HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-04-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LIVESTOCK ACT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.L. Brokenshire:

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

(Continued from 23 February 2011.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (19:49): The regulations that we are being asked to disallow today do two things: first, they introduce a mandatory property identification code; and, secondly, they introduce a biosecurity levy to pay for the new scheme or part of it at least. My understanding is that about three-quarters of the cost of the property identification code scheme is to be paid for by a levy to be charged to those who keep certain animals, primarily animals used in primary production.

It is worth saying at the outset that absolutely nobody who has contacted me has any objection to the first part of the regulations—namely, the mandatory property identification code—and I understand that, similarly, the mover of the motion has no objection to the property identification code. Everyone supports it, including the South Australian Farmers Federation and the various animal bodies that have written to me and other members.

What is opposed by many in the community is the fee. This is a cost-recovery measure in the regulations that effectively ensures that the scheme is mostly paid for by those who keep animals on their properties rather than being paid for by the general population through general taxes. The amount involved is a fee of $76 for two years, which equates to $38 a year, and it is a fee that can be levied on a pro rata basis. The amount is not paid per animal but per property where animals are kept.

The first thing that needs to be noted is that the cattle baron pays the same amount as the person with a single goat, a calf or a lamb. The amounts, I think it needs to be said, are not huge but they are inequitable. They do not reflect capacity to pay and they do not reflect whether or not the animals are kept for profit or for enjoyment. From a cost-recovery perspective (if we accept that as the basis on which the levy is to be charged), it probably does not matter because it would cost the same to register the cattle baron's estate on the register as it would the child's backyard, where the lamb was kept. However, that does not make it a fair system.

The amounts are not huge. It will be a drop in the bucket for the cattle baron, but it will be a more significant impost for the owner of a single goat. The fees, I guess, are roughly equivalent—perhaps a little bit higher than the amount most people pay to register a dog—so I do not think the debate is so much about the economic burden as it is about the fairness of the system. What has really annoyed a lot of people in the community—or the ones who have written to me—is that they say the government has failed to consult them in a respectful way in the construction of this scheme and the levy.

I think there are also arguments about the merits of a user-pays system and whether or not the benefits of the system apply to individual animal owners or whether they apply to the community as a whole. The answer, of course, is both; we all benefit from a disease-free animal population and we all benefit from the rapid identification and treatment of animal diseases, but I guess you could also say that we all benefit from the council dog-catcher rounding up strays, whether they are ours or not. So, we can only take that argument so far.

In relation to the disallowance motion that is before the council, the big dilemma, of course, is that the regulation cannot be split. We cannot just disallow the bits that we do not like; we have to disallow the whole lot. I note that the Hon. Rob Brokenshire is well aware of this. He mentioned it in moving this motion and he also has on the Notice Paper for a vote later tonight a bill that would allow us to split regulations when it comes to disallowance motions. I will just say by way of passing now that the Greens will be supporting that bill as we supported it two years ago when it was introduced by the Hon. Robert Lawson.

The dilemma for us today is that it is all or nothing in relation to these regulations. What the Greens have had to consider is how we would feel if we were faced with a situation where on our vote the Department of Primary Industries did not have the tools or the information it needed to deal with an animal disease outbreak that got out of hand.

Therefore, with some reluctance, we will not be supporting the disallowance motion but, if the motion succeeds, as I suspect it might, we would urge the government to rethink the question of fees so that they are fairer, particularly for those who own only one or two animals. If the motion does pass tonight, I would urge the government to reintroduce regulations quickly, because we do not want to lose the property identification code system which, as I said, is universally supported.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (19:54): I rise on behalf of the Liberal opposition to indicate that we will not be supporting the disallowance motion. I have listened closely to the majority of what the Hon. Mr Parnell has said, and a similar dilemma has come to our attention. While there is a lot unhappiness about the fee associated with the PIC (as it is known)—and I will not say that everyone is unhappy with the fee—if we disallow this regulation, we toss out the PIC itself, which is supported demonstrably across a lot of the industries. I will indicate some of those industries that support the PIC as part of the national agenda, something that is generally well regarded. It was something we considered at some length in our party room, but ultimately we have decided to not support the honourable member's disallowance motion.

Included in the various industry groups that have indicated that they support a PIC and support our position in relation to that are: the South Australian Cattle Advisory Group, the South Australian Goat Advisory Group, the South Australian Pig Advisory Group, the alpaca industry, the Sheep Advisory Group, Equestrian SA, the South Australian Dairy Farmers Association, and the South Australian Farmers Federation. Some of them—probably a greater number—say that they are in favour of the PIC but against the fee; others are happy to be in favour of both. That probably comes from the various positions or backgrounds those groups come from within South Australian agriculture.

I recognise that honourable members wish to bring a resolution to this issue. We do not see that this motion will do what we think is in the best interests of industry overall, and that is backed up by the indications I have from those bodies I just mentioned. I have them all here. I could read them out, but I will not, and most people will be grateful for that. With those few words, I indicate that we will oppose the motion.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (19:58): I rise to support the motion for disallowance. From correspondence between my office and stakeholders, I understand that industry has no issue with mandatory property identification codes but rather the associated fee. I, too, take issue with the fee as not only do I understand that similar systems have been set up interstate with a lower fee imposed, but I believe a system already exists that essentially provides (or at least has the potential to provide) Biosecurity SA with the information it requires.

Biosecurity SA has provided me with a briefing and explained that a mandatory PIC is necessary because in cases of disease it is vital that Biosecurity SA is aware of what livestock is kept and where it is situated so that owners may be informed of the potential threat to their animals. However, in 1968 a system was established that uniquely identified all properties in South Australia. The system was and still is maintained by the Valuer-General, and the unique property numbers are used for water and sewer rates, land tax, local government rates and other related property matters.

During the development of this system, the department of agriculture, the department of planning and the Australian Bureau of Statistics were all consulted to ensure that one system would satisfy all agencies. In particular, the department of agriculture expressed concerns about its ability to identify properties in the event of an outbreak of exotic disease.

In addition to this multipurpose identifier, a coding system was implemented to identify the actual use of land, including which, if any, stock is on the property. The system has the capacity to identify various items of stock, including cattle, pigs, horses, goats and sheep. Further to this, the system has the capacity to provide specific details regarding the type of stock on the property; for example, there is a differentiation between dairy cattle and beef cattle.

This system is still in operation today and is updated weekly, with all changes of ownership, subdivision and amalgamation of properties. Given the information collected and maintained, I believe the system has the capacity to identify any properties that may be affected in the event of an outbreak of an exotic disease.

During a briefing on this subject, I alerted the Executive Director of Biosecurity SA to the existence of this system. I am under the impression that he was ignorant of the existence of the system and was not particularly interested in exploring its capabilities, even though it could be beneficial to Biosecurity SA. However, the minister's office did show an interest in contacting the Valuer-General to have this information provided, and I hope this has been followed up. This system could potentially reduce the maintenance costs significantly and demonstrate the benefit of a whole-of-government approach to problem solving.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (20:01): I rise to briefly indicate my support for the honourable member's motion to disallow the livestock regulations concerning Property Identification Code fees. As the honourable member outlined when introducing the motion, hobby farmers, those who simply have a sheep or an alpaca to mow the lawn, or a couple of horses or a single pony for the kids for recreational purposes, will be required to register their property and be liable for the Property Identification Code fee of $76 every second year.

This is part of PIRSA's march towards total cost recovery, that is, cost neutrality to government, something that has often been spoken against in this place but nevertheless begrudgingly accepted. However, I believe this is different. Whereas previously, cost recovery initiatives were directed at those deriving an income from their property or licence, this expands the requirement to pay to those who own small numbers of livestock for no monetary gain. To quote the current sa.gov.au webpage entitled 'Livestock property registration':

Some fees are paid directly from funds collected on behalf of the respective industry. Others are payable by producers.

Clearly, this page is yet to be updated. However, it does highlight the shift represented as we move from industry and producers being required to register their property, to all owners of livestock, including those for recreational purposes, self-sufficiency, or simply just a pet.

This is not to say that I do not support the Property Identification Code regime, and I can see the benefits of knowing the location of livestock if there is an outbreak of an infectious disease that may threaten industry, but I believe it to be a step too far in PIRSA's cost recovery to be charging recreational and hobby farmers. While I understand that there would necessarily be some cost offset, it would seem to me to be more appropriate to have free mandatory registration for recreational and hobby farmers, with the fee paid by those deriving income from their property.

I am unsure of whether the option of linking the requirement to pay the fee to whether a property owner has an Australian Business Number for the purposes has been explored, but I would have thought this would be possible. Regardless, I do not support the current fee structure and, for this reason, I support this motion.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (20:04): Mandatory registration of livestock and horse properties and allocation of Property Identification Codes (PICs) commenced on 1 January 2011. Each property with one or more livestock or horses is now required to register for a PIC. The registration fee is $76 for two years ($38 a year). The fee covers 75 per cent of the estimated cost to Biosecurity SA in providing and managing the PIC database, administering the registration system, compliance and communication with the livestock industry and horse community.

The government is currently contributing 25 per cent of the cost of the PIC system. This 75/25 split is based on the pre-existing agreement with the South Australian livestock industry for funding the National Livestock Identification System. The PIC fee has been established under the PIRSA cost recovery policy, which follows the national approach recommended by the Productivity Commission, in requiring cost sharing contributions from beneficiaries

Existing cost-recovery examples in PIRSA include commercial fisheries, aquaculture, food safety and plant health regulation programs. Biosecurity SA estimates that over 20,000 South Australian properties will be part of the mandatory PIC system. There are currently about 17,000 properties registered, mainly commercial cattle, sheep and pig farms.

In late 2010, Biosecurity SA held four stakeholder meetings to discuss mandatory PICs with the chairs of the livestock industry advisory groups covering sheep, cattle, deer, goats, pigs, horses and alpacas, plus a representative from the South Australian Farmers Federation. Later meetings included a representative from the South Australian Dairy Farmers Association. It is very important to note that these meetings reaffirmed the industries previously expressed strong support for a mandatory PIC system.

During these meetings, there was either support or no expression of outright opposition to the PIC fee. The horse community did indicate that the fee was higher than expected from discussions about a possible fee that had occurred in previous years. The representatives from the beef, cattle and sheep industries, which are the sectors most affected by the fee, fully support both the PIC system and the PIC fee.

During these meetings, there was discussion about potentially having a split fee for properties with smaller numbers of animals but, overall, there was broad support for a flat fee paid by all livestock properties. This is consistent with the cost to Biosecurity SA of allocating a PIC being the same for each application, regardless of the number of animals on the property, and that all owners of livestock either benefit from biosecurity protection or are potential creators of risk to the others.

The PIC system is a nationally-agreed system for recording the location of livestock. It supports a more effective and faster response to animal health disease emergencies by enabling quicker finding and checking of animals, getting messages to owners or managers and understanding how disease might spread through mapping. It also enables activities to be carried out with communities and industries to reduce the risk of an animal health disease emergency occurring in the first place; for example, by delivering biosecurity information to people recorded on the PIC database.

The role of Biosecurity SA in bushfires and floods, under the Emergency Management Act, is to assist state emergency services in their planning and response by providing data on stock locations and numbers from the PIC system. Biosecurity SA will also enter affected areas, after approval from the emergency services, to assess and provide advice on injuries and stock management, especially regarding burns, and recommend appropriate actions. The PIC system enables officers to locate properties with livestock and have contact details of the key person or persons.

The importance of being able to identify where livestock are cannot be understated. Exotic animal diseases that are of particular concern include diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease and equine influenza. The Productivity Commission found a major foot-and-mouth disease outbreak could cost Australia more than $9 billion in lost export earnings and reduce Australia's gross domestic product by between $8 billion and $13 billion.

Contrary to the claims of some, the PIC fee does not contribute to payment for an exotic disease outbreak response. The PIC fee is entirely separate from the national Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement levies. These levies result from agreement between all Australian governments and individual animal industries to share the cost of an emergency response to disease outbreaks. The recently agreed horse levy under the EADRA is a zero levy, which means that it will be activated only if an emergency response is required. So, to suggest that the PIC fee is somehow doubling up on this is pure nonsense. You did not suggest that, did you?

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: However, the PIC system is part of a suite of measures that Biosecurity SA undertakes to be ready to respond to an emergency. It is the government's understanding that there is general and strong support for all livestock and horse properties having a PIC in South Australia. It is also our understanding that the opposition to these regulations is about the quantum of the PIC registration fee, which is currently $38 per year. Some industries, like the horse industry, would like to pay nothing, but the majority of livestock property owners understand that a modest fee is reasonable for an enhanced program that supports and protects their industries, their animals, their lifestyle and their communities.

The extension of the PIC system to all properties involves additional cost to government, and in the current economic climate the government is unable to allocate additional resources without a contribution from those who benefit from the enhanced system. In addition, with the progressive extension of cost recovery through PIRSA, all those who benefit from the existing services will also be expected to contribute to ensure that these services remain at an optimal operating level and are not reduced.

The government is prepared to discuss options for alteration of the fee to minimise impacts on very small livestock owners, while retaining the overall aim of all livestock properties having a PIC. The government is not prepared to mandate PICs for all properties without a contribution from those benefiting from the enhanced program. The government is also prepared to consult further with the horse and farming industries and communities about how the PIC system should operate and how the fees can be set to enable an equitable contribution to the additional costs to government in extending the PIC system to cover horses and smaller livestock owners. Therefore, in consideration of the above, we will be opposing the motion.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:10): I thank all members for their contribution. I will spend a few moments wrapping up this debate, because it is an important debate, and it is not only about the issue of the PIC fee, but it is about a precedent that is now evolving regularly about so-called 'full cost recovery' versus what traditionally Treasury would have funded for departments' wages, etc., by virtue of the general revenue paid to government.

I think it is important that we get very clear for the public record that all members of parliament support a PIC fee, a property identification code fee. It is important that we get this very, very clear so that no-one comes and says that we are opposed to PIC fees. Of course we support PIC fees, because we have to look at our biosecurity. At this point I also say to the house that not only are people going to be subjected to a PIC fee, but very soon this house will be having a look at a biosecurity levy as well; so there is another levy coming in.

I do not know about government members and whether they get proper briefings from the government or not, but I certainly know that most of us, and I would hope government members as well, are out in the community enough to know that people are hurting out there. It does not matter what business you are in or how your household budget is set, it is getting tighter, not easier. Here now we have this so-called new strategy of government which is called 'full cost recovery'.

With respect to the horse industry in this state, horses are very important therapy for a lot of families and communities. If you look at Riding for the Disabled as an example, if you look at a lot of other issues around people with health matters, horses have an incredible impact on healing and giving those people opportunities and enjoyment. I know lots of mums and dads who work really hard to have a pony for their child at home. To then hit them with a $76 biennial fee and expect them to be able to keep that pony for their child is just—

An honourable member: I pay that for my dog.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Well, you may pay that for your dog, but the fact of the matter is that we already have a PIC fee, and I as a farmer have been supportive of that PIC fee and have reported and registered whatever would we have had to for the PIC fee, but all of a sudden, because the government cannot manage its budget—and this is what this is about; this is about lack of management of a budget—it comes up and says, 'Well, how do we get money? We will hit everybody.'

In the Adelaide Hills a lot of people work hard to have a small acreage, and they may run half a dozen sheep to keep the fire hazard down. I ask the government what it is going to do if those people decide that it is all too hard: 'I've got to get these sheep shorn. I've got to manage these sheep. I've got to manage the flies in the summer time and now they want to hit me with $76. I'll remove the sheep and the government can manage the fire risk.' You are hitting the little people; you are also hitting the farmers. It is interesting that, as we debate this today, we have had an announcement from the government that we are doing really well with our exports. We are well above last year, and—surprise, surprise—it is primarily agriculture, particularly grain exports, that is doing that.

Do you know why we have this PIC fee? Because the government is cutting the guts out of PIRSA, that's why. I say to Will Zacharin, as CEO, 'Stop taking people for granted,' when you put papers across to your minister saying, 'We will further rip the community off because you, minister, have not been successful in the cabinet in getting a reasonable amount of money for us to run our department.' That is what this is all about.

If you reckon the PIC fee is the start, wait until you see what the biosecurity levy will be. Where was the consultation? We have the Hon. Russell Wortley—and he is the messenger, so I am not going to have a go at him—on behalf of the government, coming in here tonight saying, 'We are not going to support this disallowance, but we have heard what you are saying and we are now going to start to consult with people on the impact and impost of another fee.'

There are so many fees and levies. We are the highest taxed, highest charged state in Australia in terms of general taxation and other levies and fees. It has to stop. You cannot keep impacting on families and communities simply because the government mismanaged its budget. If I mismanage my budget, I have to recut the cloth, and that is what this government has to start to do, not hit this state's community every time. It has to cut the cloth and start to manage.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. I.K. Hunter): Order! We do not want be here all night.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I want to say a couple of other things about this. PIC fees are not charged by several other states in Australia. Why? Because they can see the merit of PIC but they are able to manage their budget so that they do not hit people again. On top of that, of the states that do charge a PIC fee, this regulation makes us the highest PIC fee charged state in Australia.

I understand the convention between the two major parties, and that is why I will not divide tonight. The convention is that the Liberal Party will not oppose budgetary imposts on communities, and when it gets back into government the convention will be that the Labor Party will support the budget of the day rather than argue against it. So I understand where the two major parties are coming from, but I want to thank my colleagues on the crossbench who were prepared to support this. I trust, in the interests of proper democracy and fairness, that after the second reading debate tonight on the subordinate legislation, where I have amendments regarding disallowance being dissected, we will, in the future, be able to disallow part of a regulation without having to throw the whole lot out. I thank the Hons Mark Parnell, Ann Bressington, John Dawkins, Russell Wortley and John Darley for their comments.

We do need to change this subordinate legislation. The Hon. Rob Lawson QC was right when he put that bill up a few years ago. I for one do not want to throw out the PIC as such, but unfortunately it is all bundled up together, so I can understand what members are saying here tonight. However, let me reiterate that the community is sick and tired of full cost recovery. In just nine years this state's budget has gone from approximately $8 billion to $15 billion. It has nearly doubled the income. Put your hand up if you would not have loved to have had your income doubled within the last eight to 10 years—of course, we would all have loved that. This government has had its income doubled in just 10 years, yet we are now going down the track of full cost recovery on everything.

I say to my colleagues, at some point in time, as representatives of the South Australian community, this is the only house that can stop the rot. Otherwise, the next thing you know, you will be charged through a smart IT card on your car for the times you travel through traffic lights, because they want full cost recovery to run that section of transport. That is where we are headed at the moment—and I am not joking; just wait a few more years.

The final point I want to say is that, yes, it is $76 now for two years. You might say that is not much but just wait: in 10 years' time the $76 will be $110 or $120, and then you add the $120 to the other $50 here and the $100 there and the $1,000 there and all of a sudden, if you are a farmer you have to milk three or five dairy cows or produce five vealers just to pay all these additional imposts. It is counterproductive, it is unfair and the community deserves better. I thank everyone for their input tonight and appreciate it. I say to the government and particularly to Mr Zacharin who is in charge of Biosecurity SA, that when the biosecurity levies come in I am confident that a number of us in this house will be watching closely, and we may use a different strategy to address that impost.

Motion negatived.

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