LIVESTOCK (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 February 2012.)

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (20:49): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to indicate our support for the bill. In so doing, I acknowledge the work done in relation to this matter and many other matters in this portfolio by the member for Hammond in another place, Mr Adrian Pederick. This bill is aimed at improving the current operation of the Livestock Act 1997 and will bring the current act up to date, ensuring the health of livestock in South Australia.

The bill incorporates support for a number of important national agreements, such as the National Livestock Identification Scheme (NLIS) and the national agreement for funding of emergency responses to exotic disease. The act provides for registration requirements in the keeping of livestock to ensure fast and effective tracing of livestock in the event of the detection of an emergency animal disease, artificial breeding centres and veterinary diagnostic laboratories, ensuring that the minimum standards are complied with.

The government will have the ability, through this legislation, to investigate and control any animal disease or contaminant which comes under the proposed act which may impact the health of livestock, people or native or feral animals, and the marketability of animals or livestock product. It will remove obsolete or unnecessary provisions and include some new ones in relation to those matters.

The bill enables recovery of costs from individuals who fail to keep up disease control activities. The briefing that the member for Hammond and I received exemplified the apiary industry as one that would be significantly relevant to that matter. These expenses will go beyond just the expenses incurred by inspectors.

If the bill proceeds, Biosecurity SA will be consulting with relevant stakeholders to seek the relevant amendments to regulations. Expiation fees will, as proposed in this bill, assist with compliance, as currently only prosecution processes occur. In relation to the expiation fees, I will explore those changes more in the committee stage, as well as some other aspects of the bill. I anticipate that at least one of my colleagues may also explore some of the matters in relation to the expiation fees.

The bill we have before us is one that does not include any reference to the proposed biosecurity fee. As I have said before, at the end of the last sitting year, I acknowledge the fact that the minister's staff did let me know a day before the minister originally introduced the bill that she had taken the biosecurity fee matter out of it; it had been rather controversial.

Members would remember that, at the same time, I had a motion in this house to refer the matter of the biosecurity fee to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, and that motion was subsequently passed by this council late last year. I understand that the ERD Committee has already had some preliminary discussions about how to handle the matter. I look forward to the committee's examination of that. I understand that, while that is going on, the minister has asked her department to go back and have another look at the matter of the biosecurity fee.

I mentioned earlier the briefing that was arranged for the member for Hammond and myself in regard to this bill. There was a matter that I raised during that briefing, and I had a very comprehensive response to that matter via the minister, and I would like to relatively briefly take the time to put on the record the response I received. The letter came from the Hon. Gail Gago, and it commences, as follows:

I write following a recent briefing by staff from the Department of Primary Industries and Regions SA...of Mr Adrian Pederick MP and you about the Bill to amend the Livestock Act...to respond to the question raised by you regarding public notices.

At this meeting you asked if the proposed provisions on public notices at public stock sales (e.g. saleyards) could or should be extended to stock sales held on private properties.

PIRSA has advised that with the development of risk based trading as a disease control option, it is important that inspectors at markets have the power to erect a placard or public notice either advising of the health status of, or warning of the presence of a notifiable disease.

Public placards improve confidence in the system and act as a disincentive for 'rogue' persons who may not fully disclose or make false statements.

Currently, Ovine Johnes Disease (OJD) is the only disease that is being managed using risk based trading. The system is designed to enable the continuing movement and sale of sheep while minimising the risk of transfer of OJD.

Sheep are allocated a score based on a number of factors related to the risk that the sheep may have OJD. These factors include the geographic location of the property of origin, the vaccination status of the sheep and any results of laboratory or post-mortem tests for the disease. The lower the score, the higher the risk of carrying OJD, so farmers are encouraged to only purchase sheep with an equivalent or higher score to their own animals.

As there is no independent means to verify the status of the sheep at a market, unlike the diseases of footrot and lice where sheep can be inspected, it is critical that buyers are aware of the declared status of the sheep for sale. This is particularly important at public saleyards where there are multiple mobs from multiple properties offered for sale at the one site. This may include sheep from interstate properties where the risk of OJD is much higher.

I understand that OJD notification is generally not an issue at private on-property sales, such as ram or dispersal sales, because:

sheep with a higher risk ranking are not able to be sold at private sales;

there are a limited number of these sales, compared with saleyards;

most sales are sheep from one owner and one property, not sales of sheep from various sources or mixed sales;

verification of the status of the sheep is much easier at a private sale because the owner is usually present;

sheep and their accompanying certification, such as the National Sheep Health Statement (NSHS), can be much more easily checked at a private sale than a public sale.

The NSHS provides the vendor with the opportunity to provide information in relation to diseases such as OJD, footrot, sheep lice, Ovine Brucellosis and certain treatments that the sheep have received. The NSHS is mandatory when selling sheep within and into South Australia. It is an offence to make a false statement in a Sheep Health Statement.

I am advised that the current sheep lice regulations, which are supported by industry through the funding of the compliance activity, apply only to markets and sales where sheep from different holdings are present so there is no formal compliance activity in relation to sheep lice at on-farm sales. On the other hand, if footrot was detected at an on-farm sale, the sale would be cancelled and the property placed under quarantine. There would be no need for public notices to be erected.

The advice I have received from Biosecurity SA is based on current risk based trading and practices used when selling stock on properties.

I am advised that due to the factors listed above Biosecurity SA currently does not seek to have the ability to place public notices at private sales.

I trust the above information is of assistance.

(Signed) Hon. Gail Gago.

Once again, I thank the minister and her department for that comprehensive response, which was actually probably more detailed than I expected. I would only comment that I think one of the dot points in that answer indicated that there are a limited number of these on-property sales compared with saleyards. My only comment from my experience is that in the last 20 years or so there have been far more on-property sales, particularly stud and flock ram sales, than there were once. I think, at least only casual observers of the livestock saleyard system in this state would observe that there are far fewer livestock saleyard venues now than there were 15 or 20 years ago.

I think probably the balance between the two has lifted significantly on the side of the on-property sale, even though there would still be a far greater number of sheep sold at public saleyards. Having said that, I again thank the minister and her department for that response. As I said earlier, there will be some areas that I will explore at the committee stage, but once again, I am pleased to indicate that the Liberal Party will be supporting the bill.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (21:00): I rise to indicate my support for the Livestock (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2012, reintroduced in this place by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. In its current form, the bill proposes minor nuts-and-bolts or finetuning amendments to the Livestock Act 1997, many of which are the result of a review of the act that was initiated with the release of the discussion paper in August 2009.

This bill was originally intended to carry the proposed biosecurity levy, which would provide for partial cost recovery of the animal health program and was to be paid by all primary producers through to hobby farmers and recreational equine owners. However, the government, following significant backlash from these industries, has since dropped the proposed levy, with the minister stating in her second reading contribution that it is 'not being pursued at this time'. Further, the issue of cost recovery of the animal health program has been referred by this council to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee.

Late last year, I met with representatives of the South Australian Farmers Federation, and my office spoke with representatives of peak equestrian and dairy bodies, who all denounced the biosecurity levy, arguing that their respective industries were already laden with fees, that there are existing alternative means of funding biosecurity processes, and that that they should not be forced to bear sole responsibility for an issue that affects everybody.

The levy, however, was their only point of concern with the then draft Livestock (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, and all expressed support for the other nuts-and-bolts clauses. With the biosecurity levy no longer being pursued, I have since confirmed that the bill is welcomed and has the support of these peak industry bodies. Having further confirmed that there are no amendments intended by the opposition and not being aware of any others, the bill, likewise, has my support.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (21:02): Firstly, I advise colleagues that I have a couple of amendments that are being drafted at the moment, of which I have advised the whips and the minister. Through the proroguing of parliament, in addition to a couple of other things, we are in the process of doing those now, so I will speak to this bill generally and then seek leave to complete my remarks on another day.

I wish to place on public record—and there will be a few occasions where this will be the case—that some of the concerns I have with respect to elements of the bill are not do to with this current minister. In fact, to be fair, some of the issues that I am going to raise and move amendments about concern the former minister, who—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: McEwen.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Well, there are a number of ministers I have concerns with over primary industries—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: He is one of them.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: He is indeed, but this minister has actually taken the baton well into proceedings regarding PIRSA. The former minister, who is now the finance minister, I think, actually thought more about being the finance minister than he did about the importance of ensuring that primary producers received some return on the investments they put into the government coffers without having to be fleeced—pardon the pun, to those who are sheep farmers—every time they tried to do something on their farm.

I do commend the current minister, who has realised that full cost recovery is out of control when it comes to primary industries and therefore has put back some of the cost recovery around biosecurity fees. I want to touch for a few moments on the lead-up to that. Interestingly enough, it goes back to the then primary industries minister, the Hon. Rory McEwen, and the NLIS scheme. We were told that we needed to have a National Livestock Identification Scheme. The minister signed off on that at the Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting and we had an NLIS.

The NLIS is still not perfect, but it has assisted with respect to identification of livestock across the nation. The dilemma is the cost now of complying with NLIS, right down to ear tag costs, when only a couple of companies produce those ear tags. What was a small cost initially has now become a significant cost. To give you an example, you will get for a bobby calf somewhere between $10 and $30 or $40, depending on the size and weight of that calf. However, at $10 you are now spending something like $3.50 to $4 just to put on an NLIS tag.

Then there are the vendor declaration books when you actually send off bobby calves. At the beginning, the government provided those vendor declaration forms in book format free of charge. Now the book format has gone and it is not free of charge at all. In fact, you have to register online every time you want to sell bobby calves, and that in itself takes a great deal of time. The system that they have is far from efficient and the costs are ridiculous. Those are just two examples of what has happened when initiatives have come in.

Sure, we need to protect the security of our livestock industry. We need to do whatever we can to ensure that any notifiable disease is notified. We do need to have, obviously, veterinary diagnostic laboratories, and we do need to ensure that, if there are animals with a disease or contamination, it does not spread through the entire herd or flock. From that point of view, the general intent of what this bill is trying to do is to be commended.

However, there are a couple of issues, and one is that, because this is a government bill that has come in, it gives us an opportunity to address another problem that is very threatening to agriculture. I will talk more about that once I have briefed the minister and my colleagues and tabled the amendments. We have unprecedented pressure on intensive animal husbandry in Australia at the moment, and it is something that needs to be addressed for the wellbeing of our community, not only from an economic aspect but also from the point of view of the sovereignty and protection of our state and nation.

One of the things I want to commend those who drafted this bill for is that, when they look at issues, such as the amendment of section 23, the term of registration and renewal, they talk about processes. If there is an application for a renewal of registration, it must be made to the chief inspector, and it goes through procedures. I would have loved to have seen that with the NRM bill. In this bill, they highlight the importance of these registrations going through the chief inspector, in vast contrast to that of the NRM bill, where someone who is probably only the equivalent of an ASO3 has powers higher than those of a sworn police officer. There has certainly been a lot better drafting and consideration of procedures within this bill than there has been with previous bills.

I will be putting on notice a couple of questions I will put to the minister in committee on clause 11, the amendment of section 19, the requirement for registration to perform artificial breeding procedures. I declare my interest here—which is needed as an MP—that our family does a lot of our own artificial breeding. Whilst it does not directly concern us, as I read this clause, I want to ensure that there are no additional impediments on those farmers who require artificial breeding.

Artificial breeding and genetic improvement is the way of the future. There is sexed semen and the whole lot now. The technical costs of that are high but they allow us to advance our genetic improvement. We do not want to put an impost on the other side when it comes to being able to utilise that technology in respect of registration to perform artificial breeding. So, to give the minister notice, I will be asking some questions on that.

There are two things that I have been particularly happy about lately. I do not always support Premier Weatherill—he knows that and we have had discussions about that—however, where he does things that I believe are in the best interests of our state I will support him. One of those is to do with primary industries, tourism and regional development where, for the first time, we have one minister responsible for all those portfolios which dovetail together, so I am very pleased to see that.

I was also pleased with other colleagues, media and the agricultural community generally arguing about the importance of focusing back on the most sustainable industry that South Australia has—not mining (you would not be surprised by that, sir, you would know what it is)—which is agriculture. After a lot of debate and argument we have finally seen in this house, when the government prorogued and came in with what I thought was generally a lot of motherhood statements, the first thing it stated that was really important to me and, I am sure, a lot of others, was the importance of agriculture to the state's future and the acknowledgement that agriculture is going to offer a lot of security to the future of this state, and that is true.

This state was built around primary industries. In fact, one of the things that I was always proud of in the House of Assembly was sitting in a chamber where, together with the green carpet showing that it was the House of Assembly (the lower house) there was a wheat sheaf and a wine grape. That was always significant to me because it was there for a purpose, just like the Sturt Desert Pea is here for a purpose; that is, it is our floral emblem.

The wine grape and the wheat sheaf say that this state, from the time it was a colony right through to the future as far as anyone can project and see, will have agriculture underpinning its economy. That is why it is important that the government made that statement. The part that disappointed me—and I hope we will see a change in the May budget because I am confident that this new minister will be out there fighting for a better go for agriculture and the portfolio—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: It's good to see them getting excited about wanting to put more money into agriculture. Both the opposition and the government are enthusiastic and that really does stimulate my appetite for what is the greatest sustainable industry. That is the positive, but I now want to come back to the reality.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: So I have had half of my dream come true; that is, this government, a Labor government, has recognised the importance of agriculture. However, the other half of my dream has not come true yet; that is, how can you grow agriculture as a sustainable, long-term opportunity and the primary industry over and above mining if you continue to cut the budgets, cut the staff numbers, cut R&D and close down Primary Industries' offices like we have just seen at Keith.

I am not sure what the good people of Keith have done but they have lost their childcare centre, they have had hospital cuts and they have lost their PIRSA office. I know a lot of people in Keith; they are good people. That is just one example of where the government needs to put its money where its mouth is.

The other side of it is that farmers need a fair go. We have seen SACOSS—and rightly so—come out recently with a paper and their budget submissions and the like, and they have highlighted the concerns that people on low incomes and the vulnerable have. Also, with that, I want to highlight the fact that there is not a massive amount of money in the bottom line of agriculture when it comes to net farmgate price returns.

Inputs are going through the roof, well above CPI, and some of those input costs above CPI are from the government on full cost recovery. I have said it publicly and I will talk more about it in committee, but I will be proposing an amendment here that, if supported by my colleagues in this house, there will be no cost recovery for biosecurity fees at all because the government has already done well out of NLIS, PIC and the like.

We have seen something that I will have to get more detailed answers on from the minister when it comes to a sleight of hand, smart CEO performance in PIRSA, I understand, where they have grabbed some money from one area and told people on an advisory committee that because they had been able to pick up that amount of money that if this parliament, this Legislative Council, knocks out the balance, they will probably be able to manage their budget.

That is not acceptable to me because what that says is that they have already ripped more money out of the hands and pockets of farmers. Whilst they would like to rip even more out, they could probably get away with some of the offset to their budget cuts by what they have already done with other existing fees that are already in place. This is a chance for us in this house to say, as I have heard said before, enough is enough and stop this biosecurity fee from having any cost at all.

Taxpayers also, surprisingly, include farmers. Farmers pay tax; they pay direct tax and they pay indirect tax. I think that Jack Snelling, as the Treasurer, would be quite happy with some of the GST that has come in over recent days and months and in the future as all the machinery orders come through. There is plenty of GST on that and the value-added components of other input costs to farmers. They are two issues that I want to debate in committee.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: Have a go at Coles and Woolies.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Right. Coles and Woolies. Well, I would love to have a go at Coles and Woolies. I do that regularly and, at another more appropriate time, I certainly will. Coles and Woolies: this government has better moral values than Coles and Woolies. I will give the government an accolade for that. They have much better moral value than Coles and Woolworths. If Coles and Woolworths were in charge of this government, it would be triple full cost recovery to all the farmers. They make out that they are the friends of the farmers, but they are ripping them off left, right and centre. They are telling lies on television and in the media and making out that they do not have any impact on the net reduction to farmgate price.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Well, a classic example—and just digressing for a moment—as the Hon. John Dawkins points out is not far from his home town, the market gardening area, the green vegetable bowl. They turn around and say that they are doing a favour by slashing all the fruit and veg because otherwise the farmers would leave it out in the paddock. Well, they might as well leave it out in the paddock for the price they are getting paid.

To get back to this, the Livestock (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, I want to talk about two other points tonight. One is to do with the establishment of the fund, and it talks about money received under an intergovernmental or livestock industry agreement for sharing the costs of control or eradication of exotic disease. I want to point out that most of the industry sectors in agriculture—and I declare again our own industry, the dairy industry, is part of this through SADFA and other charges. When we sell calves and cattle—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Not the SDA—the South Australian Dairyfarmer's Association. I want to point that we already contribute to this and this money sometimes goes into the commonwealth and then it comes back out to the states. Don't think that we are not already contributing to funds. In fact, there are multiple funds that we contribute to every time you sell your wool, lambs, calves and cattle; it is there when you sell your grain. There is not one commodity now that you do not sell without a paying a levy.

These levies are already being paid, and I do not understand why we have to have a new fund. The minister can advise us of that again during committee stage. But, if there is to be the establishment of a fund, it should be to administer the fund from the point of view of money that is already put in that has been accepted by farmers and money that has been put in by government, and we would expect to continue at least at CPI, not seeing cuts and further cost recovery.

The other thing I want to finish on is the functions of livestock advisory groups. It is nice to see that they say that section 9 should be amended in this way:

after 'to advise the Minister' insert:

, on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister

Then it talks further about issues around the function of the livestock advisory groups. It is important that livestock advisory groups are set in place, so I support that part of the bill, but I think it is refreshing, if I read this properly, to see that, at the initiative of the livestock advisory group, they can put proposals, hopefully kosher proposals, to the minister rather than it just being a rubber stamp, as a lot of these advisory groups have become over the years.

With those few remarks and given the time of the evening and, no doubt, the fact that we will be here very late tomorrow night, I would expect, I will introduce those amendments to this bill hopefully tomorrow or Thursday for all colleagues to have time to see before we complete the debate. Again, I just say to colleagues that here is a chance to work with the new minister and for the new minister to also work with us and show those of us who believe in agriculture that this government has taken a turn for the better and it will be actually fully focused on agriculture in the future.

I note that the minister is doing her best to convince us that some of the decisions made by former ministers are in the best interests of agriculture but, when you look at the SARDI-Adelaide University proposal and the argument from the government that the reason for that is that they will be able to attract more commonwealth funds, maybe that might be the case but is it still going to deliver the best for agriculture with research and development?

Is it also going to give the government an opportunity to walk away from its contribution to SARDI, which has been the lion's share until now, as I understand it? Then, when they start to sell off assets like the Flaxley Research Centre for dairy, is that money going to go back into agriculture or is that money going to go back into general revenue and Treasury?

On that final point regarding Treasury, I believe that this full cost recovery has been driven quite a lot by Treasury. Treasury officers have a job to do but they need to remember that, if they want to balance their books, they need to ensure that farmers have a fair go and pushing full cost recovery on everything that farmers do is not giving farmers a fair go. Hopefully, we will have a chance in committee to ensure that farmers do, for once, get a fair go to ensure there is no additional full cost recovery. With those remarks, I seek leave to conclude at another date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.