Exotic Diseases of Animals Amendment Bill 2008

Debate resumed from 4 June 2008.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [8.40 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Exotic Diseases of Animals Amendment Bill 2008. The purpose of this bill is to enhance the measures to be taken under the Exotic Diseases Animals Act 1991 to control, prevent and eradicate the spread of animal diseases. The name of the parent bill will be changed to the Animal Diseases Emergency Outbreaks Act 1991, and the term "exotic diseases" will be changed to "emergency diseases" throughout the Act. Why is this change in nomenclature required, as the diseases that are to be managed by this Act fit the definition of exotic? The Oxford dictionary defines exotic as "introduced from a foreign country".

Referring to the exotic diseases that are addressed by the parent Act, I know of not one exotic disease that is native to Australia. Parliamentary Secretary the Hon. Henry Tsang, when capably presenting the Minister's second reading speech, noted that exotic diseases are introduced or foreign diseases. Some of these diseases are endemic to Australia—and by endemic I mean that they are widespread and out of control, even though they are still exotic diseases. Why has the Government made such a point of changing the term "exotic diseases" to "endemic diseases"? The Parliamentary Secretary, in the speech that he delivered on behalf of the Minister, said that the term "exotic diseases" did not fit under the proposed national cost-sharing deed, so therein lies the reason for this legislation.

This legislation is not about disease management aspects; it is all about how funding arrangements will be transferred from the Government to those who will be affected by it. I picked up one thing in the Minister's speech. The cost-sharing deed, and aligning the Act more closely with the cost-sharing deed in respect of emergency animal disease responses, is all about shifting the cost from the Government of New South Wales to the industry—one of the great concerns we have about this bill. The Minister said that veterinary practitioners have duty to report diseases that they suspect are new or emerging in New South Wales. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister understand, but veterinary officers have always had a responsibility to do just that. It does not matter whether they are departmental veterinarians, private veterinarians, or rural lands protection board veterinarians; if they inspect a diseased animal and they cannot identify the disease they are required to report that fact as soon as they can.

I reiterate that this legislation is more about shifting the cost back onto industry rather than the Government accepting responsibility for it. This bill represents some significant deviations from current policy as a result of the equine influenza crisis in 2007. The Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary should not to try to shift the blame for the equine influenza outbreak back onto the Federal Government of the day.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: That has already been done for you.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: The Hon. Michael Veitch said that that has already been done, but that is beside the point. Once there is disease outbreak it is the responsibility of the New South Wales Government to control it, and that did not happen in this instance. It does not matter how equine influenza came to be in Australia. Let us face the facts: nobody wanted it in Australia. Equine influenza is an airborne disease. I am sure that nobody in this Chamber would suggest that keeping an airborne disease such as equine influenza in Eastern Creek would control the disease. The Japanese horse breeders who brought the stallion to Australia had the responsibility of ensuring that their stallion was free of equine influenza before it was imported into Australia.

The Japanese horse breeders did not do that and equine influenza, an airborne disease, spread throughout Australia. When the truck transported the stallion from Sydney airport to Eastern Creek the only way the breeders could have controlled the disease would have been to put an airproof bag over the horse's head to prevent the disease from escaping. Obviously they could not do that. This highly airborne and highly mobile disease was always going to be transmitted to other horses once it arrived on our shores. Responsibility for the spread of that disease rests with the New South Wales Government because it did not take strong enough and fast enough action to contain it, which was amply exhibited at a number of horse events that occurred during the weekend when the disease was spread. Department of Primary Industry inspectors looked at a number of horses, said that they were all right to go home, and the disease spread from region to region and from State to State—something that should never have happened.

Anna Bligh, the Premier of Queensland, who had been in the job for only one week, declared a state of emergency in Queensland, shut down the racing industry, and contained the disease in Queensland much more quickly than it was contained in New South Wales. Hopefully the emergency powers in this bill will be strengthened to prevent and manage outbreaks such as the equine influenza outbreak that occurred. We are lucky that the equine influenza outbreak that occurred in Australia was not something as bad as foot-and-mouth disease. Many members do not understand the ramifications or the seriousness of a disease such as foot-and-mouth disease. Friends of ours who lived in England at a time when there were foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks, said that every animal within a 15-mile or 20-mile radius of the outbreak was destroyed—something that we in Australia could not comprehend and would never be able to do.

In agricultural areas there are wild pigs and other feral animals. Pigs are the most aggressive vectors of foot-and-mouth disease. If there were wild pigs in an area—and pigs can travel 20, 30 and 40 kilometres a night—and they contracted foot-and-mouth disease it would be all over Australia in a matter of days. That is a scary scenario if we think about how dangerous foot-and-mouth disease is and how devastating it would be to our agricultural industries. Under this new legislation the identification of diseases and veterinary reporting requirements will be more strictly enforced and veterinarians will have a duty to report suspicious symptoms of new and emerging diseases, as I believe they always have. The Minister will now have the power to make control orders rather than direct an inspector to make control orders, thus removing some of the administrative delays.

Animals will be destroyed if they are at risk of contracting and spreading the disease—this is important particularly in relation to things like foot-and-mouth disease—in order to establish a buffer zone between the infected areas and non-infected areas. Obviously, the type of disease will depend on the width of the buffer zones. Under the provisions of the bill this will be the last resort if disease-control mechanisms are not affected. Individuals will be required to disinfect themselves when they leave any properties or vehicles to prevent the spread of the disease. This important procedure did not happen with the equine influenza outbreak.

I received many reports, for example, of native vegetation inspectors, who had received reports of native vegetation breaches during the outbreak, entering properties that had an equine influenza order— in the purple zone I believe— and walking all over those horse properties, then getting in their vehicles and driving away. That simply is not good enough. The department did not have a coordinated approach to the whole process. It needed to make sure that any government agency official, advisory officer, consultant or anybody entering those restricted zones in an official or non-official capacity did not leave without being disinfected. That did not happen. One wonders how much that lack of procedure contributed to the spread of the equine influenza disease.

The movement of machinery, soil and similar items also can easily impact on disease movement when contract harvesters and farming operators take machinery from one property to another. There were no control mechanisms to make sure that machinery was disinfected. Another matter referred to in some detail in the Parliamentary Secretary's second reading speech was the financial implications of this bill on compensation and penalty notices. Currently, the Act provides for compensation to the owner of animals that have died from an exotic disease; the owner of the animals destroyed is the recipient of that compensation. However, the new cost-sharing deed pays compensation only for animals that have died of an emergency disease if the animal would have been destroyed anyway, or if they had died as a result of the disease.

The bill establishes two eligibility categories for the payment of compensation. The first category is existing eligibility under the Act; the second category is consistent with the criteria as described in the national cost-sharing deed. I am concerned about the concept of on-the-spot fines or penalty notices, as the Minister described in his speech, to be introduced for minor offences. The bill extends the current six-month period to commence proceedings for an offence under the Act to two years. If an offence is committed, two years down the track a penalty notice may be issued for that offence. It is a little aggressive that people advised of an offence having been committed can wait for two years without knowing what is actually going to happen.

The sting in the tail, of course, is that one of the major proposals in the bill relates to cost recovery. The department will shift the cost from the New South Wales Government back to the industry. The bill introduces a regulation to make it a power to impose fees and charges on the industry. Similar amendments will be made to the biosecurity legislation. Additional costs also will be imposed on the industry; we do not really know how much it will end up costing the industry at the end of the day. In the second reading speech the Minister talks about further consultation to be carried out with industry groups regarding the setting of fees and charges. Of course, that means there will be no consultation; industry groups will be told how much they going to pay.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: So much for consultation.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: So much for consultation. It is not consultation; it is simply a way of telling the industry, "This is what is going to cost the Government, therefore, you are going to pay for it." That will be the end of the matter as far as they are concerned. New South Wales farmers have expressed much industry concern about this bill, especially by New South Wales farmers. I wonder how much consultation occurred with New South Wales farmers. The reason the farmers oppose the bill is that a list of class A and class B compensable diseases needs to be made public; at this point in time no list is available. The criteria for each class also needs to be provided publicly; at this point in time that is not available. Proposed compensation arrangements for each class needs to be exposed and clarification regarding the waiver of fees in certain circumstances needs to be specified. The bill raises concerns, and for that reason the Opposition will oppose the Exotic Diseases of Animals Amended Bill 2008.

Mr IAN COHEN [8.56 p.m.]: The Greens do not oppose the Exotic Diseases of Animals Amendment Bill 2008. It was interesting to hear the Opposition comments on the bill, but we do not hold the same concerns. Certainly, I recognise that this is a very serious issue. We listened with interest to the explanation of criteria between an exotic disease and an endemic disease. I was told at a government briefing that, for example, anthrax is an endemic disease even though from my perspective it was something imported originally from Europe.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: It is still exotic.

Mr IAN COHEN: It is my understanding that it is considered endemic because it has been in the human population for generations, and has been dealt with by authorities for generations. It is considered endemic, but I do not believe that makes any real deference. It is an interesting concept to consider. On the other hand, as the Hon. Rick Colless mentioned, foot-and-mouth disease is an exotic disease and would have a massive impact on the agricultural sector and the environment in general if it found its way into Australia. I recognise such a concern, particularly with feral pigs as they are very aggressive vectors of that type of disease. The Greens take very seriously the impact of exotic diseases. Tonight ABC Television aired a program not exactly about a disease but certainly about something that is causing major problems: the deadly bee mite known as the Varroa destructor. This mite is having a massive impact overseas and is contributing to the colony collapse disorder across North America.

Australian bees, including the export of queen bees and such like things to Canada, the United States and Japan are becoming a very important and lucrative business for Australia. This particular deadly bee mite is not known in Australia and, therefore, our exports are highly sought in other areas. My interest was aroused because of the massive problem with the bee colony collapse. I have been told that at one stage it was considered there might have been a connection with the colony collapse and genetically engineered crops in places like the United States and Canada—but that has not been proven. It is highly likely that this particular Varroa destructor mite is causing the bee colony collapse and also has invaded New Zealand and New Guinea. It is important for the authorities to keep this mite out of Australia.

One of the drivers for this legislation is that equine influenza is a respiratory disease endemic to horses. On 25 August 2007 equine influenza was detected in New South Wales. Biosecurity measures implemented by the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service to manage the importation of horses have recently come up against significant scrutiny. Under the microscope of former High Court judge, the Hon. Ian Callinan, last year's equine influenza outbreak clearly demonstrated a litany of regulatory failures in biosecurity and quarantine at the Federal level. It is an interesting, expensive, and in some ways tragic, example of something that has broken through the biosecurity barriers in Australia. Hopefully, the authorities can learn from it because, although equine influenza was a major problem, many other diseases would have far greater devastation and impact on the Australian environment and various elements of the animal husbandry industry.

The cost of animal diseases to industry is significant. Andrew Harding of the Australian Racing Board recently stated that preliminary estimations of compensation potentially recoverable would be in excess of $1 billion. The discussion of how the State effectively manages emergency animal disease outbreaks is pertinent considering the recommendations of the "Equine Influenza; The August 2007 outbreak in Australia—Report of the Equine Influenza Inquiry" report, which has revealed an absence of fundamental biosecurity measures. The Callinan inquiry report traces the equine influenza outbreak in New South Wales to a number of potential sources, most generally associated with the Eastern Creek Quarantine Station. The scenarios considered by the inquiry highlight lax and deficient management of biosecurity risks, and make it evident that adequate powers are required to effectively contain all forms of contamination.

The bill's stated aim is to improve the way emergency animal disease outbreaks are managed in New South Wales. The amendments reinforce existing ministerial powers and arm government departments with the means to respond efficiently and effectively to animal disease outbreaks. The Hon. Henry Tsang stated in his second reading speech that harmonisation and alignment of the Act more closely with the National Government and Livestock Industry Cost Sharing Deed in Respect of Emergency Animal Disease Responses, or the cost- sharing deed, will also enhance management of animal disease outbreaks in New South Wales.

One of the key amendments provides for the concept of exotic disease to be replaced with the term "emergency animal disease" and the insertion of new section 6A outlines what constitutes an "emergency animal disease". New section 6A (1) (d) gives the Minister the power to declare other animal diseases, which may threaten animal and human health in New South Wales. The power of the Minister closely replicates the existing power in section 6A of the Act and is more a change in terminology than a reconfiguration of authority. In that respect I do not agree with the Opposition's concerns, which may be reasonable, that it is an example of real significance or reason to oppose the bill. The duty of veterinary practitioners to report suspicions of animals or animal product that may be infected with a disease is expanded under the bill by requiring not only the reporting of emergency animal diseases but also new and emerging diseases, diseases not endemic to the State and diseases not endemic to a particular species.

Scope for the issuing of destruction orders is also increased. The bill inserts section 32 (1) (c), which allows the Minister to issue a destruction order requiring the destruction of any domestic animal that is in a declared area if the Minister is satisfied that it is reasonably necessary to do so in order to stop the spread of an emergency animal disease. New subsection (3) of section 32 makes it clear that a destruction order can be issued regardless of whether a domestic animal is infected with an emergency animal disease. The Hon. Henry Tsang stated in his second reading speech that this power will be used only as a last resort and that any invocation of this power will be done with the agreement of industry. I certainly hope an inclusive and consultative approach in exercising this power would be adopted. Finally, I wish to deal with compensation. Currently, there are differing compensation eligibility criteria under the Act and the national cost-sharing deed. The effect is that the sharing of compensation burden cannot always be shared between State and Commonwealth agencies. The inclusion of the cost sharing deed compensation eligibility criteria will help resolve this issue. Therefore, the Greens support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.05 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Exotic Diseases of Animals Amendment Bill 2008. The bill provides for the detection, containment and eradication of certain diseases affecting livestock and other animals in New South Wales. As members are aware, during the recent successful equine influenza control and eradication program, a number of areas were identified where amendments to the Act would enable a faster and more effective response to certain animal disease outbreaks in the future. It is important that this bill be passed because it includes a section giving new powers to prevent the spread of equine influenza or any future disease in New South Wales. These powers include an order for the destruction of animals that do not yet show signs of infection in certain declared areas to create a buffer zone between an infected area and a non-infected area. This power may be used only if it is considered necessary to prevent the spread of an emergency animal disease. It also empowers the Minister to direct all persons in an area declared to be a restricted area to take certain disease control measures. At present such a direction may be given only to owners and persons in charge of animals in such a restricted area.

The entire horse industry—not merely the racing industry but horses for recreational and other purposes—has suffered a severe blow as a result of the equine influenza outbreak. The Standing Committee on State Development inspected the equine influenza control centre near Tamworth and I was very impressed with that centre. It was almost like visiting a military command headquarters. The staff worked actively with maps and plans to identify which areas should be restricted and which were free. It was a very impressive operation. Unfortunately, the disease was allowed to spread because of the laxity of the Federal Government's quarantine centre.

The judicial inquiry that has just handed down its report, found that the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service was the source of the problem and was operating in an inefficient manner. Media reports show that staff regularly visited the nearby town for lunch and drank at the local hotel. Indications were that they did not follow the requisite contamination procedures—they probably thought it was it too much to do every day. They took risks, which enabled the disease to spread from the quarantine centre. Federal Minister Tony Burke said that people would have just cause to seek compensation because of the lax practices at the centre. Indeed, I understand that recently the manager of the centre resigned. The bill deals with a new situation in the State and it is essential for it to be passed, even if the Opposition has some reservations about some of its detail.

It is essential for the most important parts of the bill to be passed by the House. The changes are not restricted to horses only and will ensure that an outbreak of an animal disease, which has been declared under the Act to be an emergency animal disease, will be able to be dealt with in a manner consistent with the National Government and Livestock Industry Cost Sharing Deed in Respect of Emergency Animal Disease Responses, including compensation for an animal that has died of a declared emergency animal disease. For those practical reasons, the Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.09 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. Rick Colless, Mr Ian Cohen, and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for their contributions to the debate. The Exotic Diseases of Animals Amendment Bill 2008 amends the Exotic Diseases of Animals Act 1991, which is the main instrument for dealing with exotic disease outbreaks in animals in New South Wales. The Act provides for the detection, containment and eradication of certain serious diseases affecting livestock and other animals. The amendments will improve the operation of the Act and will enable faster and more effective responses to emergency disease outbreaks, such as equine influenza, foot-and-mouth disease and avian influenza. The changes provided by the bill will minimise the impacts on industry and the community of any future disease outbreaks. In response to concerns raised by the Hon. Rick Colless, I suggest that the name of the Act is being changed to reflect the broader focus of the Act. The Act will be known as the Animal Diseases (Emergency Outbreaks) Act 1991 and the Act's new name better aligns it with the national cost-sharing deed covering emergency endemic, as well as exotic animal diseases.

The Hon. Rick Colless: It is not just the money. What about the diseases?

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: The cost-sharing deed has been signed by the Government and industry groups. It is an agreed framework for sharing costs and certainly has nothing to do with cost shifting.

[Interruption]

If the Hon. Rick Colless really wants to know more, I can tell him that the bill extends the reporting requirements for veterinary practitioners who will have a duty to report diseases that they suspect are new or emerging diseases, that are not endemic to New South Wales, or that do not usually occur in the species of animal or animal product that the practitioner is examining. Certainly the Act requires a veterinary practitioner only to report a suspicion that an animal is infected with an animal disease that has been declared to be an emergency animal disease. The amendment will strengthen controls over a possible or actual emergency disease outbreak. The amendment recognises that some of the key biosecurity threats to New South Wales from new and emerging diseases may not have been recorded previously. The Hon. Rick Colless will want to know what I am about to say.

The Hon. Rick Colless: I am listening.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: The Australian Veterinary Association has been consulted on the amendments and has not raised any objections.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What about the farmers?

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: For compensation to be payable under the Exotic Diseases of Animals Act 1991, agencies must be declared to be an emergency animal disease to which the compensation provisions of the Act apply. The bill amends the Exotic Diseases of Animals Act 1991 to establish two categories of eligibility for compensation. The first category retains the existing eligibility criteria under the Exotic Diseases of Animals Act 1991 with compensation payable, firstly, for animals and equipment that have been destroyed for the purpose of controlling the disease and, secondly, for animals that have died of an emergency animal disease.

The second category of eligibility under the amended Act will be consistent with the eligibility criteria under the national cost-sharing deed with compensation payable, firstly, for animals and equipment that have been destroyed for the purposes of controlling the disease and, secondly, for animals that have died of an emergency animal disease, but only if it is certified that the animal would have been destroyed compulsorily under the Act had the animal not died. I draw to the attention of the Hon. Rick Colless that penalty notices are for on-the-spot fines, and are imposed at the time an offence is committed. The bill extends the period in which the Government may commence prosecutions in court for more serious offences. Now, is the Hon. Rick Colless happy? He has all the answers. If he is not happy I will give him some more.

The national cost-sharing deed details the mechanisms by which livestock industries contribute to their share of the emergency response costs. Industries may raise funds from their members voluntarily or through a levy established under Commonwealth legislation. The bill does not impose levies on livestock producers. Only the Commonwealth is empowered to do that under the Australian Constitution. I am sure that the Hon. Rick Colless is very happy with that response. Amendments to the Act will allow fees to be charged to individual landholders or livestock owners for services that they may choose for their own benefit, such as vaccination or obtaining a movement permit. The fees will be set out in the regulations under the Act. Industry stakeholders will be consulted during the development of the regulations. Fees will be imposed on a cost-recovery basis only. I also advise the House that the New South Wales Farmers Association wrote to the Minister for Primary Industries in support of the intention of the bill. The legislation will provide farmers and rural communities with more security and certainty in times of animal disease outbreaks. These are sensible and timely amendments. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.

Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Assembly with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.