HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-02-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LIVESTOCK ACT

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:57): I move:

That the regulations under the Livestock Act 1997 concerning property identification codes, made on 16 December 2010 and laid on the table of this council on 10 February 2011, be disallowed.

I move this disallowance motion after a great deal of consideration. It is not my intention, as a member of parliament and as the spokesperson for primary industries within Family First to move a disallowance motion without a great deal of consideration. However, I must say that I and I am sure many of my colleagues have had a lot of representation from a huge cross-section of not only primary industry associated community members but even people in the metropolitan and peri-urban areas.

What we are seeing with this property identification code fee is effectively what I understand to be a full cost recovery on a property identification code system that was implemented with agreement by all of us, as primary producers and those with an interest in agriculture, to assist with biosecurity.

For several years we have had property identification codes—and, dovetailing in with those property identification codes, what is called the National Livestock Identification Scheme (NLIS)—and those property identification codes have been of benefit, although I think there are still a lot of technical glitches, and the technology and procedures to ensure that you can trace right through are not, on all occasions, working. I am sure some of my colleagues, when they speak later in the coming weeks on this disallowance motion, will back me up on that.

Suffice to say that there is evidence out there that the department and all primary industries ministers, through the Primary Industries Ministerial Council, need to have a look at the failings of this technology that is not foolproofing the protection of property owners and the biosecurity matters relevant to the property identification codes and the NLIS.

Specifically on the property identification codes, the reason I am moving this disallowance is that, as colleagues may or may not know, some of the changes now mean that if you own a horse, a pony for your child, or one pony, one alpaca or one sheep, and you have an acre of land—whether it be at Burnside, Elizabeth, Salisbury or in the McLaren Vale rural region—my understanding is that you will be up for registration of a property identification code. That is an impost on families and communities that has not been there before, so that point alone says to me there needs to be some reconsideration of this procedure from the government.

What is of particular concern to all property owners who have property identification codes is that the government, in its wisdom, provides for these fees under section 11, variation of schedule 1—Fees, subsection (2), by deleting the item and substituting:

2. Application for registration or renewal of registration under section (17) of the Act (other than as a beekeeper)

If the term for which registration is to be granted or renewed is less than or more than 24 months, a pro rata adjustment is to be made to the amount of the fee by applying the proportion that the number of the whole months in the term bears to 24 months.

It goes on to provide:

No registration fee is payable if—

(a) the application is accompanied by an application for the allocation or a renewal of a property identification code for the land where the livestock are or are to be kept; and

(b) the proposed term of registration is no longer than the proposed term for which the property identification code will be active; and

(c) a fee is payable for the allocation or renewal of the property identification code that is not less than the fee that would be payable for registration apart from this provision.

My interpretation of that, in layperson's language, is that everybody is going to be up for an initial registration fee of $76 for that 24-month period, albeit with a pro rata adjustment, and that every time you have to re-register your property identification code you will be hit with another $76.

Of course, we all know, particularly after looking at the front page of the Sunday Mail or The Advertiser recently, that this state is already the highest taxing and fee-charging government in any state in Australia; in other words, we have the highest taxes and charges at a state level of any state in Australia. Yet, after the last budget, thanks to the razor gang, we saw increases of astronomical amounts well above CPI in so many state taxes and charges, with a lot of those imposts coming back to rural people.

Farmers are saying to me that they are fed up with all the taxes, charges and levies that they have to pay. They ask me regularly, 'What is the government doing with the $15 billion (or thereabouts) of taxation revenue that it has coming in?' They also say to me that, when they see the cuts to PIRSA and SARDI, the intended commitment from government to have what is basically full cost recovery for almost anything that primary producers happen to do in respect of PIRSA and/or SARDI, and, on top of that, the cuts to research and development, they have had enough.

It is time to draw a line in the sand and say to the government, 'People are not going to continue to pay all these taxes, charges, imposts and levies because they add up.' Within a few years, this $76 will be $150 and, a few more years after that, it will be $300, and it will just go on and on. It is happening at a time when farmers are already struggling to get a reasonable farm gate price.

I have discussed with the minister my intention to move this disallowance motion. I know the minister personally is between a rock and a hard place. I feel sorry for minister O'Brien because he has to try to manage what is left of PIRSA, which has had the guts ripped out of it after the last budget, but, notwithstanding that, he is the minister, and if this disallowance motion is passed in this chamber, then he will have to go back to the drawing board and find another way around it or perhaps go back to the executive of cabinet, and particularly Treasury, and say, 'It is unworkable. People are starting to revolt. They will not put up with these enormous imposts, new taxes and levies.' They saw—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Did he ask you to move it?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The Hon. Rob Lucas wonders whether the minister asked me to move this. No, in fairness to the minister, he did not.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Is he going to support it?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: He was very concerned that I was moving it. The minister is going to have to go back and revisit this if this disallowance motion is passed in this house. In fairness to the government—I am a fair person—I have said, 'I am not going to put this to a vote during the next week of sitting.' I believe that perhaps the government might want to brief members of parliament on the benefits of having this impost on primary producers and property owners, but the bottom line is that I believe it is time that we stood up and said, 'They pay a lot of taxes and charges. The most sustainable industry economically to grow strength and vibrancy into the future is agriculture and you cannot continue to put these imposts on primary producers.'

For example, without very much consultation at all, a few years ago we had what is often termed the Rann Save the River Murray tax or levy. It is interesting to see that that has delivered little. It did not fix the River Murray. In fact, nature fixed the River Murray through the floods—temporarily at least. I understand that over $6 million remains unspent from last year. Approximately $142 million has been collected through that levy and what has it delivered? I have not seen it deliver much at all.

Primary producers want to see some delivery from the government. They want to see some goodwill. They want to see the word 'partnership', a word which the government uses often, used properly; that is, that the government partners primary producers so that they can produce food and grow the economy. They are sick and tired of these levies and imposts. I believe that most of them do not want to pay $76 every couple of years. This levy will become an increased taxation base for the government.

Simply because the government has mismanaged its expenditure, now one of the razor gang's recommendations, as I understand it, is to have so-called full cost recovery. It is not acceptable. It is time to draw a line in the sand and say, 'Enough is enough.' In moving this motion, I advise the house that in two to three sitting weeks I will be putting it to a vote. I commend the disallowance motion to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of. Hon. R. Wortley.

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