Tuesday, 6 February 2024

Bills

Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:15): I rise to speak to the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023, and I want to make a few comments. This is an important piece of legislation that we are debating today because it goes to the heart of protecting so much that is so precious to our island nation of Australia and importantly protecting so much of our industry here in Victoria. Having biosecurity measures in place really has an enormous impact on our economy. I will talk a little bit more about recent outbreaks of various diseases that have been detected in the country and how they pose an enormous risk to livelihoods but also the wellbeing and welfare of our flora and fauna and our livestock.

This bill is going to facilitate additional information sharing with the Commonwealth, other jurisdictions and other government agencies during emergencies, including an exotic animal disease outbreak. I think that is a very important point in this bill, because of course we have just come through COVID, and we have seen what has happened through COVID. We have seen how this government here in Victoria acted alone even though there was a national cabinet in place and even though there were decisions made at that national cabinet around COVID. I know that is not what we are talking about – we are on this biosecurity issue specifically – but I am making the point that here in Victoria we went alone without having the consistency that was sometimes decided on by that national cabinet, and I think history will show just how poorly Victoria performed in relation to COVID and how we had the harshest restrictions with the worst outcomes, the worst deaths. Everybody in this chamber understands the devastating effects of the lockdowns, the unilateral decisions that were made, the lack of transparency that was provided to the Victorian community and the impact that that had on the health and wellbeing of many Victorians – of course many children could not go to school. Those impacts are still being felt. Then of course we had the shutdowns of businesses, the lack of support and the really massive, massive amounts of money spent, and we are paying for those decisions of the government.

So I do think it is very important that this bill points out in relation to biosecurity that it does have that information-sharing arrangement with the Commonwealth and other Australian jurisdictions and agencies. I mean, we border New South Wales and South Australia, and yet look at how those border closures caused so much havoc through COVID. This is a sensible measure. I only wish the government had actually put in practice then what it is preaching to us through this piece of legislation in relation to biosecurity measures. As I said, I do not think history is going to treat the former Andrews Labor government very kindly in relation to the management of COVID. That is why I have always said we need a royal commission – so we never, ever go back to those failures and so we understand what we did right and understand the many things that they did wrong.

The other purposes of the bill are to improve control area and restricted area provisions by broadening their applicability and streamlining public notification procedures; improve clarity and efficiency of emergency management provisions, including simplified quarantine provisions – again I give the example of COVID, where lockdowns were widespread across the state and really there was such a disjointed process in all of that, but getting back to this bill – amend compensation payment procedures in relation to exotic animal diseases, including eligibility criteria and valuation processes, to facilitate administrative efficiency; and improve enforcement capability by providing for Victoria Police officers to be appointed as inspectors without requiring the declaration of an exotic animal disease outbreak. I know my colleague Ms Bath will talk about this in relation to the issue around Gippy Goat and really just the issues surrounding what police officers could do when those animal activists have trespassed on a legitimate business and caused so much havoc and distress.

Going back to the bill, it will strengthen inspector powers by allowing inspectors to direct people and vehicles during an exotic animal disease outbreak and broadening the applicability of existing provisions; strengthen traceability requirements to improve compliance and enforcement and mitigate exotic animal disease risks; improve compliance processes by broadening permit provisions in relation to the Plant Biosecurity Act 2010; improve enforcement capability by providing for Victoria Police officers to be appointed as inspectors under the Livestock Management Act 2010; and achieve greater deterrence by increasing penalties for offences under the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994, the Plant Biosecurity Act 2010 and the Livestock Management Act 2010.

Deputy President, when we were debating a similar piece of legislation back in 2022, the biosecurity animal activists bill – you will not recall; you were not here – the coalition moved an amendment to double the penalties around these animal activists trespassing and really disrupting, as I said, legitimate businesses and the businesses that they are carrying out. Unfortunately, at the time the government rejected that very sensible amendment, but I am pleased they have taken up our amendment from two years ago and they are applying it somewhat in this bill. So it is pleasing to see that the government, despite not listening to what the coalition was putting forward at the time to assist and provide greater security to people, have finally come to the party and are doing it.

I have mentioned Gippy Goat, and that was in relation to some biosecurity issues and trespassing on farms. I grew up on a farm. I am a wool producer’s daughter, but we had cattle and also broadacre cropping, so I understand exactly what so many talk about when they are talking about coming onto farms, whether it is trucks and the initial issues of cleaning down trucks or making sure the product that you are producing on your farms is as clean as can be and that when it has been put to market you are providing those high-quality products, whether it is livestock or plant in the instance of crops. But I think this is a very important bill around biosecurity. What it is intending to do is really ensure that we do protect against the threat of animal disease or pest and weed disease that can create havoc across our farming industries, because they are such a huge part of not only our Victorian economy but our Australian economy and provide an enormous amount to the overall running of this country. Indeed I think it is Australian farmers that actually feed somewhere in the vicinity of a hundred million people around the world outside Victoria. That is how efficient and how sought after is our product, and that is something that we must protect.

You may or may not be aware that a few years ago there was an outbreak, and it caused a great deal of distress to our bee industry. The varroa mite was found in New South Wales, and it was thought it came through some sort of shipping component through Newcastle, if I recall correctly; I could have that a little bit wrong. Nevertheless it was very concerning because our bees are absolutely critical to farming and to of course producing some of the cleanest and the most beautiful honey in the world. The most natural resource is honey, and that industry must be protected. So it was concerning that the varroa mite got hold in this country. Of course New South Wales jumped on it, and Victoria also needed to work with the New South Wales government at the time to ensure that management was put in place. Now, they have said that eradication could not be undertaken but that management be put in place, but that is just one recent example of how these diseases, and very serious diseases, can come in and literally wipe out our natural products and a very important component of, in the case of bees, pollination and assisting with our crops and food supply.

A few years ago another news item that I recall was the lumpy skin disease outbreak in cattle in Indonesia. Now, that disease is a shocking disease. It is taking place or taking hold in parts of South-East Asia, and that is something that we do not want in this country at all. We do not want it. It will affect our cattle industry, both beef and dairy. We pride ourselves on having such a brilliant and fabulous beef and dairy industry that provides so much to this country and, as I said, to the export market. It is really important. So it is incredibly important that those sorts of diseases are kept out of our state, and that is why this bill is incredibly important around those biosecurity elements.

I know that there are various parts of the industry and stakeholders who have been consulted on this and provided input to the government. It is important to have that. The Victorian Farmers Federation obviously have provided their feedback. They have also been talking about the issue around extending police powers to act as inspectors on properties and understanding that that has got to be carefully managed and not misused, but I think that is probably being sorted out through the consultation. The minister is nodding over there, so I am pleased that that might be the case.

Harriet Shing: It’s an ongoing discussion.

Georgie CROZIER: An ongoing discussion, excellent. I think that is important to know – understanding the importance of what is trying to be achieved through this so we do not have that example of what we had a few years ago, where there was a difficult situation for all involved. We need to protect the livelihoods and protect farmers and the industry, as I said, as a whole.

I do think that the agriculture sector, which understands the risks of biosecurity breaches, will always be looking at this, and we have to be vigilant in relation to emerging exotic diseases that could come in through, as I said, bees that get through some shipping container or the like, some grain that gets into the country or even when we go and visit countries overseas and are not vigilant if we are visiting areas where disease is in the soil and bring back those diseases through our footwear. You often go through our airport security and declare those things, and it is declared for a good reason: to protect what we have here, our fauna and our flora, and to really understand that is incredibly important.

I understand that there are a number of amendments that are going to be moved by various members of the crossbench, and we will wait to hear from those members. I will have more to say on that, but can I say in relation to this, again: this is an important piece of legislation that we are debating. It is terribly important that we protect our agricultural industry in this state. I am pleased that, as I said, the information sharing with the Commonwealth and other jurisdictions has been noted in this. I do think that is a terribly important element. As I mentioned, we saw what happened through COVID. Victoria acted alone. It was a disaster, and we really need to do better in relation to that, whether it is something like that or the instances that will potentially attack our agricultural industry and bring unwanted pests and diseases into our state.

Rikkie-Lee TYRRELL (Northern Victoria) (14:30): I am happy to support this bill with my proposed amendment. I ask that the amendment be circulated now.

Amendment circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Rikkie-Lee TYRRELL: This amendment to the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023, coupled with Mr Limbrick’s amendments, will make this a more robust bill that still protects Victorians without allowing the government to overstep its boundaries in the event of an exotic disease outbreak. Of the varying industries within the agriculture sector, many do not have standardised record-keeping procedures and practices. My concern here is that a minister’s decision to force repayment of compensation, while likely to be rare, should require the minister to consult with relevant industry bodies before making ultimate judgements. This is to alleviate any concerns about evidence the minister deems to be falsified or misleading by ensuring relevant industry representatives and/or organisations who may be better situated to assess said evidence have reviewed and advised the minister accordingly. I believe this will instil confidence in the review process.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:31): I also rise today to speak in support of the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023, and I am delighted to be making my first bill contribution for the year. This bill will amend the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994 and the Plant Biosecurity Act 2010 to give Victoria greater capacity to address biosecurity risks and improve the efficiencies within our system. Improving agricultural security is critical to ensuring food security as well as the economic security of our state, and whilst I did not agree with some of the comments that Ms Crozier made in her previous contribution – I am not sure what COVID has to do with the bill before us today – there are many aspects on which I do agree with Ms Crozier, such as the importance of preserving biosecurity for our very important agricultural sector.

It is difficult to overstate the disastrous consequences of an unchecked or mismanaged exotic disease outbreak. To prevent and prepare for such an outbreak Victoria needs robust legislation providing for swift and decisive action when measures need to be taken. This includes having well-established, clearly communicated and proportionate penalties for actions that imperil our biosecurity. To address our ongoing and increasing biosecurity needs this bill makes amendments to the Livestock Disease Control Act, the Livestock Management Act 2010 and the Plant Biosecurity Act 2010. Amendments in this bill will improve our emergency response and management systems for exotic diseases and pests.

What will it specifically do? It will, firstly, significantly increase penalties for offences for the contravention of provisions related to exotic animal diseases and livestock traceability requirements to underscore the seriousness of these offences and to reflect the potential harm that such offending could inflict upon the community, the environment and the economy. It will also improve and clarify the emergency management provisions to enhance efficiency and preparedness and response activities by broadening the delegation powers of the minister to declare control areas and restricted areas and to allow the sharing of information related to exotic diseases with other government departments and agencies as well as other states and territories. It will also refine the existing exotic disease compensation framework to ensure that any compensation for exotic animal diseases can be more equitably and fairly paid to affected livestock producers who own such livestock.

Other amendments in this bill will also incentivise compliance by increasing the penalties for various offences, including tampering with livestock traceability. It will improve the enforcement capability by allowing Victoria Police officers to be appointed as inspectors without requiring a declaration of an exotic animal disease outbreak, thus significantly improving and streamlining the response at the moment when it is most critical. It will also improve the act’s administration, operation and enforcement by making various miscellaneous and technical amendments to improve clarity and consistency. The Allan Labor government has committed to improving Victoria’s exotic disease preparedness and response capability. This bill strengthens our holistic and effective exotic pest and disease legislative framework to protect Victoria’s valuable agricultural and horticultural sectors and mitigate the potential risk of market access and trade disruptions associated with such diseases, whether it be plant pest disease detection or other outbreak.

This bill is very much needed considering the undeniable increase in biodiversity risks that Victoria and Australia currently face. We live in an increasingly fast-moving and global world, with people and goods moving more than ever. This presents increased and new biosecurity risks from the sheer weight of movements from overseas and the emergence of novel pests and diseases as well. We had nearly 100 biosecurity incursions in Victoria in the last eight years, in the period between 2015 and 2023. Sadly, it is now a matter of when, not if, the next threat will come to challenge us. We have already seen the result of biosecurity incursions and breaches. In 2020 there was an avian flu outbreak in the Golden Plains shire, where around a fifth of our state’s eggs are produced. Over 460,000 birds had to be destroyed, and that eradication ran for nine months, with over 340 people involved.

Being an island nation of course gives us many significant advantages. This has meant that Australia is free from many pests and diseases. It also means that our biosecurity needs are more sensitive and more profound. We have not yet had an outbreak of the African swine fever. It has not so far been recorded in Australia. Foot-and-mouth disease has not been detected in Australia since the 19th century, and we all hope that that remains the case. However, we do know that in the case of foot-and-mouth disease it is on our doorstep, just one incursion away. As members will surely know, in 2022 there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Indonesia, and by November of that year the Indonesian government had reported that disease in 27 of its 38 provinces. This outbreak of course led to a ramp-up in biosecurity precautions to protect our native livestock here in Victoria and a coordinated national response led by then agricultural minister Senator Murray Watt. Today, arrivals in Australia will be asked questions specifically relating to the potential exposure to foot-and-mouth disease in Indonesia as well as to African swine virus and other present risks to our biosecurity. Even with such early intervention and firm measures an outbreak can still be difficult to contain, and the impact on our environment, jobs, livelihood and the economy will compound dramatically.

Victoria is also a significant exporter of food and fibre. If we were to have any sort of outbreak of a disease such as foot-and-mouth disease, that would cut down all of our export markets, with devastating effects across the whole industry, not to mention of course the many thousands if not millions of animals that would have to be destroyed to contain any outbreak. In doing so, it is probably pertinent to reflect on the outbreak of the disease known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which I will refer to in future by its acronym BSE – or better yet by its common name, mad cow disease – which struck the UK in the 1980s and 1990s. The first signs of BSE were reported in 1985, when cow 133 died. By December 1986 BSE was discovered by the UK’s State Veterinary Service. The epidemic reached a peak in the early 1990s, in 1992–93, when there were 100,000 confirmed cases. In total it is estimated that 180,000 cattle were affected, and to try and stop the disease a staggering 4.4 million cattle were slaughtered.

An outbreak of course, as devastating as it is, does not just affect livestock and the agricultural industry. The human form of BSE is known as variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, or vCJD, which is caused by eating meat that is contaminated with mad cow disease. It can be fatal. It progressively affects the brain and has symptoms which in many cases mirror those of Alzheimer’s disease, but it can also remain dormant for decades. Since 1995, when it was identified, 178 deaths in the UK have been directly attributed to vCJD. It is also thought that one in 2000 people in the UK are a disease carrier. That is a staggering number: one outbreak almost 40 years ago, and to this day one in 2000 people in the UK are still carrying this disease within them. It is a subject that still mystifies much of our medical research as well. There have been a lot of advancements in discovering more about this disease. But there is still so much more that we do not know, and it is something that it really pays to be mindful of. I note in various different parts of the media we have seen highlights of what this disease can be, perhaps most exuberantly and touchingly as well as humorously in the great show Boston Legal, where Denny Crane purports to have mad cow disease. Whether he has that or Alzheimer’s is up for debate, but it is a really good reminder of that issue as well.

In response to the UK outbreak, in 1996 the European Commission imposed a worldwide ban on all British beef exports, which would last in various forms for around a decade before finally being lifted on 1 May 2006. It is hard to imagine what sort of impact that would have had if you were a British beef farmer at the time, and I certainly do not want to imagine Australian cattle farmers being faced with that horrifying situation over here. It is perhaps fitting that this bill that we are speaking on today, the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023, has the acronym BLAIR, given it was the Tony Blair government in the UK which was finally in the position to lift the ban. I am sure many sensible people in this chamber and beyond are equally hoping for a sensible return to normality in Westminster, with their upcoming election after years and years of chaos by a right-wing conservative government that has inflicted all sorts of pain, such as austerity, Brexit, the crashing of the pound and other measures as well. I am sure our friends over there are looking forward to a return to a sensible situation.

Melina Bath interjected.

Michael GALEA: Not as wild a chase, Ms Bath, as Ms Crozier did, perhaps, but just a thing to point to there. But the substance of this bill, of course, is that it is essential to reflect on the fact that cases such as this acknowledge just how serious our biosecurity is. One breach, one incursion, can have devastating impacts on our environment, on our agricultural economy, on our animals themselves and of course on the many, many thousands – hundreds of thousands – of people who rely on that industry for their wellbeing and for their livelihoods.

The need to ensure our biosecurity legislation is robust and fit for purpose is paramount. This bill makes significant amendments to the Livestock Disease Control Act. These amendments specifically will mitigate biosecurity risks by facilitating efficient response to exotic animal diseases, enhancing livestock traceability processes and strengthening the compliance and enforcement mechanisms. The significant penalty increases to which I referred at the earlier part of my speech today do reflect the profound risk and impact of any infringement or breach of our biosecurity for our community. These increases will double the penalties for contravention of biosecurity measures, with the penalty for a natural person being 120 penalty units, and for a body corporate 600 penalty units. Furthermore, it will increase the infringement penalty for a natural person to 12 penalty units and for a body corporate to 60 penalty units in other areas, whilst the penalty for damaging or removing signage will be increased to 40 penalty units.

This bill broadens the emergency management provisions, giving the minister increased delegation powers for declaring controlled and restricted areas. It allows the sharing of information related to exotic diseases with other agencies and jurisdictions. It also refines the compensation framework to ensure fairer payment to livestock producers when compensation is required. The amendments will ensure the legislation considers eligibility based on various factors beyond such measures, as well as convictions. The minister will be empowered to recoup compensation paid in error or with false information, and the secretary will be enabled to determine when further compensation for restocking may be made, contributing to improved flexibility during a disease response. Clear and well-defined compensation provisions will foster confidence amongst producers and provide the necessary support during challenging outbreaks whilst facilitating a smooth and efficient compensation process that benefits the affected industry.

In terms of enforcement and compliance, the bill will also extend and clarify the powers of inspectors by allowing entry into dwellings to enforce the whole act and enhancing police officers’ capability to investigate farm-related crimes. As mentioned, this bill will give police the power to act as inspectors under the Livestock Management Act 2010, streamlining their authority and ability to investigate acts of trespass and offences applicable to prescribed biosecurity measures, which is going to be another important measure in making our response to these events as quick, as efficient and as effective as possible. For these reasons and to protect the future biosecurity of our very important agricultural sector, I do commend the bill to the house.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:46): I rise to speak on the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023, which aims to strengthen the response and defences relating to biosecurity. There has long been a need to legislate for better protections for our farming and agricultural communities and industries. Every one of us in some way, shape or form relies on farmers, and we need to protect Victoria’s agricultural and livestock industries. Falling short in this area will cause widespread devastation; it will have a ripple effect that just keeps on going. This bill amends the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994, the Livestock Management Act 2010 and the Plant Biosecurity Act 2010 to enhance our ability to mitigate biosecurity risks.

The risk of dangerous outbreaks reaching our doorsteps from nearby countries is very real. We saw this in recent years with the threat of foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease. When this threat was most acute, biosecurity was at the forefront of every farmer’s mind. Strict procedures were put in place to minimise the risk of contaminated soil. These were things like soil coming in on shoes or on tyres. But then there was also the stress of roaming animals, which are a little bit harder to control, that could have gone from farm to farm spreading disease. Farmers felt the pressure as they considered the implications of contamination: animals would die or need to be put down, land would need to be treated and businesses would potentially go broke. Although the threat of this has died down, our need to be vigilant has not.

I have heard from many farmers about the distress caused by animal activists who have trespassed on their property. This is a biosecurity risk and one that a lot of people do not think about a lot. Farmers and property owners need to have more rights and more legal protection than people who come and trespass on their property, causing distress and harm. I am very pleased to see that increased penalties will be put in place through this legislation. There need to be much stronger disincentives for law-breakers and out-of-control activists. Farmers care for their animals, and ironically it is the activists, who claim to care, that by trespassing cause distress and harm. They disrupt the environments for animals, and they cause biosecurity breaches. The degree of potential damage from these threats is often missed or misunderstood by those that are outside of the agricultural industries. As a major exporter of food and fibre, an outbreak could have devastating consequences for a crucial part of Victoria’s economy.

We are trusted in the global community – our local produce is some of the best in the world – and it is important that we protect this reputation. Our biosecurity efforts are no small feat. Not only are we protecting our own food sources, but we are also helping to secure our economy, so I am pleased to support this bill.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:50): I rise to speak to the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. This bill amends the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994, Livestock Management Act 2010 and Plant Biosecurity Act 2010. The intent of this bill is to strengthen our state’s emergency management, traceability and enforcement powers, allowing us to better manage biosecurity risks.

Just last year we saw the importance of strong biosecurity protections when Indonesia responded to widespread detection of foot-and-mouth disease. If these measures had failed, the result would have been catastrophic for local fauna, flora, the connected ecosystems and our economy. 2013 modelling by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences found that a large amount of foot-and-mouth disease in Australia would have had a $50 billion impact over 10 years. Prior to that, we saw the spread of the varroa mite in New South Wales: a parasite that weakens and kills honey bee colonies. Management of this spread is ongoing, but unfortunately a failed national eradication response has already resulted in the extermination of thousands of honey bees.

Biosecurity risks are very real, and strong protective measures are imperative for protecting our natural environment. This bill includes such measures: greater information sharing, compensation arrangements and increased powers to respond to biosecurity risks. However, as several of my colleagues have pointed out, concerns have been raised that the increased penalties in this bill could act as a smokescreen to crack down on those who seek to expose animal suffering and inhumane practices. This form of activism is not without controversy, but the right to protest is essential for our democracy. Protests of this kind have highlighted the abhorrent mistreatment of animals where government have either failed to intervene or failed to ensure compliance. We saw this with sow stalls – narrow pens used for pigs that are not even wide enough for them to turn around in. The Australian pig industry committed to phasing these out by 2017, bringing us in line with the UK, Switzerland, New Zealand, Austria and Sweden. Yet footage later taken by animal activists purported to show sow stalls in use at multiple Victorian piggeries, with it being alleged that some were being used for multiple weeks. We are concerned that this bill imposes significant financial penalties on those who just want to shed a light on inhumane practices and advocate for a better life for these animals. With this in mind, we will be supporting the amendments by the Greens to remove the clauses in this bill that seek to increase these penalties.

But to return to the central purpose of this bill, these are very important reforms that will ensure that we can respond quickly and efficiently to biosecurity risks as they arise. Accordingly, we will be supporting this bill, recognising the important purpose that it serves.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:53): I am pleased to rise and speak today on the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023, which amends several acts, including the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994, the Livestock Management Act 2010 and the Plant Biosecurity Act 2010, to enhance the Victorian government’s capacity and capability to manage biosecurity incidents, including preparing for, responding to and recovering from an exotic animal disease, pest or plant disease detection or outbreak.

The agricultural sector is an incredibly important part of Victoria and the Victorian economy, given the contribution that agriculture makes to the broader Victorian economy. The gross value of agricultural production in Victoria was around $20 billion in 2021–22, which was seriously impressive growth on the previous year, according to some figures made available by Agriculture Victoria. It grew by around 15 per cent on the previous year’s gross value for agricultural production in and around Victoria. That accounted for around 23 per cent of the gross value of Australia’s agricultural production, making Victoria Australia’s second-largest agricultural producer after New South Wales – statistics that are significant and that I think help ground the debate that today’s bill presents in matters that are more broadly significant to the Victorian economy. We know that for the 150,000-odd people employed in Victoria’s agricultural production and manufacturing sectors – just under 70,000 in primary production and around 85,000 in food and beverage manufacturing – not only is this sector important as a contributor to Victoria’s economy but it is also an important source of jobs for Victorians.

These are but some of the reasons why we as a government take the question of biosecurity very, very seriously. One of the unique benefits of being an island nation, in large part, is that it has enabled Australia historically to maintain a position of being free from many of the pests and diseases that have afflicted agricultural production in other parts of the world. Not only has that afforded us some protection, but also increasingly that affords us an advantage when it comes to positioning our agricultural sector in contrast and in preference to, in an export sense, many other parts of the globe. That success does not come by accident. Ensuring that we have a thriving agricultural sector that provides a significant part of Victoria’s economic activity and employs 150,000-odd Victorians, in both the production and the food manufacturing sectors, comes because of sustained and repeated vigilance when it comes to things like biosecurity. For the management of disease outbreaks and the like when it comes to livestock but also on the plant side of the biosecurity spectrum, we know that the success that we have had as a nation and as a state is the result of vigilance over many, many years. That demonstrates why we need to continue and why this legislation before us today is so incredibly important – to ensure that this significant generator of economic activity and jobs is able to continue here in Victoria.

We know that we have faced, obviously, challenges in the past when exotic diseases and pests have found their way onto Australia’s shores. We cannot obviously always keep them from crossing our land border to Victoria. Across our nation there are other approach vectors, I suppose you would describe them as, but we have to learn from the way that those circumstances have occurred in the past. What this legislation seeks to do is improve and enhance the response that we have – improve the clarity of the emergency response and the effectiveness of the emergency response and the management of exotic disease and pest outbreaks here in Victoria – and also improve the incentives to comply with the stringent biosecurity arrangements that effectively underpin a significant section of our economy and support the livelihoods of so many Victorians by increasing penalties for various offences, including things like tampering with livestock traceability.

It will do this by introducing new offences for the possession or control of livestock that have had their permanent identification removed or removed and replaced. It will strengthen the operation of the current Livestock Disease Control Act to mitigate the potential biosecurity risks by enhancing the traceability processes for livestock and strengthening both the compliance and enforcement mechanisms to help establish an effective response in the face of an outbreak of exotic disease and/or pests occurring here in Victoria so that we have got better systems in place to keep an eye on where livestock movements are taking place, so that if there is a breach in the biosecurity we are able to track it down fast and we do not have gaps in the system that enable an oversight to cause damage. That is partly what this bill is designed to prevent. It will improve the system of us knowing where things are so that in case something does go wrong, we can get on to it as quickly as we possibly can, lock it down and ensure that the biosecurity systems that are in place to protect our agricultural production and manufacturing do that to the best of their abilities.

The bill will also significantly change the fines as described in the current legislation to assist them to act as a deterrent to practices that would potentially cause harm to biosecurity. This includes increased penalties for offences for the contravention of provisions relating to exotic animal diseases and livestock traceability requirements which acknowledge the seriousness of these offences and which reflect the substantial harm that they could present to the entirety of Victoria’s agricultural sector. Penalties will also double for offences relating to noncompliance with prescribed biosecurity measures. In some instances they will be for unlawful entry onto agricultural properties. The changes will enable the minister to evaluate a broader range of situations when deciding to reduce or deny compensation rather than solely basing the decision on a person’s conviction for an offence related to the outbreak. So in the context of this important legislative framework and the regulatory and compliance systems that underpin it they will enable some more consideration of all relevant matters by the minister to evaluate these situations in circumstances relating to compensation.

The bill also will seek to refine the existing exotic disease compensation framework to further protect farmers directly impacted by exotic animal diseases, ensuring that compensation can be paid more equitably and fairly. We know this is becoming increasingly important as we see growth in employment across the agricultural sector at both the production and the manufacturing ends. The legislation will also encourage the sharing of information related to exotic diseases with other government departments and agencies in other states and territories, because we know across a whole range of emergency response settings that the hoarding and siloing of information that others might see as relevant and useful does nothing to strengthen our collective and common response to threats – that just as in other settings, with sharing of information in relation to biosecurity matters, such as diseases and pests, we should be able to freely share it with others who are concerned, whether that be other state and territory governments or other agencies, because as much as we might think that there is no other part of Australia worth worrying about on the other side of our borders, particularly those bits north of the Murray, we know that exotic diseases and pests do not have as discerning tastes as we do and are frequent traversers of our state borders. We cannot keep them out. These pests cross the borders. They do not stop just because it says ‘Thank you for visiting New South Wales. Welcome to Victoria.’ So through this legislation we are seeking to ensure that that the information about exotic pests and diseases can be shared more effectively across jurisdictions.

We have seen that on a number of occasions recently, with recent outbreaks in relation to varroa mites and the like, where the spread of exotic pests was occurring. We knew that the Victorian response needed to be in lock step with the response in other states. That is just one example of where this needs to occur. The bill will also improve the emergency provisions by broadening the delegation powers of the minister to declare control areas and restricted areas to contain an outbreak of disease and to contain its spread. This will assist in managing and preventing the first spread of such disease, particularly in circumstances where eradication efforts have proved to be unsuccessful. This hopefully will prevent the need for the mass destruction of affected livestock that are more broadly affected. If we can contain the risk, we do not need to take as widespread measures to destroy those livestock and/or crops that have been affected. In the end it will make for a better response and better ongoing management that hopefully will both contain risk and reduce unnecessary livestock or crop reduction.

We know that despite our best wishes for this island nation to remain free of many diseases, the volume of international trade and the volume of international traffic does mean that outbreaks can occur at any time. We must always stay vigilant. We must identify concern when it exists and increase both our preparedness and our capability to respond. Part of that is ensuring that the frameworks that are put in place to get people to do the right thing – penalties, enforcement – are as tough and strengthened as they need to be to stop things like outbreaks of foot-and-mouth, which affects our cattle industry. We do not want that anywhere near Victoria’s dairy production sector. It would be an absolute disaster for those sorts of diseases to take hold amongst our agricultural sector – in that instance, our dairy production sector. That would have a devastating effect. These have devastating effects not only on our economy but, as we are all concerned with, on things like food security and the cost of living. Ensuring that we can produce enough of our food as close to home as we possibly can keeps downward pressure on those prices and ensures that there is enough food on the table. Fundamentally, biosecurity is about keeping our agricultural sector safe, it is about ensuring that people have got jobs and it is about ensuring that there is low-cost, accessible food available to Victorians to enable us all to thrive. This is important legislation, and I hope all members support it today.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:08): I am pleased to rise to make my contribution to the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023, affectionately known as the BLAIR bill. In doing so I want to put on record my thanks to our current Shadow Minister for Agriculture Emma Kealy in the other place and indeed our former Shadow Minister for Agriculture the Honourable Peter Walsh. To say that this has been an interest of mine is an understatement, and I am very keen to see elements of this bill go through. The bill really focuses on three particular acts – the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994, the Plant Biosecurity Act 2010 and the Livestock Management Act 2010 – and is designed to strengthen emergency management procedures and traceability and control outbreaks of exotic animal diseases, external parasites and significant plant diseases. It is supposed to mitigate, minimise and control what would decimate our livestock and our horticultural and pollination industries. It would cripple our food and fibre industry in Victoria should some of these very exotic diseases infiltrate and decimate our farms, our livelihoods.

I grew up on a dairy farm, and I know very much the importance of being a farmer. I know their value – that when the rest of the state goes into lockdown the essential services are farms and food production – and I thank all those people every day for the work they do to put food on our plates and clothes on our backs and provide wool for our blankets et cetera. We have a world-class dairy industry, sheep, pigs, beef, wool fibre, poultry and even niche market livestock such as goats, turkeys and even rabbits for our domestic and international plates – somewhere in the vicinity of $85 billion in ag production and value across Victoria, somewhere in the vicinity of 21,000 farms and thousands upon thousands of workers every day. These farms, particularly livestock farms, focus on animal welfare, and they focus on keeping biosecurity measures at a premium.

Let me give you an example of one that I really want to focus on. I want to focus on clause 96, to start with, in this bill, which looks at the Livestock Management Act 2010. One of those particular farmers, whose evidence I want to read into Hansard, was a Tyabb chicken farmer who presented to our animal activist inquiry hearing, which I introduced and the government tweaked the wording of and ran in 2019. Indeed we had many and varied submissions and a broad range of opinions and investigations and hearings. The gentleman, the Tyabb chicken meat farmer, came and spoke, but he asked for his name to be withheld. It is in the minority report that the Nationals and Liberals put out, but you can also go and look at it online. He said:

They manage our farm under strict biosecurity with locks on all gates and appropriate legal signage. We have footbaths to sanitise all footwear. We have a visitors declaration for contact with any avian species or pigs before they are allowed to enter our farm and that is for disease control, particularly the H5N1 bird virus and 1LT, which is rife in the industry and easily spread on people’s bodies.

At this same inquiry we also heard this gentleman speak about how animal activists thought they had not just the right to protest – people have the right to law-abidingly protest – but the right to storm onto this person’s farm. The house, as we know, is often directly beside the shed, the farm or whatever. They stormed onto their home and farm, and 70 people spray-painted it, yelled abuse at this farmer and his wife and stormed into that shed and ended up suffocating over 300 birds. This is not what we would call peaceful protest; to identify this unacceptable behaviour, this is vigilantism, and I will always call this out. All sides of this house should call that out and mitigate it.

Indeed as part of the other investigation into that animal activist inquiry there were people who I became very friendly with. Now, unfortunately, John has passed on, but there were John and Penny Gommans from the Gippy Goat case, where 70 people – I wonder if they were the same people – also thought it would be a good idea to enter that property unlawfully and steal a goat. I met the Italian vet who actually worked on that farm on a daily basis and supervised Gippy Goat farm. Through abuse online they also shut down a cafe and displaced workers who were working in the local area of Yarragon. These are not things that I think should be praised. These are things that should be condemned. Moving on, both John and this gentleman – and others – spoke to our inquiry about suitable on-the-spot fine penalties and how where there is a biosecurity breach those should be implemented, and strong penalties they had.

There is just one other thing that I thought I would put on record. I know we have a pig inquiry happening in the Economy and Infrastructure Committee, so this is from Rivalea Australia and was in one of their submissions. This is a particular piggery site, and they spoke about some of the biosecurity measures that they implement on a daily and weekly basis: showering in; monitoring vehicle movements; use of company clothing and boots; exclusion periods between contact with pigs and restrictions for staff; exclusion bans on bringing pork, naturally, into the site – ham, bacon et cetera; and cleanliness of materials brought into the piggery site – all must be clean and free of organic matter. There is a list of things that farmers do on a regular basis to keep out these sorts of biosecurity incidents and problems.

John Gommans and others put on record that they felt that there should be on average a $23,000 penalty for biosecurity breaches where farms had those biosecurity plans in place and then up to $440,000 for organisations, corporations et cetera. Moving on, after that occurred the report was tabled, back at the start of 2020. The government of the day, which is now the Allan government but was then the Andrews government, took another two years to bother to bring around the livestock management amendment animal activist debate. It was debated in 2022. That was very tardy, and it was quite stressful for those farmers, who deserve to have better protection to deter. Now, people are going to be obstinate, stupid and vigilantes. We need to have proper deterrents there. What we do know is that at the time of that debate on behalf the Nationals and the Liberals I moved an amendment to have the exact penalties put in that legislation that are now in clause 96 today.

So I am not saying, ‘Wow, well done.’ I am just saying that the government for whatever reason refused to listen back in that period of time in 2022. What I do know, looking up Hansard and the discussion by Ms Tierney – and I will speak to Ms Tierney in a minute; she is one of the many agriculture ministers that the Labor government has had. She said that this advice on the penalties was provided by the Department of Justice and Community Safety and they were considered to be consistent with other penalties in the Livestock Management Act 2010. I guess I question whether or not that did come from the department, because for whatever reason the same department is now – and welcomely so – through the government looking at doubling those penalties against these sorts of people coming on farm.

One other thing that we did – in the lower house Mr Walsh and me in the upper house – was move a private members bill that looked to address that problem at the time. It also looked at the licensed riverfrontages and access to those. The Liberals and Nationals felt the need to ensure that a licensed riverfrontage had the same legal protections as a freehold piece of land or one that was rented and therefore considered to be that farming property. Again, this government did not want to give that sort of protection to farmers.

One thing I know in speaking with Ian Cane, who lives just out of Bairnsdale in East Gippsland – he has been an apiarist for 40 years – is the vitality and the importance of our apiary industry and pollination industry. We saw very concerningly sometime in about August last year there was an infiltration via ships, I am sure, into Newcastle and therefore varroa mite hit the land of Australia and was making its way down. Indeed it was seen at the top of the Murray River not far from Victoria – not far from Mildura – and I would like to put on record my thanks to the minister at the time, Minister Tierney, for giving us a briefing. I asked a number of questions at question time in relation to mitigation and protection and those biosecurity commitments and requirements to mitigate this terrible varroa mite.

I know up there there was an eradication program. It is very important to have that communication between federal government and state government and between state governments, and I think some of the information that is contained within this bill is about making those better communications. But one of the concerns I have is that at the end of the day, varroa mite is here, and it felt like there was a bit of indecision about, ‘Will we try eradication or will there be containment?’ I think, in speaking with Ian Cane, there needs to be significant funds put into mitigation and containment. It is a bit like that other thing that we had a couple of years ago – you are never going to eradicate it once it is in the system.

We have heard from a number of speakers, so I will not go on in a great level of detail, about foot-and-mouth and lumpy skin disease, and indeed I know the acting chair spoke about mad cow disease in the UK. That absolutely decimated the economy, but how devastating must it be for farmers to see their prized stock with decades of blood lines having to be destroyed in protection? We understand why, but we do not need that in our regions – in our country, nor in our state. Certainly there were traces of foot-and-mouth disease found in pig product in Melbourne, and that caused a great deal of alarm.

What I do have a question about, and I know Emma Kealy raised this during the bill briefing and at other times, is the staff required should there be a massive outbreak of a significant nature, an exotic disease outbreak. The government has assured us that they are going to, I guess, redirect some 5000 extra staff from other places, migrating them from other departments, and my concern around that is: what level of professionalism or skill set will they have to mitigate and to be really helpful and supportive in the ag department? We know the agricultural department has had cuts over recent times.

As you can see, there are a number of issues that I would particularly like to discuss. I think my time is running out. I see that there are some amendments, and I know we will speak more to those. I believe that the Greens amendments and the Animal Justice amendment, should they hit our floor, will certainly not be things that we will support. We want protection for our farmers. We feel that law-abiding farmers should have protection. If that means additional penalties to deter activists, then that is something that we would certainly support. It will be interesting in committee of the whole, and I wish this a speedy passage.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (15:23): This is a mixed bag of a bill. While the Greens welcome some of the changes the government is seeking to make here, we are very concerned about measures buried towards the end of the bill that mean we cannot support it unamended. First and foremost, we acknowledge the absolute importance of strengthening our biosecurity incident response efforts. Biosecurity threats may not be at the forefront of most Victorians’ minds, but the impacts of significant incidents could reach all households, for example, affecting food availability, water security and our health.

To this end I was glad to see the government release its new biosecurity strategy at the end of last year. It was good to see that the strategy acknowledges climate change is a key driver for increased biosecurity risk in this state. Warming temperatures increase the spread of exotic pests and animals, especially when the ecosystem is at its most vulnerable after climate disasters. But whilst the strategy acknowledges climate change, it fails to outline any meaningful actions relating to a changing climate, nor are there any in the bill before us today, and that perhaps speaks to a broader failure to see biosecurity in a holistic manner. While our agriculture industry is of course important, it is essential that we begin to frame biosecurity protection as a whole-of-ecosystem issue. For example, we have cinnamon fungus and feral pigs wreaking havoc in the Otways, European carp destroying our rivers and the northern Pacific sea star invading Port Phillip Bay. Serrated tussock and phalaris are destroying native grasslands. These are biosecurity issues as well and warrant at least as much concern as livestock and crop threats, because resilient ecological systems are essential for current and future generations to thrive. I have also heard from councils and stakeholders that the state’s biosecurity efforts are incredibly under-resourced. We need to be properly funding this space if we are going to ensure that these strategies can be implemented across all levels of the community, from landowners to Landcare.

What this legislation does do well is enable action for Victoria to respond to exotic animal disease outbreaks. An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, for example, as others have mentioned, would have broad-ranging agricultural, environmental and social implications. Foot-and-mouth disease is caused by a highly contagious virus and affects cloven-hoofed animals like cattle and sheep. It causes fevers and weakness as well as blisters in their mouths and on their feet and teats. These blisters burst and leave painful ulcers that can take weeks to heal. Young animals are particularly vulnerable and may die. First and foremost, not only would this create a serious animal welfare issue in the effects of the disease itself on animals, but many would have to be killed to try and contain the outbreak, and livestock movements would be restricted, resulting in overcrowding. Then there are the environmental impacts of the culling and disposal of large numbers of livestock, including potential contamination of water, and visual pollution and toxic emissions resulting from burning carcasses. There would be threats to humans too through significant supply chain disruptions and threats to food security. This is just one example of a biosecurity threat that is knocking on our door. Others are already being dealt with in Australia. For example, fire ants are increasingly a real threat here in Victoria, with potentially devastating impacts not just for agriculture but for people, native species and the economy. I implore the government to commit to properly funding mitigation efforts in this space as well.

Then there is the varroa mite, which again we have heard about from others. It is regarded as the most serious global pest for the honey bee. Late last year the federal government moved from an eradication to a management approach, acknowledging that varroa mite was here to stay. What we have learned from the varroa mite experience elsewhere is that when it comes to invasive species, we often get just one chance to stop them.

So this bill’s efforts towards improving Victoria’s preparedness for and response to biosecurity risks are welcome, including improvements to traceability, particularly given the rising challenge of farm theft, by better using technology to identify and intercept thefts earlier, clarification for farmers about compensation schemes for losses incurred as a result of disposal of livestock or crops and modernisation of public notification procedures.

While we are supportive of many of these changes, there are amendments proposed towards the end of this bill that are of significant concern and render what might have otherwise been a reasonable bill unsupportable by the Greens. The amendments to the Livestock Management Act 2010 are a particular concern. Buried in the last two pages of this bill there is a doubling of infringements that were only introduced through amendments to the Livestock Management Act in late 2022. The government is now proposing increasing the penalties for unlawful entry onto agricultural property to $23,077 for individuals and over $115,000 for organisations. It is worth refreshing our memories about what occurred in 2022 when the most recent amendments to the Livestock Management Act were made to create the existing penalties. Ms Bath has already alluded to the fact that changes were introduced at that time and that the coalition introduced amendments seeking to double the penalty units for these trespass- and activist-related offences to the amount that Labor is currently proposing. The coalition at the time felt Labor’s proposed changes to the penalties in the act were not a sufficient deterrent for animal activists. Labor rejected the coalition’s proposal, claiming it was unnecessary because these were already some of the harshest penalties against activists in the country. To quote the then Minister for Agriculture Gayle Tierney:

The fact is that the on-the-spot fines contained in this bill will be the toughest of their kind anywhere in Australia.

But here we are – in the last two pages of the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023, the government is backflipping and doing what the coalition always wanted.

So what has changed in the past 18 months that has compelled Labor to so dramatically increase what are, by their own reckoning, extremely harsh penalties? Is it that they are issuing so many infringements that they have to concede that the existing ones are not acting as a deterrent? Is it that the farms are being overrun by what members of the coalition today referred to as out-of-control activists? No. In fact data provided by the government shows that there have been zero official warnings, zero infringement notices, issued since these offences were introduced – zero. So I would like to know, then, why these offences are being doubled, because the government has provided zero evidence to support this. For some unexplained reason this Victorian Labor government is belatedly adopting Nationals policy and trying to bury hugely controversial changes to these offences in what would otherwise be an acceptable bill. These changes are totally unjustified, and that is why we are introducing amendments to omit clauses 96 to 98 of the bill to remove the doubling of penalties from this piece of legislation. I would ask if those amendments could please be circulated now.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I will speak more to the amendments and have some questions during committee stage, but, needless to say, the Greens will not be supporting this bill in its current form.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (15:31): Happy new year to everybody – first gig for the year. I am pleased to speak on this bill, the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023, before us today. It intends to amend the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994, the Livestock Management Act 2010 and the Plant Biosecurity Act 2010. Victoria is Australia’s number one food producer, and the south-west region of Victoria is the nation’s biggest producer of food and fibre by value of product.

I was raised on a prime lamb and cattle property in south-west Victoria, so my own heritage is embedded very much in agriculture and farming practices. We can all be proud of Victoria’s world-renowned, clean, green reputation and the input of agriculture’s circular economy in supporting local jobs. Direct farming jobs, like my first job in the family shearing shed as a rouseabout, is what the agricultural economy is all about, and related jobs, like truck driving, where milk and livestock are transported to market and to processing facilities like Bega in Koroit, like Saputo in Allansford and like ProviCo in Dennington. As you can tell, I am going to give you a little microcosm of the agricultural community that is based in Warrnambool and surrounds.

These workers who transport product are supported by our wonderful Transport Workers’ Union. Factory jobs where locals work as cheesemakers, on the butter line or in other roles are also represented by unions. There are agricultural supply jobs, where companies like Bade Ness Rural and AG Warehouse in Koroit supply equipment and support to farmers from the surrounding district. People work in these businesses and have their first opportunities and live their lives working in these businesses. These jobs supply the industry with equipment, feed, medicines and PPE for farm work, like gumboots, overalls, workboots and tools. I know most kids that come off farms have a favourite brand of gumboots. I certainly had my favourite brand, and they used to be purchased at the Warrnambool Co-op. I was devastated when they went off the market, because you just wore out gumboots year after year. I know that is a different story to what most people would believe would be my background – no snickering from you, Mr Berger. There is also the Western District Agricentre, where tractors and other machinery are bought and sold.

Further examples are Nutrien Ag Solutions, where engineering solutions are provided for stock-handling equipment, water troughs and other merchandise – more jobs, more agricultural jobs – or Purcell Pump Services, where workers provide support for water pumps and other stock-watering technologies. I was at Sheepvention in August last year, where I was looking at bluetooth-connected and wi-fi-connected stock-watering equipment, which was absolutely fascinating – there is nothing you cannot connect to your wi-fi now. There are dairy supply services like Milka-Ware in Warrnambool, formerly Southern Cross Dairy Services, where all things dairy are available, or Acme Rural Supplies.

Then there are the financial services utilised by the aforementioned businesses and farmers, like Sinclair Wilson, and agricultural arms of the traditional banks and legal firms as well. Then you have also got livestock and agricultural agents like Landmark, Elders, Ray White or J & J Kelly. Also, we have the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests, where research and other agricultural support services are provided. All of these businesses employ people in our local community, many of whom were trained at TAFE or other agricultural education institutions.

As you can see, agriculture is the backbone of our rural and outer regional communities – the reason for our cities and towns to exist. Agriculture supports the social fabric of farming communities as they play a critical role in food production for all of us. The Allan Labor government is ensuring our hardworking farming communities can face the challenges posed by climate change and biosecurity risks, drawing on the latest research and leading practice responses. That is why it is critical that our agriculture sector is as prepared as possible to respond to and manage growing biosecurity risks.

My first job as a rouseabout in the family shearing shed was one example where we first came across all sorts of different experiences on the farm. Dealing with pests, plants, animals and biosecurity risks was a part of everyday life, whether that was hoeing thistles, trying to block carp from a stream, dealing with rabbits or shooting foxes; all of those things are biosecurity risks. Introduced species such as foxes and rabbits, along with thistles, ragwort and other invasive plants, not only do harm to our indigenous landscapes, they also incur significant costs for the agricultural sector.

Fortunately, due to careful interventions, Australia is still free of the world’s worst animal diseases, but we must remain vigilant. I grew up knowing how important it was to protect our island nation from outside hazards. I remember a visit a very long time ago when Prince Charles, who is now the King, had to dip his feet in a bucket as he alighted from the aircraft to ensure that he did not bring foot-and-mouth disease to the country. So it has been going on for long time. With the increase in international travel and ease of global movement, the risks to our state and national biosecurity capabilities are growing. That is why the Allan Labor government is committed to managing and preparing for key biosecurity risks. The Victorian government has invested $17.5 million in biosecurity as a part of this year’s budget. As the Minister for Agriculture Gayle Tierney articulated on 25 September 2023:

When we all keep an eye out for the risks, we have the power to protect our precious natural resources, valuable agricultural industry and ensure future food security for everyone to share and enjoy.

The bill before us today reinforces this commitment, and as stated on the Agriculture Victoria website, the changes to the Livestock Management Act 2010 acknowledge that:

Victorian farmers work hard to keep their animals safe and protect them from pests and diseases with robust biosecurity systems. These new laws will deter behaviour that puts that hard work at risk.

They will significantly improve the operation of these acts in relation to biosecurity, incident preparedness and response. Importantly and through consultation the bill follows a legislative review focused on improving Victoria’s readiness to respond to an outbreak of an exotic animal disease. These diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease, have the potential to significantly impact or wipe out agricultural industries.

Equally critical is the detection and management of exotic plant diseases and pests in Australia. Pests or bugs can do untold damage to our agricultural sector and destroy livelihoods. The impact that these events can have on communities in not only loss of production but in farmers seeing their livestock suffer, crops diminish or even be catastrophically wiped out is clearly enormous. These laws will help alleviate fear of this happening by ensuring our biosecurity safety is as strong as possible. The bill includes amendments to provisions related to compensation payments for exotic animal diseases. Crucially it expands the powers of Victoria Police officers to investigate livestock-related offences. This is backed by increases in penalties for offences related to exotic diseases.

There are several main purposes of this bill. The first is to facilitate additional information sharing with the Commonwealth, other Australian jurisdictions and other government agencies during emergencies, including during an exotic animal disease outbreak. The importance of information sharing across jurisdictions is illustrated perfectly by a case study published in Victoria’s Biosecurity Strategy on the Agriculture Victoria website. I am sure everybody understands about the close call and the management of the varroa mite for bees and how important this is. I know the former agriculture minister did refer to the important work going on in that space. It certainly is very concerning to imagine a world without bees. Horticultural crops are heavily dependent on honey bee pollination, particularly almonds, apples and pears, where the absence of bees can lead to near-total crop failure. The collaborative effort between industry and government proved critical during detection of the varroa mite at the Port of Melbourne in 2018. Shared responsibility and conducting timely surveillance and testing contributed to the effectiveness of the emergency response.

Improving control area and restricted area provisions by broadening their applicability and streamlining public notification procedures is also an important area. Further, this bill will improve clarity and efficiency of emergency management provisions, including simplified quarantine provisions – and I think it is worth pausing there at ‘simplified quarantine provisions’; amend compensation payment procedures in relation to exotic animal diseases, including eligibility criteria and valuation processes, to facilitate administrative efficiency; improve enforcement capability by providing for Victoria Police officers to be appointed as inspectors without requiring the declaration of an exotic animal disease outbreak; and strengthen inspector powers by allowing inspectors to direct people and vehicles during an exotic animal disease outbreak.

The need for improved enforcement capability, with Victoria Police officers being appointed, is based on crimes and offences that are not isolated and can be dangerous. As reported by ABC News on Friday 3 March 2023, a former livestock agent from eastern Victoria was handed what is believed to be the state’s largest fine for breaching national livestock biosecurity laws. I know that the invasion of farming properties is something that is very intimidating and triggers fear in the hearts of many farmers, particularly people living alone on a farm, which is increasingly common.

This bill will achieve greater deterrence by increasing penalties for offences under the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994, the Plant Biosecurity Act 2010 and the Livestock Management Act 2010. These penalties are clear and will eliminate any ambiguity as to what constitutes an offence, with doubling of penalties for noncompliance and increasing infringement penalties.

The bill is sensible and provides clear guidelines necessary to safeguard our vibrant agricultural sector. This bill is important not just for the protection of animals, not just for the protection of the community, but also for the protection of the agricultural economy. As I described earlier, my first job was working on my family’s farm. I have just described the importance of the vertical agricultural economy in the Warrnambool community alone, and if you multiply that out by many times around the Victorian state, you will see just how important it is to support this bill.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:46): I also rise to speak on the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023. Despite many rumours to the contrary, I am not quite an anarchist, so I do believe that there are some valid functions of the state. And even if I was an anarchist, I think that biosecurity would be one of the last functions that we would want to get rid of. For that reason I am not going to oppose this bill. It does make some very sensible changes to a number of acts. However, there are some things that we do have some problems with. I actually share the concerns of the Greens about the doubling of the penalty outlined in the bill. If people cast their minds back to the last term of Parliament, it was actually the introduction of this offence that caused me and Mr Quilty at the time to disagree on this issue and vote different ways – because I was not willing to give more power to the state, considering the circumstances at the time.

I also note that, as has been stated a few times, there have been zero warnings or actual penalties applied to anyone. So I am also, like the Greens, curious as to why the penalty is being doubled. Certainly if the penalty was not high enough to act as a deterrent, then one might expect that there would be a lot of incidents of this offence occurring. That is not the case, so I do not buy the deterrence angle. However, I have put forward a number of amendments from the Libertarian Party to try and improve some parts of this bill. I will briefly go through some of these amendments, but firstly I might get them circulated, if that is okay.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

David LIMBRICK: The first part of the amendments that I am proposing is related to compensation for property that is destroyed and the ability of the minister to refuse or reduce this compensation. This bill allows the minister to declare that someone has acted recklessly or negligently, presumably on the report of some officer. Now, reckless and negligent actions have a specific legal test and should require a higher level of evidence and consideration, and that is what I am putting in this bill, so that it would require that test before farmers or whoever was getting their property destroyed would receive compensation.

The second part of these amendments proposes a minor adjustment of the requirements declaring a restricted area or a control area. Given my extensive experience and the experience of all Victorians with emergency powers during the last term of Parliament, we know that declaring very large areas or putting restrictions on very large areas has very many unintended consequences. So this second amendment merely states that it needs to be set over a specific area, and also that there might be a ‘reasonable belief’ that an exotic disease is present or might be introduced into any land, premises, place or area. But as it stands, the legislation grants these powers if the minister believes or suspects that this might be the case, and the change that I am proposing is just that this must be a reasonable belief, which has a very specific and well-understood legal meaning. In practice, this probably will not change much, but we are seeking to ensure that these laws are not used recklessly in the future to declare the entire state, for example.

The amendments also introduce the words ‘likely to be impacted’ into the section of the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994 that grants the minister powers to declare control areas related to exotic disease outbreaks. This amendment seeks to prevent these laws being used in the kinds of ways that we saw during the pandemic, where areas that were disease free and at much lower risk than other areas were subjected to the same restrictions – for example, when we had people forced to wear a mask while walking down an empty street adjacent to their farm without another person in sight during the pandemic. This amendment seeks to ensure that due diligence is conducted and the whole state is not simply just declared a control area without a reasonable belief that disease outbreak could be likely to occur.

The final part of the amendments that I am proposing should be uncontroversial. If emergency powers are being used, even if they are reasonable and supported by communities and all stakeholders, there should be a requirement to report to Parliament on the use of these powers, and that is what this amendment is seeking to do. I would also say that with regard to what the Greens are proposing in not supporting the increase in the penalty, I will be supporting that also, but I would be very interested in the committee stage to hear from the minister as to what the reasoning is for the increase in this penalty, because I do not buy the current explanation that it is for deterrence. So I will await the minister’s response on that.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (15:52): I rise to speak on the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023. The bill will make amendments to the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994, the Livestock Management Act 2010 and the Plant Biosecurity Act 2010. The bill supports a public commitment made by the Victorian government to improve exotic disease preparedness and response capability. The bill significantly increases penalties for offences for the contravention of provisions related to exotic animal diseases and livestock traceability requirements to underscore the seriousness of these offences and reflect the potential harm that such offending can inflict on the community, the environment and the economy. It improves and clarifies emergency management provisions to enhance the efficiency of preparedness and response activities by broadening the delegation powers of the minister to declare control areas and restricted areas and to allow the sharing of information related to exotic diseases with other government departments and agencies and other states and territories. It also refines the existing exotic disease compensation framework to ensure that compensation for exotic animal diseases can be more equitably and fairly paid to affected livestock producers who own affected livestock. It mitigates the potential risks of market access and trade disruptions and safeguards Victoria’s agricultural and horticultural sectors.

Amendments to the Livestock Disease Control Act mitigate biosecurity risks by facilitating efficient response to exotic animal diseases and enhanced livestock traceability processes. It strengthens compliance and enforcement mechanisms. Penalty increases see a doubling of penalties for contravention of biosecurity measures. For a natural person that is 120 penalty units and for a body corporate, 600 penalty units. It increases infringement penalties for a natural person to 12 penalty units and for a body corporate to 60 penalty units. The penalty for damaging or removing signage is increased to 40 penalty units. Within the emergency management provisions it broadens the minister’s delegation powers for declaring controlled and restricted areas and allows sharing of information related to exotic diseases with other agencies and jurisdictions.

Within the exotic disease compensation framework it refines the compensation framework for fairer payments to affected livestock producers and considers eligibility based on various factors beyond convictions. The minister is empowered to recoup compensation paid in error or with false information, and procedural fairness is ensured with notice and review mechanisms. Further compensation for restocking is there, with the secretary enabled to determine when further compensation for restocking may be made. It also improves flexibility during a disease response.

Within enforcement and compliance it extends and clarifies the powers of inspectors, allows entry into dwellings for enforcing the whole act and enhances police officers’ capability to investigate farm-related crimes. Livestock traceability introduces offences for possession of livestock with removed or replaced permanent identification and aims to deter fraudulent practices like rebirthing and protect Victoria’s livestock industry. The modernised notification procedures will enable online publication of notices and electronic service of documents and enhance accessibility and efficiency in public notification processes.

Amendments to the Livestock Management Act will see strengthening of the existing legislative framework for reducing biosecurity risks from unlawful entry onto agricultural premises. Trespass onto livestock premises can obviously lead to biosecurity breaches, impacting human and animal health and access. The doubled penalties for noncompliance with prescribed biosecurity measures for a natural person are 120 penalty units and for a body corporate 600 penalty units, with an increase in the infringement penalties for a natural person to 12 penalty units and for the body corporate to 60 penalty units. The increased penalty for damaging, defacing or removing signage related to biosecurity measures will carry 40 penalty units.

Recognising police officers as inspectors under the Livestock Management Act and the Livestock Disease Control Act and consequential amendments to remove other references to police officers and amendments to the Plant Biosecurity Act will improve government capacity and enhance readiness to respond to biosecurity threats like exotic plants, pests or diseases, with clarity and efficiency in emergency response through improving emergency response and management provisions related to plant pests and diseases. Penalties are significantly increased for contravention of provisions related to exotic plant pests and diseases and aim for greater deterrence and to align penalties with the Livestock Disease Control Act.

Around delegation of powers, the bill enables the minister to delegate power to declare plant pests or diseases as exotic to the chief plant health officer. It also facilitates faster responses and supports investigations by extending the declaration period to six months. The control area declaration shifts the power to declare a control area to the minister or delegate for quicker regulatory action. It also minimises administrative delays and improves adaptability to respond to plant pest outbreaks. The restricted area declaration allows delegation of power to declare a restricted area, including to the chief plant health officer, and facilitates rapid and effective responses to plant pests or disease outbreaks. Enforcement and compliance options grant the secretary power to issue permits specifying exemptions to restrictions in controlled or restricted areas, enhance the efficiency of issuing permits and reduce the administrative burden. The modernised public notification procedures permit online publication notices for infected plants, and restricted area orders enable electronic service of documents to streamline communication.

I think the fact that there is broad support for the work that has been done in bringing this forward is a good sign. It shows that the government is continuing its work of many decades delivering for rural and regional Victorians and rural and regional Victorian towns. We know that here in Victoria international food and fibre exports are number one in Australia, which is something that I and many of my constituents are incredibly proud of. They are 24 per cent of the national total, so for our size as a state that is incredible. The fact that we have hit a record of $19.6 billion in food and fibre across that area is just sensational, considering that is up from $14.5 billion just in 2020. I think it is the work that we have done and our global standing as quality producers and quality manufacturers that means we have those markets wanting to take our export products. That is why this government is proud to stand with our food and fibre producers, our manufacturers, and ensure that they have not only the infrastructure they need to grow and export their products but also the systems around them, the regulations of government, to ensure that they are in a safe environment to do so.

We on this side understand the value that comes from these exports – the jobs, and what we have seen with regional unemployment being so incredibly low. Investing broadly in these industries and these sectors in our regions is seeing us get the results of these massive exports, these massive dollar figures, and providing the jobs and the benefits broadly to us as a state and as a society, because we know that for Victorians – children, families, workers, everyone – the fact that we have world-class food being produced here not only for consumption here but also for export is a wonderful string to our bow. Whilst those opposite repeatedly showed when they were in government that they did not want to support regional and rural Victorians, we maintain the services and infrastructure that go around our food and fibre industries. They want to cut them. This bill is another example of how we want to ensure that everything that is needed, whether it is infrastructure or a safe environment to grow and produce in, is there.

It was good to hear about Ms Bath growing up on the farm. It was good to hear that there are still some Nats that have done that. I thought everyone had to be a retired journo to get into the Nats nowadays, but that is good to hear. It was great to hear from my colleague Ms Ermacora about growing up on the farm – some of the beautiful stories she told about being an ex-rouseabout. I started having a chat to Mr Berger about him being a jackaroo. But we know that, growing up on a farm, things like footrot have a massive impact. Victorians know that. There are those opposite – like Mr Mulholland, but those opposite in the 1980s and the 1990s – who stood around worshipping Thatcher and Reaganism, and we saw the results of that in regional and rural Victoria.

The last four leaders on this side – when you look at Jacinta Allan growing up in regional Victoria; Daniel Andrews in Wangaratta; Brumby in Bendigo, retired back to the farm now; and Bracks, born and bred in Ballarat – were working in the regions. When I grew up, towns like Ballarat were Liberal held. Now for 25 years we have seen our key regional centres understanding the value of government investment in them and government sticking by them, not working to a Thatcher–Reagan model of everybody for their own. It is about investing in community. This bill is to a similar effect – you have got to put the supports around our producers and around our manufacturers, unlike that lot over there. They will say it was not their fault, it was the feds ripping the auto industry out of Australia when the dollar was at $1.10. Of course we know where it is now. They just want to rip and cut. I just think, coming back to Ms Ermacora’s points before – the beautiful reflection she had on regional and rural living and output and products – was great to hear.

I know Ms Bath is trying to get me to not talk about our investment in the regions, but again the fact that –

Melina Bath interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: No, around biosecurity. We could talk about broader security and climate security and supporting our farmers by ensuring they are not going to be hit by more and more years of drought, which is going to lower their economic outputs, which is going to put further stress on consumers on prices when they are going to the supermarket. I know that those opposite do not want to look holistically at how to ensure future generations of farmers, but this bill does exactly that by protecting, if you will, local environmental contributing factors to quality and security of growth and product but then also looking holistically at our farmers’ abilities to grow in the broader climate. The fact is that our farmers want to see skilled workers so they can have a top-grade product that fits this incredible international export. The fact is that we have got the TAFEs, we have got the training and we are investing in regional worker accommodation so that workers are there. We are investing in the schools so we have got the family supported. We are investing in hospitals and health care. This is the holistic nature of ensuring that this bill is one of many that are ensuring the sustained viability of our farmers, their output, the contribution that makes to our state and the great product that it gives to our state, our families, workers and all of us that depend on it.

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (16:07): I have a reasoned amendment to the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023 and I ask for it to be circulated. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with ‘the bill be withdrawn and not reintroduced until the government sets out a new approach to animal welfare in Victoria.’.

Let me highlight something from the very start as I explain the need for my reasoned amendment and my obvious opposition to this bill. This bill is simply an ag gag law in disguise, a disingenuous bill that makes a mockery not only of the members in this place but of Victorians who the government believes are so naive as to not recognise the true intention behind it. The time for this government to be transparent has well and truly passed, and to be honest I expected nothing less from them. We saw it with the decision to continue recreational duck shooting just last week, ignoring the key recommendation from their own report, to allow the slaughter of our native waterbirds and decimation of their habitat. When it comes to more than just covering up animal cruelty but supporting it, this government knows no bounds. The animal protection legislation that purports to protect animals was promised over two elections ago, and the government is still yet to deliver it. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was implemented in 1986 and has not been updated since, yet the government is prioritising increasing penalties for whistleblowers who seek to expose animal cruelty and save animals’ lives. This is a cheap money grab and a tool to silence cruelty.

Let us not forget that it is the government’s failure to protect animals and their neglect towards updating animal welfare legislation that forces whistleblowers to attend these properties. Had the government fulfilled their promise, we would not be having this conversation here today. Instead of real actions from the government, they are simply increasing penalties for offences that are not even being breached. This bill will increase the penalty for contravening a prescribed biosecurity measure under section 50A of the Livestock Management Act 2010 from 60 penalty units to 120 penalty units for an individual, a monetary penalty of $23,077, and from 300 to 600 penalty units for a body corporate, or $115,386. Similarly, the penalty for the offence of damaging or defacing a sign under section 50B is doubled to 40 penalty units, or $7692. However, since January 2022 there have been zero Livestock Management Act infringements or official warnings issued. So why is the government proposing to double penalties for these non-existent offenders?

The doubling of penalties is wholly disproportionate to the absence of infringements, calling into question the real purpose of this bill. This bill is seeking to criminalise the legal act of whistleblowing by preventing anyone entering a premises, including when an animal is very clearly in need. Are we supposed to believe that whistleblowers, who install cameras in slaughterhouses on rare occasions, are the biggest threat to our state’s biosecurity? I am not buying it, and neither should anyone in this chamber. There is no proven correlation between whistleblowers and harm to agricultural biosecurity. I repeat: there is no evidence whatsoever that shows that animal activism has led to a disease outbreak in this country. But what there is is evidence of the serious breaches by these businesses that threaten our biosecurity and human health.

PrimeSafe led prosecutions in 2019 and 2022 of two separate unlicensed seafood businesses that were harvesting and selling seafood without a seafood safety licence. The court imposed fines of $1500 and in the later hearing ordered a fine of $10,000. In 2019 a business was found to be in severe violation of the Meat Industry Act 1993, where it sold meat for human consumption that had been slaughtered at an unlicensed facility. The magistrate recognised the grave consequences that such actions can have on the health of our community yet ordered a mere fine of $2500. There have been numerous court cases of the seizure of meat and fish because of the failure of businesses to provide hygienic conditions for slaughter and processing, where the sale of meat is not even being inspected and branded in accordance with our laws. But now the government is sitting here and telling us that we are doubling penalties targeting whistleblowers up to 15 times the amount of what noncompliance costs factories. Does this sound right – that the offenders of cruelty, putting the nation’s biosecurity and health at risk, get a slap on the wrist while those who expose their offences are increasingly disproportionately punished?

This bill is further marked by ignorance, with several members utilising foot-and-mouth disease, bees and varroa mite, avian flu outbreak and fire ants as examples to demonstrate the necessity of this bill whilst neglecting to note that these biosecurity risks are not caused by whistleblowers. Rather, they are a product of the industry itself. Zoonotic diseases occur out of the unnatural contact between farmed animals and wild animals with humans in our intensive factory farms that are breeding sites for bacteria, viruses and parasites.

Let us delve into some of those examples that were so confidently put forth by members in the other place. Foot-and-mouth disease was first described in the 16th century and has continually been revitalised over the decades. It was the first animal pathogen identified as a virus, but it was not the last. The United Kingdom outbreak in 2001 was a result of inadequate animal care, when infected meat was fed to pigs on a farm in Northumberland, leading to a cost of £8 billion and a massive 6.5 million animals culled.

The swine flu emergence in 1998 was born out of the high density of pigs in factory farms. It then mutated and was transmitted to humans. Avian flu in Australia was and is circulated within poultry and wild bird populations themselves – again, not by animal activists. In 1992 near Bendigo an outbreak occurred on a chicken breeding farm. The flu spread from the neighbouring abhorrent duck meat farm, which failed to meet many standards of hygiene and animal welfare, through a worker who worked on both farms and spread it between the two.

Further, we all know that the heartache and financial burden of COVID-19 still rings true for so many locally and around the world, and yet it went largely ignored that this virus was a product of mistreating animals – with open-air wet markets, the selling of exotic animals and seafood, the caging of live animals and the shackling of those that had been killed. I will not let this government make a scapegoat out of animal activists for its own failures. Let me paint you a picture of the reality of these conditions right here in Victoria that animal activists have brought to their and our attention.

An investigation by Farm Transparency in 2023 into Victorian slaughterhouses showed the world the horrific and cruel practices that occur behind closed doors, an investigation that left the public hysterical and mortified by the treatment of animals in our state. Footage showed piglets gassed to death, gasping and squealing for air before being hung up. I am sure by now you are all familiar with the image of pigs desperate to escape, screaming and pleading for their lives as they are shoved into a gondola and lowered to their violent death of suffocation by gas. And who made us aware? It was not the industry and it was not this government. These are creatures with the intelligence of a three-year-old child and smarter than dogs. They are sentient beings capable of feeling pain, fear and distress. They have love for their offspring and family, and the industry responds to this by tearing piglets apart from mothers – an indescribable pain that no being should ever have to endure. The footage obtained by activists showed pigs being brutally beaten with paddles and their body parts torn off from getting caught in machinery all while fully conscious. These machines are enclosed by metal walls with the purpose to shut us out and keep our eyes from the industry’s most well-kept secret – the abominable animal cruelty that it inflicts – so that the industry and government can continue to profit from animal abuse and community ignorance. These activists risked their lives to perform the job of this government’s own inspectors.

The Australian Food Group slaughterhouse in Laverton, one of three of Australia’s biggest pig slaughterhouses, decided to shut down instead of installing mandated CCTV following the footage being released. Take a moment to think about that. Why would you choose to shut down a huge business instead of doing the simple task of installing a CCTV camera? It is because these slaughterhouses are caves of unimaginable cruelty, pain and suffering. The routine and systemic breaches are so severe that they would rather shut down than show us the truth. This is an industry that thrives on a lack of accountability, and the government lets it happen. Did inspectors charge the slaughterhouse with illegal cruelty and noncompliance until it was brought to national television? No. It was not until animal activists brought this to light that the cruelty was even exposed. Notably, this being the biggest exposure case by activists in this state, it resulted in no biosecurity breaches. Livestock animals already suffer from a severe absence of legal protection, with slaughter being excluded from the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act where it is done in accordance with the Meat Industry Act or any other Commonwealth act, and now this government seeks to snatch away another protection – the people that are trying to help them. Now I ask you: how does penalising activists who expose these cruel and illegal practices protect our biosecurity?

I could tell you endless stories of animal suffering across Victoria, but this Parliament has already shown it cares not for the welfare of animals but only for silencing those trying to speak out for animals for its own financial gain. So let me speak to you in terms the government can perhaps relate to, separate from having some compassion. Let us discuss the practicality and actual capacity for this bill and its amendment to achieve its stated objectives. If the government truly cared about the biosecurity of our state, it would have used this bill to impose truck wash and boot disinfection installations at the entry of every farm that is carrying contaminants from place to place every single day or even multiple times per day. Where are the actual biosecurity improvements? If animal activists disinfected their shoes upon arrival, would they then be allowed to proceed with their activism? No, because this bill is not about biosecurity; it is about persecuting those who expose Victoria’s cruel and inhumane farming practices that happen widely and go unmonitored across the state.

In 2019 in response to the federal Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019, a bill with several similar ag gag clauses, Labor provided the following additional comments:

The offences created by this bill appear to overlap with existing state laws that already prohibit trespass, damage to property and theft, and that could already form the basis of criminal liability for those who incite those offences. To this extent, the bill might only complicate the law with additional offences that will not improve existing legal protections for farmers.

But now this government expects us to believe that these challenges are no longer present, despite not being able to explain how these penalties interact with such offences. To say the least, this proposal’s compatibility with our legal framework is questionable and unanswered. This proposal does not have the capacity to protect our biosecurity. It has not a single clause that focuses on improvements for farmers, animals or our environment. I will not be fooled by this bill’s title; this is nothing but ag gag legislation. The government does not care for our biosecurity, it only cares for secrecy and shutting Victorians out from the truth.

The next ridiculous amendment proposed in this bill relates to the destruction and damage of signage. At what stage do we start caring more about the condition of signage than we do about the actual living conditions of the animals reared for consumption? It is an absurd and nonsensical inclusion. Where is the evidence that animal activists are damaging signs? With all due respect, activists have a much bigger goal in mind than destroying signage on properties – they are there to save animals’ lives. In September last year a Victorian sheep farmer was fined $14,000 for 13 charges of animal cruelty, being the failure to provide proper and sufficient care, food and treatment to 475 sheep at his farm. 475 animals – that equated to 3 cents per animal. This cruelty led to the death of 135 sheep, 15 becoming seriously disabled, rotting carcasses, mangled limbs, blood spattered everywhere and untreated wounds. That is a real biosecurity threat. Yet this government proposes that the fine for damaging a sign is to be more than half this amount, at $7692. It is disgusting that the lives of 475 sheep and the punishment for extreme breaches of our law are valued at a mere $7000 more than knocking over a sign. This government needs to get its priorities right and focus efforts on real problems and real actions for our animals.

I would also like to correct those in the other place that have absurdly and offensively conflated animal activism with terrorism. I ask: do you therefore consider me a terrorist? I have been to slaughterhouses, knackeries and countless farms where I have seen the truth about farming practices in this state and have helped sick, injured and dying animals. It is part of the reason that led me here. This label should not be thrown around lightly – it is an offence to every person who has suffered at the hands of real terrorism, and it is deeply concerning that those in the other place would be so senseless to misrepresent the word’s meaning and be so careless and insensitive to use it in this present time. Using the word ‘terrorist’ is an attempt to invoke fear in Victorians. If the industry has nothing to hide, then what does it fear from those who seek to record its practices? If this government is so confident in the welfare of animals on farms, why not just let the public see it? The reason is obvious: the truth is incompatible with the innate compassion we as humans possess, the truth is confronting and, most importantly, the truth would require that we change our ways.

With this bill the government is sentencing millions of animals to a life of suffering and unimaginable cruelty right through to their slaughter and abstaining from taking any real action to protect our biosecurity all in the name of its vendetta against activists. Perhaps the government’s greatest fear is whistleblowers exposing its own negligence and incompetence in regulating this industry. There is no evidence to support the claim that activists are impacting our biosecurity. The greatest threat is the industry itself, with its flagrant breaches, its unhygienic facilities and its producing of environments so detrimental to the health of animals through high density, extreme confinement and endless abuse.

I remind you that this bill has zero capacity to improve our biosecurity. The government has put forth no practical actions for improvement. I encourage my colleagues in this chamber to support my reasoned amendment, and if it does not pass, to oppose this bill today.

Adem SOMYUREK (Northern Metropolitan) (16:25): I rise to support the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023. The measures contained in the bill are crucial for safeguarding Victoria’s economy, public health and environmental sustainability against the potentially devastating impacts of biosecurity threats. These measures in the bill ensure that our state, Victoria, remains a reliable and competitive player in global agriculture and horticulture markets.

As a former minister for trade, I can report to the house that Victoria does have a very, very good reputation internationally, both in the region and across the world, for our clean and green produce; we are viewed as a source of clean and green produce. That is an invaluable competitive advantage that we have. That ultimately helps enhance our exports, which means more jobs, which means more prosperity for Victorians. This is in a region that we cannot compete with on costs, so our agriculture and horticulture sectors are very, very important for this state. Therefore we must ensure that we have a robust and flexible regulatory framework in place that quickly and effectively responds to biosecurity threats. From where I sit, I see this piece of legislation as being a part of that.

Once tarnished, our reputation will be very, very difficult to restore, so we need to be vigilant, and I think this bill goes a long way to doing that and getting the balance right – although I do have some apprehension, notwithstanding what I have just said. There are a couple of things that Mr Limbrick will address around transparency that I think the bill could be tightened up on. But overall I think it is a good bill, and I commend the bill to the house.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (16:27): I rise to speak on the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023. To me this is a multifaceted thing. It was actually very interesting listening to the member for Northern Victoria who spoke just previously, and in a lot of ways I agree with her about animal cruelty and things like that. We may have a different view on what constitutes cruelty, but I personally, and my party, do not stand for just wanton cruelty. I guess where we move apart is in that I look at this and I say activists want to go to someone’s farm without permission and take their pictures, do what they want and all that, and that is fine. They do not want to obey the law. But those laws are there for the protection of everyone. If the animals are being kept in substandard conditions, I would suggest that they have found that out via a whistleblower. If that whistleblower does not get caught, then surely there has got to be a better means than illegal means. Should the activists get their way and, let us say, we all become vegans, it will be illegal – it will have to be enforced – to eat animal products or whatever, and therefore there would be an expectation that we would obey those laws. We cannot have it both ways. Whether we like it or not, they are laws that need to be obeyed, and I could never support anything that encourages people to disobey laws. In this case we are encouraging people not to disobey laws by increasing penalties, and I think that sends a far clearer message than anything else.

I will not be supporting Ms Purcell’s reasoned amendment, obviously, but I commend this bill to the house. I will be listening to Mr Limbrick’s amendments with some interest, but when it comes to farms, we have to be very careful what we do. As a couple of other people have said, if we have one major incident, the reputational pounding we will take will drop the price of everything. It will affect the regional areas, and it could take them years to get back. So I encourage people to do everything they can to follow their passions and pursuits, but within the law.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (5): Katherine Copsey, Sarah Mansfield, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Noes (32): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Harriet Shing, Adem Somyurek, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (16:39)

Melina BATH: Minister, I believe this is in your home patch. In Benalla in April 2023 there were 30 protesters who entered a facility early in the morning and allegedly chained themselves to machines, putting a halt to operations. This was in a pig abattoir. Reports were that seven protesters were charged with trespassing, not whistleblowing. I am interested to know the status, if your department has that status. Have they actually been formally charged?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not think responding to the status of a police inquiry or indeed any subsequent action would be in the remit of the bill. I can confirm that the owner of that abattoir Mr Colin Sinclair did ring me after the event – being Benalla – and reported very positive interaction with the police. He was very impressed with the way that it had been handled as a matter. That was only brought to my attention by virtue of my personal knowledge with that operator. In my capacity as minister, in my portfolio and also as acting in agriculture, I am not provided with a current status update of that matter, nor do I think that is appropriate within the remit of this bill for the purpose of the committee stage.

Melina BATH: Minister, we have heard today in debate people in this chamber say that there have not been any of the current trespass biosecurity laws enacted or infringements or penalties. Can you confirm that is the case? From the livestock act, have there been any infringements or penalties issued since it came into being two years ago?

Jaclyn SYMES: No infringements have been issued, as you have identified, Ms Bath.

Melina BATH: Does that mean that there were no successful penalties laid or that there were no charges laid, period?

Jaclyn SYMES: No infringements have been issued.

Melina BATH: Just in relation to simplifying the permit requirements for material movements across borders, we know when the varroa mite came down to the top of, we will say, Mildura way, there was very much a cross-border interaction around securing the site. Can the minister just outline how the particular amendments in this bill will create that simplification? Where there has been an identified outbreak of an infectious disease or a mite like varroa mite, how will this bill support the simplification of material movements?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am sorry, Ms Bath. I have to ask you to clarify the exact question you are asking. Is it about information dissemination between the states? I am just a little unclear about your specific request for information.

Melina BATH: A section of this bill looks at simplifying the permit requirements for material movement, and I am just interested to note there was the example up in the north where we had varroa mite in New South Wales and then we had mitigation in Victoria. Can you share with this committee the simplification of those permit requirements for material movement?

Jaclyn SYMES: It might assist me, Ms Bath, if you can point to the section that you are referring to. Which clause of the bill are you referring to? We are in clause 1, and you have just referred to a particular section.

Melina BATH: No, I cannot, so that is okay. I will do some research, and we can come back.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, sure.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (16:45)

David LIMBRICK: I move:

1. Clause 8, page 14, lines 9 to 15, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

2. Clause 8, page 14, line 16, omit “(c)” and insert “(b)”.

3. Clause 8, page 14, line 20, omit “(d)” and insert “(c)”.

4. Clause 8, page 14, line 27, omit “(e)” and insert “(d)”.

5. Clause 8, page 14, line 30, omit “(f)” and insert “(e)”.

This is in relation to the reduction in compensation factors. Basically, as I outlined in my second-reading speech, this is over the concern that if the minister is going to make an allegation of recklessness, that that actually has a legal test, and therefore this amendment corrects that and raises the bar in line with that.

Georgie CROZIER: The coalition will not be supporting Mr Limbrick’s amendments 1 to 5 on this occasion. We understand his intent but do just have concerns around some of those areas around the negligent nature that could be applied by some people and how that needs to be dealt with in a timely manner.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government is not in a position to support Mr Limbrick’s amendments.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (5): Jeff Bourman, Moira Deeming, David Limbrick, Georgie Purcell, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (32): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Adem Somyurek, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 (16:54)

Rikkie-Lee TYRRELL: I move:

Clause 11, line 21, omit “The” and insert “After consulting with relevant industry representatives, the”.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (5): Jeff Bourman, Moira Deeming, David Limbrick, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (33): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 12 to 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 (16:59)

David LIMBRICK: I move:

6. Clause 24, lines 21 to 23, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(1) In section 26(1) of the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994, after “is a” insert “reasonable”.

(2) In section 26(1)(a) of the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994, after “area” (where first occurring) insert “likely to be impacted by an exotic disease”.’.

7. Clause 24, line 24, omit “(2)” and insert “(3)”.

These are related to the restricted and control area declarations. This simply adds a reasonableness test and slightly raises the bar to say that an area must be likely to be impacted by a disease. The rationale behind this amendment is that during the pandemic we saw areas affected by restrictions that had, in my opinion, low likelihood or no prospect of requiring restrictions but that nevertheless were subjected to them. This test at the very least will require the minister to consider whether it is actually likely or reasonable that an area would be affected before setting a declaration.

Georgie CROZIER: The coalition will be supporting Mr Limbrick’s amendment, and I take into consideration his comments that he made just in relation to what Victorians had to endure through COVID, where there were wide declarations made. I think this goes to a bit of a commonsense measure, and so the coalition will be agreeing to support Mr Limbrick’s amendment on this occasion.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, just a question: so it is your contention that because of health measures that were taken on the advice of the chief health officer, you are applying the same logic to infectious diseases of animals with the advice of the chief vet – is that what you are basing this amendment on?

David LIMBRICK: It is more around the use of powers that are declared by whatever that person may be, whether it is the vet or CHO or whatever it is. When we have these sorts of extreme powers that are being declared, then it is my contention that there should be some underlying basis for that and not just merely a suspicion. This slightly raises the bar so that they would have to say why they believe it is likely or why it is reasonable that they impose that restriction on a declared area.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, are you concerned about any past practices in relation to Agriculture Victoria and the chief vet’s information that went out to the public in relation to responding to avian influenza and the like that you can point to, where you are concerned about past practices?

David LIMBRICK: No, I am not referring to past practices; I am anticipating potential future problems that may arise, and this is a safeguard against any potential future problem.

Jaclyn SYMES: Rather than continuing to ask Mr Limbrick questions, the government will not be supporting the amendment. I guess I am the representing minister in this case, but I was the minister that was in the seat during the avian influenza incident, which a lot of people did not realise happened because it was in July 2020 and people were focused on the pandemic that was impacting humans. The speed at which that event unfolded, the fact that I was on video links at 3 am with the latest information about the fact that it had jumped from poultry to turkeys to emus – with any kind of additional restrictions, particularly in the amendment that you are proposing here, I guess I am actually more concerned about the reporting amendments that you have coming up and the impost that that puts on people that really need to be responding to these types of issues. I think in my experience, in practice, if you put in too many barriers, you are reducing the ability to act fast, because once this stuff goes, it is very hard to claw back. When you have interactions – you are correlating it to human movement – if you think about avian influenza, it was not the chickens that were making the turkeys sick, it was the wild birds and the ducks that were flying between them. So this is something that is very dynamic. This is not about telling people what they can and cannot do, this is about being able to jump on something in the most appropriate manner. Frankly, giving the reasons that come from the directions of the chief vet and all that information I think, in my experience, basically meets some of the things that you have said, but I would be uncomfortable putting in additional barriers that might mean that something gets away in this space, because the consequences are just too dire.

David LIMBRICK: My response to that would be that in the particular case the Attorney brought up of the avian flu, the responses would actually meet this test of ‘reasonable’. The actions that the government undertook would meet the test of ‘reasonable’ and would meet the test of ‘likely to be impacted’, so I do not think this would have stopped anything that the government did in that particular instance.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Georgie Purcell, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.

New clause (17:09)

David LIMBRICK: I move:

9. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 26 –

‘26A New section 31A inserted

After section 31 of the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994 insert –

“31A Reporting to Parliament in relation to an order declaring a restricted area or a control area

(1) If an order declaring a restricted area or a control area is made, varied, continued or revoked, as the case may be, the Minister must prepare a report in accordance with this section on the making, variation, continuation or revocation of that order, which must include the following –

(a) a statement of the reasons for the making, variation, continuation or revocation of the order;

(b) a copy of the advice of the chief veterinary officer of the Department (or chief plant health officer of the Department to the extent that the order relates to bees) in respect of the making, variation, continuation or revocation of the order;

(c) a summary of the matters in subsection (4), if applicable.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), if a House of the Parliament is sitting on the day after the coming into force of an order declaring a restricted area or a control area or the variation, continuation or revocation of that order, as the case may be, the Minister must cause the report to be laid before that House on that day.

(3) If –

(a) a House of the Parliament is not sitting on the day after the coming into force of an order declaring a restricted area or a control area or the variation, continuation or revocation of that order, as the case may be; or

(b) for another reason it is not reasonably practicable for the report under subsection (1) to be laid before that House on that day –

the Minister must, within 5 business days of the coming into force of the order, give a copy of the report to the Clerk of that House.

(4) A report under subsection (1) in relation to a variation, continuation or revocation, as the case may be, of an order declaring a restricted area or a control area must also include a summary of any proceeding commenced for a contravention of any prohibition, restriction or requirement specified in the order during the period –

(a) beginning when the order that is varied, continued or revoked first came into force; and

(b) ending when the variation, continuation or revocation of the order came into force.

(5) If the Clerk of either House is given a copy of a report under subsection (3), the Clerk must –

(a) give a copy of the report to each member of the House as soon as practicable after receiving it; and

(b) cause a copy of the report to be laid before the House on the next sitting day of the House.

(6) A failure to comply with the requirements of this section in relation to a report under subsection (1) in respect of the making, variation, continuation or revocation of an order, as the case may be, declaring a restricted area or a control area does not affect the validity of the making of the order or the variation, continuation or revocation of that order.”.’.

This is around reporting requirements to Parliament. Effectively what this is doing is saying that if you are going to use one of these declarations, a report must be tabled before Parliament. It is as simple as that.

Jaclyn SYMES: I touched on this in my response to the previous amendment. The government’s position on this amendment is that it cannot agree with it because it increases the administrative burden of making time-critical exotic disease restricted area and control area orders, which presently are made rapidly and proportionate to the risk based on suspicion and belief of the possibility of an exotic disease being present in or being introduced into Victoria from outside the state. Introducing requirements for the minister to provide a report to Parliament in the instance of a declaration, variation, continuation or revocation of a restricted area or control area being made under the act would significantly hinder the efficiency and effectiveness of an exotic disease response in Victoria.

I understand your desire for greater transparency and accountability and that is not necessarily my problem, but the way you have structured your amendment is effectively going to divert resources from a response. As I said, the advice in relation to the outbreak that I dealt with changed rapidly and you could have a change in boundary three times in one day. You could have somebody say, ‘I’m included and I shouldn’t be.’ Like, there are so many times that it changes. If you were after a report after the event, I think that would be easily provided. But I think the real-time type of reporting that you are seeking the minister to do – we all know that there are people that provide that advice to the minister. In these situations, diverting someone’s attention from response to administratively continuing to update us is not what I think Victorians would expect.

Council divided on new clause:

Ayes (17): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Georgie Purcell, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney

New clause negatived.

Clauses 27 to 95 agreed to.

Clauses 96 to 98 (17:15)

Sarah MANSFIELD: I have got a couple of questions regarding these clauses. What we are seeking to do with these amendments is remove the clauses in the bill that seek to double the infringements in the Livestock Management Act 2010 that were amended back in 2022. What we want to know is what process was undertaken to decide to increase these penalties, given that in defending the penalties that Labor introduced in 2022 you claimed that you were advised that they were sufficient when the Nationals sought to double the penalties at that stage? Did the government seek or receive any advice to justify this increase in penalties at the present time?

Jaclyn SYMES: My advice is that, as you have recognised, the government was not in a position to make this decision during the previous bill and we wanted to take the time to have further consultations with relevant stakeholders, which have come back with the view that the existing penalties were inadequate in relation to exotic animal disease and livestock traceability offences because they were not serving as an effective deterrent. Those consultations have put us in a position where we are more confident now than we were then that this is required. As you have identified, the bill does increase penalties for offences related to those offences, mainly to underscore the gravity of the offences and to reflect the potential harm that such offending can inflict on the community, the environment and also the economy. My advice is that the penalties are similar to other jurisdictions, so a little bit of catching up has occurred here.

Sarah MANSFIELD: With respect to the relative penalties under section 50A(1) of the Livestock Management Act 2010, since they came into effect in 2022, how many official warnings have been issued and how many infringements have been issued?

Jaclyn SYMES: I have previously answered the question. No infringements have been issued, and I do not have advice in relation to warnings.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I may be able to provide some information. I received an email on 24 November 2023 from the office of the Minister for Agriculture, Minister Spence, which says that livestock management infringements since January 2022 have been zero, and there have been zero livestock management official warnings since January 2022. So I am just curious to understand your justification for the penalties that were introduced in 2022 by Labor and defended by Labor as being adequate. You are claiming that they are not a sufficient deterrent, yet there have been zero infringements and zero warnings issued. You are saying we need to double them. We have had zero infringements and zero warnings in that time. What aspect of the existing penalties is not a sufficient deterrent? How are you justifying this?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Mansfield, as I explained, following further consultation from the duration of that bill to this one, the decision that has been made by the government is to increase the penalties for a variety of reasons that include the concern that the existing penalties do not offer an effective deterrent to offending, they do not reflect the seriousness of the breach, they are lower than comparable offences in other jurisdictions and they are lower than other offences that relate to the outbreak of human-related disease. I think just on that last point, having consistent laws and consistent penalties across the statute books is important.

Georgie PURCELL: We understand that no infringements or official warnings have been issued with the last set of penalties, introduced over two years ago now. With a number of acts that protect animals and the environment being so well overdue by this government, such as wildlife act reform and the new Animal Care and Protection Bill, could the Attorney please explain why the government’s priority is proposing penalties be doubled under this act when they have not been used?

Jaclyn SYMES: What is your question?

Georgie PURCELL: My question is: why has the government prioritised the doubling of penalties when there have been no infringements or official warnings and there are two animal protection bills delayed by the government?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Purcell, I take issue with the characterisation of the question in relation to priorities. This bill is before us today, and you are well aware that there are other bills to come, which you have identified, which deal predominantly with animal welfare issues. They remain a priority of the government and will be progressed.

Georgie PURCELL: Does the government have any evidence or examples of any instances that demonstrate that unlawful entry by whistleblowers has specifically resulted in a disease outbreak?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Purcell, that is not possible to determine, but it is certainly not possible to rule out for unauthorised entry onto our farms and places that have biosecurity concerns. Any unauthorised access by people that have not received the appropriate training or do not have the appropriate awareness of things that they need to take into account when coming to and indeed leaving a property can pose a biosecurity risk.

Georgie PURCELL: I just want to confirm that the government has no examples of whistleblowers specifically causing a disease outbreak.

Jaclyn SYMES: I just reiterate my answer that it is possible for any person regardless of whether they are characterised as an animal activist, as a whistleblower or as someone who is lost. For anybody who is entering a property unauthorised where there are biosecurity concerns, it is possible that they could cause an infection or an outbreak of some kind.

Georgie PURCELL: Does the government have any examples of individuals generally causing a disease outbreak, not just whistleblowers?

Jaclyn SYMES: This bill is quite triggering. It has been a while since I have been in this portfolio, but there are plenty of examples of outbreaks that have been caused or contributed to by human behaviour. When I first got sworn into this role I spent a harrowing couple of hours at Attwood in relation to Agriculture Victoria’s biosecurity hub there. I attended one of my first meetings as a baby minister about a month into the role and had a briefing with the emergency management commissioner from the chief vet and the equivalent plant person, who – I am sorry; I am offending –

Gayle Tierney: Chief plant officer.

Jaclyn SYMES: Chief plant officer – the former minister is closer to the role than me. It is pretty terrifying. It is hard to sleep at night after you get those briefings about the consequences from different perspectives. The destruction of animals is awful. The impact on communities, the economy and just the community more broadly is actually terrifying, and there are cases around the world that are because of humans not doing the right thing, whether they have not followed biosecurity protocols or indeed not told people what they have done wrong at an early enough time. So yes, there are plenty of examples of human error in relation to causing outbreaks. Fortunately, in Australia serious incidents are very few and far between, and it is bills like this that are designed to keep it that way.

Georgie PURCELL: I guess my point is that there could not be an example of a whistleblower pointed to but there were plenty for individuals, yet they were the largest focus of this debate. But I will move on. What alternatives were considered to enhance Victoria’s biosecurity in addition to the increasing of penalties?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Purcell, as you could appreciate, as the minister that is acting in the role for the purposes of this committee, your question goes to policy development and not clauses, so it is difficult for me to outline to you all of the considerations that might have come to this. I would be in a better position if it was my legislation, but I would put to you that your question is about policy development, which makes it outside the scope of this particular committee stage. I recognise that you would like an answer to that question, but I would put to you that it is not relevant to this committee. You might want to take that up with the minister. It would be, obviously, education, awareness, biosecurity signs at fronts of farms. There are a range of measures and a strategy that underpin a lot of the response to protecting Victoria’s agricultural industry through the biosecurity lens. It is not just local and state but also a national strategy. There is a lot that goes into this, but because your question is a broad question and not directly about a particular clause in the bill, I think that my commentary could probably end there. I would suggest that you take up those questions directly with the minister’s office.

Georgie PURCELL: How will these new offences interact with already established offences relating to trespass and property damage?

Jaclyn SYMES: Just from conferring with the box, in terms of my understanding, obviously there is a role for AgVic and there is a role for authorised officers and Victoria Police. As in any matter, when an offence is identified, relevant charges can be put and they can interact across the statute books, depending on the circumstances.

Georgie PURCELL: With the powers of police expanding to being classified as inspectors under the Livestock Management Act, will police be receiving additional biosecurity training, and if so, what will the training include?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Purcell, there is the farm crime coordination unit, which has regular conversations with relevant community members and industry members in relation to crime and other incidents that impact the agricultural sector, so they would be well briefed in these matters. There is also online material being developed to be rolled out to police and relevant officers.

Georgie PURCELL: Whistleblowers commonly use PPE equipment and adhere to all biosecurity measures when undertaking work. If this is done, will there be any exemptions from these offences?

Jaclyn SYMES: I want to seek some advice from the box before I jump in and answer that.

Ms Purcell, I think in a practical situation I am sure that people that are charged with these offences may seek to put evidence in relation to their expertise to protect against biosecurity. I guess the concern that we have and why there are not exemptions proposed in the bill is that the position would be that generic responses or dressing in PPE may not be appropriate for every circumstance. They would also be unlikely to have obtained the consent of the property owner, so creating an exemption in the absence of consent is problematic as well. So I guess the short answer to your question is that there is no way to dress in any way or provide your own mitigation as a defence under the legislation to being charged with any of those offences.

Georgie PURCELL: Thanks, Attorney. What led the government to change its position from 2022 when it rejected the Liberals’ and Nationals’ proposal to double these penalties?

Jaclyn SYMES: I responded to Dr Mansfield’s question, which was pretty much identical, where I outlined that there are a number of factors when considering penalties. I think my understanding is that at the time the government wanted to ensure that they could undertake consultation and further consideration of the adequacy of penalties and for reasons such as the adequacy of the deterrence, the reflection of the seriousness of the breaches and the fact that the existing offences were lower than comparable offences under other jurisdictions, and it was also identified that some of these offences were lower than others that relate to the outbreak of human-related diseases. So ensuring that there was some consistency across the books and indeed those other areas that came out through consultation is the advice that I have received.

Georgie PURCELL: Will this bill be used to target undercover investigators and animal rescuers?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, this is not designed to target any individual group. This is designed to ensure that the biosecurity efforts in this state are maximised to provide the greatest protection for the benefit of everyone in the community. There is no characterisation or identification of any particular group that this is targeting. This is designed to ensure that everyone in the community obeys these laws.

Georgie PURCELL: If the intention of the bill is to not target animal rescuers, how will the government ensure they are protected?

Jaclyn SYMES: A broad question – I can only assume you are concerned about appropriate protest activities and the like, which are not touched by this legislation. This is purely about biosecurity risks on individual properties. If individuals want to stand out the front of properties and express a view about the practices et cetera, this bill does not cover that.

Georgie PURCELL: What is the difference between the effects of this bill and those from ag-gag laws?

Jaclyn SYMES: I was searching through pages because I anticipated that you may raise this particular issue. I guess the short answer is that we certainly reject any suggestion that this is an ag gag bill in any way. It applies to anyone. It is agnostic, and I would make the point that it applies to people working in the agricultural sector, such as livestock agents, for example. This is not designed to target any particular group; it is designed to protect the biosecurity issues that are a big concern.

Georgie PURCELL: If this bill is not an ag gag law or not targeting whistleblowers, then why did that form the dominant proportion of the second-reading debate in both houses, including by members of the government?

Jaclyn SYMES: You will have to ask individual members about why they were drawn to that type of debate. That is not how I would characterise the bill. I certainly have not referred to that. As I reflected before, responding to biosecurity concerns is a community problem. It is an agricultural issue. It keeps people awake at night worrying about these concerns. I take your point that there may be people that now find it a little bit more difficult to become a whistleblower, but this is about ensuring that the agricultural sector is protected. It is not about gagging people that have concerns – sometimes legitimate concerns – about practices. We would certainly encourage information to come forward, but trespassing on someone’s property and putting yourself and the industry at risk is not the way to go about it.

Georgie PURCELL: Is the government seeking to prevent footage being obtained from farms with this legislation?

Jaclyn SYMES: The short answer is no. We would characterise this as about discouraging any type of unauthorised access to property, but there is nothing in this bill that specifically picks up filming or the placement of cameras and the like. That is not specifically covered in this bill. However, it might have the effect of discouraging people from unauthorised entry to perform such tasks.

Georgie PURCELL: The last set of on-the-spot fines for animal activists came from a recommendation from a parliamentary inquiry into animal activism, and then we have got this new set of legislation. Activists have consistently said that they do this work because there is a lack of transparency, and now they are at risk under these laws of severe penalties. That same inquiry recommended that the government implement CCTV in slaughterhouses to improve transparency, and the government accepted that recommendation. Why have they not acted on that but implemented two sets of fines since then?

Jaclyn SYMES: As you would appreciate, you are asking about matters that are not covered in this bill, and in relation to other recommendations that may have been put to the government I would direct you to the minister’s office for the latest update on where they might be up to in the consideration of those recommendations.

Georgie PURCELL: How does the government intend to ensure that whistleblowing activity is not conflated with criminal behaviour under this bill?

Jaclyn SYMES: This is purely about ensuring that unauthorised access that puts biosecurity issues at risk is deterred and responded to appropriately. You are conflating issues that I would suggest are not the purpose of this bill.

Georgie PURCELL: Can you tell us exactly which animals and what types of premises are captured by this bill? For example, will it include animals used for racing and other recreational facilities with animals?

Jaclyn SYMES: Any property that has livestock can opt in to the biosecurity measures provided by this framework.

Georgie PURCELL: The fines imposed under this bill are extraordinarily severe. What is the justification for such disparity between them other state penalties?

Jaclyn SYMES: You are asking me for a lot of opinions, Ms Purcell, and a lot of them are statements that you are making, characterised as a question. I have answered the question in relation to penalties and comparisons with other states and comparisons with other laws, and I do not think that anything further would be required except for responding to your requests for me to have an opinion that I express back to you.

Georgie PURCELL: Why have signs been singled out from other forms of property damage in this bill?

Jaclyn SYMES: The explanation here is that notification by way of signage is the way that property owners and farmers can identify that there is a biosecurity management plan in effect on that property. You would not want a situation where the removal of signage would be a way to get around avoiding an offence. So that is why it is specifically spelt out in here, because you do not want to have a situation where people think that they can remove a sign and therefore the biosecurity management plan does not apply to that property, which means in effect you could step it out that someone would argue that there is no offence, because there is no notification of the biosecurity management plan being applicable to that property. So that is why the signage here in this legislation has been drawn out, because it is the part of the framework in relation to making sure that is how people communicate that they have opted in to a biosecurity management plan.

Georgie PURCELL: Thanks for the explanation, Attorney. Has there been an evidenced increase in or examples of damages to signs or defacing of signs to justify this change?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think I would argue that I have answered that in my response to your previous question in that it is part of the framework. It is how landowners communicate that they have a biosecurity management plan and therefore there is a risk if you enter their property that you may jeopardise the safety of yourself, animals, the environment et cetera, so it is an important part of ensuring that there is awareness. Therefore you would not want a situation where somebody was wanting to avoid breaching the framework by removing a sign and the like. I would hope that this is not something that occurs, but you would want to ensure that it is not a means of avoiding your responsibilities or obligations under this legislation.

Georgie PURCELL: I completely understand it is part of the framework. But the penalty has been doubled to 40 penalty units, and the fine is almost $8000. So my question is: are there examples of it happening? Understanding it is part of the framework, has this happened to justify this change?

Jaclyn SYMES: Not to my knowledge.

Georgie PURCELL: How is this different to property damage legislated under the Crimes Act 1958 and Summary Offences Act 1966?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think you could probably get charged with both if you are committing damage or vandalism to someone’s property. But this is, as I have explained, a fundamental part of the framework, an identification that there is a biosecurity management plan, which in effect is a sign that says you could endanger yourself, my farm or the community because there are biosecurity considerations that you are not aware of as somebody that is coming onto my property. It means that if someone is coming onto the property, they can stop and they can make sure that they are not entering the property without consent or they know where they can go and where they cannot. I know that is an issue particularly with people that live on their properties in terms of just visitors to their home versus to their farm property and the like. It is an important tool to make sure the people know the risks and therefore can take the right steps to comply with a biosecurity management plan. It is a separate offence under this legislation if you are to alter that, because of the risks that it could lead to in terms of somebody inadvertently breaching biosecurity conditions or putting themselves in harm’s way. This is a different framework. To your question ‘How is it different?’ it is different, but there could be other offences for damage to personal property that would be applicable. They would sit in a different context, and it would be up to law enforcement to decide what is an appropriate charge for the conduct that is before them.

Georgie PURCELL: You touched on this in your response and said you think. My next question is: can you confirm that it could be an additional penalty on top of standard property or damage charges?

Jaclyn SYMES: It could be, but it would depend on the specific circumstances.

Georgie PURCELL: This is my last one. What is the purpose of increasing the penalties under clause 98 for offences under infringement notices when no infringement notices have been issued for two years?

Jaclyn SYMES: I have run through the rationale for the government’s position in raising penalties. I guess with it being your last question and, hopefully, one of my last answers, I hope that we continue to have another two years of no-one being convicted of or being charged with any of these offences. We hope that through communication and through the signage if it is kept in place and the like that people know what the risks are and people know what their obligations are. For those that are concerned about this legislation in any way – some of the issues you have raised – rest assured this is not designed to attack your endeavours; this is designed to protect the agricultural sector, the state and the nation. But also your activities, your concerns, your genuine protest abilities and the like are not disrupted by this. You just have to go about it in a legal way.

Council divided on clauses 96 to 98:

Ayes (29): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt

Noes (8): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 99 to 100 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (17:59): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (17:59): 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.

Council divided on question:

Ayes (31): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt

Noes (6): Katherine Copsey, Moira Deeming, Sarah Mansfield, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Question agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.