Thursday, 26 May 2022

Bills

Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

Committee

Resumed.

Clause 1 further considered (12:47)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We return to clause 1, and the minister was about to answer Mr Meddick’s question.

Ms TIERNEY: Deputy Chair, with your indulgence, we are getting further information for Mr Meddick. We have got some of it but not all of it, and we would be looking at trying to complete that in the lunchbreak. So I am happy to take further questions from Dr Cumming.

Dr CUMMING: My first question to the minister on behalf of my residents is around clause 1(b)(iv), ‘to make other miscellaneous’. What defines ‘miscellaneous’, Minister?

Ms TIERNEY: I just sought advice to see whether this is out of the ordinary. It is not. This is just the term that is used generally, particularly when you have got a fairly large omnibus bill. It is a catch-all referral, the word ‘miscellaneous’.

Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Minister. In division 1, under ‘Definitions’ it adds ‘any land’ and ‘any temporary building or structure’. The question is this: what stops an inspector who may be disgruntled by a farmer from constantly pursuing and harassing the farmer?

Ms TIERNEY: This is a hypothetical and has got nothing really to do with the bill in front of us, but if a farmer believes that an authorised officer (AO) is not behaving appropriately then they should lodge a complaint and raise it.

Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Minister. Obviously there are other concerns that I raised in my debate, but this is one of them: where are the demarcations regarding the rights of organic, biodynamic and alternative farmers? Is an authorised officer allowed to inspect their farms?

Ms TIERNEY: The answer is yes.

Dr CUMMING: Are they allowed to shut down organic farms for non-compliance when there are scheduled toxic chemicals?

Ms TIERNEY: The answer is yes.

Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Minister. Under new section 54, ‘Power to enter and inspect’, this government has added a paragraph around chemical products and fertilisers, and I have a couple of questions. Is contamination considered to affect a farmer that has a neighbouring farm that is contaminated as a result of pollen shift and run-off? Is that going to be considered within this new section?

Ms TIERNEY: These are dictated by operational procedures and the particular circumstances of each case. Ultimately the AOs must justify that their actions are reasonable and within power. It would be impractical to include prescriptive requirements in the act as AOs will be required to exercise these powers in a wide range of circumstances. AgVic standard operating procedure states:

Officers should make a reasonable effort to ensure that there is no other person present on the land or premises. This may include driving along adjoining roads to make observations, attending residences that appear to be associated with the land or premises etc. Contemporaneous notes of the efforts taken must be recorded at the time of inspection.

Is that the answer you are seeking, Dr Cumming?

Dr CUMMING: Minister, that goes to answer the last bit, which is about ‘reasonably necessary’. Maybe I will reframe the question. It would seem that because the government has added the wording ‘chemical product’ and ‘agricultural chemical product’ there are major concerns around organic and biodynamic farms. I am wondering what steps are going to be in place to protect organic or biodynamic farming, as neighbouring farms could possibly dump chemicals into the waterways and affect their farms. Are there any protections in place to help organic and biodynamic farming if one neighbour—as they were saying, with pollen shift and those kinds of things—somehow adversely affects their neighbours? Is the authorised officer able to help the organic or biodynamic farming industry with this new section?

Ms TIERNEY: Essentially: will the amendments destroy the organic industry, production or suppress innovation in regenerative agricultural practices? The answer is no. The amendments would not have this outcome.

Dr CUMMING: Under division 7, ‘Other compliance measures’, my other questions, and I think you almost touched upon them, are about the demarcations, especially around organic farms and agriculture produce. How will the authorised officers possibly be able to administer these regulations? What thresholds are there around chemical administration under the code? Is the wording here too broad, and could it possibly lead to compromising of the organic industry?

Ms TIERNEY: The answer is no.

Dr CUMMING: Under division 3, ‘Administrative arrangements’, clause 27, ‘Definitions’, why has the government decided to take out the definition of ‘Secretary to the Department of Health’? A constituent of mine believes that the Department of Health should not be removed.

Ms TIERNEY: Amendments to section 58 allow discretion for alternatives to destruction, such as re-use, recycling or treatment covered by ‘or otherwise dealt with’. The current limits for destruction notices are not consistent with Victoria’s policies for waste, re-use and recovery and are needed to manage risks associated with the detection of high-risk chemical products the sale or use of which is prohibited. For example, if an AO finds a person with a restricted chemical product in their possession that they are not trained or authorised to use, nor do they have a reasonable reason for possession, and the AO considers it likely that they will illegally use the product, seizure under section 57 poses risks to the government from transport and storage, and it is administratively complex.

The best outcome for all parties, including the owner of the chemical, may be to issue a notice under new section 58 requiring the return of the agricultural chemical to the manufacturer for potential re-use rather than destroying the product. The act currently allows for cost recovery from an owner who has been issued with a destruction order if they do not comply with that order. The process for recovery is not stated, creating uncertainty on how this provision could operate. The amendment clarifies that cost recovery may be achieved via a court and is consistent with other existing acts, such as the Environment Protection Act 2017.

Sitting suspended 12.59 pm until 2.04 pm.

Mr MEDDICK: Minister, just following on the theme of the questions I was asking earlier, is it the intent of these vehicles to make it easier to facilitate killing and processing of kangaroos in the open?

Ms TIERNEY: No. The bill before us today is not actually dealing with the issue that you are talking about, Mr Meddick. It is mainly dealing with meat processing as such and matters relating to PrimeSafe.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Minister. That might go largely—and I am happy for it to do so—for the next question. If you can just confirm that the new vehicles and field depots, as it were, will allow adult and young kangaroos to be fully dismembered in the open, in paddocks, in fields, on plains and forest outskirts and near people’s homes and businesses in regional Victoria.

Ms TIERNEY: Again, I would say the new definitions proposed in the amendments to the Meat Industry Act 1993 do not introduce new categories of vehicles. Both a field depot and a harvest vehicle are established features of the existing game supply chain and help to ensure safe production of game meat. Definitions are drawn from the national game standard, and the vehicles are already licensed by PrimeSafe.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Minister. Minister, in my substantive speech on this bill I spoke about instances where killing of kangaroos often happens in proximity to other residents in regional Victoria and rural Victoria and to dwellings, including tourism businesses. What steps will the government take to ensure that the mental and physical safety of regional Victorians who live in kangaroo-killing zones is respected?

Ms TIERNEY: What I am going to say now goes to that question but also just more generally to some of the matters that Mr Meddick raised in his second-reading contribution. Harvesters are required to hold a valid firearms licence—again, harvester skill set accreditation and firearms competencies certification. They must comply with the conditions of their authorisation and animal welfare requirements. Harvesters are also required to have their vehicles licensed with PrimeSafe. All commercial harvesters must comply with the National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies for Commercial Purposes. Compliance priorities include harvester competency, animal welfare, sustainability and adherence to authorisations. Compliance activities have included the auditing of harvesters, desktop audits, in-field inspections and audits of private property where harvesting occurs. Since the beginning of this year the program has received three reports concerning alleged actions of harvesters, two inspections have undertaken on authorised harvesters while in the field and three investigations have been completed.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Minister. Minister, could you please outline the steps that the government will take to ensure regional Victorians are not confronted by gunfire and spotlights and having to see kangaroos being shot and dismembered in front of their homes, their families and children and their guests? To give some context to that, some time ago I raised in this chamber a constituent of mine. This seems to be a reasonably frequent occurrence, where shooting takes place on a property and there is a dwelling that is built in close proximity to the fence line between the two adjoining properties. With this one particular incident, for instance, shooting was taking place within 10 metres of their kitchen window and their children’s bedroom windows, spotlights were being shone inside the house and dismembered parts of a kangaroo were laid on their doorstep. Not discounting that the laying of body parts on doorsteps is not a frequent occurrence, the other parts that I just described are very frequent in parts of my electorate. These people cite going to organisations and authorities such as Victoria Police, the RSPCA, the Game Management Authority, the minister’s office, the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, and they feel that they get nothing from them—and indeed they have not. They feel that they have gone through a Monty Python-esque, Life of Brian-esque buck-passing circle of these agencies, and it always comes to nought. Regional Victorians feel helpless and distraught in that regard, and they tell me they have got nowhere left to go for any help. So could you please, as I say, outline the steps that the government will take to ensure their safety and their ongoing mental health and emotional wellbeing—that they are not confronted in this way?

Ms TIERNEY: In terms of the broader issues, I think I dealt with that in terms of the licensing and the certification and the training et cetera, but I think this is a particular incident that has occurred in your electorate, from my understanding. I am not acquainted with the details of it, but what I can say to you, Mr Meddick, is if you provide me with that documentation I am more than happy to raise it with Minister Thomas.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Minister. I will make sure that that comes through to you.

Ms TIERNEY: This is in response to a question that Ms Bath asked before question time. The overall proposals will make it easier for authorised officers to achieve the required outcomes under the existing legislation. The proposal is to update and modernise authorised officer powers, removing ambiguity and improving efficiency and the ability for AOs to conduct enforcement and compliance activities to protect the health of users and the public, animal health and welfare, the environment and trade. This means that there is no change to the work. It will enable AOs to be more efficient and effective in undertaking their duties.

In respect of AO numbers, there are 278 across Agriculture Victoria. There are 191 AOs in the biosecurity services branch of Agriculture Victoria. This includes plants, chemicals and invasives as well as animal health and welfare. I think that covers it.

Ms BATH: So it is 278 in its entirety, and within that there are 191 officers working on biosecurity, plants and animals.

Dr RATNAM: I move my amendment 1:

1. Clause 1, page 2, line 1, after “powers” insert “, to prohibit the sale of certain rodenticides”.

I have provided the substantive rationale for why I am moving this amendment—banning second-generation poisons—previously during the procedural debate on the instruction motion, so I will not go into that length of detail again. But just to summarise, we know that these poisons are very dangerous to animals, killing our native wildlife, and can be bought so easily from supermarkets and hardware stores. They build up in animals—mammals, reptiles and birds that consume poisoned rats and mice. We know that we are in a biodiversity and extinction crisis in Victoria, as our parliamentary inquiry recently found, and it also found that we should be doing everything we possibly can to protect our native flora and fauna.

Here before us we have an opportunity to do something that will have a significant impact on our native wildlife. Through our amendment, as I outlined before, there is an implementation plan that allows for a one-year transition of the introduction period for the ban to take effect, and we also know that there are alternatives and that there will be exemptions for permitted uses in some circumstances as well. So we think it provides the right balance in terms of introducing a ban to ensure that as much of our native wildlife as possible can be protected from these very, very dangerous poisons.

Just in response to the minister’s previous response to my amendment, I appreciate the minister’s response and appreciate that the government are part of this process that is happening federally and have said that they do not want to support this amendment because they are waiting for the federal process. The concern we have around this is that it is going to take quite a lot of time; we do not have a guarantee of when that process is going to be completed. Every day there is a risk of more and more of our native wildlife being killed. We have an opportunity to do something now, so why don’t we take that opportunity?

The other concern is that the process might result in very minor reform. For example, as was referred to, it might just result in labelling changes. That will not go far enough. We have seen what has happened in other jurisdictions and why internationally they are moving to ban these poisons, because they too have found through the evidence that you have got to move with a ban. You cannot just do incremental changes because it does not actually protect our wildlife. Victoria has the chance to lead the way, and while there is a federal process, Victoria has done it before, and I encourage the government to consider that again. We could lead the way. We know that, once one state moves, lots of the other states and the territories follow suit, and the federal process itself could accelerate if Victoria takes a lead. There is ample evidence. It is very clear. We have international precedents. The justification and rationale are very clear and very, very strong. We should be taking the lead and not shying away from this really important reform.

As I mentioned, there are alternatives. If this ban were to come into place, we know there are alternatives in terms of the control element that these poisons are designed to have in terms of pest animals et cetera. So when we have alternatives, why are we shying away from an opportunity to create reform?

As I mentioned, a recent parliamentary inquiry that this Parliament conducted, one of the most wideranging inquiries into the ecosystems and extinction crisis in Victoria, found that we are at critical levels now when we are talking about flora and fauna and native animals being driven to extinction because the resources are just not being put into biodiversity protection and ensuring that these critically endangered animals and species are protected from further harm and complete annihilation.

We have the logging industry that seems to be getting the green light to decimate our native forests. Here is an opportunity, if you care about our environment, to take some action around it. It is a simple change, but it could have dramatically powerful consequences—positively for our native wildlife to address the biodiversity and extinction crisis that we face. As that report outlined, we should be all hands on deck now. Everything that we can possibly do we should be taking that opportunity up. Here is an opportunity to do something that has precedence, has a very strong rationale, has ample evidence, and we could do it with an agreement in this chamber today. I really encourage and urge the government and all MPs in this chamber to support this amendment.

Ms BATH: The Nationals and the Liberals will not be supporting this amendment today. I appreciate the comments that the minister at the table made in relation to the federal government and investigations going on there, but also these sorts of controls are used often in food manufacturing premises. They are critical to controlling rodents. I am sure those in food manufacturing use them very judiciously and in a limited way, and it needs to continue for the present.

I will take up the Greens comment about the inquiry into ecosystems decline. One of the key features of ecosystem decline is invasive pests such as mice and rodents—the whole gamut. Another one is weeds, and the other one is out-of-control bushfires.

Ms TIERNEY: I outlined the government’s position on this in my summing up as well as when we were dealing with the instruction motion. We do understand that there are emerging concerns in this area, particularly in relation to non-targeted domestic animals and wildlife. But there is a process in place. There is work that is being undertaken at a national level. We do believe that there needs to be national consistency. We are looking forward to that work being progressed as much as it can be in the shortest possible time, and we believe that that is the most appropriate process to be undertaken by this state at a national level.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Dr Ratnam’s amendment 1, which tests all her remaining amendments, be agreed to.

Committee divided on amendment:

Amendment negatived.

Mr QUILTY: I know the minister partly touched on this in her closing speech, but I thought we should just make it very clear. Does the bill give the government the power to stop people growing food in their backyards, their vegetable gardens?

Ms TIERNEY: No. People can grow food in their backyard.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Minister, did you just want to make that a little bit clearer because you said, ‘No people can grow food in their—

Ms TIERNEY: No to the proposition.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If we can just have you set it out a little bit clearer, please.

Ms TIERNEY: Again, people can grow food in their backyard. As I said in my summing up, the government is very supportive of people growing their own fruit and vegetables.

Mr QUILTY: Just to finalise that point, do the powers in this bill allow the government to go in and pull up a vegetable garden if it is infected or if there is a problem, or does it not apply to domestic houses and land?

Ms TIERNEY: The amendments will help safeguard food security, food safety and access to export markets; for example, by preventing contamination of food by pesticides. The amendments will not result in the destruction of crops, nor will they prevent people from growing their own food. Information circulating online misrepresents and misinterprets what is before the house today. There is a fact sheet that Agriculture Victoria have put together because they were aware—and it says it in the fact sheet—of issues that have been raised on social media. They have been very clear in dealing with seven claims, and I am happy to go through those claims with the chamber. Can I also suggest that if people are particularly interested, the document can be found on www.agriculture.vic.gov.au.

The fact sheet deals with the claims in relation to the state government:

… passing a bill now which means you won’t be allowed to grow your own food, they can forcibly come in and rip it all out …

I have just given the response to that with the last question that was raised.

The second claim that is out online is that:

Landholder consent will no longer be required for Authorised Officers to take samples, stock (animals) or documents.

The facts are that landholder consent is not required to take samples, specimens or remove documents under the existing act. This is unchanged by the legislation before us this afternoon.

The third claim is that there will be an increase in enforcement powers to search property and persons without a warrant. The facts are: clause 10 of the bill contains amendments to section 54 of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act of 1992 which introduce new inspection and enforcement powers, subject to constraints. These amendments address outdated requirements of existing powers available under the act. Amendments in the bill will not allow searching of a residence without a warrant. There are no powers provided to search a person. The amendments include a requirement for the authorised officer to present identification and to take reasonable steps to notify the occupier before an inspection.

The fourth claim is that authorised officers will no longer be required to present identification under new section 53(4) of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992. The facts are: there are only limited circumstances where an authorised officer would not need to present identification—for example, when an authorised officer needs to access paddocks or bushland in remote areas to assess compliance and the property owner is away or cannot be located. Secondly, an authorised officer will be required to leave a notice of entry if no persons are present. The notice must include the time and purpose of the entry, a description of all things done while at the place—or in the vehicle or vessel or aircraft—and the time of departure, as well as the authorised officer’s name and contact details.

The proposed requirements to leave a notice without the occupier being present is consistent with other existing legislation administered by Agriculture Victoria—for example, section 82(4)(c) of the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CALP act). A rare circumstance where notification may not be provided by an authorised officer would be if there was a risk of evidence being destroyed. For example, if an authorised officer was in a paddock or bushland and collected a sample of a suspected illegal bait, notifying the occupier could allow them to remove and destroy the evidence before the authorised officer could get a sample analysed and return with a search warrant.

The new entry and inspection powers require the authorised officer to justify that their actions were reasonable and within the constraints of the powers. Standard operating procedures will be prepared for authorised officers on exercising their powers for entry. These will emphasise a conservative and cautious approach to ensure that any evidence gathered can be used in any enforcement action. This approach is consistent with other existing legislation, such as the Environment Protection Act 2017.

Section 53(3) maintains the existing requirement that, if requested to do so, an authorised officer must produce their identity card before or at any time when exercising power under this act. The new section 53(4) makes it clear that this does not apply if the request is unreasonable under the circumstances or the powers are exercised by post or electronic communication. Circumstances that would be unreasonable would include situations where the production of their identity card would require the authorised officer to undertake excessive travel or where it would delay the collection of time-sensitive evidence.

The fifth claim is that there will be heavy penalties for obstructing entry to property under new sections 54J and 54K of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992. The facts: 54J relates to failure to comply with a requirement of an authorised officer; a person must not, without reasonable excuse, fail or refuse to comply with a requirement of an authorised officer under this act. The new section includes protections to provide an exemption where there is a reasonable excuse to not comply. An example of this situation is where an authorised officer requires a person to produce a document but they are unable to do so as it is stored within a safe that the person cannot access.

New section 54K creates an offence of obstructing an authorised officer or a person assisting an authorised officer. A person commits the offence if they obstruct, threaten or intimidate an authorised officer who is performing a function or exercising a power, or a person who is assisting an authorised officer. Offences for the obstruction, threatening or intimidation of authorised officers are common to other Victorian legislation; for example, the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994 and the Summary Offences Act 1966. This offence is required to allow authorised officers to conduct lawful investigations unhindered. The maximum penalty for this offence is 100 penalty units, which is appropriate to deter offending.

There is another claim that says that fines will increase from $1800 to $10 000 for providing false and misleading information under new section 54L of the Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992. The facts are that penalty units for new section 54L are consistent with existing offences—there is no increase. The existing act includes offences under section 59 for false or misleading statements that relate to chemical use; for example, advising a person to use an illegal chemical or stating that there are no spray-drift sensitive crops next to the target area in applications under the act for licences or permits. The intention of new section 54L is to dissuade a person from providing false or misleading information to authorised officers. This could include falsified records of chemical use or vexatious complaints against a neighbour. The amendment intends to allow authorised officers to allocate more effectively time which is otherwise wasted on these vexatious complaints and issues.

The bill does include a separate amendment to section 137A of the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994 which increases the maximum penalty for making a false or misleading statement from a penalty of 10 penalty units, or $1817, to 60 penalty units, or $10 904. This increase is proposed to deter behaviour that puts Victoria’s livestock industry at significant risk. False and misleading statements relating to the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994 have the potential to severely impact the integrity of our traceability systems and consequently damage trade relationships. Examples of false and misleading statements include fraudulent use of vendor declarations, livestock identification tags and other documentation relating to livestock traceability.

The penalties described in the legislation are maximum penalties. The actual penalties handed down are determined by the courts. The courts may impose penalties at the higher end of the scale for offending resulting in high levels of risk of harm or repeat offending.

There is one further claim. The reason I am doing this is the amount of misinformation that has been online for such a long time meant that Agriculture Victoria had to try and provide the real facts in this fact sheet. I think it is important that I read it out so that people understand the reality. The final claim that I will read out is this:

The government is putting in place laws which would allow them to charge Victorians the money it cost them to destroy their own food supply, under clause 20 of the Bill which amends section 58 of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992.

So the facts are that destruction orders are an existing provision. Destruction notices are an appropriate tool to manage high-risk incidents such as contaminated crops or unlawful use of chemicals. Destruction notices can only be issued when the sale or the use of a chemical product, fertiliser or stock food is prohibited or agricultural produce is or is likely to be contaminated by chemicals such as pesticides. No changes are proposed to the existing limited circumstances where destruction notices can be issued.

Amendments to section 58 will broaden the scope of destruction notices issued under the act to allow discretion for alternatives to destruction such as recycling. The current act limits the scope of a destruction notice and is not consistent with Victoria’s policy for waste re-use and recovery. The terminology ‘or otherwise dealt with’ proposed in the amendments to section 58 will provide a broad scope of options, including re-use, recycling or treatment. For example, if an authorised officer finds a person not trained and authorised to use an agricultural chemical product the best outcome may be to issue a notice requiring them to return the agricultural chemical to the manufacturer for potential re-use rather than destroying the product. The act currently allows for cost recovery from an owner who has been issued with a destruction order if they do not comply with that order. The amendment clarifies that cost recovery may be achieved via a court and is consistent with other existing acts, such as the Environment Protection Act 2017.

I hope that assists people who have been concerned about the various mixed messages and claims that have been circulating online for some period of time.

Mr QUILTY: Thank you, Minister. That was very comprehensive. Does the bill prevent anyone from slaughtering their own animals or game animals for their own consumption?

Ms TIERNEY: The answer is no.

Mr QUILTY: How about slaughtering their own animals or game animals or feral animals for dog food for their own dogs?

Ms TIERNEY: They would be able to do it.

Dr CUMMING: I guess we can continue on from where we left off just before lunch, Minister. The previous answer that you gave was pretty much very comprehensive for the question that I asked before lunch. But the last question that I did raise, which I would like you to answer—you came and told me, but we should put it on the record—was in relation to the removal of the Department of Health; it is to be rescinded.

Ms TIERNEY: Thank you, Dr Cumming. The repeal of the definition of ‘Secretary to the Department of Health’ is a consequential amendment resulting from the repeal of section 63, which is under the clause heading ‘Confidentiality of commercial information’ and which currently allows disclosure to the Secretary of the Department of Health or nominee.

Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Minister. My next question is in reference to new section 79B, which is titled ‘Production of documents or records’. This is a new section, and the question that I have is: what is the purpose of this invasive, downright breach of privacy?

Ms TIERNEY: Let me just double-check.

Authorised officers can have difficulty in determining compliance with the CALP act in the absence of communication from the owner or occupier of land, such as if they fail to notify the secretary under section 46, ‘Landowner to notify Secretary of compliance with notice’, or section 70D, ‘Land owner to notify Secretary of measures taken under directions notice’. If they choose to attend any inspections, the proposed amendment will provide a direct power to require the production of documents and records to assist authorised officers with tracing of invasive species and limiting the potential biosecurity harm. New section 84AA provides protection against self-incrimination, which I covered off in the second-reading summing up.

Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Minister. Under new section 83EA, ‘Searches of personal property’, is this at all—no, I might leave that one. I might just go to the next one, a continuation of the personal property section, which goes on to talk about how a person is not excused from producing a document or record or answering a question. It is actually saying here that they must. Is this a complete breach of normal legal rights or legal counsel?

Ms TIERNEY: Again, I dealt with this in the summing up. This is the issue of self-incrimination. I think there were matters raised by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee and the minister subsequently wrote to the committee. Is new section 84AA, ‘Protection against self-incrimination’, a complete breach of rights to legal counsel? The answer is no. Currently under section 84(2) of the CALP act a person may refuse to answer an authorised officer’s question or produce a document to the officer if the person believes that the answer or information in the document could tend to incriminate the person. The bill inserts new section 84AA(2) to provide that a natural person who receives a request to produce a document or to answer a question under part 9 of the act is not excluded from producing a document or answering a question on the grounds that the production of the record or the response to the question would tend to incriminate that person. However, if a person, before producing a document or answering a question, claims that it may incriminate them, new provision 84AA(3) says that their refusal to produce documents or answer questions is not admissible as evidence in any criminal or civil proceedings.

Dr CUMMING: My second-last question is around clause 56, ‘Application for authority to cultivate and process low-THC cannabis’. For section 62(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 it substitutes new provisions around the secretary. My constituent’s concern is that the chief of police will have the power to overrule the secretary while allowing the Chief Commissioner of Police the ability to suppress the decision by way of protected information. Is that the case, Minister?

Ms TIERNEY: The answer is yes, in special circumstances, because if there are criminal proceedings happening, it needs to be protected information.

Dr CUMMING: Just one other question, which is a question from the Australian Federation Party, around clause 56. It is really around, as I brought in earlier, that they feel that this bill allows the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) the ability to prohibit, suppress or eject organic, biodynamic or hemp industry farmers from agriculture, thus denying organic certification peak bodies the ability to regulate their own legislation. Is that the case, Minister? Is this bill duplicating, confusing or possibly hindering our organic, biodynamic or hemp industry farmers?

Ms TIERNEY: The answer is no.

Dr CUMMING: Minister, I would like to thank you for your fulsome answers before in reference to Mr Quilty’s question around people growing their own food supply, because I think that has been the major misinformation that has been out there. I guess I would love another reassurance from you, which I believe you will be able to easily give, that this government is supportive of people being able to grow their own food in residential capacities and also that you support organic, biodynamic and those kinds of industries. I guess in closing I would like to thank my constituents who actually brought these questions to give to you, and they are Rob from Tarneit and Andrew and the Australian Federation Party. These are the concerns of the constituents that I am raising.

Mr QUILTY: I have one more question, and it will possibly be better addressed when we get to clause 203, but as I do not want to hang around for every single clause necessarily, I thought I would ask it now. In clause 203 we are removing the reference to game animals in section 38(1)(a) of the Meat Industry Act, but section 38(2) of that act says that this clause does not apply to game animals at all. It does not make sense to me. What are we actually doing here?

Ms TIERNEY: So in terms of that, the note following the page I have, which is page 526, dealing with clause 203, says that the amendment addresses inconsistencies across offences in the Meat Industry Act that do not enable the offences to work together coherently.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I call Ms Bath to move her amendment 1, which is a test for amendment 2.

Ms BATH: This is a consequential amendment for my amendment in clause 194. In doing so, I would like to say that this is about public safety by extending the distance from 10 metres out to 30 metres. There is a dynamic situation often out on wetlands. Emotions can run high, and by providing an extra buffer, that actually just provides extra breathing space and a safety level there. I would like to move that consequential amendment, which is a test for clause 194. I move:

1. Clause 1, page 3, lines 30 to 33, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert—

“(j) to amend the Wildlife Act 1975—

(i) to clarify an exception for the offence against entering or remaining in a specified hunting area during certain times; and

(ii) to further provide for the offence against approaching a person who is hunting; and”.

Mr MEDDICK: Just a comment. This is somewhat of a furphy, actually. To move this distance out to 30 metres is wholly and solely—everyone can see through this—to reduce or prevent people from taking photographs or being able to produce evidence where shooters are actually breaking the law and to try and prevent what they see as a nuisance value. At the moment, the current regulations already control the fact that a shooter is not allowed to shoot across the water or onto the water; they must shoot up into the air. Therefore a distance of 10 metres or 30 metres makes no difference if a rifle is aimed or a gun is aimed upwards, which is where the birds are. Consequently, even if you moved it to 30 metres and you had someone with a gun aimed at level, even if that is another 130 metres, they would still hit them. This is just a furphy in order to try and prevent breaking of the law from being witnessed and being provided as evidence. I will not be supporting the amendment.

Ms TIERNEY: This government does respect the fact that many people have very deeply held and divergent views about duck hunting. It is vital that we maintain safety on wetlands. Existing provisions ensure a safe separation between hunters and non-hunters. The distance of 10 metres is to stop close physical contact between hunters and people protesting duck hunting in those areas. This was never intended to be a mechanism to ensure a safe shooting distance between hunters and protesters. It is unclear what safety impact, if any, this amendment will have, and therefore the government does not support the changes to these provisions.

Committee divided on amendment:

Amendment negatived.

Mr MEDDICK: I move:

1. Clause 1, page 3, lines 30 to 33, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert—

“(j) to amend the Wildlife Act 1975—

(i) to clarify an exception for the offence against entering or remaining in a specified hunting area during certain times; and

(ii) to provide for a further exception to the offence against entering or remaining in a specified hunting area during certain times; and

(iii) to provide for a further exception to the offence of approaching a person who is hunting; and”.

I made the arguments for this during my substantive speech.

Ms BATH: The Liberals and The Nationals will be opposing the amendment.

Ms TIERNEY: The government will also be opposing the amendment.

Committee divided on amendment:

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (15:09)

Ms BATH: This is to do with clause 5, ‘Contaminated produce notice’, which inserts the words ‘vehicle, vessel or aircraft’. Can the minister inform me how these words were included in the past, or if they were not included, why have they been included?

Ms TIERNEY: It was considered to be important to reflect how authorised officers get on properties or go over properties. So sometimes it is in cars or vans, sometimes it might be even boats and other times it is in planes.

Clause agreed to; clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (15:11)

Ms BATH: Minister, we spoke about this in some of your relaying of information to dispel some comments in the public eye, but part of this goes to if an authorised officer is unable to locate the landowner, he can serve a notice by putting it on the farm gate. My interest lies in to what extent the landowner is liable if such a notice is left. The farmer may not live there. It may be his property but may be a distance from his home. What is his liability with respect to an unclaimed, we will call it, notice?

Ms TIERNEY: The notification is just to notify that the authorised officer has been there. I am advised that it is expected that there would be several attempts through email or telephone to follow up with the owner.

Ms BATH: So it is not leave it and run—there would be an additional communication or an additional contact?

Ms TIERNEY: Yes.

Ms BATH: That is fine, thank you. And on that notice, what information must be included on the notices by authorised officers? What is responsible in there? If they visited or took something, how would that be described? What does that look like?

Ms TIERNEY: It would be the name, the time, the date. I mentioned it in the summing-up speech.

Ms BATH: Does it relate to the activity or any removal of items, plant material or the like?

Ms TIERNEY: Yes. The activity would be described, except in those situations that I previously mentioned where the authorised officer would be required to provide a warrant.

Clause agreed to; clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (15:14)

Ms BATH: Thank you, Minister. You responded to some of these questions in answering others. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—how does the minister or the ag department receive information from the APVMA? Is it a regular occurrence? Is there is a regular meeting, or is it sporadic, and in what form does that occur? Or is there an email or a report?

Ms TIERNEY: I am advised that it is all of the above.

Ms BATH: What is the obligation of the retailer—this is in relation to agricultural and veterinary chemicals—to ensure that a purchaser has the most up-to-date label in terms of if there is older stock that does not have the most up-to-date information on that label?

Ms TIERNEY: So this is: what is the obligation of a retailer of agriculture veterinary chemicals to ensure a purchaser has the approved label—for example, older stock that does not have the most recent hard copy label? In response to that, the holder of APVMA product registration—for example, the chemical manufacturer and/or the retailer—is responsible for updating product labels. Requirements for updating physical product labels in the supply chain for suspended or cancelled labels are dependent on the risk assessed by APVMA. Regulatory requirements for the possession, supply and use of products with suspended or cancelled labels are published via the APVMA Gazette. Where only minor label changes are made the APVMA will generally not mandate that existing stocks in the supply chain are to be relabelled and may provide a phase-out period—for example, 24 months—for stocks with the older approved label to be legally supplied. In cases of major label changes and where there are significant risks with a product—for example, a chemical review completed by the APVMA results in labels being suspended or cancelled—the APVMA may require the existing products in the supply chain to be relabelled or supplied with new directions for use before they can be sold. In these cases the APVMA publicises the new requirements. Service providers such as agronomists and industry bodies and other regulators such as Agriculture Victoria will also communicate the changes to chemical users who may hold stocks of product with old product labels.

Under the national registration scheme for agvet chemicals, labelling requirements for registered chemicals are the responsibility of the commonwealth. These labelling requirements are legislated under the commonwealth Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 and applied as Victorian law under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Victoria) Act 1994.

Ms BATH: This goes to clause 10 and new section 54AI. This talks about a ‘reasonable time’:

An authorised officer may at any reasonable time require a person—

(a) to …

What would constitute a reasonable time?

Ms TIERNEY: I am advised that the expectation is that it would be within normal office hours.

Ms BATH: And again, the last one on this one:

… reasonable steps to provide information.

What is the definition of a reasonable step to be able to provide information?

Ms TIERNEY: It depends on the circumstances, Ms Bath, essentially. You could have situations where things are in a safe and the key just is not there. It depends on the circumstances.

Ms BATH: This goes to new section 54AF, under which an authorised officer can remove a label or document as they see fit. Now, in terms of a label, if that label was removed would the landowner be liable for chemicals or other products that are then unlabelled, or are they responsible for replacing them themselves? So what is that interaction?

Ms TIERNEY: The difficulty we are having is this is so operational and we are trying to think of all the different scenarios, and there are just so many. But in terms of a label not being there, it would be because it is on a list of products that should not have it there. In terms of products that do not have labels, then clearly people just should not be using those products, because they clearly do not know what is in the containers.

Clause agreed to; clauses 11 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 (15:24)

Ms BATH: In relation to the offence laid out in clause 16 and the term ‘obstruct’ an authorised officer from undertaking their duty—a definition of ‘obstruct’, please, Minister.

Ms TIERNEY: Ms Bath, offences for obstruction would be things like threatening and intimidation—mainly threatening and intimidation of AOs.

Ms BATH: And I am assuming physical intimidation as well as verbal.

Ms TIERNEY: Absolutely.

Clause agreed to; clauses 17 to 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 (15:26)

Ms BATH: Minister, I feel like we may have travelled this one before, but I was listening intently when you were reading this out, so you can maybe confirm if it has been covered. This is about the definition of ‘approved label’ and amends the definition of ‘advice note’. What is the obligation on a retailer of agvet chemicals to ensure purchasers in the supply chain have the most up-to-date label advice, and in relation to replacing labels on older stock that are no longer there, what are their obligations?

Ms TIERNEY: We have covered off on some of that, but also chemical users can usually view a copy of the approved label via the APVMA website, and chemical registrants usually also maintain a marketed product label on their website that contains the same content as the APVMA-approved label but may also include certain additions that do not impact compliance responsibilities. There is and will continue to be an increasing expectation by the community and markets, including supermarkets, that farmers will need to ensure that they are up to date on the safe use of chemicals. Does that cover it?

Ms BATH: I think that is fine, yes. Thanks, Minister.

Clause agreed to; clauses 26 to 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 (15:28)

Ms BATH: In relation to clause 30, it references the chief administrator and there is a lot of technical stuff there. But I am interested to know: is the secretary classified as an authorised officer under clause 30?

Ms TIERNEY: The response is technically yes, but as they delegate to the authorised officers it is not used in that sense obviously with the secretary.

Ms BATH: So in effect they have the power but they do not use it because they do not have the specialities or the expertise to be an authorised officer.

Ms TIERNEY: They are not employed as an authorised officer; they are employed as the secretary, who has delegation powers.

Clause agreed to; clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.

Clause 33 (15:30)

Ms BATH: This relates to probably clauses 33 and 34 if I can do them as a bit of a job lot. This is a genuine question in relation to the owner of the land that—we will call—the farmer is using. Ag trucks and spreaders and harvesters certainly travel from interstate intrastate. I am interested to understand: for a farmer who has their freehold and then they also have licensed riverfrontage, is the licensed riverfrontage considered to be part of this bill? I think it is going to be clauses 33 and 34.

Ms TIERNEY: In terms of riverfrontage that is leased, then the farmer, obviously, is responsible for weed control, and if it is licensed as Crown land, the Crown is responsible.

Ms BATH: So in effect you are saying that for the licensed riverfrontage they have a licence over, even though they can run their stock on it and people can potentially camp on it, depending on which river you are on, this bill will not apply to any of that licensed riverfrontage. Is that correct?

Ms TIERNEY: Land that is not leased and is Crown land is the responsibility of the Crown.

Ms BATH: Even though their cattle can graze on it, essentially.

Ms TIERNEY: Yes.

Ms BATH: It probably will matter to some people who have this interface on their land. There are a great deal many kilometres of riverfrontage that have a licence over them. Minister, sometimes the land is contiguous. Sometimes it will have a fence to define the freehold versus the leased, and sometimes it will just run down to the river. And when somebody brings something onto the freehold land, that is the responsibility of the farmer. How is that going to be defined? How is an authorised officer or a farmer or someone bringing fertiliser or a camper going to work out where that starts and where that finishes?

Ms TIERNEY: The authorised officers would know from the documentation that they have got, or research, who owns what property. They would know the boundaries.

Ms BATH: Minister, in relation to clause 34, just for clarification, 480 penalty units by my calculation is $87 335, and that is for a state-defined noxious weed. If somebody comes on and trips that offence, can they also be fined or penalised under the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Act 2022 if they also breach biosecurity laws, with 60 penalty units? Can they occur at the same time, and can the authorised officer pursue the penalties on that?

Ms TIERNEY: The answer is yes, but in terms of the authorised officers, they would be different authorised officers—alluding to a previous answer that I gave you. Biosecurity was the other one.

Clause agreed to; clauses 34 to 46 agreed to.

Clause 47 (15:38)

Ms BATH: This is to do with land catchment protection and refers to electronic communication. Could you define ‘electronic communication’, Minister?

Ms TIERNEY: Nothing out of the box, Ms Bath. It is phones, laptops, text messages, emails.

Ms BATH: I guess the interesting one with that is: how does the government obtain electronic addresses, and how are they kept secure?

Ms TIERNEY: The addresses are registered. It is limited access. Authorised officers can gain access to them, but they are held very tightly.

Clause agreed to; clauses 48 and 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 (15:40)

Ms BATH: Thank you, Minister. I guess in this world, where people can feel that their personal information can be going in all directions, it is just that we need to have that confirmation that it will be secure. In relation to clause 50, I mentioned this in my second-reading speech and I wanted to in effect clarify that this is more of a harmonisation amendment in terms of the Dairy Food Safety Victoria employees to clarify that they are subject to the values and principles set out in the act. I am seeking assurances that there have not been any issues or incidents that would mean that they have not been behaving in an appropriate manner—that this is a harmonisation.

Ms TIERNEY: This is on the recommendation of the public sector commission that it happens this way. There is nothing else to it really.

Clause agreed to; clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.

Clause 54 (15:41)

Ms BATH: I am interested to just investigate, or for you to tease out, the term ‘biosecurity incident’ that would lead to this kind of declaration that is actually in clause 54, Minister. What sort of a biosecurity incident would lead to a declaration?

Ms TIERNEY: An example would be some sort of exotic disease outbreak. One that comes to mind is foot-and-mouth disease.

Ms BATH: Is there a list that the department have that is a workable list of biosecurity risks that would lead to a declaration?

Ms TIERNEY: There is a list of exotic diseases, but it is not necessarily exhaustive. There might be something else we have not thought of or has not come to our shores before.

Ms BATH: So there is a list plus—

Ms TIERNEY: Other things that are within that realm.

Ms BATH: Thanks, Minister. That is available on the website, is it?

Ms TIERNEY: Yes, I believe so.

Clause agreed to; clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.

Clause 57 (15:44)

Ms BATH: This relates to investigations and inquiries of the secretary to carry out receiving an application for an authority. It talks about a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold authority. Would you be able to explain why it is the secretary’s role to define someone as a fit and proper person, and on what basis would the secretary make those determinations?

Ms TIERNEY: It is a delegated responsibility. The secretary is involved obviously, but they are not going through each check on whether someone is a fit and proper person. I am advised that the so-called test is like with everything else: it varies. A fit and proper person test that would apply to a teacher is different to that for, say, someone who is wanting to set up a pharmacy, for example.

Clause agreed to; clauses 58 to 99 agreed to.

Clause 100 (15:46)

Ms BATH: This is a really important section on farm debt mediation (FDM) in relation to ensuring whatever can be done to keep farmers on their farms and working through any financial difficulties is done. I am interested in understanding why the government has reduced the time frame for the farmer to respond to a creditor, a banker, from 28 days down to 21—noting that, by virtue of their work, sometimes they may be away or in a heavy, heavy season. I want to understand why the government has contracted that time frame.

Ms TIERNEY: The reduction is for the purposes of harmonisation with the FDM legislation in other jurisdictions. It also removes inconsistencies with other sections of the Farm Debt Mediation Act 2011.

Clause agreed to; clauses 101 to 121 agreed to.

Clause 122 (15:49)

Ms BATH: I think you mentioned it before, but the VFF, the Victorian Farmers Federation, play a really important role as specialists in their various fields. This relates to the Cattle Compensation Advisory Committee, and the same goes for the Sheep and Goat Advisory Committee. Noting that funds are often joint between the state and the federal governments in decisions as well as to where that funding should go—I think it can go nationwide; that is my understanding—they were very adamant in relation to being able to put forward names for positions with that expertise. I am just confirming those assurances, Minister.

Ms TIERNEY: Yes, I covered off on this specifically in the summing up, but beyond that I can advise you that Minister Thomas has also written directly to the VFF confirming those arrangements.

Clause agreed to; clauses 123 to 188 agreed to.

Clause 189 (15:51)

Ms BATH: This relates to the amendment that I think people in the house and various parties are about to move, so I think we have had that discussion. That is to do with the veterinary practitioners board and the removal of the omission, to enable the president and the deputy president to still be those professionals in being veterinarians.

Mr MEDDICK: Yes. This is something I think we are on somewhat of a unity ticket on. I believe that the government is actually moving an amendment, and I thought that was what was going to occur first.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is actually no amendment. What it is is voting against the clause, because everyone is moving that the clause be omitted. When I ask that the clause stand part of the bill, if you want the clause removed—as the opposition does, the government does and Mr Meddick does—you vote against the clause. So there is no actual amendment to move. Minister, did you want to say anything?

Ms TIERNEY: We have circulated a house amendment in that respect.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Tierney, Ms Bath and Mr Meddick all have these amendments, and these members all seek to omit clause 189, which provides that the president and the deputy president of the Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria do not need to be registered vets or practitioners. As I said, I will put the clause, and those who want to remove this clause—so anyone wanting to support Ms Tierney, Ms Bath and Mr Meddick—should vote no, against the clause.

Clause negatived.

Clauses 190 to 195 agreed to.

Clause 196 (15:54)

Mr MEDDICK: I move:

4. Clause 196, after line 24 insert—

“(ca) in the definition of game, paragraph (a)(iii) is repealed;”.

Just very briefly to cover it off, this does a very simple thing. It removes ‘kangaroo’ from the definition of ‘game meat’ in the Meat Industry Act. It does not have any purpose other than that, and it is done to protect the reputation that our iconic marsupial has around the world as an icon of a native species and to alleviate concerns that many out in the community have around them being included in the definitions of game meat.

Ms BATH: I thank Mr Meddick, but The Nationals and the Liberals will be opposing this amendment. I did listen to Mr Meddick when he was making his contribution on Tuesday in relation to totems. Whilst I entirely respect that, I also note that our traditional owners certainly used kangaroos for hunting and as prey. It is a very holistic world that they lived in, and I think that is still consistent with being able to oppose this.

Ms TIERNEY: The government does acknowledge, again, that there are deeply held views by many in the community on this matter. The government believes that the kangaroo harvesting program ensures Victoria’s kangaroo population is managed in a sustainable way to reduce impacts on landholders and the community. The government does not support this amendment, which it believes would make the kangaroo harvesting program unviable and prevent the use of kangaroo meat as a sustainable, high-protein food source.

Committee divided on amendment:

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 197 and 198 agreed to.

Clause 199 (16:05)

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Minister, clause 199, the explanatory memorandum says, substitutes a new section 34 into the Meat Industry Act 1993 to insert new offences for the sale or disposal of certain meat for human consumption. I would like to ask you specifically about the insertion of 34(4), which provides:

A person must not dispose of game meat for human consumption unless …

and then it goes into the conditions. What is the purpose of inserting this new provision?

Ms TIERNEY: Mr Rich-Phillips, could you please just repeat the question?

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: The question, Minister, was basically: what is the purpose of putting this provision in, the new 34(4)?

Sitting suspended 4.08 pm until 4.27 pm.

Ms TIERNEY: Mr Rich-Phillips, I am advised that the current section 34 in the act provides for offences that are incapable of being applied in practice. The new section unpacks the existing offences in a more pragmatic and legally enforceable way. In relation to subsection (4), this is not a new offence, just a redrafted offence. It has been drafted to remove the current situation where meat from game cannot be sold unless it is slaughtered in a PrimeSafe-licensed meat processing facility. This offence is not capable of being applied in relation to game which is harvested in the field and not slaughtered in a licensed facility.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: The government’s intent in doing that is what exactly?

Ms TIERNEY: Again, the advice is that we believe that it clarifies the situation and makes it more enforceable.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. You referred to game slaughtered in the field, which is obviously where game is slaughtered, so is the intent to create an enforceable offence of supplying game that is not processed at a PrimeSafe facility as you referred to in your introductory comments?

Ms TIERNEY: The advice is that yes, it already exists. It is just a redrafting to make it easier.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. So subsection (4) is not in relation to the sale of game, it is in relation to disposal of game for human consumption. I guess the threshold question there is: what does the government mean, what does the bill mean, by disposal of game meat for human consumption? What is the threshold? What are we actually talking about? If you could address that, please.

Ms TIERNEY: Mr Rich-Phillips, I am advised that (3), in referencing ‘sell’, relies on the definition of ‘sale’ in the Food Act. That definition is restrictive and does not fully cover all situations where game meat may be used for human consumption. Those latter situations are covered by the term ‘dispose of … for human consumption’.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. So the intent of subsection (4) is to capture everything that is not ‘sale’?

Ms TIERNEY: That is correct.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: The reason I raise this, Minister, is: is that therefore intended to cover circumstances where somebody makes a gift of meat? I use the example of a hunter who harvests some ducks in the field. They are dressed in the field. They go home and give two duck breasts to their neighbour. Is that going to be an offence under this provision?

Ms TIERNEY: If it is for personal use—and personal use is not giving it to someone else—it is fine; otherwise there will be issues.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: So giving it to the next-door neighbour is an offence?

Ms TIERNEY: I am advised that, yes, that is the case.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Why?

Ms TIERNEY: I am advised that this is a case of where you draw the line if it goes beyond the actual person who has caught it or dealt with it and it is gifted to someone else. Essentially, meat needs to be inspected so it is safe for consumption.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. To give you another practical scenario for this clause, if there are three people hunting together, they harvest a dozen duck, one of them dresses them or two of them dress them and they then split them among the three of them, is that an offence?

Ms TIERNEY: If they harvested it in the field and dressed it in the field, they would be fine.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. Even if one of them dressed it and gave it to the other two they had been hunting with? This is a real-life scenario.

Ms TIERNEY: The advice I have received is that if it is an activity that they have done together, even if only one person has dressed the meat, then all three are fine because it is a joint activity.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. That is a helpful clarification. To take, again, a practical example: for a person who hunts meat and consumes it with their family, who may not have been hunting with them, I assume the intention is not that that would be an offence. Can you clarify that that would not be an offence?

Ms TIERNEY: That is correct. It would be considered personal use.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. So personal use in that context would be consuming it—the person who has harvested it is involved in the consumption of it—with other people as opposed to supplying to third parties or gifting to third parties. Are there constraints around that personal consumption and what is included in personal consumption?

Ms TIERNEY: The constituent unit would be the household, and the person who has harvested the meat essentially needs to be consuming that product with the household or parts of the household.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. For the avoidance of doubt, would that include guests of the household if people came over for a dinner party, that sort of scenario? Again, this is potentially a minefield you are opening up with this clause, and these are very real, practical scenarios.

Ms TIERNEY: The advice is that if people did come over for dinner, yes, they could partake in the product. But they would not be able to take it from the residence.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. There are obviously numerous scenarios we could explore of that nature. How is it intended that this provision will be used—subsection (4)?

Ms TIERNEY: The objective in all of this is to try and minimise health risks for obvious reasons. So the objective, essentially, is that, for example, if someone has food poisoning, there is a way of tracing it back to exactly how it happened and when it happened. That is why there is a fairly tight number of people that would be able to consume the meat that is harvested in this way.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. You indicated this is a restructuring of an existing provision where there was concern that it was incapable of being applied. Is there any case history where there were efforts to apply the previous provisions or scenarios where it was previously sought to be applied, the disposal of game meat provision?

Ms TIERNEY: We would like to take that on notice to double-check a number of things.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. Obviously this is I think pretty much the end of the committee stage. Could the minister perhaps give an undertaking as to when and how that material would be presented to us?

Ms TIERNEY: Mr Rich-Phillips, I am advised that that should be available—will be available—within the week.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: And you will bring it back to the house?

Ms TIERNEY: I am happy to furnish you with it. We are happy to make it available to members of the chamber.

Clause agreed to; clauses 200 to 207 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendment.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (16:47): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (16:47): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

House divided on question:

Question agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the same with amendment.