HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-03-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LIVESTOCK (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 13 March 2012.)

New clause 29A.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

After clause 29, page 9, line 35—Insert:

Part 9A—Administration of Animal Welfare Act in relation to livestock

73A—Administration of Animal Welfare Act in relation to livestock

(1) The Minister responsible for the administration of this Act is responsible for the administration of the Animal Welfare Act 1985 insofar as it applies to livestock (other than pets) to the exclusion of the Minister who is otherwise responsible for the administration of the Act.

(2) An inspector appointed by the Minister under this act will be taken to also have been appointed by the Minister as an inspector under the Animal Welfare Act 1985, subject to any conditions imposed by the Minister by instrument in writing.

I move this amendment after a great deal of deliberation with what I believe is a significant cross-section of key stakeholders in South Australia regarding which minister and which agency should have the primary role—and I underline the words primary role—for animal welfare matters dealing with livestock. For the purposes of this debate 'livestock' is deemed to be all agricultural animals, which are defined within the act, and also horses.

Whilst there has been quite a lot of comment on this, I put on the public record, in moving this amendment, that contrary to what some people are saying this is not a specific attack on the RSPCA at all. Also, contrary to what was said by the CEO of the RSPCA in the media last week, I have actually met with the RSPCA. In fact, I met the president of the RSPCA sometime last year, and I noted that she has a real passion and commitment to her role as the president of the RSPCA in South Australia.

However, in those discussions it also became clear to me that the RSPCA has a lot on its plate. It also has cost pressure issues, albeit that the government has, I understand, funded about $200,000 to the RSPCA for some of its work. I would say that that is still walking away from the responsibilities of what the government, through the primary industries department (PIRSA), should be doing for South Australians.

I place on the public record that it is not our intent to see that $200,000 removed from the RSPCA at all. In fact, from my understanding, the RSPCA needs that money and needs the resources that it has simply to work on all of the issues that it has to deal with in all other sectors of animal welfare. I refer to the broad definition of pets and also wildlife.

With respect to policy—and this has been discussed—I respect, acknowledge and, indeed, support the fact that when it comes to policy the RSPCA has a right to argue and advocate policy. It has done that all of my life. As someone who has been with animals all of my life—one kind or another, large animals in agriculture and small, domestic animals—I was encouraged to always be a member of the RSPCA by my family. Out of your pocket money each year you would buy that certificate proudly.

This is not an issue about trying to take away policy development and direction from the RSPCA at all. It has an important and independent role to develop policy and argue case, and we are seeing that at the moment. We are seeing the RSPCA, as one example, arguing that in horse racing whips should be banned. It is a democratic and legitimate right for the RSPCA to raise that policy. Whether all Australians agree with that, that is for further debate. By moving this amendment, I am not trying to weaken any of that whatsoever.

Likewise with Animals Australia, which I have been asked about in the media, there are some issues that I have real concern about, and I am sure that a lot of people do. Notwithstanding that, to look at the other side of the policy debate, the fact is that it is a democratic country and Animals Australia has a democratic right to push and move initiatives that it wants to move. I have been told by industry sectors that have met with certain people from Animals Australia that one of the things that Animals Australia would like to do is get rid of any intensive animal husbandry in Australia.

I, for one, would argue against that, as I am sure a lot of other people would. Having said that, again I acknowledge and accept the democratic rights of Animals Australia, and we will have to agree to disagree. I also respect the fact that a good number of the people there have absolutely legitimate concerns about animal welfare. Again, that is about a policy issue, that is about debate and that is totally different from the reason I am moving this.

This amendment is being moved because it gets back to who has the primary responsibility for the actual policing of the Animal Welfare Act. I am quite happy to say, in moving this amendment, that the very broad range of key stakeholder groups I have consulted with are strongly of the opinion that animal welfare for agriculture should be primarily under the policing powers of PIRSA, with PIRSA taking primary responsibility. I remind colleagues that SAPOL also has a role in this and that is not being changed or removed.

The government says it has problems with funding for PIRSA, and we have seen significant cuts in PIRSA in recent years. I get around to the sale yards a fair bit, and I see PIRSA inspectors there on a regular basis doing their work; in fact, those inspectors are very well qualified and specialised. It is pretty difficult for a general inspector of the RSPCA (which I understand in the state number about eight) to have the capacity to analyse all the reports, and what may follow from investigation on those reports, into all animals across the state. I think it is a huge ask for a charity, and the right place to have the policing powers is within PIRSA, under government responsibility.

I want to highlight a couple of other things in moving my amendment, and then I am happy to listen to the debate and take the opportunity of summing up based on what members say in their comments. The chief veterinarian of South Australia is working for and with the primary industries department of South Australia. The chief inspector responsible for the management of livestock is working for and is therefore an employee of PIRSA, so the people with the qualifications for livestock are there.

I will leave you with this final point: once veterinarians have done their degree, they specialise in a range of postgraduate areas. Some vets prefer to specialise in what we call small animals, such as birds, dogs, cats and the like; other vets—not many, but a few—specialise in wildlife fauna; other vets specialise in livestock, and within the livestock area there are speciality vets; and even within the group of large animals, such as cattle and horses, there are speciality vets. Within their practices, vets employ other vets specifically qualified in large animals, in sheep and in a cross-section of animals.

In the horse industry, I know some vets who have spent enormous amounts of postgraduate time specifically on horses. It is a speciality area that, with the greatest of respect, I do not believe general inspectors within the RSPCA have the capacity to work in. This is all about animal welfare and policing. Whilst in recent years there has been a move to give the RSPCA more responsibility, there has not been the money to go with it, and the RSPCA is in a difficult situation regarding trying to deliver on its commitment. I finish with the point that it is a charity organisation with a small amount of money now being expected to do pretty well all the work for the department.

I did an FOI, which I alert colleagues to, just having a look at the referrals between PIRSA and the RSPCA. I will not spend time tonight because the hour is late, but I would say that there has been a lot of documentation between PIRSA and the RSPCA and quite a bit of that, as I understand, is to do with PIRSA trying to explain and assist the RSPCA with investigations. With those words, I look forward to contributions from honourable members.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Delete inserted Part 9A and substitute:

Part 9A—Cross-authorisation of inspectors under Animal Welfare Act

73A—Cross-authorisation of inspectors under Animal Welfare Act

An inspector will be taken to have been appointed as an inspector under the Animal Welfare Act 1985, subject to any conditions imposed by the Minister by instrument in writing in consultation with the Minister responsible for the administration of that Act.

My amendment seeks to amend the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment. The effect of it is to delete subsection (1) of his amendment but leave subsection (2) in place with the added provision of consulting with the Minister for Environment who is responsible for animal welfare.

I will start speaking about why we oppose the amendment as it stands as is, with subsection (1) in it, and that is because animal welfare is a very significant issue which this government obviously takes very seriously, as does the public of South Australia. The amendment, I think, would create the perception of Primary Industries taking over animal welfare with, I think, potentially negative connotations. I think it will have quite negative connotations with parts of the public. I think that members of the public will perceive subsection (1) as watering and selling out animal welfare in the livestock industry.

Although agricultural businesses are necessarily profit making or profit seeking enterprises, I believe that, overwhelmingly, farmers are very conscious of the welfare of their livestock. Obviously, healthy and contented animals are productive animals. However, some farmers or farming groups can be seen by the public as being more interested in making money than animal welfare.

Generally, the public is increasingly sensitive to animal welfare issues, as can be seen by the extremely strong reaction to issues such as the ritual slaughter and recent footage of some Indonesian abattoirs. Unfortunately, the good news of healthy livestock on our farms does not tend to be portrayed in the media. Instead, it is the few instances of mistreatment of animals that are brought to the public's attention. These types of matters have increased the expectation that welfare issues will be considered as part of commercial activities.

The reality is that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment could be seen by the public, as I said, as a watering down of animal rights and welfare standards, and this is not in the interests of agricultural industries. In fact, there are many livestock operators, particularly those involved in intensive farming, who are very pleased with the current arrangements because they believe that having the RSPCA, through its association with the Department of Environment, at arm's distance from their business, gives greater credibility to the vigilance of welfare over their businesses and, therefore, increases the public's confidence in their product; that is, their product is not only safe and healthy to eat and meets all of those health and safety standards but their livestock is also looked after with high standards of animal welfare.

There are many operators. I know that there are some who do support the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's point of view, but there are many who do not. They, in fact, believe that their interests are better served by maintaining the arrangements as they currently exist. The reality is that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment could be seen, as I said, as a watering down. Therefore, any proposal to change the current livestock animal welfare system or legislation needs to be fully considered and supported by the community.

I am advised that the RSPCA has undertaken an important role in animal welfare for a very long time. Indeed, I am advised that the SPCA South Australia was founded in 1875, before gaining royal assent to be named the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1937.

The organisation has always enforced animal welfare legislation, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1936 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1908. When reviewed in 2008, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985 was renamed the Animal Welfare Act 1985, as we currently know it. So, it has a very long and established history.

The RSPCA in South Australia has been responsible for the enforcement of livestock welfare laws since animal welfare legislation was first introduced in South Australia. So, there is a long history and connection with animal welfare and the RSPCA's responsibility for enforcement. I am advised that general RSPCA inspectors can investigate any allegations of ill-treatment no matter what species of animal, including fish and invertebrate, as they are covered by the act.

I find it really quite ironic, really, that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has said that he does not want to take any of the livestock moneys from the RSPCA to hand over to PIRSA for its increased role, function and responsibilities. He is happy to leave those moneys with the RSPCA, yet he is happy to see the increased role expansion and increased responsibilities of PIRSA officers, without any associated additional income.

The honourable member knows that we are in a current position of very tight fiscal constraint. One of the honourable member's amendments is to insist that no livestock levies can be introduced. He does not support the capacity to even cost recover the increased financial burdens that would be incurred. He doesn't support that and does not want those moneys handed over. I find that quite amazing.

I also put on record that there are very few complaints from livestock operators. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, I do not think that my office has received any complaints concerning the conduct of the RSPCA in its dealings with the livestock industry. Yet we know that the RSPCA regularly prosecutes livestock operators, and it regularly applies fines and other penalties in relation to breaches. So, it is active in the area, yet we see very few complaints. So, livestock operators appear to be quite content with the way in which the current arrangements operate.

As I have said, these are longstanding arrangements, and any re-arrangement of responsibilities can and would be much better dealt with through administrative arrangements. The Administrative Arrangements Act allows for conferral and delegation of ministerial functions and powers under the act if that was believed to be the direction taken. However, it is not desirable to make appointments on an automatic result because that may not always be appropriate, depending on the training, knowledge and intended functions of the inspector.

The only other thing I really need to put on the record is that PIRSA already provides a great deal of expertise and support around the development of industry standards. So, PIRSA is already the key driver of the standards around livestock operations. For instances, all the standards covering pigs and transport for cattle and such like are set in a way that PIRSA has significant input into.

As I said, their current role and function is complementary. The PIRSA inspectors and the RSPCA inspectors work side by side. They have complementary functions. The current arrangements have served us very well, and I think to make changes to that in the way that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment does would adversely impact on the livestock industry.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: The opposition has considered at some length the original amendment in the name of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and the subsequent government amendment. In that consideration there were some concerns about some of the experiences of various members and their constituents in relation to inspections by RSPCA officials. I have vivid personal memories of situations where the RSPCA on two occasions on my former property made judgements that I think were way out of reality. I will not go into the details here tonight. One of them related to a suggestion that a 29 year old horse on my property was in a state of neglect. That was just a very old, skinny horse. Unfortunately, I was threatened with some action if I did not do something about that horse. We will not go into that.

I think the minister has made a case about the experience of PIRSA inspectors and so has the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. We know that the inspectors are very experienced across sale yards and also in relation to the on-property sales. As I did in my second reading speech, I refer to a letter that the minister provided to me in response to the very good activities that PIRSA undertake in relation to biosecurity, disease control and generally implementing the standards that we need in our livestock industry.

We know that the RSPCA officers who are out in the field get their training from PIRSA officers. That needs to be commended. I do not see—and my colleagues would support me—that this is a watering down of the act, as the minister has described. We think that PIRSA are the people who are well placed. I agree with the Hon. Mr Brokenshire that the RSPCA have a role in these matters, but it should be more to do with their policies in relation to animal husbandry. I go back to the fact that PIRSA officers—and we talked about this today in question time—have a very good feel for seasonal conditions, the age of animals and other aspects that some people without that considerable background do not have. The opposition will be supporting the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment and not supporting the government's amendment to it.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment invites us to consider the question of which is the most appropriate body to undertake the regulatory functions under the Animal Welfare Act. Is it the Department of Primary Industries or is it the RSPCA? As members would know, I have been very critical over the years of the RSPCA and the role that it played, or did not play, in enforcing animal welfare laws, in particular in relation to piggeries. I am thinking of a range of motions, questions and amendments that we moved four or five years ago in this place.

What I am very encouraged by are the some of the changes that have been made within the RSPCA in recent years. Certainly the old guard, if I can call it that, has moved on and there is a new regime running the RSPCA. I think that it is now taking the subject of the enforcement of animal welfare laws in relation to farm animals far more seriously than it used to. There are still issues, I think, with having what is effectively a private charity undertaking what is effectively police work.

We have discussed this at great length over the years in this place and certainly it is a convenient arrangement for the government, where it does not need to fully fund the inspection and the investigations because a private charity effectively fundraises to undertake that role. Whilst that is an odd arrangement, and I would have trouble with it being an exclusive arrangement, the point is that there are other authorised inspectors, including the police. I for one would advocate for the government to provide more resources to the RSPCA so it does not need to fundraise for what is effectively essential police work.

Despite those concerns I have had, and issues around the RSPCA doing its job, we have to contrast it with what the honourable member is putting forward as the alternative, which is for effectively the department to be the police agency, if you like, the regulatory agency. There is a concept that usually raises hackles whenever you mention it, but I am going to anyway, and it is called regulatory capture. It is the issue where you have agencies that are very close to an industry that find it very difficult to then step out of the role of encouragement, education and support into the role of enforcement.

We have seen that in a range of areas, not just in terms of agriculture, but certainly in terms of mining and aquaculture. In relation to mining, I can still remember one of the very first public inquiries that I participated in. It was probably 15 or 16 years ago and it was to do with the ability of the mining department to regulate the environmental impacts of mines. When you had a look at the qualifications of an environmental officer with the mining department, they needed a blasting licence but they did not need to know a bilby from a mulga bush. It was quite remarkable.

I mentioned aquaculture. People get sick of me telling old war stories in this place, but I am going to anyway. In 1998 I challenged the processes that the government followed for the approval of aquaculture. I challenged them because they were absolutely corrupt. I say corrupt with a small 'c', not a big 'c'. I am not talking about money in brown paper bags, but it was a corrupt process. The people making the decisions sat at the desk next to the people whose job it was to promote, succour and support industry, and they were completely incapable of regulating that industry; they were too close. I think a similar situation applies with primary industries, and it is unfair on those officers to be often wearing two hats.

People will say, 'We will have firewalls. They might not be sitting at adjoining desks; they might be on adjoining floors', but the point is it can be very difficult for people in an agency whose job is to support, encourage and foster industry to also be the regulators. There are enough examples across a range of sectors as to why that is inappropriate. It is not all black and white. As I understand the government's proposed amendment to the Hon. Bob Brokenshire's amendment, it does acknowledge that there are people whom it is appropriate to authorise as officers, but they should not have exclusive jurisdiction over that area.

It would make no sense for a primary industries officer to come across ill treatment that was deserving of investigation and maybe prosecution and to have to say, 'Actually, I can't do any more about this now. I will have to ring up someone in the RSPCA and they will have to drive several hundred kilometres to come and deal with this because I can't, because I am not authorised.' That would make no sense. That is somewhat of a compromise position. It makes sure that the people who are on the spot and able to exercise some of these powers have the authority to do so. I would be very nervous about giving exclusive power to the primary industries inspectors, rather than the current arrangement where you have primary responsibility with the RSPCA but other agencies, such as the police and, under this amendment, primary industries officers, would have a secondary (or support) role. For those reasons, the Greens will be supporting the minister's amendment to the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I would like to make some comments in support of our lead speaker, the Hon. John Dawkins, in support of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's position in unamended form. I would say at the outset that I am a member of the RSPCA and a very big fan, I think it does wonderful work, as most people in this chamber would. However, there is an elephant in the room, and that is not meant to be any sort of joke; that is, the Brinkworth case. The Brinkworth case has highlighted flaws in the current arrangement, in that a botched investigation led to a grazier, who was to be the defendant in a case of animal cruelty, receiving an undisclosed settlement from the RSPCA.

This is an issue that a lot of members have taken an interest in over the past few years. For those who are not familiar with it, the operations manager was sacked, the CEO resigned, as did several board members. The Hon. Mark Parnell alluded to the fact that the RSPCA had a change of regime, and I would like to acknowledge the new president, Sheree Sellick, and CEO Neale Sutton, whom I have met with on other animal welfare issues, and I would like to reassure them that in no way should they consider that anybody wishes to undermine their role. We commend them for their commitment to caring for unwanted and abused animals.

This case took place some time in 2009-10, so prior to the last election. The minister at the time was minister Jay Weatherill, who commissioned a report from the Solicitor-General in January 2010 into how this occurred, including, and I presume, whether the arrangements should be reviewed. In February 2010, president Sheree Sellick, in response to a lot of bad press, put the RSPCA's side of the story in her regular column to the membership, and I would like to refer to that now. She stated:

Several weeks ago, the RSPCA's Operations Manager, who was in charge of all inspectors, investigations and preparation for prosecutions, confessed to CEO Steve Lawrie that he had altered an application for a warrant to enter and search one of the Brinkworth properties. On preparing the case for prosecution, he had discovered that the property name on the warrant application was incorrect. Although the—

The CHAIR: Order! We have an amendment here; can we stick to the amendment, not make a second reading speech at this time.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Well, I would have made a second reading speech. I was denied a second reading speech earlier this evening. Perhaps—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No; on the other bill that got guillotined.

The CHAIR: You are not really being relevant to the amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am being completely relevant to the amendment, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: Not in my opinion, the Hon. Ms Lensink.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This goes to the core of whether the—

The CHAIR: Moving right along.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: —RSPCA should continue.

The CHAIR: Moving right along. Wind it up.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Thank you. I welcome the support of the Greens on this occasion.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks will speak when she gets the call.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I might have to move a motion and detain you all on some other evening.

The CHAIR: You can move whatever you like.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am glad to hear that, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: That is your prerogative.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I apologise to Sheree Sellick that I will not be able to put the RSPCA's side of the story, because the Chair is not interested. Where this particular review is at—

The CHAIR: Do a grievance tomorrow.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: —is a continuous mystery, which is being delayed. The farmers from the South-East who brought this issue to the attention of the RSPCA are none the wiser, particularly James Darling, who has complained in public. A survey by the Stock Journal showed that 70 per cent of its readership believe the government should be responsible for the prosecution of animal cruelty cases. The Chair of the Animal Law Welfare Committee of the Law Society, Joanna Fuller, when interviewed about this issue said that prosecution cases should be handled by the Crown Solicitor's Office as it has a staff of lawyers experienced in prosecution cases under other acts such as native vegetation and fisheries.

My question on notice, June 2010 was, 'When will the review be completed?' The reply (returned 10 months later) was that it was anticipated that the Solicitor-General's review was likely to be finished in May 2011. My FOIs have been obfuscated but I did receive a reply from the Solicitor-General who, as well as telling me that he is exempt from the FOI Act, said that it was ongoing, and this is dated July 2011, so we are now some 18 months down the track.

The most recent information that I have received on this case is via a letter to me from the environment minister dated 29 February 2012—so pretty new information. His response as to when the case will be made public was that he has not yet received the report prepared by the Solicitor-General. We are very much in the dark about the review which goes to the core of what this amendment is about, and, in the meantime, all those farmers who are the ones who originally brought that particular case to the attention of the RSPCA are not happy, as are a number of other people who, I think, do not have confidence in the process.

I would state that it is not the RSPCA as an organisation, it just a governance issue, and this is a classic case of a structure which hinders the process. The RSPCA is a charity, and the role of investigation and prosecution, I think, has been shown to be flawed through that particular case, which is very regrettable, but I think it does need to be referred to because it is germane to what we are discussing.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I have been around the place long enough to remember the days when the administration of the Animal Welfare Act was held by neither the Minister for Agriculture nor the Minister for Environment, and therefore on this occasion I will be supporting the amendment of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and opposing the government's amendment.

The CHAIR: Someone get to the point. We have had longwinded speeches. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, sir. I thank all honourable members for their contribution, and I just wish to wind up and summarise on some of the input from them with respect to their contributions. Just with respect to the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the issue she raised about the Brinkworth case, I think that is a good case in point because, irrespective of the outcomes of that, I am advised that the RSPCA ended up having to pay $750,000 with respect to the court costs and legal costs when officers went out there after investigating a report from fellow farmers in that area.

That is a case in point for me because I do not believe that charity organisations should have these responsibilities. Most of the time where the possibility of an expensive prosecution is going to occur will probably be with livestock rather than budgies and cats and dogs, and I think that is an example of that. The minister has admitted tonight that one of the key reasons why the government is opposing this is—and I quote—'financial restraints on PIRSA'.

I am sorry that there are financial restraints on PIRSA and, like many of our colleagues here, I argue continually that PIRSA should be properly funded. However, if there are financial restraints on PIRSA, then that is the job of the minister to get in there during the budget bilaterals and bat—as hard as it is I acknowledge for the minister with the way that state debt is—for more money for PIRSA.

To simply walk away from your responsibilities because PIRSA has had budget cuts and put it on to a charity organisation, to me, is not acceptable. I understand that one of the financial problems that the RSPCA has now is directly associated just to that one case. The government has responsibility for many other prosecutions, and that is why we have a DPP, that is why we have a Solicitor-General's department, and there are lots of other areas where the government has to have the primary role in policing.

Also, the minister says that there is some sort of perception that we would be watering down the issue of animal welfare. I argue completely the opposite to that. This is not about watering down at all: this is actually about putting more pressure on agriculture for animal welfare practices to be second to none. I also must say in response that farmers and agriculturalists, through levies and through their own initiatives, have been doing everything they possibly can to improve animal welfare nationally and in South Australia. It is not about watering down at all, but about starting to put some of the responsibility back where it should be with respect to the government's responsibility of taking on these cases.

I will finish with a couple of other points. I note with interest and appreciate what my colleague the Hon. Mark Parnell had to say. It was interesting that back on 14 March 2007 the Hon. Mark Parnell was actually moving that this council calls on the minister for environment and conservation to commission an independent investigation into the conduct of the RSPCA. He went on with the motion:

Last year in this place I called for a select committee to inquire into the administration and enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985. My call for an inquiry focused on the appropriateness of using a private charity, namely, the RSPCA, as a principal law enforcement body under that act.

The Hon. M. Parnell: That was five years ago Rob—they're better than that now.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I acknowledge that the honourable member has said that they are better than that, but the principal point still remains as to who has the principal policing responsibility: a charity that has lots of other responsibilities and is grossly underfunded, or the government with a $15 billion budget and has the primary responsibility for the Animal Welfare Act and, I suggest, the policing relevant to that.

Back not so long ago, on 28 February 2008, the Hon. Mark Parnell, speaking on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Welfare) Amendment Bill again raised his concerns about a private charity doing police work.

The CHAIR: I point out to the honourable member that it's not a second reading debate.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I am summing up. I could go on.

The CHAIR: People have indicated how they are going to vote.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, Sir. With those words, I thank colleagues for their contribution. However, I have to say that we will not be supporting the minister's amendment—I have a right to advise you of that. The reason for that is that it completely destroys the intent of this amendment. It is a matter of administrative convenience on approvals only to support the government's amendment. They have taken the minor consequential aspect of my amendment and moved it as their own and ignored altogether the key amendment.

The committee divided on the Hon. G.E. Gago's amendment:

AYES (8)
Finnigan, B.V. Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E. (teller)
Gazzola, J.M. Hunter, I.K. Kandelaars, G.A.
Parnell, M. Wortley, R.P.
NOES (10)
Brokenshire, R.L. (teller) Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G.
PAIRS (2)
Zollo, C. Bressington, A.

Majority of 2 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; new clause inserted.

Clause 30 passed.

New clause 30A.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

After clause 30, page 10, line 5—Insert:

30A—Insertion of section 87A

After section 87 insert:

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.

I advise the committee that I have had some discussions with the minister on this, and I believe that the minister would like to make some comment on this amendment. I have moved this amendment but, having had discussions with the minister, I will withdraw the amendment based on the fact that the minister is looking at doing some more work on this whole issue.

Also, the opposition has moved that the committee have a look at this in a standing committee. I reserve my right to reintroduce this if I do not see a satisfactory response from the committee and from the minister. However, in fairness to the minister, who is a new minister, she has said that she will have a look at this. I support her word and I will leave it at that at this point.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will, for the purposes of the record, state that indeed the original bill included a levy, and I removed that section regarding a biosecurity levy from the bill, because I was not satisfied with that particular model. I have set up a process that is being overseen by Mr Dennis Mutton to engage with the industry again to see if we cannot come to an agreement on a suitable biosecurity model. That process is under way, and I believe that it will require time to complete that, and to insert this particular clause would completely undermine that process. I appreciate that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has seen fit to withdraw this amendment.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Just for the record, I think the mover and the government had the opportunity to say what their position was on this amendment, and we know that it is going to be withdrawn. The opposition did not support this amendment, certainly at this stage, because we believed that in good faith the minister withdrew the biosecurity measure from the livestock bill, and I was advised of that before the bill was introduced.

Certainly, at that same stage, we had the motion that I put to this house to refer the matter to the committee, and that is under way. The opposition and I look forward to the outcomes, not only of the ERD Committee's deliberations but also the examination process that the minister outlined a few moments ago. We would be in opposition to this if it was being put now, but we appreciate the fact that the honourable member has decided to withdraw it.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Leave granted; amendment withdrawn.

Clause 31.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 10, after line 7—

After the present contents of the clause (now to be designated as subclause (1)) insert:

(2) Section 88(2)(h)—delete $315 and substitute:

$500

This is an amendment to the regulation-making power in relation to possession and use of diagnostic reagents or assays with the intention to make it an offence to possess or use a test kit for an exotic notifiable disease.

This is a response to the greater opportunity for individuals to access crush-side disease test kits from overseas, especially via the internet. Crush-side tests are simple kits that are cheaper and easier to use in the field and provide an indication of the disease status of animals. However, they have a higher rate of false positive and false negative test results than lab-based test kits.

All lab tests are approved through national protocols, but overseas kits obtained by individuals do not have those controls. There is the potential for significant damage and disruption to international trade where false or misleading test results suggest the presence of a significant animal disease, particularly exotic diseases. For example, if a false positive foot and mouth disease was publicly reported there is a strong possibility that countries such as Japan and the USA would immediately ban all Australian meat imports. It is for these reasons that the government is putting forward this amendment.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: The opposition supports the amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Family First supports the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

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) (21:55): I move:

That this bill now be 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