Thursday, 26 May 2022

Bills

Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms PULFORD:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (10:55): I rise to speak on the Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. This bill will make amendments to 11 different acts. These amendments are to improve efficiency, operation, administration and enforcement, and my contribution will be brief. While the amendments are primarily administrative, a number of concerns have been raised with me by my community members. These include concerns regarding hemp cultivation, cultivating fruit and vegetables, access to properties as well as the organic and biodynamic farming industries. There are also concerns about the amendments to the Veterinary Practice Act 1997 and the Wildlife Act 1975. Now, during the committee stage of this bill I will hopefully be able to determine if these concerns are founded and the intentions behind these amendments.

However, I personally have another concern. Agriculture is vital to all of us. It is the food we eat, but it also has a huge financial impact on this state. We need to make sure that we get this right. This legislation gives more enforcement powers to relevant departments, particularly around the control of pests, both plants and animals. These can only be effectively controlled by departments working together with farmers and with industry, yet this government has cut the staff who were in these positions. Will the government really be able to efficiently implement these changes? I do not know. I look forward to this committee stage.

I would just like to raise a couple of the concerns. I know that I have given the government these questions that my constituents have raised with me, and hopefully we will be able to have a very fulsome committee stage with some fulsome answers to my community’s concerns. One of my resident’s concerns was around a report demonstrating that the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is continuously contravening the regulations, resulting in an unwarranted duplication of regulatory effort and regulatory burdens on business. They believe that there is not enough demarcation in these regulations between private residents and farmers and that there is a misinterpretation of the legislation for the purpose of the scope of this legislation.

The Australian Federation Party also had concerns that this bill would actually allow the APVMA the ability to prohibit, suppress or reject organic or biodynamic hemp industry farmers from agriculture, thus denying organic certification peak bodies the ability to regulate their own legislation. This bill is badly scoped, in their belief, in that it could result in numerous duplications and confusion, and ultimately they believe that it stops the autonomy of Victorian farmers.

Another concern that was raised by one of my residents was around protections to guarantee the food supply in Victoria, and this was from Rob in Tarneit. One of my residents from Williamstown also sent me a very fulsome email, which I have forwarded on to the department. Like I have said, I want fulsome answers in the committee stage, so I am hoping that by giving you the concerns that were raised on the clauses by these constituents I actually will get fulsome answers in the committee stage.

This resident believes that there is not enough demarcation regarding the rights of organic, biodynamic and alternative farmers, and they are worried around what authorised officers will allow in inspecting their farms. One of the other questions they raised was that they are worried that they are going to be allowed to shut down organic farmers for non-compliance due to toxic chemicals. They also have concerns about what happens around corporate-owned farm dumped chemicals into waterways that consistently affect neighbouring farms. How will they be reviewed and potentially fined?

There are many concerns that I have. There is one other. My last concern that people have raised with me is the actual removal of the Department of Health. Why is this being removed, seeing that in lots of ways the Department of Health can go hand in glove with agriculture? I will be, hopefully, getting fulsome answers from the minister during the committee stage. I will leave my contribution at that.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (11:01): I would like to rise to speak briefly on this bill. As speakers before have said, this is a very broad piece of legislation that covers a number of other acts and a number of areas of our agriculture industry. I note Dr Cumming’s contribution. I think many of us have received some quite alarmist emails about what this bill might do, whether it is pulling up people’s veggie gardens in their back gardens or impacting on the biodynamic industry or the organic industry. I have no doubt that certainly some of the correspondence I have received has cleared up some of those concerns and found that they are unwarranted.

The area that I just want to touch on today is the amendments to how we treat hemp licences and how we treat the small but burgeoning hemp industry in Victoria. As many of you know, we established a hemp task force here in this Parliament. I am fortunate to be a member of that task force. This is really to look at the challenges and opportunities that the industry is facing. I am pleased to say that this bill does go to some of those challenges, one in particular, which is around aligning the THC allowed in hemp plants across the nation so we will have a standardised measurement for that, which will enable much greater import-export, particularly across our state borders.

This product has incredible potential. It is quite an extraordinary plant. It is a crop that Victoria should be doing everything in its power to enable and to build. Hemp has been in Australia since the First Fleet. Hemp seeds came out with Sir Joseph Banks. There are some theories that not only were we designed to be a penal colony but we were designed to be a hemp colony, because as we know, back in the 18th century the British navy survived on hemp. The British navy could not exist without hemp. Its sails were made of hemp, its rope was made of hemp, its uniforms were made from hemp, and most of its hemp came from Russia. We were seeing those Crimean wars way back then, and it is a timely reminder today—not that we buy much of our hemp from Russia anymore—that the reason that they looked at hemp down in Australia was that they were worried about the regular supply of hemp coming from the Russian nations back in the late 18th century. Hemp has been in this country for well over 200 years. It is a product that has been grown for thousands of years. If you look at some of the most ancient Chinese manuscripts that still exist, they were made from hemp paper, and they still exist because they were made from hemp.

Hemp is making plastics. It is cleaning up toxic soils. It is cleaning up toxic water. It has got innumerable uses. Look at the bioplastic polymers; if anyone is interested, I have got a hemp bowl in my office that is strong. I literally have thrown it around the car park here trying to break it. It will not scratch. It will not break. It is an extraordinary product. Really, in a weird way it is quite magical. It is extremely light, it is extremely strong, it is biodegradable and it is renewable, unlike the petroleum-based plastics we are using now. Products that feel just like plastic are made from grinding up the hemp stalk. You just grind it up, mix it with water and make yourself some plastic. In fact there is a company, sadly not in Victoria but operating now out of Tasmania, that is looking to supply little disposable salad bowls for Woolworths and Coles because they can do a translucent one.

I am just trying to paint the picture that hemp is an incredibly diverse and important crop, and it should be the future for paper in Victoria. In fact it should be the future for timber in Victoria. If you are interested, I have also got some composite hemp products that mimic a four-by-two plank, that mimic plywood, but are stronger, and rather than waiting 20 years for trees to grow, it takes four months for a hemp plant to grow. One acre of hemp can produce as much paper as 4 to 10 acres of trees.

Ms Symes: Still going on about this?

Ms PATTEN: Every opportunity I get to talk about hemp, I will. We are saying that 1 acre of hemp produces as much paper as 4 to 10 acres of trees, and the hemp takes four months to grow compared to the 10 to 20 or even 80 years that we need for the trees. It has got a far higher concentration of cellulose than wood, which is why it goes further.

These are just two products, but it can do rope, it can do textiles, it can do clothing and it can do shoes, food, insulation, hempcrete and biofuel, so you could literally run a city on hemp. In fact I was looking at some hemp buildings the other night. One acre of hemp will build a building, so you could actually grow your own buildings in Victoria in four months rather than in the decades that it would take to do that with timber.

As I mentioned, I support the aspects of this bill that align the THC values across the jurisdictions, and that is something that the hemp task force really did—we made those recommendations. But the hemp industry says we need a goal of 1 million acres, and at the moment I think we are at about 288 hectares, so we have got a long way to go. We need to be encouraging agriculture to take on this crop, and this bill does not do that.

What we heard loud and clear from farmers and people involved in the industry is that we need to remove the stigma around hemp, and there still is significant stigma around hemp. It has been caught up in the kind of hard-on-drugs, cannabis debate for decades—for centuries. In fact there was that link that was erroneously made earlier, in probably the 1950s, that led to a prohibition on hemp. Hemp is really only coming back in this century again.

We needed to simplify and streamline those licences. I acknowledge there have been some improvements in that area. I think the last tranche of changes to those licences went way too broad, so we were looking for police records of a stepson. We took a very broad definition, and I am pleased to see that this bill has narrowed that. But still, the fact that in this bill the Chief Commissioner of Police can veto a hemp licence sends a completely wrong message about what a hemp crop is. A hemp crop is not a cannabis crop. It is not an opium poppy crop. It is a crop that makes great paper, makes great clothes, could make great plastic, could make great houses, could make great roads, could make great hempcrete sound barriers. It should not be taken to this much higher level of licensing, as if it is somehow dangerous.

I note also—and the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee noted this in their report—the exemption from the spent convictions scheme. So even if someone had a very historical conviction for something, that would be disclosed in deciding whether this person could have a hemp licence. I mean, you would probably get more danger out of growing a rapeseed crop, and certainly if you were growing acacia. The types of poisons and drugs that you can pull out of acacia—DMT for one—are far more dangerous than this, and you are not asking for licences for people to grow acacia, even though very dangerous substances could be produced from that.

I will signal now that I intend to vote against, at the very least, clauses 57 and 58 of this bill. I think that it was a real missed opportunity, that we should have got ahead of the curve here and that this bill should have been about promoting the hemp industry, about promoting the opportunities of hemp in Victoria, rather than what I am seeing here. It is further stigmatising, it is further telling potential growers that this is a dangerous crop and that the police commissioner may have a role in deciding whether they can grow it or not. So as I said, I think it is a missed opportunity. We still have a hemp task force, so I am still optimistic that we can start promoting this industry in Victoria in other meaningful ways. But on that note I will finish my contribution, and I look forward to listening to the committee of the whole.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (11:12): I will be brief. The Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 is an omnibus bill making amendments to 11 separate acts. These changes include increasing fees and regulation and removing the need to apply to courts for access to private land. The bill is generating considerable concern in both the farming community and the community at large. This concern seems to have taken the government by surprise, possibly because, as usual, they did very little consultation. Some of the concerns may be misguided. The government is probably not currently planning to rip up everyone’s backyard gardens or choke out the supply of game-harvested protein in order to increase their grip on the food supply. But the government’s actions over the last two years have fuelled and grown the segment of the population that is concerned about these issues, and now they will need to address these concerns with every piece of legislation they introduce—and if they ignore that, the problem will only get worse. If portions of the powers under these acts were fully enforced, it would lead to the shutdown of agriculture in Victoria—indeed of daily life outside the cities. The fact that the government has no real intent to enforce this legislation in that fashion only means it is bad legislation.

The bill will increase fees being charged to landholders for inspectors to do the same job that they are currently doing. There are increased powers given to authorised officers without any increased scrutiny of those powers. There are increased rights of access to private land and fewer checks over the exercise of those powers. It is not clear that there is currently a significant problem with inspectors gaining access to lands. This appears to just be an expansion of state powers.

Under the bill any farmer taking stock to market can be stopped and his animals inspected for a seed that may or may not have come from the property. Any vehicle moving around the state can be stopped and searched by police on the pretext that it will have a seed—as indeed it will, somewhere. The bill increases the penalties for transporting soil across Victoria or machinery—agricultural or earthmoving. Regardless of how well cleaned machinery is after use, seeds will be hiding somewhere. It is just not practicable to do a full decontamination of all machinery each time it moves. Of course the laws will not be enforced in this way, because we lack the capability or the will to do so. Any law that only works in reality because it is mostly ignored is bad law.

The bill creates clear penalties for various infractions involving noxious weeds, but given the abundance of noxious weeds, particularly grass species in certain areas, it criminalises ordinary behaviour for many landholders. These laws deal with absolutes, but without reasonably practical clauses you are theoretically outlawing economic activity across regional Victoria.

A beekeeper will now be charged for the cost of an inspector watching them destroy infected beehives. Beekeepers have been very active in self-policing and self-reporting and destroying their infected beehives. This system has been working for decades. It calls into question why there is a need for this change. As far as I can tell it is only about extra revenue and extra regulation; at least the government is consistent. The fact that individuals in these industries will now have to pay for the pleasure of self-reporting may well act as a disincentive. This should have crossed the mind of someone in government. Perhaps it would have done had there been more consultation. Many concerns have been raised with me around the impact on organic farmers of this bill. That is also a concern.

Weeds are a huge problem for agricultural industries. I do not doubt that many farmers would welcome increased enforcement of weed control. On the farm where I grew up we would spend weeks every year controlling weeds, and I was brought up with constant fuming about failure to control weeds by private landholders and those charged with enforcing it. Of course the greatest offender when it comes to weed control is the government. Vast areas of public land are overrun with weeds, and the government has neither the capacity nor the will to do anything about it. If you speak to any landholder who shares a boundary with Crown-controlled land, you will hear an endless tale of woe. Crown land spews out feral animals that destroy livestock and crops, native fauna and flora and weeds that farmers are required to control. If that landholder is losing the battle against the infestation coming from the state forest or the national park, they can now look forward to an authorised officer coming onto their property and handing them an increased fine. Oddly, the government seems strangely reluctant to enforce penalties for failure to control weeds against itself, and there is nothing in this bill that will change that. We might even say that part of the purpose of this bill is to cover up the government’s complete abdication of responsibility in this area.

Many agricultural groups self-fund education programs and even self-fund their own biosecurity officers. The agricultural industries have been working to eradicate disease and weed infestations for decades without the threat of increased fines and government intervention. The need to maintain biosecurity is essential to the farming communities in Victoria. But this legislation ignores the responsibility the government has in its own backyard and increases fines and regulations for those who have been and will continue to protect the agricultural industries—the farmers themselves.

It is unclear exactly why changes are being made to the supply of meat for pet food consumption and human consumption. On reading this bill I was shocked to discover that it is currently illegal in Victoria for farmers to kill an animal for their own consumption. That is already government overreach. I only found that out very recently. If I had had more time, I would have proposed an amendment to allow farmers to kill animals on their own farms again. But I have not done that—one day in the future, perhaps. We are now apparently making it illegal to kill and dress game for human consumption or to supply as pet food. It seems that game meat can still be processed in a licensed mobile abattoir for human consumption but not for pet food. This appears to be more nonsense.

I am well aware of the need to control weeds in agriculture, and I am not necessarily opposed to increased penalties for the failure to do so. But I believe that the government’s failure to consult more widely has resulted in a bill with enough areas that go too far for us not to support it.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (11:19): I thank members for their contributions on this bill so far, which will support Victoria’s agriculture industry and help safeguard food security, food safety and access to export markets which are vital to the state’s economy. Ms Bath discussed some questions which have been raised by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. The Minister for Agriculture, Mary-Anne Thomas, has responded to the committee on those issues. Regarding protections against self-incrimination, it is necessary that a person answer questions or produce evidence due to the potentially large ramifications for the environment and economy of the failure of a person to discharge their duties and statutory responsibilities in relation to land management. The provisions provide a protection against direct self-incrimination where a person required to answer a question claims that their answer may incriminate them. The provision is reasonably justified and appropriate for persons who have assumed statutory duties to protect against broader environmental, cultural and economic harms where there is a strong requirement for remedial or enforcement action in relation to a failure.

In regard to penalties relating to noxious weeds, the bill graduates the penalties for noxious weed offences by declaration category—for example, from state prohibited weed to regionally prohibited weed, regionally controlled weed or restricted weed. The amended penalty units will improve alignment with penalties for equivalent pest animal offences. As noted by Ms Burnett-Wake in her contribution, these penalties reflect the seriousness of the threat posed by pests and weeds, which can severely damage agricultural industries.

In regard to the Dairy Act 2000, an amendment will ensure that Dairy Food Safety Victoria employees are accountable for their conduct against public sector codes of conduct and values. This is as expected by businesses and community members dealing with Victoria’s dairy regulator.

Ms Bath also raised changes to the appointments to the livestock disease compensation committees. The Minister for Agriculture has met and discussed these changes with the Victorian Farmers Federation. The minister has also written to the VFF to assure them that the changes do not preclude current prescribed industry bodies from continuing to nominate candidates for appointment as members of the committees. In advance of any committee appointment process, Agriculture Victoria will engage with the current nominating bodies, including the VFF, about how they can assist in promoting the committees’ roles within their membership and industry networks. These steps will help ensure that the committees continue to reflect the industry they serve.

This is a largely administrative and routine bill. However, misleading information circulating online has generated concerns amongst some members of our community. This has been noted by Ms Bath, Ms Lovell and other members in their contributions, and I welcome the opportunity to allay these concerns. Let us be crystal clear: this bill will not result in the destruction of crops, nor will it prevent people from growing their own food. Any suggestion to the contrary is false and misrepresents proposed changes in the bill. The amendments provide appropriate powers where they are needed, balanced with important limitations and obligations. As noted by Ms Burnett-Wake, this bill does not confer powers to search residences.

In response to the concerns raised by members in the community who have seen these claims, Agriculture Victoria has published a fact sheet on its website to provide accurate information. These claims have also been independently fact checked by outlets including Australian Associated Press. Claims that amendments in the bill will ban or in any way prevent Victorians from growing their own food are false. No-one will be prevented from growing their own food as part of these changes, and they will not result in the destruction of crops, whether they are grown on farms or in backyards. Our government firmly supports and encourages the right of people and communities to grow their own fresh fruit and vegetables. We also want to grow our agriculture industry and our exports to help supply more food to the world. Our produce is renowned locally and globally for its high quality, nutritional value and safety. Now, that is a reputation we want to protect.

Both Ms Bath and Mr Meddick have circulated amendments to the Wildlife Act 1975 which impact on the access of wetlands and proximity to hunters. It is vital that we maintain safety on wetlands. Existing provisions ensure a safe separation between hunters and non-hunters. Therefore the government does not support changes to these provisions. Mr Meddick has also circulated an amendment which would remove kangaroos from the definition of ‘game’. The government does not support this amendment, which would make the kangaroo harvesting program unviable and prevent the use of kangaroo meat as a sustainable, high-protein food source.

Mr Bourman—although he is not present today, and I wish him all the best in terms of his recovery—has raised with the government questions concerning proposed changes to the Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria. This has also been raised by Mr Meddick and was raised again by Ms Bath yesterday and I think this morning as well. I would like to have a house amendment to this circulated now.

Government amendment circulated by Ms TIERNEY pursuant to standing orders.

Ms TIERNEY: This concerns retaining the requirement for the president and the deputy president of the board to be registered veterinary practitioners. The Victorian government believes in the importance of having an open and transparent selection process to support diversity and inclusion across all government bodies. The amendments in this bill are consistent with Victorian government policy on good board governance, including that appointments be skills and experience based. However, the government recognises the need for further engagement with veterinary practitioners and the Australian Veterinary Association on this issue, and as such the government will not pursue the proposal to remove the requirement for the vet board president and deputy president to be registered practitioners in this bill.

Ms Burnett-Wake raised concerns over notices of entry in her contribution. Under amendments to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992 authorised officers are required to notify the occupier of the premises, such as a farmer, that it is being entered in the course of their duties. Where an occupier cannot be located—for example, in remote areas—authorised officers can enter but are to leave a notice of entry to inform the occupier. The notice includes details of the authorised officer, the purpose of the visit, what actions were taken, date and time et cetera. AOs must leave the notice in a conspicuous manner on the land or premises—for example, main gate or front door. A notice left is unlikely to be the only means of communication with the occupier. Usually further communication would be required with the occupier once contactable. Should the occupier not see the notice, there would only be limited impact, as the proposed notices of entry do not put any obligations or requirements on the occupier.

Dr Ratnam has circulated an amendment which would introduce a ban on second-generation rodenticides. The Victorian government acknowledges emerging concerns about the risks associated with second-generation pesticides, particularly in relation to impacts on non-target domestic animals and wildlife. That is why Agriculture Victoria has been working with the national regulatory body, which is undertaking a review of these products. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority is an independent statutory authority responsible for registering and approving agricultural chemicals, including rodenticides, before they can be supplied or used. The authority has the appropriate scientific capability to assess the risks associated and has the powers to determine controls on sale. The proposed amendment does not align with current national agreements on regulating agricultural chemicals, and it is important to maintain, we believe, national consistency on these measures. Therefore the government does not support the amendment.

I thank members again for their contributions so far and look forward to the committee stage.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Instruction to committee

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem) (11:29): I have considered the amendments proposed by Dr Ratnam’s set SR104C, and in my view these amendments are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 15.07 is required.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (11:29): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have power to consider amendments and new clauses to amend the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992 to prohibit the sale of certain rodenticides.

I would like to speak to my instruction motion briefly, because I am concerned that it has become the trend a bit in this chamber that instruction motions are voted down despite being a practice of this house for many, many years. Instruction motions are really important.

One of the reasons I am moving the instruction motion is to introduce amendments that address a big problem in Australia—that is, the fact that dangerous poisons which are harming and killing native wildlife can be easily bought in supermarkets and hardware stores right across Victoria. These poisons, called second-generation poisons, build up in birds, mammals and reptiles that consume poisoned rats and mice. The list of species affected is enormous and includes owls, eagles, parrots, quolls, possums, snakes and lizards. Pet cats and dogs are also affected. Last year, during the New South Wales mouse plague, vets were treating so many poisoned pets that the treatment drugs had to be rationed.

The damage being done by these poisons is widespread and deeply concerning. A Western Australian study found second-generation poisons in over 70 per cent of southern boobook owls, with lethal concentrations in 18 per cent. A Tasmanian study of wedge-tailed eagles found 74 per cent had detectable levels of these poisons, with 34 per cent measuring at levels that would cause likely adverse effects from toxicity and a further 22 per cent with likely lethal levels. In Victoria 61 per cent of powerful owls, an endangered species, had toxic levels of poisons.

The truly tragic thing is that this widespread wildlife poisoning is completely unnecessary. We have alternative rodent poisons available, and these harmful ones should simply not be available on retail shelves. Australia is well behind on this issue. In Europe, the US and Canada second-generation poisons have already been banned from domestic sale. They are still allowed in some circumstances, such as professional pest control, but with tight rules to limit any flow-on effects for wildlife. It is time for Australia to follow suit and protect our wildlife. I am excited that if my amendments were successful Victoria could lead the way, as we do on so many issues.

To enable retailers to comply with the ban, our amendments have a one-year introduction period. It is also important to note that, like the regulation of these poisons overseas, our amendments set up a power to create regulations for when and how second-generation poisons can be used—for example, by a professional pest controller with strict conditions.

Now, I know that the federal government is also looking into this issue, which is welcome. However, I am concerned by how slow this process is and that it may result in a weak policy response, such as labelling changes. This simply does not go far enough and puts all the burden on consumers. America tried this approach, and it failed, so let us not make the same mistake here.

I am also aware that the ACT and Victoria are looking at the issue from the angle of our nature laws. I believe both jurisdictions are looking at whether these provisions should be listed as a ‘threatening process’. While this is really important, ultimately we need to be removing the poisons from public sale, and that is what our amendments do today.

I hope to see widespread support for these amendments. They are important, they are overdue and they will make a huge difference to our wildlife, which already faces so many threats. I urge the members of this chamber to support the instruction motion, which would allow us to have a more fulsome debate on the amendments. You can then record your opposition or support for the amendments when we come to the substantive motion, but I think it is a really important practice that we allow instruction motions and out-of-scope amendments because it has been a practice of this house that allows matters of real public importance to be tabled when a bill is before us.

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (11:33): I will not be speaking for very long other than to say that I will be supporting this instruction motion and, if it should pass, I will also be supporting Dr Ratnam’s amendments. As a wildlife rescuer myself of many years down in the Surf Coast region it will not surprise the chamber to know that I am in constant contact with many and varied different rescue groups in that area, and I am aware of almost every single incident where rodenticides have been used in various rural properties. It invariably coincides with a following of many—and when I say many, up to over 100 at any individual time—species such as powerful owls, for instance, being found that have consumed mice and rats that have consumed these poisons and been subsequently killed themselves. Autopsies have been undertaken, and it has been determined that this secondary contamination is what has killed them. It is not just limited to them, of course. It includes other raptor-like species, and it is highly concerning given the essential role that they play in our ecosystem and the balance of that ecosystem. So again, I will be supporting both the instruction motion and the amendments should that pass.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (11:34): The government will not be supporting the instruction motion. I gave the reasons for this in my summing-up speech, but for the sake of clarity, the point the government makes is that we acknowledge that there are concerns and risks associated with second-generation rodenticides, particularly in relation to the impact on non-targeted domestic animals and wildlife, but that is why Agriculture Victoria is working with the national regulatory body which is undertaking a review of these products. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority is an independent statutory authority responsible for registering and approving agricultural chemicals, including rodenticides, before they can be supplied or used. The authority has, we believe, the appropriate scientific capability to assess the risks associated with this and has the powers to determine controls on sale. We believe that this proposal does not align with current national agreements on regulating agricultural chemicals, and we believe that it is important to maintain national consistency on these measures. As a result of that, we do not support the instruction motion and we will not support the proposed amendments.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:36): I note this is a debate on an instruction motion, and the content of the debate has broadened much beyond the instruction motion to a debate on the substance of the proposed amendments that Dr Ratnam wants to bring forward to the chamber. Obviously the reason that has happened is because, as Dr Ratnam pointed out, recently there have been occurrences where instruction motions have been not supported. It is very much my view that this chamber should support instruction motions. The only party that benefits from the chamber not supporting instruction motions is the government, and I think in the interests of appropriate debate we should return to the practice we have had historically of this chamber supporting instruction motions, obviously when they are within reasonable scope of the bill—not outlandishly outside the scope of the bill—to ensure that there is an opportunity for appropriate debate so that instruction motions themselves do not become the forum for the substantive debate. For that reason, we will support this instruction motion, and we would hope to see a return to this house’s previous practice of supporting instruction motions as a matter of course.

House divided on motion:

Motion agreed to.

Committed.

Committee

Mr MEDDICK: At this point I would like to circulate my amendment sheet AM31C in lieu of my previously circulated amendment sheet AM26C. There was a typographical error in the amendment sheet I had previously circulated, which has been corrected in the new amendment sheet. The change is simply the addition of a single quote mark in amendment 3.

Ms BATH: I would like to circulate my amendment that relates to clause 189. This amendment is a very important removal of something that should not have been there in the first place. We have had some communication—and I have indeed spoken with Dr Hugh Millar this morning, and I know my colleague the Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Mr Walsh, has spoken with him at length over the last few days—that this should not have been there in the first place. To remove the very scientific heads from having control or auspices over the veterinary board—to remove the vets off the vet board—just did not make sense.

I guess the main point I would like to put to government in circulating this amendment is the fact that the Australian Veterinary Association said that there had been no communication with that peak body in relation to any part of the bill but specifically this particular clause. I hope that in future the AVA and the Victorian division will certainly be provided with the courtesy befitting their knowledge and expertise and have a proper level of consultation for any future amendments to the Veterinary Practice Act 1997.

Clause 1 (11:49)

Ms BATH: Thank you, Minister, in advance, for your responses, and the department over there for their wise heads as well. Minister, it is an omnibus bill, amending 11 different acts, but one of the key features of this bill that has raised concern with people is in relation to authorised officers and the new powers that they have bestowed on them through this bill. They have new powers, increased importance and increased workload, yet we actually have seen Agriculture Victoria jobs cut by 100 jobs. So my question is: how does the government expect to support people—the industry, the ag sector—when there have been cuts to the agriculture department with new powers required of authorised officers?

Ms TIERNEY: In terms of the question that Ms Bath has asked, there are two points that I wish to convey. The first one obviously is in terms of the early retirement package: that is within the hands of the secretary of the department to manage, including the consequences. The second point, though, is that there are more people with Agriculture Victoria now than there were even four years ago.

Ms BATH: Minister, how many Agriculture Victoria authorised officers are there now, and how many will there be in order to cope with this increased workload through the passage of this bill?

Ms TIERNEY: We do not have that level of detail on us at the moment, Ms Bath.

Ms BATH: Is there a ballpark figure that the department may have, just as a round figure?

Ms TIERNEY: The preference is to take it on notice so you are furnished with accurate information.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just to clarify, Minister, will you come back before the conclusion of the committee stage with that number for Ms Bath?

Ms TIERNEY: They will be undertaking their best endeavours.

Mr MEDDICK: Minister, this speaks to the section about the Meat Industry Act 1993 in clause 1: will the new categories of ‘field depot’ and ‘harvest vehicle’ help the government to make the killing of our native kangaroos more efficient?

Ms TIERNEY: Mr Meddick, would you be able to repeat? Was it vehicles that you were citing?

Mr MEDDICK: Yes, they have been referred to as harvest vehicles. If I put my next question, it might explain that a little bit better. You would be aware as the government, and the Minister for Agriculture would be aware, that there are significant harms that kangaroo shooting causes to rural Victorians who live in peri-urban, regional and rural areas. There is significant trauma caused to people who operate other businesses and nearby properties. These in fact mobile slaughter facilities are designed to strengthen and streamline the killing of animals classed as game out in the open, and that includes kangaroos. So I suppose that question is an explanation of what those vehicles are.

Ms TIERNEY: Mr Meddick, there is further clarification sought. Is the actual question about whether the mobile abattoirs are the way that kangaroo harvesting will occur? Is that correct?

Mr MEDDICK: That is correct.

Ms TIERNEY: Mr Meddick, we are attempting to really get to an answer for you, and the person we are trying to contact at the moment is not picking up. We are attempting to deal with this. Can we just take that on notice and try and deal with it as expeditiously as possible?

Mr MEDDICK: Absolutely, yes. I appreciate that. The next question, then: will these new vehicles make it easier? I appreciate, to the chamber and to you, that my language may be a little colourful or a bit adjectival for some people, but it is the reality of what is happening out on the ground, particularly in Western Victoria. Will the new vehicles make it easier to dismember kangaroos out in the open in regional Victoria? I put it in that fashion because the way that kangaroos are dealt with by shooters out on the land—we have seen through various documentaries and various reports of exactly how kangaroos are dealt with—is not a way that we might consider humane, or that any reasonable person in any other area might consider humane. So that is the context of that question, if you like.

Ms TIERNEY: I will seek advice on this, but it is very difficult. I understand the points that you are making, but in terms of trying to visualise the specifics of it, it is difficult and therefore difficult to try and land an answer that really deals with your question. But I will attempt it again.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.