HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject 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

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Treasurer) (12:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to this bill and superintend its hopeful passage through this place on behalf of the Hon. Clare Scriven in the other place. This comes to us from the other place: it was considered a couple of weeks ago.

Biosecurity affects the industries that keep our state's economy moving and is a responsibility shared by government, industry and the community. Emergency animal disease threats have increased for Australia in recent months, and preparedness activities are currently underway to ensure South Australia is well placed to respond. The Livestock (Emergency Animal Disease) Amendment Bill 2022 will build on the state's preparedness for an emergency animal disease incursion by strengthening powers within the Livestock Act 1997 to support a comprehensive, rapid and effective emergency response.

The Livestock Act 1997 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 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.

Ensuring all required provisions are encompassed within the Livestock Act 1997 will assist South Australia in the effectiveness and the efficiency of the response. Given the increased risk and catastrophic consequences of some emergency animal diseases, the amendments in this bill are critical to ensure South Australia is ready to respond.

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, worth $954 million in 2020-21, and 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.

The effects of an emergency animal disease incursion would be felt beyond the affected livestock and trade impacts, with long-term, wider impacts on human health and wellbeing, tourism, education and research, with regional communities most vulnerable.

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. These 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.

These amendments provide the ability to limit the application of a notice to a specified class of persons or a specified class of livestock, livestock products or other property or other specified circumstances and exempt a person or class of persons from a requirement imposed by a notice. They will also allow for conditions to be imposed on any requirement specified by notice.

Provisions to enable inspectors to take action have been amended to ensure that required emergency response measures can be undertaken quickly to minimise the 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.

In the event of destruction of any native animals required as part of an emergency response, the amendments provide flexibility on when consultation with the relevant minister is required and the ability to act without ministerial consultation if urgent circumstances exist.

Amendments to address the potential for conflicts between the Livestock Act 1997 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. Other 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 1997—for example, restrictions on the movements, property entry requirements or decontamination procedures. These amendments provide the ability to prescribe the kind of property—

There being a disturbance in the Strangers Gallery:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, could you just resume your seat for a second. I remind members of the public gallery that photography is not permitted, particularly flash photography, which interrupts the running of the chamber.

An honourable member: The Speaker is here.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker cannot unilaterally change the rules. I can actually see the cameras flash in my eyes. Minister, can you resume, please?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Back to our cloven-hooved brothers and sisters, sir. The amendments provide the ability to prescribe the kind of property to which an inspector may issue an order, take action or cause an action to be taken for the destruction, demolition or disposal of the property. Some amendments address identified gaps in the current powers that will support emergency response efforts. Where appropriate, these powers may 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, supervision of property to support response efforts, and the power to stop work or close any place. By way of example, these powers mean that, in the event of an emergency animal disease outbreak, inspectors will be able 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 biosecurity risk or impact.

The amendments will also increase the 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 that biosecurity risks and impacts are addressed effectively, especially during animal disease response.

Importantly, where 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.

Finally, to ensure the consistency of the Livestock Act 1997 with other modern legislation, maximum penalty provisions for hindering offences have been revised and statutory immunity for the Crown has been made more explicit and limited, consistent with protections provided in the Emergency Management Act 2004. I am confident the amendments to the Livestock Act 1997 will enhance South Australia's ability to respond to a future emergency animal disease incursion.

I know there has been one amendment filed—I think because it was me. I look forward to the committee stage and the contributions of members in the house. I therefore commend the Livestock (Emergency Animal Disease) Amendment Bill 2022 to the house.

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (12:30): I note the opposition's support for the Livestock (Emergency Animal Disease) Amendment Bill and also note that I am the lead speaker. The opposition supports all the measures that strengthen South Australians' preparedness activities in relation to emergency animal disease outbreaks. In my previous roles in the dairy industry, I spent many years being involved in the preparation for an emergency animal disease outbreak, particularly around foot-and-mouth disease.

All livestock industries across the nation work hard with all the state and federal governments to actually make sure that we are prepared in this space. I certainly must congratulate those leaders of the past, back in the early 2000s, when agreements were signed between all the industries and governments across the country, with the leaders of the organisations and the premiers and the Prime Minister all signing that document to form the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement. That agreement very much underpins Australia's response in relation to an emergency animal disease outbreak.

Also, under those agreements there have been many plans prepared, known as AUSVETPLANs, to actually map the path that each industry needs to follow to minimise and protect the industries going forward. In recent times we have certainly seen the increased risk, with Indonesia having outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, including the popular destination of Bali, and occurring in those parts of Indonesia frequently visited by Australians.

Interestingly, in that time of my involvement it was very much highlighted to me that the two likely hotspots of infection, if there was ever likely to be one, were actually in the Adelaide Hills and the outskirts of Melbourne. The reason for that is the high population of people living in Adelaide and the close proximity to agriculture, as we see in the Adelaide Hills, particularly livestock and intensive livestock, with piggeries being one of the biggest risk-spreading factors out there.

This piece of legislation is certainly going to help improve the ability for us, as industries and government, to respond if there happens to be an outbreak in our state. It is so important that we actually have this preparedness and this ability, and I very much commend the minister, the Hon. Clare Scriven in the other place, for bringing this forward. I also commend the work done by the Department of Primary Industries and Regions, particularly by the chief executive, Professor Mehdi Doroudi, and the Chief Veterinary Officer, Mary Carr. The work that they do in this space is so important to protect the livestock industries here in South Australia.

We saw the trigger for the creation of the EADRA agreement actually implemented following an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the UK in 2001, where we saw over six million cattle and sheep slaughtered. There were over 2,000 cases of foot-and-mouth disease in the UK in that time. It can happen not only in Third World countries but also in First World countries and certainly we need to protect ourselves from that risk going forward.

It is with those few words that I very much offer opposition support for this important piece of legislation. It is important that we keep our livestock protected and restrict the effects of trade implications. We do not want to see any risk to those trade implications because they will be hard-hitting and long-lived if we happen to have a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Australia. Even when there is effectively a rumour of an outbreak, it starts to make our trading partners nervous, and we do not want to see that going forward.

The opposition certainly consulted with key industry bodies in South Australia, including the South Australian Dairyfarmers' Association, Pork SA, Livestock SA and Primary Producers SA, who noted their support of the legislation. With that, I offer the opposition's support.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (12:35): I thank the member for Finniss for his contribution and in doing so recognise, especially with some people on this side of the house, the heavy involvement they have with primary industries and, in this case, with livestock and that long history of involvement in the dairy industry. Certainly, that is something that will concentrate one's mind when it comes to some of the potential biosecurity threats that we face as a nation. It certainly does concentrate the mind when you have that outbreak in Indonesia and especially the outbreak in Bali, a place that many Australians visit. To have foot-and-mouth disease on our doorstep is seriously concerning.

The member made reference to what happened in the UK in 2001, when six million cattle and sheep had to be destroyed with a devastating impact on farmers in communities in the UK. That impact actually went further because it had a whole range of consequences. For instance, wandering across land in the UK is a bit of a right and in some parts of the country—in Cumbria and other parts of the country—that right was taken away. It had a major impact on the Lake District in the UK, given the number of people who are attracted to hiking in that part of the world. The economic consequences, the social consequences and the consequences in terms of mental health were dire for many people, so we have to do all that we can in this country to ensure that diseases like foot and mouth do not penetrate.

It is a highly contagious viral disease of cloven-hoofed animals. That includes cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, deer, buffalo and camels. Human infections are rare and do not result in serious disease, but of course an outbreak of foot and mouth would affect many humans in this country deeply in economic and social ways. Foot-and-mouth disease has high rates of morbidity in livestock. Mortality rates, particularly in adult animals, are low, but animals can spread the foot-and-mouth disease virus for several days before showing clinical signs of the disease and the virus can remain for long periods after clinical recovery.

The AUSVETPLAN Foot and Mouth Disease Strategy manual details the policy and management responses for emergency animal diseases in Australia. The policy response involves stopping the spread of the disease by imposing animal movement restrictions, stamping out and/or vaccination and minimising the time to acquire foot-and-mouth disease-free status through the implementation of a response plan capable of achieving quick eradication. This would enable a quicker return to overseas market access and reduce the social and financial disruption that would inevitably occur should this disease arrive in Australia.

Sometimes in Australia we get criticisms of foreign aid, but one of the important foreign aid initiatives was what Australia did when it came to the outbreak in Indonesia in terms of providing vaccination and other support to try to address that threat on our doorstep. The National Biosecurity Committee of the Primary Industries Standing Committee has developed a National Foot and Mouth Disease Action Plan to guide collaborative national action and to improve Australia's foot-and-mouth disease preparedness. Of course it is preferred that we implement strong preparedness measures to stop the incursion into Australia in the first place.

When I look at my electorate and the importance of livestock, I have some of the largest pastoral properties possibly in the world, with Anna Creek Station and other very large landholdings, where we have cattle and in other parts we have sheep. One of the concerning things—and I always believe that we do not allocate the resources that we should, and I know it is a real challenge—is that, in my part of the state and in other parts of the state, when it comes to biosecurity, if we ever do get penetrated by some of the more serious livestock diseases there is the potential for a huge reservoir out there with the feral goat and feral camel population.

I know that when there are counts of kangaroos in this state, those surveys also include a goat count. Those numbers can fluctuate widely, depending upon climatic conditions, but we are talking about probably a minimum at any one time of around 300,000 feral goats in this state, often in hard to access areas, so that is a potential reservoir there. In the Far North of the state there is the camel population in the APY lands and elsewhere, and that provides another potential reservoir. So, when it comes to a range of biosecurity threats, when it comes to feral animals and when it comes to some of the botanic plant intrusions, we need to provide more resources because they have a range of benefits.

We know that feral goats do an enormous amount of damage to habitat, but they also act as a reservoir if disease gets into this country. People might know more about feral pigs than I do, but I do not think the penetration in this state is particularly high in comparison with Queensland and New South Wales and some of the other states, and certainly not in my part of the state. In other parts of the state, there are also significant deer numbers, so anything we can do to reduce the numbers of those animals is something we should make a real effort on.

We know that ultimately preparedness is going to be the important element, and I was taken somewhat by surprise that we did not already have this provision in the Livestock Act. I guess sometimes it takes a real threat to concentrate people's minds when it comes to what we need to do. What this amendment does is make it possible for PIRSA to be more responsive, more effective and in a quick manner without having to declare an emergency. That is why it has strong and sensible bipartisan support in this chamber and why industry also wants to see this particular amendment.

Every now and then we get argy-bargy in this house, and sometimes it is on principle and sometimes it is on what I would just call BS, but in this case it is something that is incredibly important. Often with people in the metropolitan area—because they are just getting on with their lives and the rest of it—it does not even cross their minds.

I admit that I come from a heavy industry community and it probably does not cross the minds of a lot of people in the community in which I live, but further afield in my electorate people know this is important. Anything we can do in terms of strengthening the act, so that we can enable officers to do what needs to be done in a quick manner is something that deserves support.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (12:45): I rise today in support of the Livestock (Emergency Animal Disease) Amendment Bill. I thank the opposition for raising this, and for bringing on the changes, but with concern and wariness. This bill comes at a time of high alert for our livestock industries in South Australia and nationally. The level of high alert follows reports in early July this year of the emergence of the animal disease foot and mouth in our neighbour Bali.

Foot-and-mouth disease has now been detected in 25 of Indonesia's 37 provinces. Foot and mouth is a highly contagious virus that can affect all cloven-hoofed animals, including sheep, cattle, buffalo, camels, alpacas, goats, deer and pigs. It can be spread through the air, via feedlots or in water. The disease can be secreted by animals for up to four days before clinical signs appear. It can be found in meat and dairy products, but the virus can also be carried through soil, on vehicles, on farming equipment, clothing and footwear.

It has been estimated that an outbreak in Australia would cost the livestock industry between $80 and $100 billion over 10 years. An outbreak would threaten our export and livestock products, which were worth $950 million in 2021, and impact the $1.3 billion worth of interstate trade. The loss of export markets would also impact domestic prices for meat and meat-related products. Clearly, economic implications of an outbreak would be catastrophic, and it would take many years, potentially, for the disease to be contained or eradicated. There is no doubt that keeping this disease out of Australia is vitally important.

The economy of the larger Limestone Cost is particularly susceptible. In 2015-16, the total value of agricultural output in the Limestone Coast region was $1.123 billion. The largest commodity produced was livestock slaughtering, which accounted for 48.2 per cent of the Limestone Coast's total agricultural output in value terms. ABARE statistics for 2020-21 tell us that the gross value of livestock in the Limestone Coast is $788 million. This is a vital asset we need to protect.

It is important to understand the implications of the disease arriving in Australia. Potentially, it would have some very direct and devastating impacts for livestock producers. But the impacts would be far wider: impacts would be felt by our local meat processing facilities and their employees, not to mention the stock agents, transport operators and livestock exchanges. There would be long-lasting wider impacts on human health and wellbeing, tourism, education and research, with regional communities being most vulnerable.

Further, there would be serious flow-on implications for our regional, state and national economies. Lumpy skin disease is another disease of concern for our cattle industry, spread primarily by biting insects. Lumpy skin disease was detected in Indonesia in March this year. It is estimated that the lumpy skin disease outbreak could affect approximately $7.39 billion worth of exports across 23 countries should an incursion occur.

The consequences of both these diseases for the livestock industry, our communities and our economy are substantial. It is important that all measures necessary to prevent entry of the disease into our country are implemented. At the state level, it is important that we have this bill brought before us. The bill will strengthen measures in the Livestock Act 1997. The act currently contains provisions to control or eradicate livestock diseases. Diseases such as footrot and Johne's are currently controlled through this act.

The bill will support a responsive approach to the management of emergency animal disease incursion. It will provide more tools in our toolkit for the management of emergency disease incursions. I hope—and this is where the fear is—that this amended act, with its timeliness and speed it is meant to introduce to the state so that the primary industries minister and her staff can act with swiftness, is only used for these emergency diseases that are not present in Australia or South Australia already. There are a range of key provisions included in this bill:

Notices are 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 and exempt a person or a class of persons from a requirement imposed by a notice.

The amendments 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.

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.

Except for the Emergency Management Act 2004, the Livestock Act 1997 will prevail over other acts.

The amendments provide 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.

The 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.

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.

In regard to this swiftness and the concern that we are under threat, that it is probably closer than ever before because of our neighbouring country Indonesia and Bali, I must also recognise that we know there is an opportunity for this disease to come from any foot-and-mouth country around the world, not just Indonesia or Bali. We know it can be carried on footwear, and it certainly can cause a risk. The risk was heightened because Bali is a popular destination for tourists from Australia and South Australia.

The greatest threat was the food products that can be brought in, not declared, maybe not found and taken back to a home. This food product might not have been cooked: it might be cured. It may then be put into the scrap bucket and fed to animals, like a pet pig or some pigs, on a farm or a property on the outskirts of any city in Australia. That was and still is our greatest risk for foot and mouth coming into this country.

As I have just mentioned, we have the Labor Malinauskas government and the Minister for Primary Industries moving these stronger rules to protect our country. It is most important that we are vigilant and that we all play our part as South Australians and Australians, going overseas but then, coming back, doing our bit to meet the rules and requirements to protect the valuable industries I have highlighted.

I am supportive of the bill, but I would like to put on the record that I, on behalf of my constituents, would like to be better satisfied that our state is ready to respond to the incursion of animal diseases such as foot and mouth and lumpy skin disease. I have written to the Minister for Primary Industries seeking more information about what our state is doing operationally to be prepared for an outbreak, including if we have planned or are planning to conduct operational exercises in partnership with industry to ensure we can effectively operationalise our planned disease response.

I have asked what additional resources have been made available through funding or what contingencies have been put in place to ensure that adequate government veterinarian resources are available to prepare for and respond to an outbreak. I have also sought more information on what has been done to prepare our livestock stakeholders to ensure effective tracing and management should we have an incidence of either disease in Australia.

I ask these questions as the community needs reassurance that we are prepared to ensure South Australia is well placed to respond to emergency disease incursion. This gives me the opportunity to recognise that we have a number of animals in Australia, be they domestic, sheep and cattle, or obviously introduced species like pigs, camels, and deer that roam the countryside not only of South Australia. They are not bound by borders. These animals are not bound by fences. Yes, we have a dog fence, but the dog fence is not meant to stop any movement of these sorts of animals.

We know that once this disease is found in Australia the swiftness with which we respond is absolutely pertinent. We know that the disease has the ability to spread very quickly as well, untraced, and I guess this is why we are actually supportive of such measures. I am also then going to raise that if the discovery of the disease is made very late in its advance around Australia, I hope that consideration is given to a different management strategy.

What do I mean by that? I do not know what that advance means, and I am not sure what it means when I say 'further spread', but obviously a localised issue is a much easier issue to address and respond to than a national issue, where it may have spread well beyond a city, beyond state borders, and it may be affecting many jurisdictions around Australia.

I hope that a measured response on a national basis is found and that we work through all strategies, knowing that there are vaccines out there for this disease and that we may have to give consideration to something other than just wiping out this disease if it well and truly had escaped beyond any sort of local issue that would have been perhaps paramount to an effective control in its early stages.

Another thing I would like to highlight before we run out of time is the export markets and the pristine nature of our meat production in this country, be it lamb, mutton or beef. We are seeing prices right now that make most producers think that all their Christmases have come at once. We have good management and we have good seasonal conditions. Yes, there are some trying ones at the moment. South Australia is just recovering from a three-year drought of about six to 12 months ago, and now we are seeing flooding rains across much of eastern Australia and starting to affect South Australia through the River Murray-Darling system.

Those who are lucky enough to be avoiding these natural climate scenarios at the moment and perhaps in the livestock industry are also marching on through a commodity price boom that we have not seen in my time, and I am very pleased that I am in agriculture for that reason. With that, I hope that with good controls keeping this disease out we can maximise the returns of our premium product that the rest of the world is paying very good money for, recognising the quality that it is.

May I also add the fact that there are trade barriers coming down, evaporating, right out until 2030. Imposed tariffs on our product, like beef into Japan, China, Korea and Taiwan, are evaporating every year we get closer to 2030, which makes our livestock enterprises even more valuable coming into the future and more valuable today.

Finishing up, I congratulate the minister on putting in a piece of legislation that actually protects all that I have explained, the millions that it brings to this country in export, the way that we are all privileged in this country as Australians to have access to and eat some of the best food product, perhaps the most price competitive as well.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Telfer.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.

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