Biodiversity Bill 2025

The Hon. J.S. LEE (12:43): 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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