Wednesday, 30 August 2023


Questions without notice and ministers statements

Biosecurity


Bev McARTHUR, Gayle TIERNEY

Biosecurity

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:28): (263) My question is for the Minister for Agriculture and concerns the recent behaviour of power company AusNet, which this month entered, without permission, multiple farm properties on the transmission line between Ballarat and Bendigo. Minister, as you know, AusNet has the right to work in existing easements, but to do so it must enter and cross private property in agricultural use. In this case no notification was given and no permission was granted. This is not just unlawful and it is not just about the potential for physical damage to soil and crops; there is a real danger pests or disease could have been introduced to animals and crops. As the minister responsible for Victoria’s biosecurity, what have you done to protect farmers’ livelihoods from this outrageous and potentially disastrous trespass?

The PRESIDENT: The reason I am struggling is that the minister is not responsible for AusNet. I would think that would be the minister for energy.

Bev McARTHUR: On a point of order, to clarify, President, the minister is responsible for biosecurity and she is responsible for the protection of farmers in her agriculture portfolio.

The PRESIDENT: I am happy for the minister to respond.

Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education, Minister for Agriculture) (12:29): I thank Mrs McArthur for her question. In terms of the technicalities, they are the responsibility of Minister D’Ambrosio, but in terms of the point you raise in terms of biosecurity, can I suggest that you provide me with the exact details that you have. I will take that on board in terms of further investigation in respect of biosecurity issues if they have occurred.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:30): Thank you, Minister. We will be able to provide you with detailed photographic evidence of the trespass absolutely and the impending consequences. But these regrettable incidents occurred when many farmers – they are your responsibility, Minister – were here in Spring Street protesting alongside their whole community against the damage the Western Renewables Link and the VNI West will do to agriculture in this state. Many believe it was cynically timed to exploit their absence. This behaviour happened on easements which have existed for decades and where the power companies should have longstanding relationships with the landholders – again, your responsibility, Minister. Even the most immediate stage of AEMO’s grid development plan in Victoria includes another 650 kilometres of transmission lines, so we really need to know what you are going to do to protect farmers from this blight so that you can continue to have productive agricultural land in this state.

The PRESIDENT: There was a lot in that question.

Bev McARTHUR: Oh, she’s very capable. She’ll be able to answer it.

The PRESIDENT: I have no doubt that she is a very capable minister, but with her responsibility under the executive orders I am not even going to put that question. The answer to the substantive question was ‘That is not my responsibility, but I am happy to go out of my way and give some extra information outside the standing orders’. That is the way I interpreted it. Then we have a question about new transmission networks, which is clearly not this minister’s responsibility under the executive orders.

Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, President – and I just listened to your ruling then – clearly, as Mrs McArthur has pointed out, this is about agricultural land use and biosecurity aspects. When farmers who own that land were down here in Spring Street, these events occurred, so there is a direct linkage from the supplementary to the substantive. I would ask you to ask the minister to come back to that very important question Mrs McArthur has put, because those farmers deserve to understand what the government’s response is.

The PRESIDENT: The supplementary may have been relevant to the substantive question, but the substantive question was not a question under the responsibility of this minister.