Page 1557 - Week 05 - Thursday, 7 April 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
National Farmers Federation. Subsequently, as a result of conversation, the cattle council approached me for a copy of the bill.
As a result of some of these groups looking at it and being given a polite hurry up by my office, when the government brought this bill on for discussion and seemed to be intractable in allowing sufficient time, the message came back loud and clear. The rural lessees association and the cattle council do not have an objection to this legislation in principle, but there are things about it that they are not sure about. I would like to raise some of those concerns.
The cattle council have said that while it does not appear at this time that there would be any interference, there are particular issues here, which I will raise. One is about the effectiveness of the national livestock identification scheme, and also what appears to be a blanket ban on the use of live vaccines to treat exotic diseases.
The principal message I am getting from the cattle council is that the importance of stakeholder consultation through peak bodies or representative farmer groups cannot be underestimated in ensuring that this legislation is effective. What we are being told by the cattle council is that they have not had sufficient time to work through their member bodies to ensure that this is proper legislation.
There is an admission by Mr Stanhope’s own staff that there has not been sufficient time, when he talks to me in an email about consultation with the cattle council. The minister’s office seems to have contacted the cattle council after I suggested it to them yesterday or the day before. He sums up the response to the cattle council and the New South Wales Farmers Association by saying that a preliminary response by the cattle council indicates no substantive issues have been identified, although a detailed analysis has not yet been undertaken.
A detailed analysis has not been undertaken because these organisations have known about the existence of this legislation since last Wednesday. The clear message that has come to me is: we do not have a problem with the principle, but there are a couple of issues in here that we really should address. There are two issues. The first is the effectiveness of the national livestock identification scheme, as outlined in the Animal Diseases Bill and in the Stock Bill.
It has been put to me by the cattle council that, on first glance, the first analysis from their perspective—and they have much more knowledge of these things than I do; I do not pretend to be an expert in any of these issues, just an interested amateur—is that the provisions in the ACT legislation are not as rigorous as those in the New South Wales legislation.
That could, of course, be resolved by regulation, but we have not seen those regulations. All I have asked of the minister’s office is an opportunity for these people to sit down and go through their concerns with the relevant people so that we can be satisfied. If their concerns are not being met, I am prepared to move amendments, but I do not want to move amendments unnecessarily if their concerns can be addressed by speaking with responsible officers.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .