LIVESTOCK (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 17 May 2012.)

Clause 12 passed.

Clause 13.

Mr PEDERICK: I have a few questions about clause 13, which is about the requirement for identification codes. It states that the regulations may provide for a scheme for the allocation by the Chief Inspector of Codes identifying places where livestock or livestock of a specified class may be kept or handled. I would like some clarification. Does a property identification code (PIC) cover all land under the control of a farmer, whether they lease it, share farm it or own it? I understand that it would be covered by a person with those management arrangements, but I would seek clarification.

The Hon. P. CAICA: As I understand it, the new regulations will be amended to improve the overall legislative framework, but there will be further consultation with industry on any changes to the regulations. Those changes are not intended to alter the basic operations of the PIC, which is what you have described there, and, as I understand it, as was the case with some previous bills. The new sections have been developed to cover the current PIC system regulations. However, there will be ongoing discussion and dialogue with the industry with respect to those particular regulations, the same as we spoke about with some earlier amendments.

Mr PEDERICK: So, my understanding of your answer, and it is a little vague, is that if someone was operating multiple properties—a property they own, a property they lease and a property they share farm—I believe that under this legislation any animals under that ownership, whether they be on their own property, a leased property or a share farm property, but they are in the core ownership of one person who is the operating farmer, lessee or sharefarmer, the PIC fee would cover all the stock under his care and control?

The Hon. P. CAICA: As I understand it, that is currently the case. This process is not intended to alter the basic operations of the current PIC system. The answer to your question is, yes.

Mr PEDERICK: Horse SA has some specific questions about the PIC. The first question is along the lines of: is it possible currently to make a horse owner, who does not manage a property, nor is likely to—this is regarding agistment—who has nothing to do with other horses on the property and therefore has little input into the biosecurity arrangements, and has no legal responsibility for the property, get a PIC due to the fact that they meet the 'horse keeper' definition as it currently stands in the regulations? They make the further point, in their correspondence to me, that this is very uncomfortably close to unique animal identification, which is not opposed in itself if set up to be exactly that, but PICs are not.

The Hon. P. CAICA: What I am advised is that the owner of the stock, in this case the horses that you mention, or indeed the person responsible, is in turn responsible for the acquisition of a PIC.

Mr PEDERICK: So, you are saying that the owner of the property is responsible for the PIC?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am told that it could, in circumstances, be the owner of the property. The person who is most responsible will be responsible for the PIC.

Mr PEDERICK: In that regard—and this could apply to any animal, but it is a query from Horse SA—is it possible, or even legal, to apply the PIC fee multiple times against one property due to the fact that there could be different people involved in paying the PIC fee? Many people assume that only one PIC per property would be applied unless multiple PICs were asked for to aid livestock management. The submission from Horse SA states:

It now appears this is not so, therefore it can be assumed that the PIC fee will be applied multiple times against one property but not receive multiple service improvement from PIRSA?

I am just wondering where the legal status is and whether multiple PICs would apply to single properties.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am told that the intention is to only apply the PIC once. I am also told that there might be some circumstances where multiple PICs may be issued but it is not intended for that to be the case. Again, that would relate to the circumstances from the previous question about the owner of the animal, the owner of the property, or at multiple-jurisdiction level where it might get multiple PICs, but it is not intended to do that and we would expect there to be ways by which that would be subsequently identified and managed appropriately with the intention of, and underpinned by, that position of only issuing a single PIC.

Mr PEDERICK: Can clarification be provided around how people can apply for exemptions from the property identification code and what the criteria is? Is it possible that those with exemptions could be on some sort of public register or some other way to avoid them being lost in the system and receiving a fine from PIRSA for not paying an on-the-spot inspection fee or not having a property identification code on horse show entries, if required, and horse transport companies refusing to accept their business and so on? I just want some clarification around that.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am advised that there will not be any exemptions from having a PIC, only an exemption that can apply to the fee that is being charged. I am further advised that that exemption would apply to non-government organisations or not-for-profits. As I understand it, at this stage our discussions have focused on one organisation, Riding for the Disabled.

Mr PEDERICK: So at this stage that will be the only organisation, probably?

The Hon. P. CAICA: That is the only one that has applied at this time. The rule of thumb is that you will not be exempted from having a PIC but you can be exempted from paying the fee. At the moment only one organisation has applied for that exemption.

Clause passed.

Clauses 14 to 25 passed.

Clause 26.

Mr PEDERICK: Clause 26—Claims for compensation from Fund. On page 9 of the bill, subclause (3) provides:

Section 49—after subsection (4) insert:

(4a) The amount of compensation is to be reduced by the amount of the net proceeds of any sale of livestock carcasses or other property.

I am a bit concerned as to what could be deemed 'other property' in this clause.

The Hon. P. CAICA: As has been identified, this amendment will allow for the change in the national deed to allow compensation for animal slaughter on animal welfare grounds to be legally applied in South Australia. The amendment will help farmers access better payments in a natural emergency response. I will not go into any great detail other than to say that the state is a signatory to the national deed between all governments and the national livestock industry. The deed has recently been amended to allow for compensation for animals slaughtered on animal welfare grounds.

With respect to the specific question as to what might constitute 'beyond carcasses', or where it says 'or other property' (that was the thrust of the question), I refer to clause 49(1)(b) of the existing act, which provides:

...an owner of livestock or other property destroyed in accordance with a notice or order issued under Part 4 Division 4, or by action taken or caused to be taken by an inspector under Part 4 Division 4, for the purposes of controlling or eradicating a declared exotic disease during a declared period.

It talks about other property. In this circumstance it might well be sheds, for example, or whatever it might be that, as a result of the determination of the emergency animal disease response agreement, had to be destroyed as a result of whatever that disease might have been. Of course, that would be taken into account when the decision was made to destroy a property. That is a direct result of the management of that livestock on that property certified by an inspector for destruction.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Other actions as well, yes.

Mr PEGLER: Just on that one, would that other property include skins and hides?

The Hon. P. CAICA: That was my initial reaction, that it would—bones, skins, hides and stuff like that that might have a sale beyond just the carcass. I think it would be a logical fit. In this regard, we are talking about other property, and I guess that is the owner's property, for want of a better term, and that would, in my view, fall in that category.

Mr PEDERICK: So, when you say it could be a shed (you did not talk about yards), could they be sold off under this clause and the proceeds used; not just destroyed assets, but they could be on-sold assets?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am told that these would be determined by the contents of the national deed and what we have been a signatory to. I am led towards the member for Mount Gambier's description about what might constitute 'other property', and that would seem logical to me to be those other parts of the animal. However, there may be circumstances where either property might need to be destroyed or subsequently—and I do not know the answer to this—it becomes useless to that property owner and they might on-sell them. That would need to be dependent upon what is written within the national deed between all governments and the livestock industry.

Clause passed.

Clauses 27 to 29 passed.

Clause 30.

The CHAIR: Minister, I understand that you have an amendment to clause 30.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I do, sir.

The CHAIR: My understanding is that you just want to delete the clause, so I suggest that you vote against it when the clause is put. Do you have a question, member for Hammond?

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Mr Chairman. This is the amendment brought on by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire in the other place regarding the administration of the Animal Welfare Act in relation to livestock, which will be inserted after part 9 in the act. The main thrust of this amendment is that 'the minister responsible for the administration of this act is responsible for the administration of the Animal Welfare Act 1985 in so far as it applies to livestock (other than pets) to the exclusion of the minister who is responsible for the administration of that act.'

I, as the lead speaker, and others on the side of the house have indicated that we do support the amendment that has come down from the other place. We believe that commercial livestock and horses, in as far as animal welfare, should come under primary industries so that the department and its inspectors can manage the animal welfare issues that come up from time to time.

As I indicated in my initial speech on this bill, we believe that the RSPCA does great work regarding managing welfare issues with pets and wildlife. We on this side of the house do not believe that a charity should be responsible for the multi-billion-dollar industry that livestock is to this state.

We have seen bungles at times with management. The biggest issue, I guess, was the Brinkworth case. Tom and Pat Brinkworth were dragged through the mud, with allegations of animal cruelty, because a senior employee of the RSPCA made a fundamental error in an application for a search warrant. The case was subsequently thrown out, without the Brinkworths or their managers able to put their side of things. It is like a lot of things that go on in life: it is pretty easy to throw a bit of mud but, once you throw it, there is always some that sticks. The problem for the Brinkworths and their managers was that they never got to go to court because this case got pulled.

I note that there is a lot of emotive argument on either side of this case about whether or not it should have gone forward and whether they should have perhaps suffered the fate of prosecution, but the sad thing is that they were never able to put their case in a court of law in this state because of a bungled investigation. That is the simple fact of what happened.

In other matters relating to animal welfare, we see pressure from groups. We see that Animals Australia tag team with the RSPCA on issues such as mulesing and live animal exports. The simple fact is that some of these people want to put up all these issues, but they never come up with a solution. They want to impinge on the farming community of this state and this nation—not that anyone on this side of the house condones bad animal welfare practices by any means—putting unrealistic obligations on primary producers. They do not understand, especially in regards to the live cattle episode, how much impact that has on this country and even this state.

As I said in my initial speech on this bill, the impacts of that ban on the live cattle industry reverberated right back to South Australia. Johnsons Feed at Kapunda was heavily impacted; it goes through to the feedlots. What is the other option for these cattle from the north if they do not go north to Indonesia? They have to do possibly a 3,000-kilometre ride in a truck, and plenty of stock does that.

I see what happened during the recent drought in Western Australia, when well over a million sheep came east; some came in here to South Australia and some went through to New South Wales and Victoria. Certainly, tens of thousands of cattle, if not hundreds of thousands, travelled east to come out of the drought, and indeed I witnessed cattle trucks changing their loads at Border Village, on the border of South Australia and Western Australia.

All the time we see farmers feeling as though they have not done enough, yet they are the best people to know how to treat animals fairly. Back in 2008, the caged egg industry was restructured, yet still for some not enough is done, so more impost is placed on the egg producers of this state in regard to the caged egg industry.

We see the sow stall issue, which Coles has pushed along in this nation, where the industry has agreed to voluntarily phase out the use of sow stalls by 2017. Yet, as I understand it (and I must admit that I did not see the program), the Premier of this state said on Landline that he wanted to accelerate the exclusion of sow stalls to 2013. It is pretty easy to make those glib comments without understanding the cost. One pig producer in my electorate—and he is a major pig producer—had to spend $1 million to get his shed up to spec. There would not be too many people in this place who could throw $1 million at one project, at one part of whatever they do in life. This farmer knows that his contract with Coles is set for the next five years—and what happens then?

I know from talking to the RSPCA, as I did before we debated this bill a couple of weeks ago, that they want to separate their campaigning from the inspectorate roles. It is not as easy as that; you just cannot split the two. The RSPCA want to keep their inspectors in charge of commercial livestock, but then they say, 'Just split off that idea where we are campaigning against mulesing of sheep.' We debated here earlier the benefits of mulesing for sheep. Yes, it is short-term pain, but I tell you what—it is long-term gain.

As I have indicated in this house before, I shore sheep for 13 years, and I shore plenty around the place. I shore plenty at times which had a touch of flies because of bad weather conditions, humidity, on properties where the weather had gone against them. Not only is it a big issue on the tail of sheep, but if it moves up over the body a body-struck sheep is something that is not very pleasant, not very pleasant at all.

We need to be realistic about what measures are put in place for our farmers because I can assure you that 99.99 per cent of them will do the right thing. Sure, there is always someone who will try to take a short cut, I will admit that, and they should not. We need to respect our food producers, and we need to give them a break. I know that the wool industry bodies are looking at ways of not having to mules our sheep. There are ways to breed plainer sheep, but the trouble is that if you breed plainer sheep you do not get the wool cut and there goes your profitability.

As far as cattle husbandry is concerned, we are the only nation in the world that follows our stock to the slaughterhouse, and that is to be commended. We see recently that, through some of the footage Animals Australia took and the investigation that followed, it looks like a couple of prosecutions will follow, but Animals Australia still were not happy. We have to be careful what we wish for at times. What do people want in this state and country? We are not all going to eat beets and beans and chick peas. Some of us want to eat meat.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, I have eaten the odd steak, Mr Chairman, and I enjoy it.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Three times a day.

Mr PEDERICK: I would have it three times a day if it was possible, yes. Thank you, member for Stuart. But we do have to be realistic and what I am getting back to is I do not believe that you can, as the RSPCA says, just split off the inspectorate role from the campaign role. You simply cannot do that. As I have said, most farmers—in fact, the vast majority—do the right thing, but they know that they are under pressure and having to spend money, and there is no certainty in the future that any upgrades they do will be good enough even five or 10 years down the track. Yes, there always can be improvements made, but someone has to pay the piper. Someone has to pay the bill. You know what? It is usually not the consumers or the middle men. I know who it is: it is the primary producer who has to pay those costs every time. Sometimes—in fact, most of the time—there is no chance of them finding compensation for that expense.

In the bigger picture, we support this amendment that has come from the upper house. We think it is the right thing to do. We think that Primary Industries, which has very capable inspectors who attend sales throughout the state, who are already there in force, with the appropriate funding applied, should be the ones managing animal welfare in this state for commercial stock and horses. I commend the amendment as it has come from the other place.

The CHAIR: Minister, do you wish to respond?

The Hon. P. CAICA: There was no question to respond to. It was a second reading speech all over again, Mr Chairman. I know I have a right to move a point of order, but there is no question to respond to. I think, with your permission, the member has provided enough leeway for me to, at the very least, give a response. Whilst we are moving to delete this, I accept your ruling that my voting it down will essentially do the same thing, at any rate.

This amendment was introduced, as was said, in the Legislative Council to transfer responsibility for livestock animal welfare from me to the minister responsible for the Livestock Act which, of course, is my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. The government, obviously, opposed this amendment in the other place and we will seek to have it excised here.

There is strong public support for the current system with the RSPCA as the primary investigation enforcement body, supported—and I reinforce the point—by PIRSA in livestock matters, operating under a memorandum of understanding between these bodies and my department (Department of Environment and Natural Resources) as the lead agency. There is regular and ongoing dialogue and, where there are issues, they are addressed. Members would note that the RSPCA is publicly opposing the proposed amendment and refuting suggestions they are unable to effectively police animal welfare issues in the livestock industry—an assertion with which I and the government agree.

As was mentioned by the member for Hammond, the vast majority of farmers look after their animals well and strongly support good animal welfare, but there are some who do not. I intend not to go to the Brinkworth case except to agree, perhaps for different reasons, that it was a tragic set of circumstances that this matter did not see the light of day in the courts. Where there are allegations of cruelty, the RSPCA, supported by PIRSA when needed, investigates and deals with the matter as required. The system has been operating well for many years, and the government does not see a need to change this system.

In response to a couple of matters that were raised by the member for Hammond, where he said that farmers are the best people to treat animals fairly, we agree with that position, that 99.9 per cent of farmers do the right thing, so let us give primary producers a break. But, if 99.9 per cent of them are doing the right thing, what is the difference with respect to whether it be the RSPCA or any other body actually doing the enforcement?

No-one has come to me with any evidence to say that the RSPCA has acted outside of this ambit. In fact, no information at all indicating that has ever been brought to me in my role as the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conversation, nor in my previous role, which I enjoyed very much, as the minister for agriculture, food and fisheries. I supported them doing—

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I supported the RSPCA doing it at that stage, I support them doing it now, as does the government. We see no reason for this amendment that was moved in the other place to be supported, and we will be moving its excision from this particular bill. I could go on but I will not, sir, and I thank you for your tolerance in allowing me to respond to what was essentially another second reading contribution. There were no questions asked. I will leave it at that and suggest that we vote on the bill.

The CHAIR: Before I recognise any other member, I did allow some latitude for the two speakers, and—

Mr Venning interjecting:

The CHAIR: That's fine, you can still speak; just listen up. I would ask that members restrict their comments to the actual clause itself and not have a general discussion about the bill. The member for Morphett.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have a question on this particular clause: can the minister tell the house how many prosecutions in the last 12 months to five years have been undertaken by the RSPCA against commercial livestock producers, and how many of those have been successful? On the same clause: could the minister also let us know whether he considers there to be a conflict of interest if PIRSA were to be the prosecuting body?

The Hon. P. CAICA: The situation at the moment is that they work very closely together to get the best possible outcomes that can occur, given the expertise of PIRSA in this particular area, and its working relationship with the RSPCA. Quite simply, it is a good way to do things, it has operated well, and I think it should continue to operate in that particular way. The record of the RSPCA and that arrangement is generally good.

I have been advised, with respect to your specific question, that livestock welfare enforcement has always accounted for about 20 per cent of the RSPCA workload, although prosecutions involving commercial livestock are usually below this level—I understand two of the 32 prosecutions in 2009-10. The RSPCA has always had a high success rate in prosecutions, attributed also to its principle of prosecuting cases with a high likelihood of success. Again, I just reinforce the complementary roles of the RSPCA and PIRSA livestock inspectors in managing this situation.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just on that same clause: from those figures the minister gave us, am I correct in understanding that only two prosecutions were undertaken with commercial livestock producers? How many were investigated and not proceeded with, and can the minister give us any reason as to why they were not proceeded with? To me, that seems like some of them may have been placed in the too-hard basket or were too expensive, or there may have been some other reasons as to why those prosecutions did not proceed.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I do not have the figures about how many investigations were undertaken, and that is a matter of my asking the RSPCA that specific question. As a rule of thumb, I would think investigations are undertaken and then a decision is made with respect to the likelihood of success, and that decision would be based on the investigation and the incident that occurred. Its high success rate in prosecution is attributed to its principle of prosecuting cases with a high likelihood of success, I am told. I do not think that is unique to this area of responsibility. It happens in quite a few of the compliance and enforcement areas for which government is responsible.

Dr McFETRIDGE: This is my third question on this clause. If they are looking only at cases where there is a high chance of them actually being successful in the prosecution, it seems to me that, with better resourcing of the people who are involved in those prosecutions and with higher levels of expertise in investigating those prosecutions, there may be more people charged and more people successfully prosecuted.

Everyone would then have confidence in the fact that our commercial livestock producers were doing the right thing, and there would not be this general push by some of the lobby groups to say that commercial livestock producers are only in it for one thing, and that is the money. They certainly are not. That is not my experience in 22 years of veterinary practice; the vast majority, 99.999 per cent, of those commercial livestock producers I dealt with were more concerned about their animals' welfare than they were about the profit at the end.

I just put on the record that I have seen some cases—in particular one case, and if there is one case that gets away with it, that is too many as far as I am concerned—where the guy should have been prosecuted. In fact, there are probably two there. These guys weren't prosecuted, and by any standards, never mind a veterinarian looking at them, by any standards of an experienced animal or stock inspector looking at these animals, they should have been prosecuted. Those people should never own livestock, and neither of those people were prosecuted.

If I come into this with a slightly different view to others in this place it is because of those two cases, which have really made me think 'Well, hang on; is the RSPCA the right organisation to do it?' It does a wonderful job in many other areas. It is a wonderful organisation supported by thousands of South Australians, and I have done everything I can to support it, but in this particular area I urge the minister to look at what is going on here and make sure that the resourcing and expertise is where it should be, and that is with PIRSA.

The Hon. P. CAICA: As I said earlier, I disagree with the fundamental premise that it should be with PIRSA. I am very pleased that we have gone from 99.9 per cent of farmers doing the right thing to 99.999 per cent of farmers doing the right thing, and I do notice the disparity between the lead speaker and his—

Dr McFetridge: Disparity?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, in the scheme of things it must be a significantly low number, hence, again, the fact that only two of the 32 prosecutions in 2009-10 were, I am advised, related to commercial livestock. I cannot comment on the specific individual cases the member has spoken about there, and I would back him as a vet—and you cannot be a former vet; you will always be a vet—about his views about how those particular animals were handled in this particular case.

I can only assume that there may have been some other issues that prevented a prosecution. That is my point. What I did not say earlier is that they investigate only those circumstances where there is a high likelihood of prosecution. They undertake an enormous number of investigations and then determine, as is quite appropriate, the likelihood of success of prosecution in those particular cases.

Mr VENNING: I want to commend the member for Hammond's speech and ask a question. I intend to make a comment in support of the amendment we are now debating before the committee, and at the end of it I will ask a question in relation to this. I have had a lot of contact in my electorate over many years, Mr Chairman, as you would have had, on issues like this, and one particular constituent, Mr Warren Starick from Cambrai, has always given me top advice on matters like this. As a chook farmer, egg producer and also in livestock generally—pigs, and all sorts—he has given me a lot of advice, and I will selectively quote (because it is too long) some advice he has just given me in correspondence I have had from him. He said:

South Australia and Queensland are now the only states that allow third party prosecutions under this act. Shortly new standards are going to be put in place for the transporting of livestock. These standards are enforced differently to the old codes of practice where an actual act of cruelty had to be proven. Under the new regulations someone for example could use their mobile phone to take a photo of a sheep's leg protruding from a truck; this is a breach of a standard. While a prosecution policy may allow a warning, a third party e.g. animal libber [or the RSPCA] could take the operator to court and win the case as there is a clear breach of a standard.

Some years ago a poultry producer was taken to court under the PROCTA act and it was eventually settled out of court after costing the producer some $30,000 to defend himself.

An animal libber then took the same producer to court and, eventually, with the support of the NFF fighting fund, the NFF won the case in conjunction with the 'ham in sheep feed' at Portland.

The industry tried to get the third-party provisions removed, but the government refused to remove it. We know the history of this issue, and, Mr Chairman, you would too, particularly the Johnson debacle. They were in my electorate at the time. A lot of people there lost their jobs. The Johnsons were very concerned when the live sheep export was held up purely because of the infiltration of these people on the ships.

The Indonesian abattoir was emotive footage on TV. It is always very difficult to watch that on the TV. In fact, I did not watch it. I could not watch the Indonesian abattoir. I did not want to watch that. I used to butcher my own sheep, and, at the best of times, it was always unpleasant work. I do not do it anymore. We always had to do that because that is what you did. I did not watch it. For the ordinary person watching that footage it was horrific, terrible. It should never have been allowed to happen.

We saw the result of that. We saw the industry frozen overnight, and look what has happened since: many people lost their livelihoods and a whole industry came to a stop. You had cattle in the yard waiting to be loaded. They had to be fed, at whose cost? That was cruel in itself, just having those cattle waiting around while everyone dithered trying to work out what we were going to do.

The sow stall is an issue that has come to us in recent days. As a past pig producer I understand exactly why you have sow stalls: it is to save the piglet's life. When a sow goes down on a hard floor—we do not have pigs on soft floors anymore—of course the piglet underneath gets squashed. The massive weight of a large sow just squashes the poor little piglet to death. The rails are put there purely to try to save the piglet's life. I always understood that, once the piglets are four to six weeks old, we remove the rails and allow the mother to be able to turn and then put them out when they are big enough to fend for themselves. When they are born in the wild, the sow makes a hole in the ground and a lot of deaths occur.

Caged birds is always a difficult issue. Mr Starick has given me a lot of advice. In fact, he has gone out of the industry purely because the cost of his having to rebuild to the new regulation was just not worth it. You really are handing this industry over to the big fellows. As I said to the shadow minister, especially today farmers are very good husbandmen, and our friendly vet here—once a vet, always a vet—will back that in. We are very aware. We love our animals. We depend on them for our livelihood. We are not going to be cruel to them. My question to the minister is: will the government consider the removal of third-party prosecutions under this act?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am advised, and I know it to be the case, that third-party prosecutions as you mentioned there, or bringing proceedings, is not under this act. That is under the Animal Welfare Act. We are dealing with the Livestock Act, and it is not a component of this particular act.

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: No. It is not part of this bill. It is in the other act, the Animal Welfare Act.

Mr PEGLER: My question is to the minister. How many RSPCA livestock inspectors are out in regional South Australia and where are they? I ask this question because of an experience I had a few years ago. Someone mischievously reported me to the RSPCA for not going around my sheep when they were lambing and that we had many dead sheep, etc. Two inspectors turned up. They drove the roads around my property. They had a look. They had both come from Adelaide especially to inspect that. They had a look at those from the road. They pulled up at my front gate, and they just said to me that they did not have any problems.

I then asked them to come and look over my whole property and I explained to them all our management practices. Bear in mind that the accusations were that we were not going around these sheep at lambing. Bear in mind that our operation probably records more lambings than anyone else in Australia, and it is pretty impossible not to go around your sheep and record all the lambings at the same time. They were great people, but they did not have a lot of understanding of the livestock industry and they were absolutely astounded at our management practices. When this same person rang in the next couple of years saying the same things, they obviously found out that they were being quite mischievous.

My point is that it would have been much easier for a PIRSA livestock inspector based in Mount Gambier to have just come out to my property, had a quick look, understood what we were doing and would have known straight away that this person was being mischievous. I wonder whether the RSPCA has the resources in situations like that.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the member for Mount Gambier for his question and for relating the circumstances of the situation as described. I am told that there are no RSPCA officers appointed within the country regions and that they are centralised here in Adelaide. However, I hark back to the comment made earlier and agree with your view that the PIRSA personnel or police officers, who are authorised officers under the arrangements as well, should at that time have been able to contact the RSPCA and, under those circumstances, said that this is a try on by that person being mischievous. My understanding of the working relationship is exactly that.

RSPCA officers are not permanently located within regional South Australia, but they are still reliant upon information provided through those other mechanisms, not the least of which are the PIRSA representatives that are qualified within that particular area of responsibility, along with police officers, who have the proficiencies. RSPCA inspectors are required to have the proficiencies to be authorised by me as minister for the environment to conduct those routine inspections, but PIRSA staff are equally qualified within that field to provide that advice to the RSPCA of a preliminary nature that you described.

That is one of the circumstances where it was remedied the second time around, but it probably should have been remedied the first time around and my expectation (and certainly the expectation of government) would be that the working relationship between the RSPCA, which is a good working relationship as I mentioned earlier, and other organisations out there, whether it be PIRSA or the police in regional South Australia, will advise the RSPCA in a proper and appropriate way of any issues that might arise with respect to animal welfare in the regions.

Mr PEGLER: To follow up, is the RSPCA directed to first seek advice from the local PIRSA livestock officers or police in situations like that?

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, I am advised that that is not the case. PIRSA animal health officers attend the majority of livestock markets to check compliance of the Livestock Act. Animal welfare issues that are witnessed are either handled by those officers on attendance, if minor, or are referred to the RSPCA for investigation in major problems in which PIRSA officers provide witness evidence.

The RSPCA frequently requests PIRSA officers to investigate reports from country regions to establish authenticity of complaints. PIRSA officers are authorised, as I mentioned earlier, under the Animal Welfare Act for this purpose as well as for assistance in natural disasters affecting livestock truck roll-overs. In answer to your specific question, no.

Mr PEDERICK: In response to that answer and the previous answer: to make the administration of animal welfare much smoother, because the primary industries officers are stationed in regional areas and are at sales looking at how stock are presented, I would have thought that it would be a sensible idea to put them in control of animal welfare. They are already at the sales. They are already at these commercial sales, seeing what is going on and, obviously, they have the knowledge, they are on the ground and we are not having to call on the RSPCA to send out their officers from the city.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I think we are rehashing old ground again. Notwithstanding that, the process that we have in place has worked effectively for an extended period of time. It is the most appropriate and efficient use of existing resources and, most certainly, as we said earlier, we do not agree with the premise of the opposition that there is something wrong with the current way in which things operate. We will be looking to excise this clause.

The committee divided on the clause:

Majority of 5 for the noes.

Clause thus negatived.

New clause 30A.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 10, after line 15—After clause 30 insert:

30A—Amendment of section 82—Extension of period for prosecution and issue of expiation notice

(1) Section 82(1)—after 'Act' insert '(other than an expiable offence)'

(2) Section 82—after subsection (2) insert:

(3) Proceedings for a prescribed expiable offence against this Act must be commenced within 2 years of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed and, despite section 6 of the Expiation of Offences Act 1996, an expiation notice for such an offence may be given after the expiry of the period of 6 months from the date on which the offence was alleged to have been committed.

(4) An expiation notice for a prescribed expiable offence against this Act cannot be given after the expiry of the period of 2 years from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

The effect of this amendment is that it will provide legal clarity regarding enforcement activity under the Livestock Act 1997 being able to occur more than six months after the commission of an expiable offence. The Expiation of Offences Act 1996 limits the period of time for which an expiation can be issued. This restricts the period in which proceedings for prosecution can be commenced, despite section 82 of the Livestock Act 1997 providing two years in which proceedings for prosecution can be commenced.

Due to the very nature of the livestock industry, I am told it is common for expiable offences not to be detected immediately. For example, sheep often move directly from interstate properties to South Australian properties. The sheep require correct identification and health status documentation. However, detection of any offence commonly occurs at the livestock market six or more months after the offence might have occurred.

This amendment is about which act has precedence, and certainly this amendment will not apply to all expiable offences under the act. A regulation will be required to prescribe those expiable offences to which the extension of the expiation and prosecution period will apply. Only those expiable offences that are regularly detected after a period of time has passed since the commission of the offence will be prescribed.

Mr PEDERICK: I note that section 82(1) of the Livestock Act 1997 provides:

Proceedings for an offence against this Act must be commenced within two years of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed or, with the authorisation of the Minister, at a later time within five years after that date.

Obviously, with an expiable offence, the minister will not have that capacity under this amendment. On this side of the house, we support the amendment. As I indicated in my second reading speech, the inclusion of the multiple expiable offences, I think, brings a lot more clarity to how this bill, if it is enacted, will be able to operate. We support this amendment.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the member for Hammond and his side for the support of this amendment.

New clause inserted.

Remaining clauses (31 and 32), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (12:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

In conclusion, I thank the opposition for the level of support for this very important bill. I acknowledge the comments that were made about the importance of the livestock industry to this state and nation but also the importance of making sure that we properly manage our livestock and the fact that farmers are best positioned with, depending on whom you are talking to, 99.999 per cent of farmers always doing the right thing. I also thank our officers from the department who have worked very well and diligently in assisting in my preparation of this bill.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:42): Obviously, we support most of the bill as it has come through. We are disappointed on this side of the house that the amendment moved in the other place has not survived, but we will watch with interest what happens when this bill does go back to the other place, because we on this side are certain that animal welfare issues of a commercial nature, and involving horses, should be under the care and control of Primary Industries.

I also note, as I indicated earlier, the ability to have multiple expiation fees is certainly a sensible move for the rights of farmers and to allow things to progress more smoothly. I certainly acknowledge that, finally, after 15 or so years, people can artificially inseminate their stock without fear or favour. I do hope the upper house holds its nerve as far as the amendment in regard to commercial livestock and horses animal welfare activities being under PIRSA control.

Bill read a third time and passed.