Tuesday, 24 May 2022

Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms PULFORD:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:19): The daughter of a dairy farmer is going to lead off on the ag bill this afternoon. I rise to speak on behalf of The Nationals and the Liberals as the lead speaker on the Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. It is certainly an omnibus bill, covering off on 11 different agricultural acts. I will go through each of these in some detail because they each have merit for analysis and discussion. The bill considers and amends the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992; the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994, or CALP as it is otherwise known; the Dairy Act 2000; the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981; the Farm Debt Mediation Act 2011; the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994; the Meat Industry Act 1993; the Plant Biosecurity Act 2010; the Rural Assistance Schemes Act 2016; the Veterinary Practice Act 1997; and the Wildlife Act 1975.

Just to put it on the record, The Nationals and the Liberals will not be opposing this bill. However, we will look to ask a considerable number of questions in the committee of the whole, and I will foreshadow some of those questions in my contribution this afternoon. It is important to unpack some of the implications of this bill and the amendments within, noting the very important position that our agricultural sector has in our economy and in our lifestyles. They make our food, they provide the fibre that we wear—hopefully Australian made where we can—and they are an integral part of our very dynamic economy.

Australia’s largest producer of food and fibre, Victoria, has $17 billion—almost $18 billion—worth of food and fibre. It also supports $41.5 billion worth of food processing. Victoria’s gross value agricultural product, or GVAP as we like to call it, was $17.8 billion in the 2019–20 prepandemic period, noting, though, that during the whole of the pandemic the ag sector was one of those essential services that had to keep working, rain, hail or shine, putting food on our supermarket, health food shop, grocery and butchers’ shelves—a very important thing that was done. Victoria is Australia’s largest ag producer, up there at almost a third of Australia’s GVAP. Almost 3000 people work throughout this industry, whether it is in food production, manufacturing or on the ground.

If I can be oh so parochial in terms of Eastern Victoria Region, Gippsland is synonymous certainly with the ag industry: agriculture, forestry—and I underline forestry, plantation and native timber; our sustainable native timber industry that needs to continue and not die and wither under the Andrews government—dairy, pastoral and fishing are also really important. There are 9000 food and fibre businesses. They employ 16 per cent of our workforce in the regions. Three-quarters of these are engaged on farms and 25 per cent in value-added production. We are the dairy capital—as I said, I am a dairy farmer’s daughter—including milk, milk powder, milk cheese and yoghurt. It is a very, very important element as well, as are beef, sheep, wheat and the like. At the moment it is good green grass growing weather and certainly good beef weather, and we are getting good prices, which is important.

What does the Andrews government think of the ag sector? In the last two budgets Labor has cut $86 million out of Victoria’s agricultural budget. The Labor Party has got all the priorities wrong in terms of the ag sector. The line item that features in this budget is about removing the native timber industry, some $24 million for the flawed Victorian Forestry Plan. It fails to understand the importance of this industry. In fact it fails to understand to the point where there is not one mention of agriculture in all of the regional budget papers. Work that one out: it does not compute. It computes that the Andrews government values little our farmers and the economic drive that they have and the associated downstream jobs.

Research and development in new and emerging technologies, in ways to mitigate climate change, in ways to make sure that we have got maximum production, in soil carbon sequestration, scientists working on the very soil microbes, genomics and plant sciences, animal production and increased output with less carbon emissions—these are some of the things that should be happening in Agriculture Victoria, but AgVic has been cut by 100 jobs. Now, that is taking the focus off what should be a very, very important adaptation focus for this government. The rhetoric does not meet the actions of the Andrews government.

Let us look at the clauses in this bill, and I will go to the changes to the various acts. With the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992, it updates the powers of authorised officers, removes certain barriers to sharing certain information with other regulators and clarifies requirements for giving notice, making requests and recovering debt. It also looks at the way labels are changed. They are changed under the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. That is an Australian body who provide labels and assess various pesticides and medicines. The APVMA is a very important element in the assessment. They update labels as well.

There have been some fairly large claims out there in the social media world, and I would certainly like in the committee of the whole, if I do not get time in this second-reading speech, to talk about what is actually in the bill and what is out of the bill. I have had people write to me and question it. I do not want to cosy up to the government, but what I do want is the facts that are contained in this bill, because the facts actually flow out to ramifications for our farmers and our agricultural industry as a whole—and our landscape. Our environment is really important. We want to find out what is in there and what is not in there, and we will look at that.

Clauses 31 to 49 look at the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994, the CALP. It goes into the control of noxious weeds and pests and strengthens the related inspection enforcement powers of authorised officers, and again I want to drill down into some of what the authorised officers can and cannot do in this bill.

I note that clause 46—and the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee refers to clause 46—includes areas that look into protection against self-incrimination and work into that. The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, who present a weekly report to the Parliament, have said that they want to seek further information from the minister about the compatibility of clause 46 with the charter of human rights, so that will be most important to come back to us.

One of the things that frustrates me with governments as a whole is in terms of being a good neighbour. We have private land, and private landowners have a responsibility to keep their pests and weeds down, without a doubt. It is hugely important. I know my father used to spend hours and hours on the back of the bike going around getting rid of blackberries, tussocks and also trying to get rid of foxes and rabbits. But what has happened, to my mind, is that the Andrews government seems to have definitely dropped the ball in terms of a landscape-wide approach to habitat maintenance and protection, but also managing threatened species. What we heard in the declining ecosystems inquiry, which I was on and others in this chamber certainly were engaged in, was that there needs to be a whole-of-landscape assessment of threatened species and management of those threatened species. There should be statewide management. One of the crazy things about the bureaucracy of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, which is one of those mega departments, is that over 50 per cent of the employees in DELWP work out of the CBD of Melbourne. This is a department that caters for and should be in charge of caring for and bringing about good changes in the environment—the country, the landscape—and the bulk of them are sitting in Melbourne. About 11 per cent, give or take, are field officers.

That needs to be turned on its head. What we also know from the inquiry is that the highest threat, the largest threat to land-based species—and this came through from the CSIRO report—is invasive species, weeds and introduced predators. They are the main threats to our ecosystems and, by association then, to our farming agricultural land as well, not harvesting—and I cannot underline that enough. The other thing that is hugely affecting our ecosystems, both public tenure and private, is bushfires. We have seen the lock-up-and-leave mentality, the lack of proper burns and the lack, in the past, of engaging with our traditional owners—our firestick. Dr Victor Steffensen is one of those incredible advocates for his people but also for the right way to burn. I cannot debate this bill without putting forward those things that we need to look at.

Pests and weeds are very important to get rid of, and doing it in the right way and with the right focus needs to be addressed by any government, this one included. One of the key things that we know in regional Victoria is that blackberries on roadsides, on V/Line train tracks and on public land and mistletoe, agapanthus, arum lilies, English broom and pampas grass are all examples of weeds that were probably once planted or even sold in nurseries that now end up on our roadsides creating quite a bit of havoc. And there is a pushback from people. There are some amazing people that work in our communities, grassroots people who are ‘friends of’. I have just got an email from the Friends of Morwell National Park. They do amazing work out there to regenerate, restore and encourage birds, insects, possums and the like. Friends of the Mitta clear off English broom, and there has been an extensive eradication program. Bamboo on the Strzelecki Highway is my pet hate—I drive past it almost daily. It has escaped from somebody’s garden, and now it is taking over the roadside. I wrote to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety asking for that to be cleared. There was a slashing that occurred; in effect it was given a lovely haircut, and it has grown back with greater vim. These are the sorts of things that need to be dealt with quickly and at the root to remove them.

Another thing that is in this bill is a reference that looks at weeds coming onto people’s properties, so onto farmers’ land—the mechanism of that is that it can be brought on by tractors, trucks and vehicles—and how to go about spotting them and what the ramifications are. One of the things that this house passed a little while ago was the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, and indeed in doing that it enabled camping on riverfrontages. Our amendment to that bill looked at seeking to have farmers’—the landholders—permission to have a negotiation, and often farmers and landholders do not mind people coming onto their licensed riverfronts. But where they do, they should be able to say no, because there are some vulnerable lands along those riverfrontages. What happens there? How does that impact? Who makes some of those choices about who brings it in? I will ask those sorts of questions in the committee of the whole. It is ironic that the livestock bill that was brought in here only recently and I spoke to was about putting the brakes on a biosecurity plan and penalties there for an individual who breaches a farmer’s biosecurity plan of 60 penalty units, but the maximum for bringing some statewide weed onto a property is 480 penalty units—that is eight times greater. So let us investigate some of that in the committee of the whole.

Clauses 50 to 52 look at the Dairy Act 2000 and make changes to that in relation to removal of the ambiguity about the application of the Public Administration Act 2004 to Dairy Food Safety Victoria employees to clarify that all of those employees are subject to the values and principles that are set out in this act. My question in the committee will be: what is the notion behind this, and why are we having these values and principles apply to DFSV employees? What is not happening now that would need to happen? I want to just understand that on behalf of the community.

The next piece of legislation being amended is the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. One of the changes around that is the transportation of schedule 4 and schedule 8 medicines to treat animals that have been affected by some catastrophe, and in many cases it is wildfire. We have seen that. I remember seeing in January 2020 at the Bairnsdale airport there were wildlife officers who had all their kit and gear and guns and medicines, and they were going out to Mallacoota to administer whether it be euthanasia or support for animals out there, both native animals and domestic livestock. They were very brave in fact because they have to do a pretty gruesome job. If this can assist in that, then I think that is certainly well worth it.

I see, Acting President Patten, that you happen to be in the chair. I would like to commend the work in terms of the use of low-THC—tetrahydrocannabinol—cannabis in terms of producing locally manufactured product for medicinal purposes. I note in Wonthaggi there is an extraction plant, MediPharm Labs, which is really important. It is important because the outcome is useful and important in treating certain conditions where other medical treatments are not having success—that can be really supportive—but also it creates jobs in our region.

In terms of the Farm Debt Mediation Act 2011, which is dealt with in clauses 89 to 107, this is a really important piece of legislation. It was brought in by my colleague the Honourable Peter Walsh back in 2011 when he was the agriculture minister. He brought it in because of the millennium drought and the need to have a support network for farmers who were at risk of foreclosure of their farms because they could not meet payments on farm loans. There was a process whereby they or their families could engage with a mentor to work through their financial difficulties. Sometimes banks can come in with a fairly heavy fist, and this was a way of connecting the farmer and the bank through a mediator to discuss a way forward. There is nothing worse than losing a farm—farms are also people’s homes—and this enabled them to have that engagement. But what this does, though, is whereas once the farmer went to AgVic and then on through the small business commissioner, who then engaged the mediator for the bank, this takes out the middleman in terms of AgVic, so it is streamlining the process after some 12 years have gone by. That is a really important upgrade.

The other thing I would like to do is just give a quick shout-out to our Rural Financial Counselling Service. These are not-for-profits, and their core aim is to build aid in farming communities, build robustness, create some context and just be another ear to listen to people and understand what is happening on farm and be responsive to the pressures that the bank balance holds. I know some great local councils—Bass, Cardinia, Casey, East Gippsland, Latrobe, Mornington Peninsula, Nillumbik, Gippsland South, Wellington and the Yarra Ranges—deal with some of those. I know too that they were invaluable during that 2019 drought. They went into people’s kitchens and worked on that.

The Livestock Disease Control Act 1994 is dealt with in clauses 108 to 144. An important part within this are the cattle, sheep and goat compensation advisory committees. These are jointly funded through the states and the commonwealth. This is really important. These clauses address Victoria’s biosecurity by extending beekeeper registration requirements, establishing better risk management for livestock and providing for—this is the bit where the advisory committees come in—an exotic diseases fund to pay the costs of administering exotic disease response activities that are associated with protecting animal welfare. This means that the funds can go where they need to go, so if there is an outbreak of whatever in Queensland—whether it be an Asian bee population and the mites that they bring in—then there can be the funds directed there to mitigate those biosecurity risks. The VFF, the Victorian Farmers Federation, are quite concerned that this change in these advisory boards does not change the VFF’s role in how they appoint their member to those compensation funds. So the bill must not exclude the VFF from putting forward names of specified positions for the cattle, sheep and goat compensation committees, and I will certainly be asking the minister for assurances on behalf of the VFF. But the bill talks about skills-based committees, and we need to make sure that the various entities do have still a stake at the table. So I will be looking at that.

Other clauses look at the Plant Biosecurity Act 2010, and they are clauses 145 to 164. They change support for inspectors when interpreting and applying the act and change the definition of ‘plant health declaration’ to provide clear power to authorise a person to use a declaration, such as issuing an order to prevent the entry of pests and diseases.

The Rural Assistance Schemes Act amendments continue in clauses 165 to 167, and they just tweak a part so the rural assistance commissioner can operate part time rather than full time. That provides some flexibility, and I hope then some diversity of workers can come into that.

The Veterinary Practice Act 1997 goes to clauses 168 to 193, and this is an area that I want to discuss with the house and certainly in committee of the whole. There have been some concerns raised by the Australian Veterinary Association, and indeed Dr Hugh Millar wrote to the Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Peter Walsh, about their concerns and specifically clause 189. I will just read some of the document, the email that was sent to Peter Walsh as the shadow minister. Certainly there are 8500 members across Australia, and there is a Victorian contingent there. They say:

Regretfully, the AVA has not received the opportunity to consult on these proposed amendments.

This is a peak body in Australia, and our Victorian division represent Victorian veterinarians. One of their key concerns is that this proposal would change, in clause 189, the composition of the Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria to:

… remove the current requirement that the President and the Deputy President of the Board are registered veterinarians.

So something I just want to flag with the minister is that I would like to raise and unpack some of those assurances to make sure that there is adequate representation. They talk again about a skills base; well, it is really important, if you have got a peak body, that there is representation there from the veterinarians, so let us look into that.

The Wildlife Act 1975: clauses 194 to 195 certainly look at protecting protesters and protecting the hunters. This looks at correcting an administrative error to clarify who can remain in a specified hunting area at times during the duck season and holding a relevant game licence. So protesters—indeed anyone—must have a relevant game licence to be on game land, and that is clarified in this bill. It stops confusion about who can and cannot be on wetlands during duck season. Also a duck identification certificate will be needed to give authorised individuals the right to be on that particular wetland. What I would like to foreshadow—indeed I would be happy to circulate it now and then move it in committee—is my amendment.

Opposition amendments circulated by Ms BATH pursuant to standing orders.

Ms BATH: This amendment affects clause 194, and it seeks to insert a greater distance, an increase in distance, from 10 metres to 30 metres, improving the safety of game hunting. This is an amendment Mr Bourman was also going to move in this house, but he is unfortunately unwell and will not be in for the week. This is an important step to provide that additional level of safety, and I acknowledge Mr Bourman has the same view as the Liberals and The Nationals.

A few weeks ago there was a 30-metre duck-shooting piece of information that came around from the Game Management Authority. A lot of people have a love-hate relationship with the GMA. Some people think it is fabulous and other people want to get rid of it. I will take it as read at the moment on face value. The GMA looked at having an increase in the maximum shooting distance. There was an increase to 30 metres in order to ensure—the following examples are in place—a reduction in birds being wounded. They are going to be shot and killed effectively at that time, and there are heavy penalties if that does not occur. Certainly increasing the distance that a person has to be from somebody hunting can also provide that buffer for their own wellbeing. That is circulated, and we will move it in committee of the whole.

Finally, in the Meat Industry Act 1993, it looks at a very important factor. We love to sell our produce. We love selling it at local farmers markets and other markets, and we know the importance of that. What this means is that, if a distributor or, say, a farmers market person has a refrigerated van and the meat that they are selling has been cryovacked at an abattoir or butcher or meat processor that has a PrimeSafe licence, they themselves do not need to have that licence and therefore they can sell it and the customer can know that the quality is there, that it has been packed under high regulation and oversight and that it is a good quality of food. But it does not put an onerous nature on that person to have a PrimeSafe licence.

They are some of the amendments. Just in finalising, The Nationals and the Liberals will always back our ag industry. We value them very deeply. We know that there needs to be sufficient legislation and oversight and regulation. What we want to do is ensure that there are no negative effects from this bill, and we will certainly be investigating that in committee of the whole. I understand that there are some amendments coming from the Greens and Mr Meddick, and I will make more of a comment when we get to the committee of the whole.

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (16:49): I also rise to speak on the Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. It is a very important bill which makes some changes to 11 acts and seeks to improve the administration and enforcement of these acts which relate to Victorian biosecurity and food safety acts, the Veterinary Practice Act 1997, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992, the Meat Industry Act 1993, the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994, the Rural Assistance Schemes Act 2016 and the Farm Debt Mediation Act 2011.

We all know that the agriculture industry in Victoria plays a major, major role. It is one of our biggest industries. Some people might say Victoria punches above its weight when it comes to agriculture in comparison with other states because we produce so many things in Victoria in the agriculture sector, from beef to sheep to crops—you name it. That is why the Andrews Labor government wants to continue investing in growing our agricultural sector and making sure that the jobs it supports will continue to grow. That is why we are backing agriculture with an ambitious vision for its future.

We have invested in fact in the period of eight years we have been in government over four times more than the previous coalition government, which neglected and cut funding in agriculture and regional Victoria. I think it is very important to note that point. Despite the challenges of the pandemic and global shocks to the supply chain, Victoria remains the nation’s largest agricultural exporter, accounting for a massive 27 per cent of our national food and fibre exports. That is $14 billion in exports. For comparison, the next largest exporters are New South Wales at 19 per cent, with $9.6 billion, and Queensland at 17 per cent, with $8.6 billion. The overall value of agricultural production in Victoria is $17.8 billion and, as I said earlier, we are the largest producer in the country. We have some 21 000 farm businesses across the state, supporting 75 000 jobs in the agriculture sector predominantly located in rural and regional Victoria.

I will go through some of the breakdown. In milk, for example, we have around 64 per cent of national production. In sheep and meat we account for about 46 per cent of national production. In vegetables we are also the nation’s largest producer. Taking into account the horrible weather in northern Australia—Queensland and New South Wales—including the floods and the damage they have done to various crops, I think Victoria will come in and fill that gap. We account for about 25 per cent of national production. Our food and nuts, for example, are about 35 per cent of national production. So the Victorian agricultural sector is very, very important, and it is important that we make sure that we make all the necessary changes in legislation and foundational investment to make sure the sector continues to grow to support not just Victorians and Australia as a country—I think the export market is also very important. We know there is a lot of demand for agricultural product, particularly Australian products, in various other markets, whether it is Asian markets or European markets.

One of the areas where Victoria is leading the way is our commitment to the hemp industry. A 10-year strategy was put in place by the Andrews Labor government to provide a road map for action and investment in that sector in particular. This includes supporting that particular emerging industry to develop commercial production. It was first legalised in 1998. I was watching the news this morning, and one of the biggest votes in Queensland was in relation to medicinal cannabis, which has been legalised in Victoria. I believe the group running in Queensland nearly got a Senate seat. I know, Acting President Patten, that is something that you have a lot of interest in. I am not sure whether they are part of your party or a different party, but the point I am making is that it is a very important industry, and the Victorian government is fully behind the industry in making sure that commercial hemp crops are grown in all states and particularly in Victoria. We know Tasmania is a big commercial producer of that product. There are currently around 62 industrial hemp licence holders in Victoria, including six authorised for research purposes.

The other points of the legislation and the amendments to the various acts I will talk about address the ability to respond to animal health and welfare in an emergency. There will be further amendments to the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, which will ensure that vet practitioners can rapidly respond to animal health and welfare needs in emergencies such as bushfires and floods, and certainly we have been experiencing a fair bit of that of late. For example, the Black Summer bushfires in 2019–20 highlighted issues which delayed or prevented the urgent provision of vet supplies and medicines for the treatment of livestock, companion animals and wildlife caught up in the disaster. The commercial supply chain cannot always manage the supply and demand in an emergency, especially if you add COVID to it as well. We know there are major problems with the supply chain, not just for that particular sector in relation to drugs, poisons and controlled substances in relation to animal welfare but pretty much for everything else that is suffering because of it. The bill will make amendments to allow an animal health emergency to be declared, mirroring current provisions for public health emergency orders. So in future emergencies this provision will allow for specific requirements in the act to be suspended or altered temporarily to ensure an efficient response to animal welfare needs, and I think that it is very important that we do that.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about the outstanding veterinary and wildlife carers in Victoria, who do not hesitate to go out and respond when there is an emergency. I am so grateful for their contribution. These important amendments will help them get on their way and do their jobs, and they do some amazing work. The bill contains amendments to the Veterinary Practice Act 1997, as I said, to allow them to actually respond to emergencies.

I just want to highlight what the Andrews Labor government have introduced recently. We are supporting the introduction of free TAFE, and we have made sure that we have now added a certificate IV in vet nursing to the free TAFE list in 2022. That is one of many free TAFE certificates and diplomas, and it was important to actually add it to the list.

The other thing that I want to recognise is the former—and I take pleasure in saying ‘the former’—commonwealth government. They concluded their term on the weekend, but I want to recognise the work they have done. One of the areas we had a limited capacity in locally was in trying to increase the number of vets, and it is a process that takes about six years. The federal minister for agriculture as well as the Department of Home Affairs made the decision to add vets to the priority migration skilled occupation list. I think that is something that is welcome, and that might fill some gaps while our veterinarians are actually undergoing their training, which will take, as I said, about six years for them to actually get a full qualification.

It is important that we are able to provide the support for the animals who need it the most. I can talk from experience. Vets and vet nurses do some wonderful work, and I have been dealing with them for the last 20-odd years, whether they are looking after a sick cat, a sick dog or a sick cow or sick horses. I deal in my daily life with vets all the time, and the work they do is great work. It is very important work, because unlike with doctors and humans, animals unfortunately are not able to actually tell you what is wrong with them. You might get, where there is a physical injury or an internal injury, basically a sad look or an inability to do their normal stuff, but that is the vet’s role to basically make sure they are able to diagnose these animals and provide them with treatment. It is a very important occupation, and I am glad for all the wonderful work they do to look after animals.

There are a number of other areas the amendments will actually address. I will not go through them; I am sure other speakers will address them. There is the Farm Debt Mediation Act 2011 amendment, which makes sure farmers are able to request mediation when they are not in default and still maintains their right to be offered mediation if a creditor later intends to take enforcement action; that now will transfer back to the Victorian Small Business Commission. That will help in sort of removing some of the double handling. Also there is the Rural Assistance Schemes Act 2016. That amendment will enable external members appointed under the act to be employed on a part-time basis and will clarify ministerial delegation responsibility. Also there is the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994, which has a number of committees—four compensation committees in fact—for the control of livestock diseases like in cattle, swine, sheep, goats and bees. The amendments will allow for discretional powers for the refusal of or imposition of conditions on beekeeper registration and will also improve the administrative arrangement of the committees while continuing to ensure they are guided by industry skills and expertise. The Wildlife Act 1975—there will be some amendments to that as well, also in relation to biosecurity.

The other changes, which talk about some of the meat packaging, allow small operators to be able to operate, removing some red tape whilst maintaining the industry standard and making sure that food sold for human consumption—in fact for any consumption, including pet consumption—strictly adheres to the standard required to make sure these standards are met.

So the bill basically delivers on the commitment by the Andrews Labor government to make sure we have a viable and safe agricultural sector in Victoria and to allow it to grow. We will remove some of the red tape and streamline some of the various provisions of the various acts to make sure people get on with their day jobs and basically produce food to feed not just Victoria or Australia but in fact the world. It is important. That will go a long way to making sure we make life easier for people on the farms, making sure they continue on and strive to the highest possible standard and making sure we have got a viable industry. So with these few comments, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (17:04): I am pleased to rise to speak to the Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. I am interested in anything to do with agriculture. It is one of our most important industries, which provides us with food and clothing. We also unnecessarily and sometimes to a grotesque degree exploit the bodies and lives of others in the process. This is why I will always support the best in agriculture and always guard against the worst. As you would expect, there are a couple of areas that my constituents and animal-loving Victorians would like me to tweak in this legislation. I am bringing two amendments, one affecting the Wildlife Act 1975 and one affecting the Meat Industry Act 1993, and then later I will also be bringing an amendment to clause 189. I am happy to have all of those amendments circulated now.

Animal Justice Party amendments circulated by Mr MEDDICK pursuant to standing orders.

Mr MEDDICK: I will be speaking to the initial two amendments, the Wildlife Act one and also the Meat Industry Act one, now, but I will reserve a few comments during committee for clause 189 on the vet board.

My first amendment affects section 58C of the Wildlife Act 1975, which is the section that deals with duck shooting. My amendment broadens the scope of what it means to be a good Samaritan by ensuring rescuing ducks is recognised as a legitimate activity during duck-shooting season. A good Samaritan is someone who provides assistance or care to someone in need. For someone to be a good Samaritan there can be no expectation of reward for providing that care, and that care must be in response to someone who is in genuine need. In other words, without the care of that good Samaritan someone would suffer or possibly die. The good Samaritan law says that someone who is caring for another is not liable for anything done in good faith and cannot be prosecuted. Unfortunately, like many of our good laws, the good Samaritan law applies prejudicially and narrowly to only one species—our own. The good Samaritan law allows us to respond with empathy to someone who is suffering without fear of penalty or prosecution, but only if you are human; apparently empathy and caregiving stop at our own species. Our laws value human life whilst treating animals as expendable commodities. We are life loving and nature loving. When we see an animal suffering or in pain, most of us are compelled to help that animal. By bringing this small amendment I hope to close the gap between the best of who we are as humans and our laws, which do not always support the best of who we are.

So what does our amendment look like? Under section 58C of the Wildlife Act, in the case of duck shooting, it is an offence to be in the water before 10.00 am—that is, unless you are licensed to kill or acting under some authority, like the Game Management Authority or police. That will not change. Let me repeat: the requirements to be licensed or authorised to enter the water before 10.00 am will remain. Of course I would prefer it was legal to rescue suffering birds at any time. They may need care or rescue. It seems irrational that if someone sees an injured or suffering bird before 10.00 am it is illegal to care for them. However, these archaic laws remain, and we do not have the power to change them today. However, we can ratify duck rescue as a legitimate activity within licensing requirements.

Some shooters would have us believe that there is no need for duck rescuers, that the law is sufficient to protect against animal cruelty. The Premier himself stated that any duck shooters who break the law will feel the full force of the law. However, this year, like every year, we have witnessed facts to the contrary. This year, as every year, protected and threatened species are being shot, young are being orphaned, birds are being hurt, nests are being destroyed. Every year birds are shot, injured and spend their final moments in the mouth of a dog or having their necks twisted by shooters if the gun does not get them straightaway. Imagine their distress.

Every year rescuers find pits of dead and dying birds. While this is happening on our wetlands our good Samaritans, our duck rescuers, must stand back, watch helplessly and do nothing, or when they decide to act with courage and enter the water to help a bird before 10.00 am they may be arrested, face police, courts, prosecution and fines. These inane clauses in the Wildlife Act 1975 will unfortunately remain. Our amendment only serves one purpose—to make explicitly lawful what is currently not unlawful anyway. It is not unlawful to rescue ducks after 10.00 am now. With your support this amendment will make rescuing ducks after 10.00 am explicitly lawful, and those doing so before 10.00 am are licensed to do so. Our amendment ratifies in law what already happens anyway. Duck rescuers help injured ducks out of the water and take them to veterinary care. The reason we are bringing this amendment is to recognise that duck rescuers are an intrinsic part of duck-shooting season, acknowledge that duck rescuers are required on the wetlands every year to save not only ducks but injured endangered species, ensure that rescuing ducks is a lawful activity and that it reflects our values in law. Our amendment to section 58C will enable the wildlife regulations to be amended, which can then define what a duck rescuer is.

Colleagues, this is why I seek your support: this amendment must be accepted before the Wildlife Act can reflect duck rescue as a lawful activity. This amendment must be accepted before the regulations can define what a duck rescuer is, which can include licensing requirements. The amendment to section 58D is a simple reflection of 58C to ensure consistency in the act. With the passing of these amendments the law will better reflect two of the best characteristics of human nature—courage and compassion.

My other amendment relates to the Meat Industry Act 1993. The government is amending the definition of ‘game meat’. The animals classed as ‘game’ are generally animals that are foreign to this land. I mean, we would not include native wildlife in that definition, surely. That would be illogical. These introduced animals are defined as game, ensuring they are unprotected and vulnerable to a plethora of other lethal interventions. The protections offered by our anti-cruelty laws and our laws that protect wildlife do not apply to game animals. This government calls these introduced animals ‘ferals’ and ‘pests’. I prefer to call them ‘introduced’. There is no need to condemn them in our language. They did not ask to be brought here.

There is one species that is more condemned than any other. It is not the pig or the goat or the deer or the rabbit. You should all know what animal I am referring to—the First Nations totem, the environmental engineer, the animal that travels the songlines, the subject of art, the animal beloved around the world, the remarkable marsupial and fascinating macropod, the proud and indigenous kangaroo. Even though kangaroos are native, totemic, sacred and critical to the health of country, kangaroos are listed as game in the Meat Industry Act 1993. This belies all good sense and is frankly a continuation of the arrogant colonial mindset that still plagues this nation. On behalf of all kangaroos in this country, on behalf of First Nations communities who hold kangaroos as their totem, on behalf of all those who love and respect the wildlife on this continent, my amendment removes kangaroos from the list of species condemned as game. This is an opportunity to start giving non-human animals better protection in law. A good one to start with is our most iconic one, the kangaroo.

Ms BURNETT-WAKE (Eastern Victoria) (17:14): I rise to speak on the Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. The Liberals and The Nationals will not be opposing this bill. As Ms Bath said before, there is an amendment that she will be introducing, and I support that fully. This is quite a large omnibus bill that seeks to amend 11 different acts. It will bring about many changes, some of which I will address in my contribution today. Broadly speaking, these changes relate to inspection and enforcement powers of authorised officers, controls for noxious weeds and pests and registration of veterinary practitioners.

The first amendments that I wish to touch on are those to the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994. This bill amends that act to improve controls for noxious weeds and pest animals and to strengthen inspection and enforcement powers. It also amends offences for the spreading of noxious weeds. It inserts a new section 58C that allows the minister to declare a state prohibited weed or pest animal to be a notifiable species. It also gives the minister power to revoke that notifiable species listing if the weed is no longer a state prohibited weed or it has been eradicated. The effect of this is that any person who comes across one of those notifiable species must, without delay, notify the secretary by the quickest means of communication available.

The bill seeks to strengthen oversight and management of problem weeds and pest animals, which can only be a good thing given the toll these things take both on our environment and on our agricultural industry. This bill makes clear the penalty for buying and selling noxious weeds, which is currently 122 penalty units but it is soon to be up to 480 penalty units. The penalties differ depending on the category of weed. At nearly $182 a penalty unit, that is a fine of over $87 000 for buying or selling a noxious weed or seed. That seems quite significant; however, the diseases that come from noxious plants and pest animals are incredibly dangerous to our agricultural industries. They have the potential to wipe out an entire industry.

There are many successful farms across Eastern Victoria Region—my region—and today the chamber is very lucky that it has two eastern region representatives promoting the region and talking about our wonderful area. Gippsland has a booming beef and dairy industry, and potatoes are one of many of the specialties that come from the Narracan and Bass electoral communities. Agriculture and farming are the bread and butter for so many of my constituents in Eastern Victoria Region, and it is important that we do crack down on noxious weeds and pests as they are definitely a threat to these industries.

There are also many community groups in Eastern Victoria Region that focus on improving our environment by eradicating weeds, and I want to take some time to talk about some of those today. There are some amazing volunteer groups that come to mind, such as the Friends of Sassafras Creek, the Community Weed Alliance of the Dandenongs and the Friends of Gembrook Park. I know that the Friends of Gembrook Park were recently calling on locals to help remove English holly from Gembrook Park, and I would like to congratulate them on eliminating most of the English holly from the park and for their ongoing work in removing this invasive plant.

The Community Weed Alliance of the Dandenongs also do a wonderful job of educating the community on the importance of eradicating weeds through various public talks. Where I live in the Dandenong Ranges we have huge problems with English ivy and wandering trad, just so invasive all throughout the Dandenongs. I myself have been fortunate enough to attend one of these excellent community education programs. I learned so much, so I just commend the Community Weed Alliance of the Dandenongs for putting these programs together for the community to attend.

There are many other groups right across the Eastern Victoria Region that do this type of work, so just thank you so much for all of those groups that take the time to do the wonderful work they do. If you think about it, if all of these volunteer hours were put together for removing all the weeds that they do, it would come at huge cost, so if you look at it from that perspective and then consider the levels of the fines—anyone looking to buy and sell harmful plants will be met with a huge fine—it does make sense to me why the fines are so big considering the issues that these weeds and pests can cause.

One of the main issues with weed control in the Dandenongs is the fact that we are surrounded by state-owned national parks. In fact that is an issue right across Eastern Victoria Region. State governments are responsible for managing the risk of invasive plants and animals. This is sadly not what happens in reality. One of the worst neighbours you could have is the state government, because that parcel of land will most likely be riddled with weeds and pest animals that are not controlled in the ways they are meant to be. Under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994, all landowners, public and private, have an obligation to the environment to manage their weeds, yet the state government do not seem to think that this applies to them. These weeds only spread, making things more difficult for surrounding landowners and the environment.

The next amendments I wish to discuss are the changes to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992. Under this bill, authorised officers will be given increased inspection powers. This includes the ability to inspect any part of a property to ensure correct chemical product labelling is used. Officers can also enter properties if they reasonably suspect that equipment at the place is being used to manufacture chemical products or that there is likely to be contaminated produce on the farm. They can ask questions, they can take photos and they can take samples, so there is quite a lot that they can do. One of the main concerns that has been raised with me is that officers will be able to enter homes. However, the legislation makes it clear that the powers do not include the power to enter the residence. They may enter and search the shed on a property, for example, but not the home.

The Liberals and The Nationals do have some concern around the notice requirements for landowners, because in some situations the landowner does not live on the farm or may not be present. Authorised officers can enter the land without the occupier being present but must, on leaving, leave a notice setting out the time of entry, the purpose, a description of all the things done while on the land and the time of their departure. I have some problems with this. This brings to mind the issue that I previously raised in this chamber of the Pakenham East property acquisitions, where the Level Crossing Removal Authority acquired properties to make way for new train stations. Some of my constituents were not home when the state representatives knocked on their door to inform them they would be taking their land. Residents were left to find out what was happening in the newspaper the next morning. When I raised this issue in the chamber, the response I received was to the effect that notices were put in the letterbox if residents were not home. That may have been the case, but whether that is fair and what Victorians should expect their government to do is another question. In this unfortunate case the residents did not check the letterbox before reading the morning newspaper. I personally do not think that a note in a letterbox or attached to a fence post is always appropriate. There are too many what-ifs, especially when these decisions impact on people’s livelihoods. If a notice is nailed to a fence post on a large property and it rains and the landowner does not see it, what happens then? It becomes a bit of a he-said, she-said situation and opens the door for conflict around these powers to inspect. My colleagues in the other place asked questions around this and were told common sense would prevail. I think it would be more common sense to make it clear in the legislation exactly how non-present landowners will be kept informed of what has been done on their property.

The last thing I wish to quickly discuss is amendments to the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. These will allow an animal health emergency to be declared, which means vital medicines that are required in times of emergency are able to be provided quickly. East Gippsland was devastated by fires two years ago, and many animals were harmed or seriously injured. A lot of these animals were taken to the animal hospital at Healesville Sanctuary or helped by various local vets. These changes will ensure that drugs are available on the ground in bushfires and emergencies. I know this definitely would have been very helpful in Eastern Victoria Region two years ago, and I am glad to see that this is incorporated into this bill.

There are many aspects of this bill, and it is difficult to discuss them all with the time that I have, but overall the new powers for authorised officers should help prevent invasive pests and diseases being spread and act as protection to our vital farming and agricultural industries. On one hand we have the government introducing new powers but on the other hand they are cutting jobs from Agriculture Victoria. As Ms Bath said in her contribution, the funding has been completely gutted; there is nothing in the budget. In February Agriculture Victoria were looking for workers to enter into early retirement to redirect money elsewhere. There is no point introducing these extra powers if there are no staff to enforce them. I would urge the government to stop cutting funds from agriculture in Victoria. Our farmers and their families work incredibly hard, and they are worthy of support. I will leave my contribution there.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (17:25): I have had the benefit of listening to the contributions on this bill, the Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. It is a very important bill, but I will confine remarks to the amendments in regard to supporting veterinarians. As we know, our veterinarians do amazing work. They look after our most treasured furry and feathered friends, or children, and I will confine my contribution to this. The Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill contains amendments to the Veterinary Practice Act 1997. I will just go through and, as I said, acknowledge the outstanding work that our veterinarians do in helping us to keep our furry and feathered family friends safe and well.

On Saturday, 30 April, World Veterinary Day was marked, and it was a day to celebrate the outstanding work that our vets do, and did, and to promote their profession. I want to acknowledge it has been a difficult few years for vets right across Victoria. Off the back of the bushfires we went straight into a pandemic, which has seen a surge in pet ownership and a subsequent surge in demand on vets. All this has coincided with a shortage of vets and also a shortage of vet nurses. In fact we have heard from many vets that the strain has led to high levels of burnout and vets leaving the industry. Unfortunately we also often hear of the emotional toll that this takes on the mental health of those in the vet industry. Their work is stressful in nature and in higher demand than ever before. That is why it is so important that we support our veterinarians, and that is exactly what our government is doing.

In recognition of the staff shortages and capacity constraints faced by the vet industry, the government recently added the certificate IV in vet nursing to the free TAFE list for 2022. Through this investment more Victorians will be encouraged to participate in education and training and broaden their employment opportunities within the veterinary sector. I can attest to the fact that the addition of the cert IV in vet nursing studies has been very, very popular—it is a popular course amongst many people in Victoria—and it is great to see such an interest in a really important skill and training offering.

Through this investment, as I said, Victorians will be encouraged to participate in education and training, and this will broaden those employment opportunities within the sector. But we recognise that there is a limit to our local capacity to train increased numbers of vets, a process which takes six years. The Minister for Agriculture has welcomed the Australian Department of Home Affairs decision to add veterinarians to the priority migration skilled occupation list. Occupations on this list are recognised as providing critical skills needed to support Australia’s economic recovery from COVID and will be given priority for processing. So while these are not short-term solutions, we will begin to see an easing of the significant strains faced by veterinary professionals.

All Victorians can be grateful for the outstanding work done by vets, vet nurses and their colleagues in such challenging circumstances. However, government support does not end there. Our Animal Welfare Fund also directly supports vet clinics that offer low-cost services to Victorian pet owners. Since we were elected more than $5.8 million has been awarded to over 100 organisations, including vet clinics and animal shelters. At the 2018 election we promised $2 million in grants for not-for-profit and community vet clinics to maintain and expand their services and for new low-cost clinics to be set up in areas of need around Victoria.

The grants have included $150 000 for the new Westside Community Desexing clinic, which is now open in Sunshine, providing a dedicated cat desexing clinic for the western suburbs, and over $200 000 awarded to the Lort Smith Animal Hospital for its new Campbellfield facility. A total of $250 000 has been awarded to the Australian Animal Protection Society and its facility in Keysborough, including $150 000 for its new community vet clinic. Meow and Friends Community Vet, based in Cranbourne West, received $50 000 to expand its desexing facilities and introduce new dental services to its clinic, and the Lost Dogs Home has now received over $46 000 to upgrade its veterinary dental equipment.

Vets are registered and regulated by a professional body, the Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria, which is established under the Veterinary Practice Act 1997. The vet board has also experienced increasing demand, and this bill responds with improvements to the administrative provisions, including ensuring that the board is able to conduct hearings and meetings online using modern technology, and we know this is something that has also been highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Other amendments in the bill go to improving information-sharing provisions, providing additional investigation and enforcement opportunities for complaints and allowing more flexibility in and around registration. I might leave my contribution there so other speakers can have more time to speak. I commend this bill to the house.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (17:31): I am pleased to rise and speak very briefly on the Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. This omnibus bill covers a lot of ground. I will not speak to it in detail, as my colleague the member for Melbourne has covered key points for the Greens in the other place. I would, however, like to flag the really important amendments I will be moving to this bill in the committee stage. The amendments I will move are to introduce a ban in Victoria on the general sale of a dangerous group of rat poisons known as second-generation poisons. I am happy for those amendments to be circulated now.

Greens amendments circulated by Dr RATNAM pursuant to standing orders.

Dr RATNAM: These poisons, which can be bought in a supermarket or hardware store, are harming and killing our native wildlife and also people’s pets—pet cats and dogs. There is absolutely no need for these poisons, as there are alternatives already available that are safe for wildlife and pets. These amendments are exciting, because while they follow what has happened in Europe, the US and Canada, they are the first of their kind in Australia. I will explain the amendments and why they are so important more fully in the committee stage, and I strongly urge all MPs to consider supporting these amendments to protect our native birds, mammals and reptiles in Australia.

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (17:32): I just rise to make a very brief contribution on the Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, which makes a number of relatively small changes to various acts of Parliament—in fact 11 acts of Parliament; it is an omnibus bill—and my colleague Ms Bath has gone through all of those in detail. The government has described this as just the modernising of existing legislation or harmonising of our legislation with other states. There is only one issue that I want to raise. Before I say that, the opposition is not opposing the legislation, and there have been no concerns on this legislation raised by the major stakeholders in agriculture.

However, in the last week or so we have had a number of people contact our office who are very concerned that something in this bill will stop them growing their own food. These are individuals who are growing for their own use, not for commercial purposes. I would just like the minister, in her summing-up of the legislation, to put their minds at ease, to put on the record that this will not mean that people will not be able to have their own vegetable patches or their own chooks in their backyard, that the inspectors will not be going into private homes or private households or properties in order to enact parts of this bill. I believe that there was a campaign on social media about this bill that has caused a lot of grief to a lot of individuals, and it will be good if the minister could clarify in the summing up of the bill that this will not be used to go after people who grow their own food.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:34): I move:

That debate be adjourned until later this day.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until later this day.