HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-12-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Livestock (Emergency Animal Disease) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms HUTCHESSON (Waite) (15:46): I am very pleased to speak to the Livestock (Emergency Animal Disease) Amendment Bill 2022. Biosecurity affects the industries that keep our state's economy moving and is a responsibility shared by government, industry and community. As members would be aware, emergency animal diseases and the threats posed by them have increased for Australia in recent months and years and preparedness activities continue to ensure that South Australia is well placed to respond.

We know that an incursion of foot and mouth into Australia would potentially result in over $80 billion in estimated revenue losses to the industry over a 10-year period and that does not include second-hand impacts that we would see around regional towns and cities that would arguably be hit hardest. Not only would this affect the agriculture industries but it would have significant ramifications on regional towns and cities in many other ways. Agriculture is at the heart and soul of every country town in our state and these amendments are designed to further protect this critical industry.

The Livestock (Emergency Animal Disease) Amendment Bill will build on the state's preparedness for an emergency animal disease incursion by strengthening powers within the Livestock Act to support a comprehensive, rapid and effective emergency response. The Livestock Act contains provisions required to control or eradicate livestock diseases. These provisions are utilised regularly for the control or eradication of notifiable endemic animal diseases such as footrot in sheep. However, the current measures need strengthening to ensure the speed of implementation and to enable any response to be agile in the event of an emergency animal disease incursion.

It is also important that powers can be exercised without unnecessary administrative burden, given the likely duration of such a response if an incursion does occur. It is important that the appropriate authorities have the ability to act and respond as quickly as possible. Ensuring that all required provisions are encompassed within the Livestock Act will assist South Australia to provide an effective and efficient response. Given the increased risk and catastrophic consequences of some emergency animal diseases, the amendments in the bill are critical to ensure South Australia is ready to respond quickly.

Even a small, isolated emergency animal disease outbreak could have a significant short to medium-term impact on trade. For example, a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak would immediately threaten South Australia's export of livestock products, which were worth $954 million in 2020-21, and also impact $1.3 million worth of interstate trade. A loss of export markets would also impact domestic prices for meat and meat-related products.

As I mentioned earlier, it is estimated that a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak could cost Australia $80 billion over 10 years, which would have catastrophic consequences for our state. The effects of an emergency animal disease incursion would be felt beyond the affected livestock and trade impacts, with long-lasting wider impacts on human health and wellbeing, tourism and education, with regional communities being the most vulnerable. This is yet another reason why we, as a government, must do everything we can to prevent a potential animal-related disease coming into our country.

The amendments include provisions to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of an emergency response and to improve clarity and enhance powers, noting that the nature of an emergency response can be difficult to predict. The amendments will allow notices to be published on a website and come into force prior to their publication in the Gazette, enabling a more timely and swift response.

The amendments provide the ability to limit the application of a notice to a specified class of persons, a specified class of livestock, livestock products or other property or specified circumstances. They also exempt a person or a class of persons from any requirement imposed by notice and allow for conditions to be imposed on any requirement specified by the notice. Provisions to enable inspectors to take action have been proposed to be amended to ensure that required emergency response measures can be undertaken quickly to minimise impacts on the state's livestock industries and economy. This will provide inspectors with the ability to take a required action where a person fails to comply with a notice or order in a specified or reasonable time frame.

Another amendment addresses the impacts on any native animals as part of the required emergency response. The amendments provide flexibility on when consultation with the relevant minister is required. Amendments to address the potential for conflicts between the Livestock Act and other acts have also been considered. Except for the Emergency Management Act 2004, the Livestock Act 1997 will prevail over other acts to enable effective action. Government agencies will still be able to exercise powers under another act if they comply with the emergency response measures put in place under the Livestock Act—for example, restrictions on movements, property entry requirements or decontamination procedures.

The amendments provide for the ability to prescribe the kind of property for which an inspector may issue an order, take action or cause action to be taken for the destruction, demolition or disposal of the property. Some amendments address identified gaps in current powers that will support emergency response efforts. Where appropriate, these powers have been limited in their application to emergency responses regarding exotic diseases only. These powers relate to the use of land, construction, reinforcement or repair of buildings, fences, gates or other structures, disinfection of places and property, possession and supervision of property to support response efforts, and the power to stop work or close any place.

The amendments also increase responsibilities of directors of a body corporate by expanding the definition of a prescribed offence. This recognises the significant role body corporate directors play in ensuring biosecurity risks and impacts are addressed effectively, especially during an animal disease response. Importantly, when an increased risk of exotic disease has been declared, powers to undertake surveillance and proof of freedom testing have been added for monitoring disease incursions or for market access purposes.

These enhanced powers will ensure South Australia can undertake testing to quickly implement any required emergency response measures, to limit the rapid spread of disease and to maintain or regain market access, which will be crucial in managing the economic impact to the state. I understand the amendments have been drafted to ensure consistency of the Livestock Act 1997 with other modern legislation and to revise maximum penalty provisions for hindering offences, and statutory immunity for the Crown has been made more explicit and limited, consistent with the protections provided in the Emergency Management Act 2004.

In the event of an animal-related disease outbreak, critical staff need the ability to respond as quickly as possible, which is why the fine for hindering a response has been increased from $5,000 to $15,000. I am confident these amendments will enhance South Australia's ability to respond to a future emergency animal disease incursion. I commend the Livestock (Emergency Animal Disease) Amendment Bill 2022 to the house and I look forward to further debate.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:53): I rise to speak about the Livestock (Emergency Animal Disease) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill has come about because of what we need to do in response to risk factors and the potential for foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease to come to Australia. Both diseases will cause more than major problems; it will be an absolute disaster for our livestock industries. As has been indicated, over a period of 10 years the loss could be in the range of $80 billion to $100 billion to livestock industries right across Australia.

It was not that many years ago that we saw the devastation in England where herds of cattle were impacted by foot and mouth, getting burnt in funeral pyres. It is a terrible thing to see as a livestock owner (before I leased my property out) and for all farmers. You cannot help but think of what those livestock owners would have gone through when thinking of those terrible outcomes.

These are diseases that have to be controlled. I look at what was done by the former federal Liberal government: getting vaccines into Indonesia where there were outbreaks right across much of Indonesia, including Bali. I think it was at least $14 million and I think there might have been some more afterwards to assist with the vaccination program. That work was highly commended because we had a huge amount of self-interest in making sure that we got as many stock as possible vaccinated in Indonesia.

I note the quarantine efforts made at Australian airports in regard to people going to Indonesia. Initially, we were all very concerned and questioned whether we should stop flights altogether or whether the risks could be managed. Obviously with COVID slowing down a bit, flights had only recently resumed, not just interstate travel but also international travel, and that service was kept going but with very, very strict controls in place.

I certainly had personal experience. I think it was in August or whenever the winter break was that I did go to Bali. It was my first trip to Bali and it was good living in a country where there is not much regulation. It was fantastic, actually, for a few days, and then you come back to a place like Australia. I understand why we have so much regulation. People often say to me, 'You guys should sit more often,' and I say, 'Well, we only take your freedoms away while we are in parliament.' That is exactly what we do, and I will attribute that phrase to its rightful owner: Patrick Secker, the former member for Barker.

That is exactly what we do, so it was a liberating experience for those few days. But in the back of my mind I was only too aware of the potential of a problem for anyone coming back from Indonesia, and there were many hundreds of thousands of people who were participating in that. There were plenty of warnings on the planes about the protocols, which is absolutely right. I drummed into the five other people I was travelling with that you stick absolutely to the protocols. If you are not prepared to clean any of the shoes that you had while you were away, throw them out, and you will have to do something else for footwear on your way home.

Like a lot of people who go there, I certainly enjoyed activities like whitewater rafting and four-wheel motorbike ATV riding and it was great. I must say, I made sure that everyone in the group got tubs of water and old toothbrushes and cleaned those shoes with disinfectant within an inch of their lives. I think I dug out of my sandals some small bits of gravel that probably went all the way from Coomandook and they have been left forever in Indonesia.

It was excellent on the way home to see the huge pull-up banners in Denpasar airport showing us the strict regulations on flying back to Australia. All carry-on luggage was inspected by the Indonesian authorities, and we were certainly told what could happen on entry to Australia. There was no doubt left in anyone's mind.

Antiseptic foot mats had been put in place at Adelaide Airport. When we got back to Adelaide Airport, there were random inspections of baggage and we were pulled up as a group three times and questioned. I was very pleased that happened. If I had to, I was happy to get my bags out and open them up, as were the whole group. I think the protocols that were in place were very good. That was essentially to help combat foot-and-mouth disease.

Lumpy skin disease is another matter. That could come over with high cyclonic winds—maybe not even cyclonic—those wind paths and bring that disease straight into Australia no matter what the quarantine efforts. It is great that there are those protocols in place at Australian and Indonesian airports to do all that we can to manage the potential for those insurrections of foot and mouth or lumpy skin disease, so I support this legislation.

The bill will strengthen powers within the Livestock Act and contains provisions required to control or eradicate livestock diseases. These provisions are already utilised regularly for the control or eradication of notifiable livestock diseases. These measures will be strengthened with this new bill to ensure speed of implementation and will enable any response to be agile in the event of an emergency animal disease incursion.

Certainly many constituents were worried about what the exclusion zones would be and what would happen in an outbreak. I said that it would depend where it was and how many properties were involved. Rules were put in place, and we had a briefing, and the minister from the other place, the Hon. Clare Scriven, and PIRSA representatives, such as Mehdi Doroudi, were there. We were told it would depend on a whole range of factors whether the exclusion zone would be a few square kilometres or many square kilometres. People were asking me what compensation there would be and so on.

The bigger picture was that a foot-and-mouth incursion especially, and lumpy skin disease, would be such a massive detriment to our industry—it would basically shut it down—that those initial incursion zones pale into insignificance on what could happen not just on the state scale but on the national scale. We have to be vigilant all the time in these matters, and Australia has stepped up its biosecurity measures.

On top of what I have already said, it includes risk profiling from travellers going to Indonesia and the disinfectant foot mats at airports. I have indicated the quantum of the outbreak. It would immediately threaten South Australia's exports of livestock products, which were worth $954 million, just short of $1 billion, in 2020-21. It would also impact the $1.3 billion worth of interstate trade. A loss of export markets would also impact domestic prices for meat and meat-related products. An outbreak of lumpy skin disease would affect approximately $7.39 billion worth of exports across 23 countries.

Certainly, the effects go further than just the meat industry itself. The incursion would have long-lasting wider impacts on the tourism industry, trade, health, wellbeing, education and research. Regional communities, where quite a few of us in this place come from, would be the most vulnerable.

This legislation was consulted on with the South Australian Dairyfarmers' Association, Pork SA, Livestock SA and Primary Producers SA. They indicated that they are all supportive of the bill. Some of these amendments include that notices would be published on websites prior to the publication in the Gazette, enabling a more timely and efficient response. They will provide the ability to limit the application of a notice to a specified class of persons, a specified class of livestock, livestock products or other property or specified circumstances, and exempt a person or a class of persons from a requirement imposed by a notice.

They will provide inspectors with the ability to take a required action where a person fails to comply with a notice in an order in a specified or reasonable time frame. Where there are impacts on any native animals as part of a required emergency response, the amendments provide flexibility on when consultation with the relevant minister is required. They will also provide the ability to provide the kind of property for which an inspector may issue an order, take action or cause action to be taken for the destruction, demolition or disposal of property. This shows how seriously this bill is taking the potential of these incursions—any incursions—into the animal industry in South Australia and Australia overall in the longer term.

They will address identified gaps in current powers that will support emergency response efforts. Where appropriate, these powers have been limited in their application to emergency responses regarding exotic diseases only. These powers relate to the use of land; construction, reinforcement or repair of buildings, fences, gates or other structures; disinfection of places and property; possession and supervision of property to support response efforts; and the power to stop work or close any place.

When an increased risk of exotic disease has been declared, powers to undertake surveillance and proof of freedom testing have been added for monitoring disease incursions or for market access purposes. Maximum penalty provisions for hindering offences have been revised, and statutory immunity for the Crown has been made more explicit and limited, consistent with the protections provided in the Emergency Management Act 2004.

The simple fact is that any incursions of these exotic diseases, especially foot and mouth and lumpy skin disease, would cause problems not just for one season, not just for two seasons, but it could be 10 to 15 years before we would get full clearance from these diseases to get both intrastate and export licensing back for our products to be traded.

It would have a massive impact on prices for goods. We would see meat prices go through the roof, if you could get meat that was clean, and it would create so many expensive issues in the supply chain because things would have to be disinfected more and there would be more checks, and I can tell you from history that these costs always come back to industry. They always come back to the farmer, who would bear the brunt of these costs.

I had a little bit to do with stock many years ago. We had Hereford cattle, and dad was a very good breeder of Hereford cattle. The only reason he did not have a stud was that he could not be bothered with the paperwork. We put Hereford bulls throughout the Mallee and the Upper South-East. The last breeder we bought came out of Urrbrae High School—Urrbrae Crinkly Chips—(not much of a stud name, but that was his name), and he sired quite a few good calves. We also had merino breeding sheep over time and also Polwarths.

Being involved in the sheep industry at shearing level, I know they can get a disease called scabby mouth, which is a bit ugly and where sheep have a lot of lesions around the face. When you are a shearer you really do not want to shear them, not that you are going to catch scabby mouth but you try to find a bag or a rag to put over their head so that you can shear them.

I must commend farmers for what they do in trying times. We have been blessed in the last few years and even now with good prices for stock, but it has been a long time coming. In the last few years, they have been prices for stock that have not been seen. But if you look at price for stock—and compared it to input and, dare I say it, real wage growth—we are probably still a long way behind. That is another good reason we must do everything we can to make sure we keep our livestock clean to support our producers and the families and the families of the workers who work on our properties and support the industry into the future. So I certainly commend this bill.

We need to do all we can into the future to make sure we look after our livestock industries. We have various levels of biosecurity here already getting initiated. We have property identification codes. We have electronic identification, which is not too bad on cattle, but the tags are about $1.50 each. Trying to implement that into the sheep sector is obviously worth many tens of millions of dollars just in South Australia alone, and I know there are ongoing discussions with Livestock SA about where that lands.

But what that tells me, apart from being a bit horrified about the cost of it, is that the industry and farmers are having a good look at keeping their flocks safe and making sure that with anything that crops up as a biosecurity threat at any local level, at the farm level—and that is intrastate trade here with livestock or interstate—people can see where they have come from and where they are going.

Sheep travel around in different environments. You get northern station sheep, West Coast sheep and some of those might get traded into the Lower South-East and suddenly they find out they are living in wet feet. I can remember many years ago shearing some sheep that had not grown out too well, and once sheep have stunted a bit they never come good, and you would get them down to the South-East and the wool was stuck on, but that is another matter.

In regard to this legislation, we need to do whatever we can. I think there are a couple of amendments to be dealt with at the committee stage. We do need to support our livestock industry into the future, especially when I think about what is happening with processing soon in my electorate with the Thomas Foods beef plant opening up early next year so that we can get that new beef chain operating, and then hopefully the small stock one with the sheep plant getting built soon after that. I commend the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Hammond. I look forward to hearing more reproductive successes on your farm.

Mrs PEARCE (King) (16:13): With what we saw earlier this year, it is understandable that there is a strong desire within farming communities to protect our livestock and a desire to have positive practical measures put in place to achieve that. I can appreciate why. Experts fear that an exotic livestock disease could cost the economy billions should it ever make its way into our country, and this year we saw how close that came to be.

I remember the devastation that was caused a little over 20 years ago by foot-and-mouth disease, seeing the damage it caused and watching each night on the evening news as farmers broke down when they learned they then had to cull their whole herd and worrying about what would happen if it made it here. As a country girl myself, I worried about what it would mean for our animals and our local community.

Our farm was not a huge one, only a couple of hundred acres with a few Murray Greys and a couple of chicken coops. The concern was mainly for my neighbours whose lives relied upon their livestock as much as they did their crops. Times were tough as it was with the droughts we had been experiencing. A blow to the livestock side of things would been too much for many to handle. Fortunately, a crisis was averted, but it does not mean that we should not remain vigilant and be prepared. Only this year, we were once again reminded how quickly things can change.

That is why I am pleased that we have introduced the Livestock (Emergency Animal Disease) Amendment Bill 2022, to help build on the state's preparedness for an emergency animal disease incursion such as foot-and-mouth disease. The amendments will then strengthen powers within the Livestock Act 1997 to support a comprehensive, rapid and effective emergency response to ensure maximum efficiency.

The amendments include practical provisions to improve the time lines and effectiveness of an emergency response in the event of an emergency animal disease outbreak by giving inspectors the power to construct or require the construction of a fence to contain livestock, disinfect machinery, take possession of available machinery to assist with livestock disposal activities, or stop work or close a place to minimise a biosecurity risk or impact.

Furthermore, where an increased risk of exotic disease has been declared, inspectors will also have the power to undertake surveillance and testing to prove freedom from disease. This is incredibly important for monitoring disease incursions or for market access purposes. Given the increased risk and catastrophic consequences of some emergency animal diseases, it is essential that our state is ready to respond quickly because the consequence of not acting quickly is detrimental in many ways. It could threaten the meat industry, and jobs all across our state would be at risk. It would also threaten tourism, as we have seen in other places that locations become limited as a measure to help stop the spread.

As the minister stated in the other place, even a small isolated emergency animal disease outbreak could have a significant short to medium-term impact on trade. For example, a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak would immediately threaten South Australia's exports of livestock products, which were worth $954 million in 2020-21, and also impact the $1.3 billion worth of interstate trade. A loss of export markets would also impact domestic prices for meat and meat-related products. It is estimated that a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak could cost Australia $80 billion to $100 billion over 10 years.

It is our regional communities who would be most hurt by such an outbreak. It is important to note that the proposed extended powers will only be used in the event of an outbreak or a declaration of significant risk. During these times, they will help to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of an emergency response and to improve clarity and enhance powers. Additionally, the amendments will allow notices to be published on a website and come into force prior to their publication in the Gazette, enabling a more timely and swift response.

Importantly, when an increased risk of exotic disease has been declared, powers to undertake surveillance and proof of freedom testing have been added for monitoring disease incursions or for market access purposes. These enhanced powers will ensure South Australia can undertake testing to quickly implement any required emergency response measures, to limit the rapid spread of disease and to maintain or regain market access, which will be crucial in managing the economic impact to the state. We are being proactive and doing what we can to support and protect this industry. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (16:18): I rise to speak in support of this very important amendment, the Livestock (Emergency Animal Disease) Amendment Bill 2022, and reflect on a lot of the discussion there has been in this place already. The importance of having a robust and vigorous biosecurity system in South Australia should not be underestimated. Our livestock industry put so much into our state's economy, but it is so much more than that.

The opposition has been thankful to work closely with the government throughout the challenging times we have had over the last few months, when we saw the high alert the industry has been on because of the detection of both lumpy skin disease in Indonesia, in March this year, and foot-and-mouth disease across the archipelago in May. It really did highlight to us the challenges that would be faced if there were an incursion from either of these diseases or any other like diseases that could very easily decimate our livestock industry.

This industry contributes so much in exports, and we have already heard in this place that it would affect approximately $7.39 billion worth of exports across 23 countries. We also have to keep in mind that there would be an incredible domestic impact for consumers here in Australia.

If we were to have an outbreak of one of these diseases and suddenly there was going to have to be a mass slaughter of a number of infected animals, indeed the supply and demand impacts would mean either there would be no opportunity for people to enjoy the high-quality produce that we produce here in South Australia or the price would be completely out of reach for most people in such a challenging time.

We know that foot-and-mouth disease in particular has been detected in 25 of the 37 provinces of Indonesia, and we heard earlier that includes the popular tourism destination of Bali. That is why the opposition has been so strident in its support for all measures that strengthen South Australia's preparedness activities, surveillance work and efforts to plan, prepare for, mitigate and respond to any emergency animal disease incursion. It is so important, and I reflect the words of the member for Giles, that this sort of measure is something that is bipartisan in recognition of the importance of this industry, the livestock industry, not only for the South Australian economy but also for the South Australian community as a whole.

In terms of the risks of a potential outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Australia, the estimates that we have seen or heard about already would potentially be between $80 billion and $100 billion. Those sorts of numbers we cannot really fathom, because it is not just about the economic impact but also about the ongoing, long-term impact that these incursions would have. As has been seen in decades previous, the UK went through its own struggles with foot-and-mouth disease. It basically wiped out the industry for years if not decades.

Between the livestock and the trade impacts, an emergency animal incursion would also have long-lasting impacts on human health and wellbeing, tourism as we have heard, education and research as well as very significant impacts on regional communities. As someone who is a livestock producer and well understands the livestock industry, I can only begin to fathom the sorts of measures that would have to be put in place if there were an incursion of these diseases and what that would mean for producers on the ground and what that would mean for regional communities across South Australia.

I am not going to regale the house with detailed stories like the member for Hammond of some of my previous experience in dealing with different occurrences within the livestock industry, but I will highlight that our regional communities rely so much on the agricultural turnout of the businesses that are within our regional communities, and the livestock industry in particular is not an insignificant part of that.

We do also know that not just livestock would be affected. The likes of an FMD outbreak in South Australia would mean the potential for some of the feral populations of the cloven-footed animals that we know are across South Australia would potentially be a pool for ongoing disease challenges when it comes to management. We know that further to the north of our state in the dry climate there is a significant camel population, and if an incursion were to come into that population there would be no way of controlling it, and likewise within the feral goat population.

Further south, we know that in the higher rainfall areas there are challenges that are faced at the moment with feral pigs or feral deer. If a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak was to occur in Australia and in South Australia, we know that the potential to get into the feral population would mean that not only is the impact going to be on our livestock industry for the time it would take them to recover but also the risk is that the mitigation that would be needed for the feral population would be unable to be achieved, and it would be something that would continually have to be managed.

It is important that the activities that are being enabled by this piece of legislation are sufficiently resourced. The challenge is going to be not just in the mitigation but also in the planning for any outbreak that may happen. We need to make sure that South Australia is well placed to respond to an emergency animal disease incursion. We need to put steps in place and this bill, these changes are a really important step. That is why the opposition has been so strident in partnering in a bipartisan way in this place because the economy of South Australia, the communities of South Australia and South Australia as a whole would be completely undermined if there were a biosecurity challenge as is envisioned if we have a lumpy skin disease or a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in South Australia.

On this side, we have really appreciated the opportunity to consult with key industry bodies. We have had discussions with the South Australian Dairyfarmers' Association, Pork SA, Livestock SA and Primary Producers SA and they have all noted their support for this legislation. As I said, it is recognised across the board that we need to get the measures in place every step along the way to prevent this. We need to put measures in place to make sure that we mitigate any sort of risk and also put plans in place so that if there is an incursion, if we do have an outbreak of one of these incredibly damaging diseases, the measures, the officers, the plans are all there so we can try to nullify that risk as soon as possible.

In South Australia or Australia as a whole, we cannot afford to have a livestock industry that is not profitable, non-existent. As a community in Australia as a whole, we would be incredibly undermined and put at risk if something like this was to occur. I commend the bill, what it is trying to achieve for us in South Australia, and reiterate the support of the opposition for its progress through this place.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson) (16:26): I also rise briefly to add my support to this amendment bill. If we go back to the 1850s in this place, both sides of parliament have worked closely together on biosecurity issues, and I am talking about the phylloxera act, which has helped South Australia remain one of the few jurisdictions anywhere in the world to keep phylloxera out.

In terms of fruit fly, again, we have done a good job of keeping that out of South Australia when we are surrounded by other states and territories that do have fruit fly. We have a proud record in South Australia of both sides working together. With this added threat of diseases that could spread throughout our livestock, herds and flocks, it is really important that we work together, that we show that agility to toughen existing laws or make a new laws and pass them through this place where necessary and show the agriculture sector that we are listening to them, we are aware of their concerns and that biosecurity is at the base of everything this parliament should be doing to help them.

I remind everyone again to look at the carpet, at its grapes and its wheat. These are the founding bases of this state. The agriculture sector employs almost one in five working South Australians. It is so important to us that the engine room of this state is outside the metropolitan area with those people who toil so hard on the land to produce all sorts of agricultural products and then to value add to them, not only sustaining the Australian population but also exporting these wonderful products. As I said, I just wanted to rise briefly to confirm my support for this amendment bill.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Treasurer) (16:28): I am grateful for the contributions from other members. What I know about livestock management would not fill a Weber Q guide, I have to say.

Mr Pederick: I hope you are ready for committee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, that is right. I always enjoy the contributions of more learned members, particularly the member for Finniss—and I know I will not get this right but I will try—who I think had at least a decade-long career as an industry representative as the national president of dairy farmers, was it?

Of course, other members—the member for MacKillop, the member for Hammond—have extensive farming experience. I am grateful for their contributions because it is through these sorts of debates that those of us with a relatively sheltered rural experience might pick up some wisdom. I am glad for their confirmation that they support the measures in this bill.

As every contributor to the debate has said, this is something where governments of either persuasion over many years and decades have sought to support primary producers, particularly farmers, in dealing with livestock management. I will not carry on with my comments any further. I think we have a brief amendment to deal with in the committee stage. I thank the members and again commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 14 passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 8, line 10 [clause 15(4), inserted subparagraph (vii)]—Delete 'or eradication' and substitute:

, eradication or decontamination

This is a brief amendment to include an additional term following one of the definitions. I understand it has been communicated to the opposition, but I am happy to take any questions if necessary.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Treasurer) (16:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT