general duty we'll be the same in New South Wales Tasmania in Queensland or have a general by security duty or some of them call it an obligation and that's within their consolidated by security act the next area is around accreditation authorities so we're proposing that the state government is able to recognize non-government organizations as accreditation authorities and those authorities will then be authorized to accredit by security certifiers and auditors to order and inspect business operations or provide product certification again not a new concept but is currently not consistently applied across all sectors as it exists within the plant health act but it doesn't currently exist within the livestock act and this approach could also see formal recognition of industry based quality assurance programs for regulatory purposes as opportunities here. The other area I want to touch on is bi-security programs so we're looking at example in Western Australia and also Tasmania where in Western Australia they've got their bi-security and agricultural management act which enables a landholder to come together with other landholders and establish a recognized bi-security program or sorry a recognized bi-security group and that's an expression of shared responsibility that enables the industry and the communities to partner with a range of organizations including the state government to potentially access funding for their bi-security program. The Western Australian Act allows the rate to be set for the purposes of that bi-security program and collected from that group's operational area and then there's the option for those funds to be matched by the state government and there's a process they have to go through to have that developed and assessed and approved. Tasmania has a similar approach in their bi-security act which provides for bi-security programs and they can be administered by a government, an industry group or a non-profit organization such as an environmental organization. Tasmania's bi-security programs can be established for outcomes such as eradicating weeds for feral animals from a particular regional area or to promote the adoption of an industry-wide disease control and prevention measures by a particular commodity sector. So these types of programs are another way of expressing shared responsibility in legislation and partnerships between government industry community groups so we're considering that as part of the new bi-security act so we'd love to hear any feedback about any opportunities that you see as part of that. The second core concept around risk-based decisions so this is one of the guiding principles of bi-security in South Australia, that risk management approach and it's applied and used to set priorities and investments across bi-security management so this is proposed to continue as a core concept in the new bi-security act. The aim of risk-based decision making is to ensure that steps are taken to manage bi-security risks and that any steps taken are effective and proportionate to the risks that they're trying to address. So the new bi-security app proposes to focus on bi-security risks that are all likely to become a significant problem for our economy, our environment or social amenity. So the identification, assessment and prioritization of bi-security risks will ensure that any resources that we deploy will be deployed to the highest risk areas and the most appropriate response is provided. So in a risk-based framework the highest level of regulation would be applied to bi-security matter prepared as prohibited and this matter is matter that would have a significant adverse impact and therefore needs to be tightly regulated. As we go down the scale and bi-security risk decreases the need for regulatory control would also decrease and so low bi-security matter at the very bottom end of the scale would likely be managed through the general bi-security duty. In terms of the third core concept pro-active bi-security so the new act will appropriately have a focus on prevention or early detection or as well as early detection and will provide the ability to be proactive in response to emerging bi-security risks which is really important but we also want to provide strong and effective powers to respond where we haven't been able to prevent or early detect so we're able to respond appropriately to address the situation. So our current legislation already provides the ability to be pro-active in managing most bi-security risks and the new bi-security act will build on this capacity and ensure that any gaps are addressed and we can continue to take a media action to manage any risk. One of the areas where there is an opportunity to improve in this area is managing the risk of biofouling on vessels so that the whole of a boat or some barge or any other infrastructure is in the water collecting weeds and animals clinging to the infrastructure of the whole and then carrying either a pest species or a disease within a species and moving between regions in the state or moving from international waters or other interstate waters. So we want to be able to look at what tools we need to be able to manage the risk of vessels moving before we have evidence that that risk is actually there so that's one of the areas where we can make an improvement. The plant health act and the livestock act already allow action based on reasonable suspicion and they use proactive management tools such as the plant quarantine standard which imposes entry conditions to manage the risk to our plant industries and also has the ability to put orders in place to quickly manage a situation while further information and evidence is collected to inform the next steps of the response. So the new act will propose to have that ability for preemptive action based on a reasonable suspicion which is then sometimes referred to as the precautionary principle that a serious biosecurity risk exists without having the need to wait for scientific confirmation so you know waiting for an interstate laboratory to provide test results so that will enable a rapid response and improve our ability to prevent establishing new pests and diseases establishing which is really important in biosecurity. So just moving on now to another quick poll question I'm just going to run that one. All right thank you for that so there's a strong agreement for the core concepts some strong agree again if you're not sure and also some disagreement as well so those of you that have some uncertainty or don't agree would love to hear more about that to inform our thinking but it looks like there's the majority support generally for those core concepts which is great so thank you for that. I'll just just turn to the Q&A so there's a question that's coming in one from Robert Chin which is a great question about you know I've talked a lot about protecting South Australia and is there any component of this that talks about cross border protection so protecting other states and territories. So in terms of other jurisdictions so they would have their own species of concern and prohibited lists so there would be restrictions in terms of what could move from South Australia into another state or territory so that's part of the protection but also by maintaining a standard of biosecurity you know that has a positive impact on our other states and territories as well because if something was to come exotic to Australia into South Australia first well then having a proactive quick response to contain that situation is the benefit of the national model of the states and territories but also you know just having good protection to stop it coming in in the first place is really important so good biosecurity in South Australia and any state and territory is of the benefit of some other states and territories but a lot of the protections are based in that in that state and territory itself so I hope Robert that answers your question if not feel free to provide a follow-up and then a question from Danielle as well around the perception in WA that biosecurity groups or rated biosecurity groups as a way the state government could shift responsibility for addressing biosecurity from state to local government do you think it's a fair perception I think based on my level of understanding and engagement with WA I probably can't speak to whether or not it's a fair perception but I can say that in South Australia the thinking we're doing around biosecurity programs is not looking to shift responsibility but more about you know empowering communities to take the lead in areas where they see are important so not looking at taking any sort of responsibility that we're currently managing and shifting it to local government under that proposed approach is more about taking that concept of shared responsibility out of that model and seeing how it could apply to South Australia. Danielle I hope that answers your question. I just want to touch on the scope of the new biosecurity act you know what we're proposing so on your screen hopefully you can see it is the the the individual acts that we're proposing to repeal and replace with the new biosecurity act along with the relevant parts of the fisheries management act as well which would remain under this proposal so in terms of livestock act and animal health the fundamental outcomes that we allow for or that we currently have in animal health under livestock act will remain in the new biosecurity act so there's you know such as the strong powers for the prevention detection management and eradication of pests diseases and contaminants and the ability to enable proof of freedom for those market requirements so that they're really important in animal health and will continue. We'll also continue on with the requirements of certain activities or industries to be registered with traceability systems in place and the new act will also still have the ability to list biosecurity matter of concern so what we refer to as a notifiable disease or condition and still require mandatory notification of their presence or their suspected presence. The new act will also provide the ability to implement restrictions on movements, put control orders in place, declare a biosecurity zone to ensure actions are taken day by day to manage risks and also those important prevention initiatives such as regulation of materials such as swill and ruminant seeds will continue to form part of our biosecurity management in animal health. Some of the opportunities for improvement in animal health you know one is the accreditation scheme so we currently don't provide for accreditation schemes in animal health which would enable assurance certificates to be issued to confirm the product is free of a pest or disease or has gone a specified treatment. The proposal that the new act will provide this opportunity for the livestock industry and accreditation would also have the ability to be applied to a third party under our proposal so a non-government provider empowering industry again to take a leading role in biosecurity and provide product certification. The new act is also proposed to have the ability to recognize appropriate existing industry based quality assurance schemes so this again empowers the industry to take a lead which is part of the new act core concept of shared responsibility and but also potentially avoids the duplication and the cost and you know makes the cost of doing business in South Australia more efficient because we're not setting up a government requirement that's you know similar or to a industry requirement and requiring people to go through both processes. So essentially the act will have an ability to maintain a standard of biosecurity but then have the tools to effectively manage people that fall below that standard. Moving on to plant health under the plant health act so the fundamental outcomes again in plant health will remain in the new biosecurity act so that would be the ability to regulate material through listing and still require mandatory reporting for presence or suspected presence of any concern. The accreditation and certification schemes that currently exist in plant health will continue along with the listing of importers that we currently have in place which is a critical component of managing our plant biosecurity status. The plant quarantine standard will remain which outlines important requirements for importing plants and plant materials into South Australia. Opportunities for improvement in plant health so I've already mentioned the new act will have a consistent approach across all industries with a single set of principles so that provides the opportunity to support further traceability in our plant health industries or plant industries so there's that proposed introduction of property identification codes in line with the national property identification reforms which have currently been discussed at the national level because traceability so it's important for any market access requirements along with enhancing our ability to trace any biosecurity issues along the supply chain so as I said under the framework legislation slide is that because the act will have those general powers to enact a policy it will have the ability to put a registration and traceability system in place and once the national conversation around plant industry property identification codes comes to a resolution then the biosecurity act will be able to enact that policy and that system without having to change the act and so you know you could think about in terms of turning on those requirements even when they're required is the way that we're looking to approach this. Another area for as an opportunity for improvement is the and I've touched on already is the ability to recognise appropriate industry based quality assurance schemes so again that will be available under plant industries and empower the industries to take a leading role in managing their biosecurity. Moving on to wild dog management under the dog fence act so it's proposed that the new act will continue to establish the dog fence board because they've got a really important role and that role needs to continue along with their current funding mechanism but bringing the dog fence board into the new act will provide an opportunity to address parts of that legislation which are outdated and problematic and unworkable such as the inability to revoke a declared section of the fence change ownership of sections of the fence and it's also an opportunity to better define and permit the control of wild dogs and the government's arrangements for management of the fence. So PERSA has engaged with the dog fence board and will continue to engage and work closely with them to ensure that what we're proposing is fit for purpose and improves on the current arrangements that they have. The impounding acts of 1920 one of the oldest pieces of legislation we're looking at which manages essentially stray and abandon livestock so land managers have a responsibility to ensure their stock do not wander from their property onto other private land or public property and the impounding act provides for the impounding of livestock and is proposed to be included in the new bi-security act. A majority of the impounding act just you know a lot of it due to its age is no longer relevant or used and therefore the new bi-security act proposes to include provisions and pick up on that core I guess matter of managing stray and abandoned livestock to make sure that we've got a easy efficient approach to managing that situation. So that's about you know someone finds themselves with in possession of stray livestock they can't find the rightful owner then they've got the opportunity to either keep it sell it or destroy it after a reasonable period of time and after steps have gone through to try and locate the owner. In terms of fisheries and aquaculture bi-security moving on to the Fisheries Management Act there's an opportunity here to clarify roles and responsibilities between what is the fisheries and aquaculture responsibility and what is a bi-security responsibility. So bi-security considerations will still form part of the fisheries and aquaculture's management and decision making but the bi-security act will establish mechanisms to enable bi-security issues in fisheries and aquaculture to be managed in a legislative sense as a bi-security matter under the act. So the new act will work alongside the Fisheries Management Act to complement it and have the ability to manage noxious species. The powers will also remain in the Fisheries Management Act to ensure that the management of put and take fisheries release and escape of aquaculture fish and conservation restocking can continue to be appropriately managed by fisheries and aquaculture because they use the same provisions that we would need to have in the bi-security act to manage bi-security matters. But regardless of the legislation fisheries and aquaculture division and bi-security essay are in the same department and they have a good working relationship work very closely together and that relationship will continue. This is just about where the clarity sits within the legislation. In addition the acts would need to work alongside and complement other legislation in South Australia. So examples would be the Flockstra and Grape Industry Act, the Landscape South Australia Act and you know emergency management legislation and public health legislation those sorts of things. So there's going to be referencing required and also just making sure that the acts work well alongside each other. So just moving now onto another poll question so we'll just get Jen to fire that one up. Just while you're answering the poll I might just turn to the Q&A. So there's a question there from Josh Kennett which is a good one around you know again concern we shared responsibility around funding. This is a question that has come up a number of times in various forms. Around small industries are already underfunded so more responsibility means more industry funds it could cause issues so completely understand that. So I guess what we're proposing is around the shared responsibility is around an opportunity to take responsibility, an opportunity to take a leadership. We're not saying that it's an obligation so government will still run you know set that bi-security standard and we'll still have government design and led programs but there's also that ability for industry if they have a program that they want to design and run themselves and it meets the requirements of the state legislation the bi-security standards that we need then the legislation would have an ability to recognize that but it's an opportunity not a requirement. But when we talk about the general bi-security duty I just should clarify that would be a legal requirement but if people are already practicing bi-security standards and behaviours in their industry then the bi-security duty is likely unlikely to add any more requirements from their day-to-day operation. So the results are in strong agreement majority there for the two thirds roughly with some agreement and again some uncertainty so if you'd like to expand on your uncertainty we'd really like to hear about it so Q&A or contact us outside of the session. So in terms of governance and administration I just want to touch on as well there's a bit in here so bear with me. The first one is around the statutory positions as we refer to them so they're the chief officers so it's proposed that the new bi-security act will provide for two chief officer positions one being the chief veterinary officer and the other being the chief plant protection officer as the principal authorised officers in the legislation statutory positions or the chief officers are not new to South Australia and the livestock act and the plant health act already established chief officers so they're the chief inspector of stock and the chief inspector respectively. But one of the areas we do want to improve is around the management appointment and the powers of deputy chief officers so what we need to be able to do is have the ability to have deputy chief officers engaged which have the powers and functions of the chief officer so they're able to exercise those powers and continue to keep a response or actions moving and decisions being made when in the absence of the chief officer so if you think about an emergency situation which is you know a 24-7 focus chief officer is not going to be around all the time so it's the ability to have deputy chief officers step in and continue to keep the response moving because staff commonly work in shifts during those situations so it's an important in terms of making sure we have continual coverage in the areas we need it so having two chief officers is proposed as the preferred approach but there is also the option of having a single chief bi-security officer but we're proposing two separate positions because it enables you to have distinct technical advice one focused on animal health the other on plant health and that that technical understanding would feed into the decision making of those positions and is explicitly attached to the role so the statutory positions along with authorized bi-security officers would be responsible for most of the day-to-day operational and technical functions and decision-making under the act the other areas around statutory authorities so bi-security in South Australia is delivered in partnership with key statutory authorities and each authority has defined roles and responsibilities which is articulated in the the acts that establish them they provided an important contribution and share responsibility for bi-security so again it's another great example and this this approach can be an excellent model that industry led partnership through the statutory authority with government for bi-security outcomes and so we're proposing that the new act will have the ability to establish any additional new future statutory authorities by regulation if that's required or desired in the future in terms of registration a registration system to all likely whereas fundamental to the operation of an effective traceability system and bi-security responses the livestock act requires a person to be registered to keep certain livestock or to carry out artificial breeding or operate a veterinary diagnostic laboratory and the plant health act similarly requires registration of accredited production areas and also importers so the new bi-security act will continue to provide for registration system as per the existing legislation but the requirement for what types of businesses or produce or activities or facilities or circumstances that will trigger that requirement for registration will be determined by the regulation the registration system will need to be flexible and ensure there's no unnecessary burden on our industries and we want to build in some flexibility which might be in the form of exemptions either a general exemption or a case by case in certain circumstances and the use of permits to be used potentially in lieu of registration so when appropriate also thinking around the ability to provide for an enterprise registration so if you've got a business that has a number of activities that require registration rather than having to register each activity you can have an enterprise registration which covers everything the the new bi-security act will also provide the capacity we're proposing to recognize interstate registration so when businesses reach across borders or do business across borders and South Australia's requirements are being met then having that registration formally recognized in terms of moving on to traceability its ability as we all know to track produce through all stages of production their processing and distribution including importation and retail so the ability to trace produce from its origin along the supply chain is critical to bi-security management because of that and that's a rapid identification and also knowing where relevant properties are located to assess bi-security risk and help response in any sort of disease or pest outbreak and traceability is also important for product assurance in assessing domestic and international markets as well as assisting to identify where you know as I said before those are susceptible so crops or supply chain premises are located so the new bi-security act will continue to support traceability through registration and property identification codes and current traceability systems will continue while also ensuring that the act is structured in such a way that we can facilitate any changes or expansion of traceability in the future moving on to accreditation authority so part four of the plant health act already provide to the establishment of accreditation schemes and that accreditation authorizes a person to issue assurance certificates in relation to the movement of a plant or plant related product and also enables the to verify assurance certificates sorry certificates in relation to the movement of plant or plant related products and also verify assurance certificates or other documents or also the packaging or labeling of plants and plant related products the livestock act doesn't provide for this so there's an opportunity there to broaden out this opportunity across all sectors but you know so what currently exists in the plant health act enabling that to be broadened out to the livestock industries it's also proposed that the chief officers will be accreditation authorities in their own right with the ability to accredit bi-security certifiers and appoint bi-security auditors but we also want the bi-security act to be able to recognize non-government organization that's accreditation authorities which I've already touched on who then in turn may accredit the bi-security certifiers and bi-security auditors to inspect business operations and provide that product certification even industry already participating in an appropriate certification or auditing scheme is proposed that the new bi-security act will have the ability to recognize these schemes along with appropriate interstate schemes in terms of auditing the new act will provide for bi-security audit schemes which is a requirement of some existing interstate and international market access agreements so it's likely that what we're proposing is the new bi-security act will require auditing as a condition of registration for high risk bi-security entities to check compliance with the registration and the legislation to make sure we're managing that risk or it could be used for during applications for registration or accreditation as a bi-security certifier or the approval of an accreditation authority and it's also really important for checking compliance along the way as well in terms of the audit program certification so the new act will support a certification scheme and this concept is not new in South Australia because we have the current involvement in the national certification scheme which relates to the movement of plants and plant products which is known as the interstate certification assurance scheme or the ICA scheme so the new bi-security act will be developed to enable certification of produce to be expanded across other industries if required so that could enable certification that livestock are free of a certain test or disease so continuing to provide for bi-security certificates in the new act will provide assurance that allow for the transit of certified produce within South Australia and interstate. Moving on to permits so it's proposed that the new act would enable permits to be issued that allow for a broad range of actions to be undertaken which may otherwise be in breach of the legislation. Permits would only be provided where the chief officer is satisfied that there's a good and valid reason to issue a permit and it may be subject to conditions or limitations and before providing or approving a permit the factors such as the the relative risk of the pest or the disease the proposed activity and the level of management required to manage that risk would need to be considered along with the period of time the permit is required before approval is granted. In terms of prohibited matter so the new act will continue to provide for the ability to list prohibited matter so to declare it and publicly list it along with the requirement to notify bi-security FA in Perza if prohibited matter is detected or suspected and so when I say prohibited matter I'm referring to bi-security matter that would have a significant impact on the economy, the environment or the community if it entered the state. So the Plant Health Act already enables the declaration of things other than pest and diseases to be regulated so for example packaging timber equipment and machinery and just to make the point that that ability will continue in the new bi-security act as well very important. Okay so moving on now to another poll question I'll just get Jen to load that one up and there's actually two questions for this section so there'll be this one and then we'll move on to the next one. Okay we might just call that one to a close so interesting results here so strong agreement against some uncertainty but also a strong disagree as well so I'd love to hear why a strong disagree you know is it a single approach a single chief bi-security officer is preferred or is there some other issue that you're responding to there so I'd love to hear more about that. So just moving on now to the second poll question while you're responding now I might just turn to some of the questions so question from Danielle Wiseman around the chief plant and animal officers taking responsibility so sorry will those chief officers take responsibility for plants and animals associated with environmental bi-security or only regard to industry related bi-security so early on in our consultation we did propose whether or not we would have a chief environmental bi-security officer and we were also proposing to bring parts of the landscape act into the new bi-security act and through the consultation that proposal wasn't supported so we're now looking to work alongside the Landscapes South Australia Act and complement that legislation so it really is the devil will be in the details so environmental bi-security will largely be managed under the Landscapes South Australia Act which is led by Environment and Water Department under the Minister for Environment and Water but there will be some well there will be engagement with the bi-security essay and some involvement of the chief officers in some of those responses but it depends on what part of environmental bi-security is a very broad term so is the pest or disease declared under the NRM Act or is it new, is it an invertebrate, does it have the impact on primary production, these are all details that need to be worked through before the appropriate response is defined and the responsibility is clear, made clear. So Sarah Thompson's question in terms of the chief veterinary officer and chief plant protection officer where who will be responsible for aquatic and marine environments there's at the moment it's the chief veterinary officer that deals with diseases in the marine environment because things like oysters are considered livestock but there's also the involvement of the Aquaculture Act and the Fisheries Management Act and again it's one of those devil in the details of its wildcatch or its farmed or if it's considered livestock but one of the things we'll be looking to address is having that clarity around bi-security responses and so responsibility for those marine aquatic environments will likely fall to the chief veterinary officer but in some situations where there's like a marine sort of weed or species and then might be involvement of the chief plant protection officer as well but to be happy to sort of when we've got more detail around the the bill and you know the feedback that will inform how that's established you know one of the things would be good to do is to run some scenarios through to test those arrangements to make sure we have the clarity that we're looking for. In terms of the poll results so around non-government entities being accredited so some strong agreement but mostly falling within the agreement and but also not sure so again with some of the other responses it's likely some of that you know what is the detail how's it going to work how's it going to benefit or work with industry arrangements maybe driving some of that uncertainty would be my suspicion so again love to hear more about it if you've got more information to share just touching on compliance for the new bi-security act proposed flexible and responsive responsive compliance framework and we want that to be can measure it to the risk that is being managed so that would involve taking a scalable approach so you know one end of the scale focusing on voluntary compliance creating an effective deterrent and responding to non-compliance in a way that takes into account the circumstances and the behaviors and also the public interest. So this model of compliance assumes that most people will comply or try to comply with their obligations so most people want to do the right thing and do do the right thing but despite having good intentions some people inadvertently fall sorry fall below that standard and fail to comply because they either don't understand their bi-security requirements or there's some other issue driving that non-compliance. So in this situation there may be an increase in monitoring or audit rates might be the response until compliance is established and then moving up the scale there's some people may choose to knowingly do the wrong thing if an opportunity arises so it's important to ensure that there are effective deterrent strategies within the act to deter people from making the wrong choices so risk and reward so if the reward of an opportunity to the wrong the wrong thing to to gain an advantage is not does not outweigh the penalty of being caught if you know that affected deterrent strategy and then at more extreme end of the scale there's a small number of people may choose to deliberately contravene the law to avoid either regulatory action or gain an advantage and so in that situation we'll have the powers and the ability to respond with appropriate enforcement action and that could include criminal prosecution in the court of law. Authorised officers so it's critical that authorized officers have sufficient powers to take action under the new act when required and the new act will not look to diminish or remove any of the current powers that we have in the current system but we want to strengthen those appropriate powers by consolidating powers making them consistent across animal health and plant health and making sure they meet that national agreed standard of best practice in compliance and enforcement. So we'll have the new act will establish a set of standardised and contemporary powers for bi-security officers which will be appropriate and take a broad focus across all bi-security management and that will be consistent with other jurisdictions who have introduced consolidated bi-security acts. In terms of bi-security obligation sorry sorry bi-security direction the new act will provide the ability for a bi-security officer to issue a bi-security direction and for example might be you know directing someone to wash down equipment before leaving an area or secure a premises to prevent the escape of a pest or a disease. We're proposing two types of directions the one being a general direction and that would apply or sorry general direction or an individual bi-security direction so a general direction would apply to the public generally or to a specified class of persons and an individual bi-security direction would apply to a particular person or a business. So an authorized bi-security officer would have the power to issue the bi-security directions if they reasonably believe it's necessary to manage any risk or impact or to enforce the requirement under the new act. Not a new concept in South Australia they currently exist in a similar way under the livestock act and also the plant health act as well just using slightly different language but the intent the outcome will be the same and similar in the new bi-security act. So any direction that's issued would lay out the actions that need to be taken the grounds on which the direction is based and the reason why it's been issued and the nature of non-compliant and also provide a timeframe in which compliance is required. In situations where someone doesn't comply then the bi-security authorised officer will have the ability to either take the action themselves or cause the action to be taken and recover the cost of doing so. Control orders so both the plant health act and the livestock act currently provide for the issuing of orders and they had to put controls in place to control the eradication of a pest or disease or a contaminant. So the new act will provide to continue to provide for control orders that will enable directions or directives to be given that can be applied regionally or statewide and they will provide for that rapid response where a new bi-security risk is identified and action is required to be taken. So a control order will be used to either prohibit, regulate or control activities to prevent the introduction or to eradicate a bi-security matter that proposes a bi-security risk and they'll generally be made to eradicate or prevent the spread of bi-security matter but they're not intended to be long-term management tools. They'll have the ability to be made quickly and provide an immediate response to a bi-security risk while longer-term management arrangements are being developed and also they could also be used to transition out of an emergency situation so sort of a medium-term controls while you're looking to move towards long-term controls. So a control order would set a geographical area, define an area and then it would require certain control measures to be put in place in that defined area. It'll also state the subject or the target of the order and who the measures apply to and how long the order will be enforced and they'll be scalable so it can either be sort of a small area of part of the state right up to the the whole extent of the state. So that provides that flexibility in response and also enables that rapid response that quick action to be put in place which is really important when a bi-security risk is suspected or you know emerging. More of the longer-term management approach would be around, would be enacted through bi-security zones. So under the Plant Health Act the Minister may declare a whole or portion of the state as a quarantine area for the purpose of controlling or eradicating a disease or a contamination and under the Livestock Act the Minister may prohibit entry into or movement within or out of the state or a specified part of the state of Livestock Livestock products or other properties. So it's proposed that the new Act will continue to enable the establishment of zones again for that flexible response and to manage bi-security risks in situations where specific management and issues are required to manage that risk. So bi-security zone would be long-term management of an ongoing bi-security issue or impact and they'll be related to a specific defined area where actions must be taking when interacting with the bi-security zone. So bi-security zones generally would be used where eradication is not feasible but there's still a high bi-security risk requiring action to manage the impact. So but they also may be used where different management actions are needed in different parts of the state or to protect part of the state from a bi-security risk that occurs elsewhere in the state. So a zone could be used to keep things in or keep things out. So a zone would be established by a regulation and similar to a control order will define that area and the action required within that area to manage the risk. Touching on permits so if there are some actions that need to be taken that would be contrary to the requirements of that zone then looking at the ability to have a permit to enable someone to undertake that action if that's appropriate and required because the bi-security zone might have unforeseen restrictions on activities that are not the intention and so we want to have the ability to address that without having to amend the regulation in the zone to build in that flexibility to help business to continue where appropriate and required. In terms of offences and penalties so as per the current legislation the bi-security act will have a range of offences and penalties that can be either expiated or prosecuted and when the bi-security bill is produced each section that has a penalty or an offence will be clearly shown with the amount of the penalty there and then that's able to provide feedback on the the appropriateness of those penalties. So that that detail will come at a later stage but just raising the act will continue to provide for those penalties and and two tears there'll be penalties for a corporation a business and penalties for a natural person or an individual. In terms of the actual penalties though the because the legislation we're dealing with is quite old a lot of the penalties are no longer commensurate to the risk that we're managing and they just don't provide that effective deterrent which is really important. So for an example in the livestock act if you were to introduce a notifiable disease into South Australia the maximum penalty is $20,000. So if you think of about you know foot and mouth as a notifiable disease it's estimated that the cost to Australia would be $16 billion for a large-scale 12-month outbreak and up to $50 billion over 10 years. You can see that $20,000 is just not commensurate to the size of that economic impact of that risk not to mention the impact on you know individuals um livelihoods and the recovery period um that would extend beyond that. So we're looking at um increasing penalties and just an example the New South Wales Bisecurity Act of 2015 so you know look coming you know five years old now um provides a maximum penalty for category one offence which which would be that notifiable disease offence of $1.1 million or imprisonment for three years or both for an individual and for a corporation that steps up to 2.2. So you can see there's a big gap between our $20,000 and an interstate example there so we'll be looking to to increase. I might move straight on to emergency management. So in the Bisecurity Act we'll provide you know as currently the legal framework required to deal with a biosecurity emergency and we'll continue to be guided by those national approaches such as the national emergency response deeds and the agreements and plans that we already have in place. The current legislation provides for emergency action to be undertaken if the inspector the chief inspector considers on reasonable grounds that an urgent action is required and the new Bisecurity Act will continue to enable that quick and decisive action to be taken in in the most urgent situations even when there's a level of uncertainty so you know using emergency orders is what we're proposing which would enable an emergency zone to be established with emergency measures that need to be followed and that would be similar to a control order but the difference being who's able to issue them how long they're issued for and the type of measures that can be put in place for that emergency situation. So they'll be used to isolate an emergency area and the biosecurity matter that we're looking to manage and take steps to eradicate it if it's practical or prevent it's spread. I just want to touch on now in terms of the next step so when I started on I talked started the session I talked about the 18 months of targeted consultation that we've done to get to this point and so now we're out for public consultation currently closing on the 24th of November and we're currently at stage two of the project with all the feedback that we receive that will then feed into informing drafting instructions and the development of a draft bill and then we want to come back out and share the draft bill with you for further consultation because when you start to see how these concepts these proposals are expressed in legislation that can change or increase the understanding of what's being proposed so we're really keen to seek feedback on the bill stage and continue to work with all of you on this development. Once we've been through that process and finalised the bill and in parallel to we'll be looking at the subordinate instruments so the regulations what do they need to allow for what are the outcomes we need and we want to try and provide as much detail as we can to help inform how the bill amid the incomplete framework will look as it moves through the parliamentary process but the usual approach is you have an act in place and then you work on regulations and so we won't actually have actual regulations but we'll be able to hopefully be able to provide the intent of those regulations and the outcomes that they're allowing for. Then after we move through the parliamentary process we'll have the commencement date from the act and then focus will shift on to training, setting up systems, working on the regulations, consultation engagement and the implementation of the act and then through to completing the legislative framework. So looking to introduce the bill into parliament next year but the commencement date, the implementation and further consultation on the regulations will continue beyond that date and into the following years. So we've come a long way but we've still got a long way to go as well and a lot of engagement on the way through. Also just before we go to questions I just want to again reiterate that we're the public consultation on how you can give us feedback. So on your screen is just a screenshot of the your say website. So if you're just going to google whatever search engine you use and type in your say it will bring it through to the main page and then it's very easy to find the building a new bi-security act for South Australian encasement. Click into that area and bring you up to these pages. So this provides the information about what we're proposing, links to the key documents where you can find further information. It's also got a link to the PERSA website where again there's further information and there's also ability to join into an online discussion. Ask questions similar to the Q&A that we've got going today. There's an online survey to provide feedback or you may wish to provide a written submission that doesn't ask the questions, it just provides your thoughts and views. That can be emailed to us or posted to us but it's not one or the other. You can do a survey and a submission as well. And there's also contact details there if you want to get in contact with us. So if you want to set up another meeting or have another presentation or conversation during the public consultation and beyond, please feel free to reach out and let us know. So now I'm just turning to questions. I'll just turn to the Q&A board where there's a couple of questions already. So Josh Kennett says I believe cost recovery is an issue that PERSA should definitely address. So you can take that on board. I'll just general call out to Nathan, the Executive Director of Bioscurity SA, who's with us as well. If there's any questions you want to answer, Nathan, please just jump straight in. Another question from Robert Chinn, so a general question, how will this act vary from those in other states' territories that already have them? So that's a very good question. So one of the key differences will be that our legislation will work alongside the Environmental Bioscurity legislation in the Landscape Act, whereas in other jurisdictions, but not all, have that integrated within their Bioscurity legislation. There's also subtle differences in terms of some of the areas I've touched on, Bioscurity programs and also some of the powers around registration and accreditation. Because what we're looking at doing is continuing on with the good aspects of our current legislation that we want to continue with and some of those are unique to South Australia and so therefore there'll be points of difference, but there'll be good points of difference. So one of the, like in the plant health industry where we require registration of importers, but generally speaking, there'll be a significant amount of similarity with other jurisdictions that have consolidated legislation because we're looking to those jurisdictions to inform our approach and we're working very closely with them, but also every other jurisdiction has worked among themselves as well in developing their acts. So Queensland, when they developed their acts, were working with New South Wales, New South Wales with Tasmania and working with Western Australia as well. The Australian Capital Territory is looking to the New South Wales model to inform their model and Victoria are doing some thinking as well and looking to the other jurisdictions. So just by working together, there's a lot of similarity, but also the national biosecurity model as well, there's the National Biosecurity Committee that all the jurisdictions sit on and discuss the biosecurity for the nation and then there's agreements that are put in place where jurisdictions agree to enact some of those policies, principles in their own legislation. So there's, you know, the harmonisation across the country is happening and will continue to happen. So if there's any other questions, please put them into the Q&A and or raise your hand and we can unmute you and you can talk verbally and ask your question. David Campbell's just written a question. So with the general biosecurity duty, are you considering requiring the adoption of Farmgate Biosecurity Action Plan to support risk mitigation? So I know that this has been important in other jurisdictions where that's part of the basis for farm trespass, where, you know, if you have a Farm Biosecurity Plan and someone was to enter a property and ignore that plan, then that's the basis, that's the breach and then you can take action. So you're encouraging good biosecurity standard, but in terms of actually mandating Farmgate Biosecurity is not something we're currently proposing under the new Act, but, you know, give us more feedback around that. Is that something that you think should be considered or, you know, there's some good outcomes from that approach? I might just generally throw to Nathan if there's anything that Nathan would like to say or any additions that you want to make to any of the answers that I've given, Nathan. Thanks, Andrew. Look, no, I think you're right. I don't really have too much to add to most of those. I think in terms of the consistency of our act with the other States acts, I think that's something that we have looked to make sure that we are consistent with the other States as far as we can, but where there is a specific point of difference that is special for South Australia, then we accommodate that as well. I think if you look at the intent of modernising our legislation, it is largely to ensure that we are consistent across the biosecurity system. Obviously, Australia's got a system that starts offshore and then comes through the broader, the border and then onshore and that needs to work seamlessly and our legislation was perhaps or current legislation is perhaps lagging in that regard. However, each of those elements also needs to be able to stand on its own and operate independently too. So it's a bit of a balancing act between giving us exactly what we want to do, what we need to do, but also ensuring that the way we do it is consistent where it needs to be with those other States. So yeah, it's part of the considerations but not the only consideration. We still have time, about nine minutes. So please put in your questions or raise your hand, but if there's nothing, we'll give a minute or so, but if there's no further questions, we can call it to an end early. So please put in your questions if you have them. To enable time for questions, I skipped a couple of poll questions. So maybe if you're thinking of your questions, we can go back to some of the polls that I skipped. So I'll just get Jen to load up one of the earlier polls and watch that. There's a question, Robert Chin. So did you say that PICS were going to be part of this new act? So yes, the PICS are an important part of traceability for the property identification codes. So we currently have those in the livestock animal health industries and that will continue. And there is also that national conversation happening at the moment about whether or not that will be introduced in the plant health industries. And so the new act will enable that to happen if and when that's decided. So the answer to that question is yes. I'm turning to the, we haven't published the results yet. So the poll should be up now around compliance. Okay. So do you support appropriate and strong compliance powers and penalties for non-compliance? So yeah, I strongly agree or agree. So it's really important as that effective deterrent as we've talked through. So thanks for your feedback. Maybe move to the next one. The last one. The last poll now. So do you support the ability for action to be taken quickly in a biosecurity emergency? So that's around reasonable suspicion. So not having to wait for evidence confirmation before actions put in place to enable that rapid response and to get ahead of the situation while more information is collected. Getting some strong agreement here, which is good. So, you know, is a very important part of biosecurity response. It's good to see that strong agreement and agreement and also a little bit of uncertainty as well. So again, what's reasonable is an important question. So making sure that it's reasonable and that action is taken reasonably in those situations will be important. So what's the definition around that? What are some of the supporting principles to guide that decision making will be really important? Reasonable is not something that's defined in legislation. It is very much defined by the courts, but there will have to be guidance around the decision makers when making that assessment. Okay, I might, there's no more questions that hasn't been for a little while and people are starting to drop out, which is fine. So I might just pull that to a close. Thank you to Jen for the introduction. Thank you to Nathan for joining us and your contributions. And thank you to all of you for joining in as well. As Jen said at the start, we will make this webinar has been recorded and we'll make it available. So we'll actually put it up on our website and provide you with a link so you can watch it back at your leisure or you may wish to sort of share it with other people as well who may have an interest there. And just a reminder of our contact details up on the screen now if you want to reach out for any further information or conversations or provide any other feedback. So thanks again. And we look forward to hearing from all of you by the 24th of November. Thank you very much.