HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-03-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LIVESTOCK (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 February 2012.)

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:56): For your relief, I will not be talking too much, because I already said quite a deal on this the other night. I want to conclude my remarks on this bill, because it is an important bill. I also want to put a few questions on notice to assist the minister for the committee stage.

The first question to the government is: has the government consulted on this draft bill with stakeholder groups? If so, who did the government consult with? I also ask, in summing up my second reading contribution: what was the intergovernmental agreement on contribution towards the costs in the biosecurity area as between federal government, state government and industry shares? The argument has been put to us that shares were agreed to, but any biosecurity levy would in fact extract costs from farmers to pay for the state government's share, which is of concern.

I ask the government if it can explain what the requirements will be under the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement (EADRA)? In other words, how does the emergency animal cost sharing agreement interface with this bill? Can the minister please also answer as to what extent surveillance will be carried out for horses and what the costs will be, if any, in the government's intent with respect to any surveillance regarding horses? This is particularly in light of what we have seen, sadly, with some diseases of horses in the Mid North of South Australia.

Many of my constituents and stakeholder groups that I work with have an objection to section 25, where the government has legislation to introduce this new biosecurity levy, and totally reject that. This is the idea of coming up with a new tax that is not necessary. They argue—and I support them—that what they are doing is trying to get farmers to pay twice. We are picking up that South Australia, through a national agreement, signed off on an Australian national biosecurity plan. It relied upon agreed state, commonwealth and industry contributions.

We believe that, with the South Australian government introducing this biosecurity levy, we are the only state now contemplating this—the only state. We believe this levy is raising money to cover the SA government's share. In fact, I am damned sure that it is. Under the agreed rules, our industries are already paying. This is an additional thing in South Australia that the government has come up with. We can only suspect that it is using this extra levy to help make us pay—and I say 'us' as I declare that myself and my family are farmers, too, so no-one has a go at me—for what was originally the South Australian government's share.

The other point is that a farmer got a letter from someone—I will not say who—who was in those government negotiations regarding the state-commonwealth-industry share. My understanding is that plant biosecurity is still involving state contribution. I ask the minister to closely look at this, and I will be challenging the minister on this during committee, because there is no means to recover plant biosecurity.

So, the government, as it rightly should be, is using some of the massive amount of money—$15 billion of general revenue—to pay the state contribution to plant biosecurity, and I am happy about that. However, the livestock industry worked on creating both the National Livestock Identification Scheme (known as NLIS) and the Property Identification Code system (known as PIC), which costs farmers a lot of money, I might add. I mentioned some of that last night, but it costs farmers a lot of money.

We agreed, and so did the stakeholders at that time, to create those things because there was good purpose and reason for them. Then, the part that really does frustrate stakeholder groups and farmers is that, as soon as they had agreed—and, therefore, this government had everyone onside and paying for it—the government has now turned around and used that information to give it the information to charge PIC holders. There is not an equivalent mechanism to achieve this via plant biosecurity.

In summary, what I am saying and what I am asking the minister to respond to in committee is that I believe—and I am convinced that this is the situation—that the government is hitting livestock industries through a mechanism that the livestock industries in very good faith, over a number of years, agreed to with the government for NLIS and PIC. Now, it is using that goodwill to undermine fairness with respect to some sectors of agriculture, namely, in this situation, livestock.

To me, that is totally unacceptable. To the key stakeholder groups, that is totally unacceptable. It is time that the government came clean in this chamber during the committee stage and told us what the truth is so that honourable members have the opportunity to make a decision about what they do and do not support in respect of this bill.

I encourage my colleagues to look at the amendments that I have tabled. As I said in my remarks earlier, one of the amendments that Family First has now tabled—just in case members have not had a chance to read them—is that, categorically, we knock out once and for all any opportunity that the government has to double dip and now hit livestock producers in respect of biosecurity fees.

When I spoke the other night, I may have offended a former minister and that is the way it is when you are a minister. If you are in charge of a situation at a time and certain things occur and you support them, you cop it. However, at least this minister has listened and realises that there is a concern. She realises that there will be revolt. Mark my words: if there is any charge for these biosecurity fees, there will be a revolt this time. They will not sit back and put up with this any longer.

I do not want to see any goodwill that is still there between farmers and Primary Industries and the Will Zacharins of this world destroyed. I have said this before and I will say it again—and I am not using parliamentary privilege for this, I am simply saying this because it needs to be said and this is the place in which to say it—as a legislator, I have lost confidence in Will Zacharin and so has most of the agricultural sector.

What they now see is that Will Zacharin's primary job is no longer to focus on biosecurity—that is, the protection of our industries—but, one way or another, to find full cost recovery to satisfy the bean counters in Treasury and the accounting people within PIRSA and to get whatever he can for this government from farmers—and that is tragic. Some would argue that Will Zacharin is just doing his job. I am sure that he is probably a very good, loyal public servant for the government, but we need to build the goodwill, we need to rebuild the bridge between agriculture, the minister and the government. Prior to this minister taking over, that bridge has been in very much disrepair, and we know the reasons why.

This is the final straw that will break the camel's back, and I do not say that lightly. I have been told by many—in the parliament, around the table—who have been involved in so-called stakeholder input that they have had enough. So that we can go forward and see the good things that this minister and the Premier have done in putting together a comprehensive package of portfolios for agriculture in the rural and regional communities, give this minister a chance to actually rebuild that bridge, and, in doing so, grow opportunities for the state, for agriculture and for the government.

However, I put on public notice today that, from what I have observed across the state and with a fair bit of contact with a lot of people, we have a very fragile situation at the moment. It can be repaired, and one way to start that is to actually ensure that we have support one way or another with respect to biosecurity fees, and the government should find a way of managing it.

I made mention yesterday that provision was made for some money through PICs and the NLIS that may soften the amount of money that the government might then strike for a biosecurity fee. I put this on the record again, because I have been told that $1.2 million has now come out of the PIC, so only $1 million to $1.5 million has to come out of biosecurity under the animal health fund. I need an answer on this from the government during committee. I want to know the truth; that is all I want to know. Has there been a sleight of hand where systems that had been created in good faith by industry in a cooperative manner with the government are now being used to siphon out an additional $1.2 million so that only $1 million to $1.5 million has to be collected?

Where the Zacharins of this world might have made a little slip up is that they happened to actually say that, if they cannot get the last $1 million to $1.5 million, or they have at least recouped a fair bit that will assist them with the money that they were supposed to be getting under this, that is my concern. If a minister can categorically deny this with evidence in committee, I will take that back to the people that I am working with. I have trust and good faith with those people. They have only told me to put this on the public record because they are totally frustrated with what has been going on.

It is fair to say that this would have happened without any consultation with even the former minister probably, because it is the people in the bureaucracy who actually work out from where they are going to get the micro amounts to meet the efficiency dividends that they have to find. Unless they are really connected with the minister, they may not necessarily tell the minister. What the minister needs to do is look back through the Stock Journal and country papers and he will soon see how angry the rural sector was getting on this one.

I conclude by saying that there are some very good things in this bill, but this is an opportunity for us because we have been caught out before. As legislators, we have actually taken many things in good faith. In committee, when we have questioned and challenged this or that situation, we have been reassured, 'That is alright. You don't have to worry about that. That is all under control.' Only then do we find out that people get hit in the pocket. This time I do not want to take anyone at face value, and that is why I have proposed this very clear amendment:

87A—Nonrecovery of cost of biosecurity measures

Fees for registration or allocation or renewal of identification codes or other fees imposed under this Act must not be used to recover the cost of biosecurity measures relating to livestock implemented by the administrative unit that is, under the Minister, responsible for the administration of this Act.

It is a pretty simple paragraph, but I have put it in there because I do not trust just taking an answer in committee now and then sitting there and passing that legislation to find that there is another sneaky way that people are hit in the back pocket.

In the past that has happened with goodwill. There is commonwealth money coming back to the states on a lot of this. There are industry sectors right across the spectrum of the livestock industry that are paying money every time they sell their commodities. They are happy to do that, but they have said no more. I look forward to the committee stage. I have put all my concerns on the record now for the minister and the minister's office to have a look at. I look forward to the minister's response once we get into committee.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (16:12): Given that there are no other indicated second reading contributions, I take this opportunity to sum up. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the second reading debate. I take this opportunity to respond to some of the questions raised and, if there are matters (some of which have been raised just now), I propose to deal with them in committee at clause 1, if members allow me that.

The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has raised a number of questions and matters for clarification in the first part of his second reading contribution. He queried the discontinuance of end of declaration booklets and their replacement with online registration and livestock sales. I believe he was referring to this in relation to using the National Livestock Identification System (NLIS). The NLIS is an industry initiative which the government has been pleased to support. The NLIS commenced many years ago. The books Mr Brokenshire referred to were produced and provided by the industry through their national research and development body, Meat and Livestock Australia.

The South Australian government of the day helped industry launch this initiative by assisting in the distribution of the books in South Australia but the books were provided without charge to users by industry, although industry funded the books through their national levies. The industry has since decided how the vendor declaration forms are made available and how they will be funded by the industry. The South Australian government is not making these decisions. The South Australian government supports the NLIS and provides support where it can such as through the legislative framework, but this is a system that is primarily managed and funded by the industry, not government.

In relation to artificial breeding, our current registration system is to ensure that where artificial breeding services are carried out as a fee for service, minimal standards are met to protect farmers and their stock. This is not applied to farmers performing artificial insemination on their own animals. The amendment to section 19 is to correct an oversight that currently makes it an offence for a person to carry artificial breeding procedures on their own stock, other than by a veterinary surgeon. Earlier legislation allowed farmers to perform artificial insemination on their own animals, and it was an oversight, and this was not continued.

Mr Brokenshire also raised a query in relation to clause 24 which amends section 47—Establishment of Fund. He indicated that he did not see why South Australia needed a new fund. The fund in question is the South Australian Exotic Diseases Eradication Fund. This is not a new fund. The fund has been in existence for many years. It exists to enable money received by South Australia for a major national emergency to be legally accepted, held and disbursed.

These moneys will be provided under the national Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, which is a cost-sharing agreement between industry sections and all Australian governments for sharing the costs of national responses to exotic animal disease incursions. Once the national agreement has been formally activated for an emergency disease, the national cost-sharing deed protocols are followed for calculating payments, and when and how they are provided. This money covers compensation to farmers affected by the exotic disease response. When there is no declared emergency, as is currently the case, there are no monies in the fund. This system is strongly supported by industry and obviously government.

The proposed amendments are to improve the operation of national cost-sharing arrangements in South Australia in the event of exotic disease outbreak. The amendments reflect changes made in the national deed (and I note that the honourable member has tabled amendments and they will be dealt with in committee). However, I can foreshadow that the government is likely to have some difficulty with those amendments.

As set out in the second reading speech, this bill is finetuning the act. It includes enabling expiation processes as these are, in many cases, more appropriate than prosecution for some offences. The intention is a graded system of expiation amounts to a maximum of $500. Due to an oversight, proposed changes to section 88(2)(h) were omitted and I have tabled a government amendment to allow all new expiation fine tiers to be implemented in regulation following consultation with the industry. The bill arises following extensive consultation with industry, and I believe is supported well by industry. I commend it to the council.

Bill read a second time.

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