Animal Diseases Legislation Amendment (Civil Liability) Bill
Page: 6570
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 18 February.
Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [12.42 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Animal Diseases Legislation Amendment (Civil Liability) Bill. I indicate from the outset that the Opposition reserves the right to move amendments in another place. As a past president of the stock and station agency industry, I point out that this bill will provide protection from civil liability for individuals required to disclose information in accordance with the Stock Diseases Act 1923 and the Exotic Diseases of Animals Act 1991. Stock and station agents have raised concerns about their exposure to liability arising from the disclosure of information in accordance with the requirements of the Stock Diseases Act 1923. The proposed amendments are identical in effect and apply to both Acts, wherein they protect persons required to provide information under the Acts from any personal action, liability, claim or demand.
This bill is well and truly overdue. In order to comply with the legislation, stock and station agents must, when requested to do so, disclose to an inspector what could sometimes be considered confidential information. This could be done by answering a question or by giving a notice, other document or record in accordance with the Act. Stock and station agents are often called upon to do that. This bill will facilitate that by ensuring that individuals required to provide information under the Acts are adequately protected from civil liability. However, the Minister in another place does not seem to want to brief the shadow Minister. I place that on the record again because this bill is important to the stock and station agency industry. I call on the Minister in another place to brief the shadow Minister on such important bills.
Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury) [12.45 p.m.]: As stated, the object of this bill is to amend the Exotic Diseases of Animals Act 1991 and the Stock Diseases Act 1923 to provide persons who disclose information that they are required to disclose under those Acts with protection from civil liability for such disclosures. This bill has come about from concerns raised primarily by stock and station agents and their exposure to civil liability, and it was done through a very consultative process. A vital part of any animal disease control strategy is to determine the source of the infection and the extent to which it may have spread. This process needs to start from the property where the disease originated and be able to trace the subsequent movement of all animals affected. Without this intelligence it is impossible to control an infectious disease rapidly and effectively. It was the fast transmission of this information that allowed Australia to successfully eradicate endemic diseases such as tuberculosis and brucellosis. It also allowed for the successful eradication of avian influenza from New South Wales when the disease occurred in 1997.
In essence, this legislation will have some far-reaching effects. Luckily, we have not seen avian influenza in Australia since then. Having systems that are able to respond quickly to emergency animal diseases is vital if we are to safeguard our valuable agricultural industries. These industries are critical not only to both the State and national economies but also to the health of rural and regional communities throughout New South Wales. For example, the 25,000 New South Wales sheep producers have 36 per cent of the national flock, with a farm gate value of $1.4 billion. When one hears such figures one understands the importance of this legislation. The 26,500 beef and dairy farmers contribute more than $4 billion, on a value-added basis, to the New South Wales economy.
The recent discovery of a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE] in America shows why we need to have a system that can rapidly identify the source of any disease and quickly implement action to guard against its spread. I recall that during the mad cow disease or BSE outbreak in the United Kingdom a couple of years ago there was enormous discussion and public debate in Australia about quarantining and ways to keep the disease out of Australia because it would have such a disastrous effect not only on individuals but also on the economy.
A single case of BSE cost the American cattle industry an estimated $1.7 billion in annual American beef shipments. Isolating the source of any outbreak as quickly as possible is absolutely crucial. Without the capacity for such a swift response, our beef and dairy industries could lose millions of dollars—and this loss will only grow for every hour of delay. To protect against the spread of disease we need to have a regulatory framework that promotes compliance and removes doubt. That is exactly what this bill is about. To give effect to our protection systems, inspectors under the Stock Diseases Act 1923 and the Exotic Diseases of Animals Act 1991 need to urgently find out the name of the owner of any infected animal and the details of its property of origin; hence the introduction of this legislation in terms of registration.
We cannot afford to let questions of confidentiality delay this process. Any delays in obtaining this information could mean that the disease will spread and the cost will rise. In the worst-case scenario the disease may spread to the extent that it will become impossible to eradicate, which could cause long-term damage to the health of our animal industries and irreparable damage to our trading position. This legislation has international as well as national and State implications. However, people will be less forthcoming with critical information if they are under constant threat of legal action.
Currently there is some doubt as to whether a person who is asked to comply with the demands of an inspector under the Stock Diseases Act 1923 and the Exotic Diseases of Animals Act 1991 could be in breach of obligations under the Privacy Act. While section 9A of the Stock Diseases Act 1923 provides protection to a person from civil liability when notifying New South Wales Agriculture or the Rural Lands Protection Board of diseases, no such protection extends to other sections of the Stock Diseases Act 1923 or the Exotic Diseases of Animals Act 1991 where information is required to be given.
The need for the introduction of this bill has arisen as a direct result of concerns raised by stock and station agents about their exposure to civil liability. Their concerns were based on wanting to comply with all relevant notification procedures under the Stock Diseases Act 1923, but at the same time not wanting to be in breach of any aspect of privacy legislation. As I said previously, this bill amends the Exotic Diseases of Animals Act 1991 and the Stock Diseases Act 1923 to provide persons who disclose information protection from civil liability.
While I appreciate that this former protection is not a complete panacea, it is an important step in a larger process. Combined with other initiatives, such as the national livestock identification system, the bill forms a very important part of a regulatory regime that encourages compliance, rather than defiance. This bill is important in dealing with international concerns about animal disease, such as the bovine spongiform encephalopathy outbreak in England, the recent scare in America and, although it does not relate to chickens, the bird flu in Asia. They are just some examples of why this type of protection and interlocutory regime are important in this area.
Mr PAUL GIBSON (Blacktown) [12.52 p.m.]: Like the honourable member for Canterbury , I too am a country person. Not only was I born and bred in the country, I was also a stock and station agent. I assure the House that stock and station agents have sought the introduction of this type of bill for a long time, even going back to the days when I was an agent. It was always on our minds that information we gave to authorities could come back and bite us through personal liability claims. Today if we are to make sure that we are free from diseases such as mad cow disease and other exotic diseases, it is important that stock and station agents and others can freely give information. Subsection (1) of section 75A, which relates to exclusion personal liability for information required to be provided under the Act, states:
If a person is required under this Act to provide any information, the provision of that information by the person does not subject the person personally to any action, liability, claim or demand.
As I said, the stock and station agents have sought such a provision for a long time. This bill gives them that guarantee and makes sure that any information provided to authorities is given freely and without threat of personal liability against the agent. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [12.54 p.m.]: I am pleased to see this legislation finally delivered to the Parliament. As the honourable member for Lismore said, the Opposition reserves the right to move amendments in the other place. The bill has been introduced as a result of concerns expressed by stock and station agents to members of Parliament about their vulnerability and exposure to civil liability actions, particularly when the ovine Johne's disease [OJD] crisis was sweeping rural and regional New South Wales. As a result of approaches made to me by local stock and station agents Hamilton Luff Burton and Co., I made representations to the then Minister for Agriculture the honourable member for Mount Druitt. Minister Amery wrote to me on 27 Nov 2002 that in an attempt to address the issues I had raised about section 7A of the Stock Diseases Act 1923 a minute with the purpose of amending the Stock Diseases Act was being prepared for submission to Cabinet.
I am sure that all honourable members will recall that at that time the scourge of OJD and its management practices by the Department of Agriculture were headline topics in the Land newspaper. The OJD crisis created media interest in regional newspapers, and even in major metropolitan newspapers, about the way in which OJD was being managed by the Government and the concerns of farmers and rural community members about the implementation of government policy. That was in 2002 and finally in 2004 the legislation has hit the deck. Stock and station agents were concerned that if they were required by the rangers to divulge transactions or stock movements that had occurred they would be liable to be sued. Jack Burton of Hamilton Luff Burton and Co. sent me an opinion he had obtained from a barrister of their exposure to such liability. The then Minister wrote that his advice was they were adequately covered for legal disclosure under the Commonwealth privacy legislation. The stock and station agents, because of the legal opinion they had received, were not prepared to act on the reassurances by the Minister.
The amendments in the bill are long overdue and should have been introduced much sooner. As honourable members know, the debacle surrounding the OJD issue has been neutralised in some ways by the introduction of the new regime. That new regime was brought about by the disgust of landholders and stock and station agents with the management of the disease. They protested and once again created media interest, both regional and national, about the unjust way that OJD was being managed. I congratulate those people on standing up and being counted. The Government has been too slow in introducing the amendments. If it had acted earlier, when the stock and station agents needed the protection of the provisions in this bill, that would have enabled the rangers to carry out their work satisfactorily. They had been directed by the department to carry out the government polices but were being frustrated in their efforts. That is an example of the overall poor management of OJD.
I reiterate that, although the Opposition has foreshadowed that amendments will be moved in the other place, this legislation is long overdue. Stock and station agents have been between a rock and a hard place. They were required by the Government to divulge information about stock movements, yet they were subject to possible civil liability suits. They were entitled to this protection long ago.
Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [1.00 p.m.]: I support the proposed amendments contained in the Animal Diseases Legislation Amendment (Civil Liability) Bill. Both the Stock Diseases Act 1923 and the Exotic Diseases of Animals Act 1991 are critical pieces of legislation that determine how endemic and exotic diseases are controlled in this country. Endemic diseases are those that occur in Australia such as ovine Johne's disease or footrot in sheep. Exotic diseases are those that do not occur in Australia such as foot and mouth disease and bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE], or mad cow disease as it is more commonly known.
The fact that we are free of these exotic diseases has allowed Australia to reap billions of dollars in trade benefits from our livestock industries. In fact, the New South Wales livestock industry had a gross value of $8.8 billion in 2000-01, and Australia wide that value was $33.6 billion. The proposed amendments will help us maintain the integrity of our livestock industries. They have been designed to alleviate any concern that stock and station agents may have about the potential for civil liability claims if they disclose information that might otherwise be considered confidential. In this regard I refer specifically to information about ownership, movement, health conditions or identifying marks of diseased or potentially diseased animals.
The importance of having an unencumbered supply of information to the bodies responsible for disease surveillance such as rural lands protection boards and NSW Agriculture cannot be overstated. If the individuals concerned have any concerns that they may be held responsible for civil actions in the future they might delay handing over vital information or not hand it over at all. These delays or refusals, even if only for a few hours, could result in major damage to an industry. Provisions already exist to protect stock and station agents in other legislation administered by NSW Agriculture. Section 12E (2) of the Stock (Chemical Residues) Act 1975 gives express protection to people who are required to give information. Similarly, in section 9 of the Stock Diseases Act express protection is also given in some situations. No problems have been brought to my attention as a result of those provisions. In fact, the only comments have been highly supportive.
The amendments proposed in the bill will expressly protect all who are required to give information. In fact, it was the stock and station agents who requested these changes to ensure their members are fully protected when disclosing information. People required to provide information for disease prevention or control reasons must not hold any doubts as to whether they are protected from civil liability for the disclosure of that information. Failing to offer that assurance would undermine the very system on which all our producers depend. New South Wales and Australia have some of the most developed animal disease response strategies in the world. But they depend upon robust systems, quick response times and the co-operation of all parties concerned. If, for example, a flock of infected sheep were to be sold through a saleyard the diseased animals could well end up on many different properties across a number of different States. Whole new areas could become infected if movements of the infected sheep were allowed to continue.
It is vitally important that all stock from the original flock are traced and inspected and that the disease is contained. Any delays in this process could allow the disease to spread, potentially uncontrollably. Disease control inspectors employed by the State's 48 rural lands protection boards and NSW Agriculture must have unhindered access to ownership and tracing information to contain the spread of any potential disease. For this control to occur a free flow of information must be forthcoming from the stock venders, stock carriers, stock and station agents and others involved in the industry. While these people already have a legal obligation to supply the information, the bill will provide industry with the protection that it needs from any claims for breaches of confidentiality.
The outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom and Europe several years ago is testament to the need to rapidly control a disease outbreak. In that case the foot and mouth virus spread by animal movements across large parts of the United Kingdom and then into Europe. The outbreak cost billions of dollars and major heartbreak to thousands of producers and communities. Whilst the spread of infection is not as rapid, a similar picture occurred with BSE, again in the United Kingdom. Quality information and rapid tracing are the hallmarks for a successful eradication program. Fortunately, Australia remains free of foot and mouth disease and BSE. Indeed, it is this disease-free status that provides Australian producers with a trading advantage over many of our international competitors. But it is important that we ensure that no unnecessary impediments exist in New South Wales to the rapid collection of tracing information should we ever be unfortunate enough to encounter these diseases in Australia. It is, therefore, most important that the bill be passed to rectify the perception of any possible civil liability by the very people we rely upon to make our animal disease response work. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [1.06 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members who have contributed to the debate. I think it unnecessary for me to again assert the benefits of the passage of a bill of this nature: most recently the honourable member for Penrith has done that more than adequately. I restrict myself to reminding the honourable member for Wagga Wagga that there have been no cases of civil action arising in this context. It is important to keep the matter in balance and to understand the exact purpose of the bill. That in turn will offer sufficient explanation for why the bill has arrived in the House now and not, for instance, before Christmas. Nevertheless, it is an important initiative and one that is obviously supported thoroughly by both sides of the Chamber. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 1.08 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]