LIVESTOCK (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am interested to know why the government has made some of these offences expiable rather than prosecuting people for a breach and, if you like, dealing with the issue through the court process. From what I understand of the bill, some of the offences have gone from a potential prosecution to just an expiation. I would like to know the government's rationale behind that.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that we have included expiable offences as a means of increasing the options for compliance. Obviously, to be able to prosecute requires a particular level of evidence, a considerable amount of work collecting evidence and the evidence needs to be of a particular standard, etc. So, it is a higher bar, if you like, and is appropriate to use for more serious offences. However, for lesser offences, it is a quick and easy way to send out a very clear message about any breaches and, as I said, it improves our compliance options.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Will it be an option for somebody who is presented with a set of circumstances where they may be given an expiation notice to say, 'Look, I do not want to accept the expiation notice. I would rather have this tested in court,' or will it be just a lesser offence a bit like a speeding offence: you have been caught; if you want to challenge it, we will see you in court?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, yes, it is like speeding fines. If you want to challenge it, you can opt to go to court.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: One of the issues that we have always had with speeding fines is that somebody will be fined for a road traffic offence, they will have an issue and they can complain to the police and the police will say, 'We'll see you in court.' One of the issues the opposition has always had is that there needs to be some halfway house, some ombudsman or somebody where you can go and say, 'I think I have been harshly done by.' Will there be any capacity here within this bill, once they have received an expiation notice, to go then to a mediator and say, 'I think I have been harshly done by. This is not fair,' or will it be automatically straight to court?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised no, that there is no additional level. It is a standard expiable offence. It is the same system that is in place for most expiable offences, and that is that you can opt for a fine and, if you want to challenge that, then you use the court processes, and due justice and process is done through the courts and a person is able to have their day in court if they so choose. I have been advised that in this case a person who wants to challenge an expiable offence can choose to take it to the Chief Inspector of Stock and have the decision reviewed.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That is encouraging because it is always useful rather than clogging up the courts if somebody feels like they have been harshly dealt with, if there is a halfway house to go to to have some discussion. Can the minister outline what types of lesser offences will attract an expiable fee?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that under clause 15—Amendment of section 31—Supply of livestock or livestock products affected with notifiable condition, the detection of low-level footrot infection in sheep, as a first offence, is an example.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Under clause 15—Amendment of section 31, that is a case not involving an exotic disease, which is $500.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: First offence.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What is a second offence?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that prosecution is the next level.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What is the current penalty?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Prosecution only, I have been advised.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 29 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.