8426 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Wednesday 5 May 2004 ______ Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 10.00 a.m. Mr Speaker offered the Prayer. STOCK DISEASES AMENDMENT (ARTIFICIAL BREEDING) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 2 April. Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [10.00 a.m.]: I support the Stock Diseases Amendment (Artificial Breeding) Bill. Honourable members would be aware that the artificial breeding industry is a significant part of the animal breeding industry in New South Wales. Artificial breeding is used extensively by the dairy industry and its use is becoming increasingly widespread in beef and sheep enterprises and other livestock industries, such as the goat industry. It is an increasingly lucrative rural activity, particularly the export market. In New South Wales the artificial breeding industry consists primarily of small operations. These operators include both non-veterinarians and veterinarians. In addition, several large centres progeny test significant numbers of livestock each year. The activities of the artificial breeding industry are varied. Some artificial breeding operations rely solely on the sale of semen and equipment. Others provide a more extensive range of services, including artificial insemination, semen processing, semen storage and embryo transfer. Other organisations limit their services to the provision of education and training in the techniques of artificial breeding and pregnancy testing. The industry is concerned to ensure that it is kept disease-free and that export markets are protected, without being subject to overregulation. It is vital that we protect the relative disease-free status of our New South Wales and Australian industries, thereby retaining our premium export status to Asia and the rest of the world. In the past the fact that Australia is an island has been seen as a disadvantage, but it is a distinct advantage with respect to the control of stock disease. Therefore, we must take every measure to ensure that our present status is protected. Export of stock semen, ova and embryos is a growing trade, worth $1.6 million in 2003. Indeed, I would suggest that now the figure is significantly higher for this rapidly growing market. Therefore, the industry needs assurance that there will be no interruption to this trade from the proposed amendments, and I am pleased to advise that the Minister in the other place has given that assurance. The proposed repeal of the Stock (Artificial Breeding) Act 1985 will not commence unless and until an independent national export licensing scheme is established. Honourable members may not be aware that the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service already approves centres for semen and embryo collection that engage in export. This is appropriate because the Federal Government is responsible for quarantine trade under the Australian Constitution. However, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service does not have an independent licensing system. Rather, if an artificial breeding centre is licensed by NSW Agriculture, it is also approved by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service for export purposes. The main standards for export licensing are set out in the Code of Practice for Australian Livestock Artificial Breeding Centres and the Minimum Health Standards for Stock Standing at Licensed or Approved Artificial Breeding Centres in Australia. The first is the national industry code. The second is a publication of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. These documents both describe national, not New South Wales, standards. However, these same standards are also applied in New South Wales. Therefore, moving from State-based licensing to a national scheme does not mean that artificial breeding centres will face new licence conditions or requirements. The transition should be relatively painless. Other States have kept legislation on their books to either facilitate export approval from the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service or for reserve power purposes. Although the legislation is retained, there is very little inspection and policing of the standards, except in premises exporting semen or embryos. Other States have retained the capacity to control disease movement or spread in artificial breeding material. These 5 May 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8427 provisions are usually embedded in their livestock disease legislation rather than in a separate Act. The New South Wales Government's move to repeal the Stock (Artificial Breeding) Act 1985 and to pick up its disease control provisions in the Stock Diseases Act 1923 is, therefore, entirely consistent with what happens in most other States. This bill reflects a balanced approach to regulation of the artificial breeding industry. However, we should move with caution to protect this valuable asset, which is a relatively disease-free producer of agricultural stock with significant export potential. I commend the bill to the House. Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [10.11 a.m.]: The Opposition spokesman on agriculture, the Hon. Duncan Gay, MLC, will deliver in the Legislative Council the detailed response of the Opposition to the Stock Diseases Amendment (Artificial Breeding) Bill 2004. However, I take this opportunity, as the Opposition's representative in the Legislative Assembly on agriculture matters, to make a few comments. The Opposition will not be opposing this bill as it contains some commonsense measures related to artificial breeding. Artificial breeding has become an important part of livestock management and breed management not only in New South Wales but also across Australia, so its regulation is very important. Animal safety and welfare, and therefore stock disease controls, are critical issues to the future of the New South Wales livestock industry. This is why the Coalition takes this matter very seriously. The nature of agriculture and farming generally is becoming more and more complex, not just due to technological changes—a case in point being artificial breeding—but also in dealing with the myriad government regulations, some essential but some not necessarily essential. So any opportunity to remove legislation or regulation, as is proposed by this bill with the repeal of the Stock (Artificial Breeding) Act 1985, we would regard as a positive step. We also regard as a positive measure that all of the provisions of the Stock (Artificial Breeding) Act 1985 relating to artificial breeding are to be rolled into the Stock Diseases Act. However, the Opposition has a number of concerns about the impact of this amending bill on the Stock Diseases Act, particularly its powers of entry provisions. I know that such powers are contained in many other pieces of legislation, but whenever they are proposed they raise concerns. I know the Legislation Review Committee also raised the question of the powers of entry and infringement of people's rights. It is one thing to provide in legislation powers of entry that can be more or less harmless, but it is another thing to consider how those powers are implemented. Implementation issues are very much dependent on how individual officers of regulatory authorities or departments interpret their powers. It is in that regard I make the point that it is incumbent upon those regulatory officers to use their powers appropriately and with proper judgment. I do not think that in the past we have encountered problems with the exercise of these types of powers, and I hope that we will not have problems in the future. The other issue of concern to the Opposition relates to compensation in the event that stock or artificial breeding materials are seized. The bill amends section 19 (1) of the Stock Diseases Act to confer on inspectors powers to seize stock and materials without compensation to the owner, to provide that stock and materials may be destroyed or sold, with the proceedings of any sale being disposed of at the Minister's discretion. Clearly, people who are doing the wrong thing do not deserve to profit from their wrongdoings, but items may be seized in circumstances where people have not knowingly done the wrong thing. This broad power to seize and sell stock and materials should not necessarily be exercised at the expense of those who do not knowingly do the wrong thing. A great deal of money is invested in this part of the stock breeding industry. Artificial breeding is a technologically advanced procedure, involving a lot of equipment and the investment of large sums of money in the trade of semen and other products. Therefore this broad power of seizure without compensating individuals or corporations from whom items are seized is perhaps excessive, and some explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to this debate would be appropriate. Those are some of the main concerns of the Opposition but, as I mentioned, the Hon. Duncan Gay will identify in more detail the many technical issues that the Opposition wishes to raise. In conclusion, I might say that as I come from a farming family I know that the increasing regulation of farming is becoming a significant burden superimposed on the difficulties that farmers encounter on a daily basis. These are not limited to farmers, but also to small business generally. The increasing regulation is becoming almost repressive. So any move to reduce regulation and legislation that farmers and others involved in agriculture need to consider is welcome. I encourage the Department of Agriculture to examine further ways of reducing regulation and legislative restrictions so that farmers can get on with doing what they do best, that is, farming, producing agricultural output, growing our economy and growing our exports for the benefit of the people of New South Wales and Australia. 8428 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 May 2004 Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [10.19 a.m.]: I support the Stock Diseases Amendment (Artificial Breeding) Bill. Artificial breeding of livestock is regulated to some extent in all States, but not in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.