Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

VERMIN CONTROL BILL 2000 (No. 82)

Second Reading

Mr LLEWELLYN (Lyons - Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment - 2R) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Vermin Destruction Act 1950 and replace it with a new Vermin Control Act.

The Vermin Destruction Act 1950 and its predecessors were designed to minimise the effect of introduced vermin on the environment, and to minimise economic loss to land holders as a result of vermin damage. The two species currently declared as vermin are European rabbits - Oryctolagus cuniculus - and the red fox - Vulpes vulpes.

The background to this bill is that in mid-1999 a review group was appointed under the Legislation Review Program to review the Vermin Destruction Act 1950. The review group completed their review in February 2000.

The review recommended that the Vermin Destruction Act 1950 should be amended to remove restrictions on the farming of rabbits for meat or fibre. It became clear that amending the existing act in line with the review group's recommendations would be complex, and likely to result in an act that was difficult to understand. Consequently it was determined that the Vermin Destruction Act 1950 should be repealed and a new act drafted to give effect to the recommendations of the review group and to simplify the Vermin Destruction Act 1950, which as an older piece of legislation is drafted in old fashioned and outdated terms.

The major features of the Vermin Destruction Act 1950 are retained. First the power for the minister to declare by order, an animal or bird to be vermin. Such declaration is to be made after consultation with the secretary of the responsible department in relation to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970. The two species currently declared as vermin, the European rabbit and fox, will continue to be considered vermin.

The second key feature to be retained is the power for the minister to order, or the secretary to give notice to occupiers of land, including the Crown, councils and statutory authorities, requiring them to take action to destroy, or to suppress and destroy all vermin and cover on that land.

The bill also retains powers for inspectors to investigate and appropriately control and eradicate vermin. However inspectors are given a new power to seize, destroy or dispose of vermin in a manner the inspector considers appropriate. To protect against mistaken destruction or disposal of animals that are not vermin, there is an appeal right granted under the bill to a magistrate.

To further ensure that the spread of rabbits is checked, the bill also extends the prohibition on the introduction or importation of live rabbits - including for farming - onto islands in Tasmanian waters, other than the mainland and Bruny Island. Bruny Island is excluded from this prohibition as it has both a large rabbit population, and a farming community that may wish to farm rabbits in the future. There is special provision for the chief veterinary officer to allow the introduction of rabbits onto islands in Tasmanian waters. The purpose of this provision is to allow for the introduction of rabbits infected with biocontrol agents onto islands with rabbit populations for the purpose of control.

The bill does not retain provisions for obtaining a permit for the introduction and possession of vermin, specifically foxes. However the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 contains well-defined provisions prohibiting the importation or possession of various species, including foxes, and that act will continue to apply.

The key difference between the Vermin Destruction Act 1950 and the Vermin Control Bill 2000 is the removal of the permit system for the possession of rabbits. Currently the Vermin Destruction Act 1950 prevents the development of any industry based on production of farmed rabbit meat or fibre in any area of Tasmania. There has been interest in the development of such an industry in Tasmania in the forms of inquiries to the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment at the rate of five to six per year.

To allow for the farming of rabbits for meat or fibre the bill removes the current permit system for the possession of vermin, such as rabbits. The bill only allows for the keeping of rabbits as pets or for farming in accordance with the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Intensive Husbandry of Rabbits 1991 (SCA Technical Report Series No 33 ). The Model Code of Practice is intended to safeguard the welfare of the animals, and will also be adopted as an Animal Welfare Standard pursuant to the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 1993. All rabbits not kept in accordance with the Model Code of Practice shall be deemed vermin for the purposes of eradication and control of that species.

To ensure that rabbits farmed for meat for human consumption will be slaughtered in the correct manner, it is proposed that conditions contained in the Australian Standard for Hygienic Production of Rabbit Meat for Human Consumption (AS4466: 1997 ) would become a condition of licence following the nomination of rabbit as a species on a slaughterhouse licence. It is worth noting that New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia currently allow rabbit farming and these States have not experienced any appreciable detriment to the environment from escaped farmed rabbits. Further, the rabbit farming industry has not experienced any losses as a result of release of biological control agents for the control of wild populations, other than the cost of vaccination against rabbit calicivirus disease.

It should be noted that the release of disease vectors for the biological control of vermin will continue to be governed by the Biological Control Act 1986, and nothing in this bill is intended to adversely affect the operation of that act. In fact, this bill will complement the operation of the Biological Control Act 1986, in that it provides the chief veterinary officer with the power to authorise the release of live rabbits onto islands within State waters.

In conclusion, the bill will continue to direct the control and eradication of certain classes of animals that are declared vermin, but will also allow the keeping of rabbits as pets and for the development of a new industry in Tasmania, that of farming rabbits for the production of meat and fibre. I therefore commend the bill to the House.

Mr BONDE (Braddon) - Mr Speaker, the Opposition were going to support this bill until I heard the second reading speech. I contacted TFGA this morning and they say that they received something this morning about rabbit farming and that they are not very happy with it. The minister did not give me a copy of the second reading speech so we will have to fumble through this and try to tease out exactly what is going on.

Mr Llewellyn - I'm sorry if you didn't get one, you should have.

Mr BONDE - I am sorry too because I could have read it and then maybe saved us all a lot of time but anyway it is a bit late now. But the fact of the matter is that I thought this was just a straight, virtually a take from the Vermin Destruction Act 1950 and I have that there. There are a couple of things that are extra and of course I noticed that the old prohibition of not being able to keep European rabbits other than ten has been deleted and of course all this talk about rabbit farming in the second reading speech makes me understand exactly what that is all about. We will have to tease that out; I cannot read two things at once, that is my problem.

Mr Llewellyn - Well, it was distributed to you I have just been told, I do not know what has happened to it.

Mr BONDE - What?

Mr Llewellyn - It was distributed to you in the normal course.

Mr BONDE - Well, I certainly did not get it. But anyway, Mr Speaker, there are some things that did not so much disconcert us as we wanted clarification on. Of course this has the same provisions as the 1950 act as far as being able to control vermin and cover. But there is a bit of an anomaly in the acts of parliament we have, particularly in relation to plantation forestry. We have a situation where, under the Forest Practices Code anybody who wants a private timber reserve has to abide by the Forest Practices Code in setting out where they can and cannot plant their trees on a plantation. They have to have streamside reserves for flora and fauna reserves and so on.

If we have - I do not suppose it is so much a matter of 'if' as 'when' we have another rabbit plague because it seems that we had a pretty disappointing result from our calicivirus and myxomatosis does not always work. So maybe we can be wishful and say if we have another rabbit plague, I can see that particularly these plantations that are being developed in the middle of farming areas are going to be faced with very significant difficulty because they have these areas that will be cover that, when they took over the properties, were grass. But because they are within 30 metres of a stream they have had to put in a streamside reserve, that is a 60 metre wide streamside reserve now, and of course that will be grown up with scrub and rubbish because they will not have any grazing animals to graze it down, it will not be grassed as it was, so that will be cover.

Also, of course, there is a provision in this that I could not find - it may well be, but I could not find in the old act - in this bill we have provision to require a vermin-proof fence. That could be and that may be a 'take', I just could not find it in the old act. Maybe the minister can advise me when he gets up later. But if that is the case, that is an extremely expensive operation
particularly in relation to keeping rabbits because you cannot have just ordinary netting, particularly in our area, we have a lot of wombats, badgers, call them what you like. But they love going through wire-netting fences.
Mr Llewellyn - I'm told that is in the old act, Bill; it has just been left in.

Mr BONDE - Right. But when the old act was drafted and up until relatively recently, we have not had the potential for the problem we have now. As I said, we have some farms being sold for plantation and they are surrounded by farmers, farming conventional farms either with pasture or crops or both, and so that is going to create some problems. I am not sure I have an argument with it but it is a problem that we need to be mindful of. I am a bit concerned about the power given to an inspector where he can examine the occupier of the land or a person employed on that land - does that mean he can do a body search? I mean, it looks like it does.

Then you can require an occupant of any land to answer any questions inspectors consider appropriate which means that you do not get any rights as you do like a warning under a normal police inquiry where in the warning you are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but anything you do say may be taken down in writing and given in evidence. In this case he says, 'If you do not tell me what I want to know, it is a prescribed offence under the Vermin Control Act' and so it does give the inspector power that I have not seen in an act before and I think some people will have some argument about that. As I said, having expressed those words on a lot of occasions when questioning suspects I would very much like to have said to them, 'You've got to answer all my questions, otherwise I'll lock you up and charge you with failing to answer the questions'. That is not quite the way it is done as far as evidence and procedure are concerned, in fact I believe any evidence obtained that way may well be struck out under the Evidence Act.

Mr Llewellyn - Yes. I think it's a similar thing to other acts, I'm advised, and it's designed to ask and to ensure the person gives their name and address.

Mr BONDE - Yes, you can require that but they also have that in there. They are required to give their name and address, that is fair enough. It says in here that it is an offence not to give your name and address, but on top of that it says under clause 8(1)(j):

'require an occupant of any land to answer any questions the inspector considers appropriate'.

That gives the inspector quite a licence. I believe somebody will take that to task when they get it in another place. It then says under clause 9(1):

'An inspector may require a person the inspector reasonably believes is contravening a provision of this Act to state his or her name and address.'

And -

'(2) A person must not refuse to comply with subsection (1).

Penalty: Fine not exceeding 20 penalty units.'

That is fair enough but, as I said, I have not struck that one before. It may well be in many acts, I do not claim to be an authority on it. I know that as a police officer if I had obtained information that way it would have been immediately struck out when I got to the court.

I am concerned - and I have not had a chance to read it, maybe while somebody else is speaking I will have a chance to read the second reading speech and what you were saying about rabbit farming. I noticed what I thought was a change - in the old act where you were able to keep ten rabbits, in this act it says you can keep them, provided you keep them in accordance with the code of practice, or whatever it was. It does not have any number on that so I suppose you could keep a rabbit farm under that.

As I said, I see some difficult times coming up if we do have a rabbit plague. I am not arguing with somebody having to have some authority to be able to deal with the matter, but we need to be mindful of the fact that it is going to create maybe some hurt particularly in relation to vermin-proof fences, although if I were the person next door and rabbits were continually coming out and eating my pasture I would believe it is a very good addition to the act, although you say, Minister, that it was in the old act. I am not saying it should not be but I am just raising the query and asking you to comment on it for me.

Traps and snares to be laid - I understood under the Animal Welfare Act we were not allowed to lay traps or snares, but anyway, under this act it seems that while I, as a landowner, cannot have traps and snares, it seems that a notice may specify details and some of the details may be the laying of traps and snares. The snare part has me baffled a bit; I would think perhaps traps other than leg-iron traps. Maybe it refers to the normal traps that are used to catch possums eating your vegetable garden.

As I said, I think looking at the old bill, it really did need a bit of a rehash. I notice that one replaced the 1989 bill so it looks like we go a fair few years before we seek to completely change these acts. We just have to be mindful of the fact that we are, I think, getting closer to when rabbit plagues can be a realistic problem and of course if at some time or other the minister declares another species - maybe wallaby, maybe possums or maybe something else - to be vermin then of course all of these swing into gear. This act gives the minister of the day the right to declare any species vermin if he has the justification for doing so. I have no problem at all about that.

I think in some areas rabbits are in plague proportions; I do not know how it is going right now but I know when I was minister there were some areas that were having great difficulty. Calicivirus, as far as I can learn, was pretty much a disappointment in many areas and we are, I understand, now down to the last developments as far as myxomatosis is concerned, so we may be confronted with the problems that come in a rabbit plague which can happen very quickly in real terms. In a matter of three or four years you can have a dramatic build-up so we need to be mindful of the fact this is not just something that may or may not happen. I think it is probably more likely than not to happen, so we need to make sure that we have it right and that somebody cannot say, 'That act is faulty, so therefore I appeal', and appeal on technicalities rather than practicalities. I am still very interested in the exercise of body-searching that some old farmer, looking for a rabbit he might have - I am sure that is not what was intended but it just appealed to my sense of humour more than anything.

We will be supporting the bill as far as I can see. It depends what comes out of this rabbit farming thing; I have not had a chance to read your second reading speech yet. I have some apprehension about that and, as you know, it is not the first time that has been raised; it has been raised continually ever since I have been a member of parliament. Some of the opposition to it is valid, some is not.

I still think we have the problem of what type of facilities people use if they go rabbit farming because they have the problem of whether they can make a dollar out of it and I suppose when you are deciding what can or cannot happen in your environment we would all say we want zero tolerance as far as problems are concerned; we have to weigh up the potential benefits and the potential disadvantages. That was something I did in my mind when I was minister and, frankly, I could not see many benefits to be obtained from rabbit farming although we had some gee-whiz proposals put to us.

The evidence in other States I think is, as you said, Minister, that there is little evidence of escapes. I do not know about the vaccinations for myxomatosis that some people had to do with their rabbits, whether that can cross-infect. Your experts will be able to tell you probably more than I but you really do need to talk to the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association much more than has gone on because this morning they found that a real sticking point. They did not have the bill and they did not have your second reading speech either because they knew little about it and they said it was something about rabbit farming. That could well have been your second reading speech because that is mentioned fairly often here. With those remarks I will conclude, I will sit down and read this and then we may have to go into Committee to discuss some of these points.

Mrs SWAN (Lyons) - Minister, I have to say I suppose like anyone who is involved in the farming industry I have some degree of interest in this particular matter. I do not know whether it amounts to a conflict of interest but certainly anyone who occupies farming land would have a problem with vermin on almost a continuing basis, so I regard myself as being to some extent directly involved in an interest in this legislation.

I have had a quick look over the old legislation which is couched in terms that were familiar to us in that early period of drafting of legislation. I agree it is not particularly clear; it is done in reasonably broad terms and the newer format is, I think, a great deal easier to read. However I do have some concerns and my colleague has just indicated to you his view and some concerns with regard to the powers of inspectors. As you rightly say, they do not differ greatly from the original legislation but it seems to me there is a bit of an easy acceptance by a lot of us now of the powers of inspection that bureaucracy have for themselves. Of course they are fine people and do the right thing in all instances or as many instances as they are able to, as we well know; however, when we look at the power they have under some of these powers of entry and search, I do question the way we do not really take the opportunity to reassess some of these matters as we redraft legislation.

My concern has to do with the power to enter a property to again, as my colleague has mentioned, examine the occupier of land or a person employed on that land.

Mr Bonde - Strip search!

Mrs SWAN - Quite clearly that implies some sort of physical search of that person, take photographs, films, audio, video and other recordings the inspector considers appropriate and he does that all on the basis of 'any reasonable time'. We have probably long come to expect that any reasonable time is sufficient, that if you just simply say between certain hours and at the discretion of the able inspector then that will be sufficient for the landowner and that ought to meet with everybody's approval, but I do feel it is about time we started to have another look at some of these matters.

It seems highly unlikely to me that property infested with vermin is going to be any different on Tuesday than it would have been on Monday. It is not likely to have been suddenly cleared and the rabbits are not all suddenly likely to head over the hills and present a totally different picture for someone who wishes to go in and take a video of them. So I would have thought the ability to say that we should have some provision with regard to notice for an inspector to enter would be a more appropriate way to look at a power of entry and search in these sorts of areas.

I know that the legislation is the same as it has been - it is simply done on the basis of reasonable time in the inspector's view - but I suspect it is time we became a little bit more advanced in the way we approach these matters. I think people's privacy these days is in pretty short supply and it does seem to me that is something that ought to be examined because we are, I think, a little too casual with the privacy provisions that we accord to citizens in this State and we take it, I think, fairly casually. I think, in fact, we take it too darned casually because it is about time someone said that we ought to provide a little more protection for the private lives of individuals and the industries that they pursue on their property, and give an additional protection by including a provision that notice be provided in these circumstances rather than simply leaving it to the inspector to decide that it is in fact a reasonable time to enter on and inspect, take videos, examine the occupier of land, a fair number of quite powerful sorts of arrangements that he has within his control, and I do take strong offence at the fact that this is the way it is couched. It has obviously been couched like that for years, but I suspect it is time we took a little bit of a look on -

Mr Llewellyn - I don't know about offence, but you're not allowed to damage any vermin-proof fence.

Members laughing .

Mrs SWAN - Again, as I say, it is hardly likely that you are going to get a situation where the vermin will all shoot off on one day and you will not be left with the power of actually going and taking a little tape of the vermin that you wish to record, because you have had to provide reasonable notice. So I will make the point that I think individual privacy in the State is perhaps not taken as seriously as it ought to. We have now arrived at a time in our lives where, with the use of technology and all the myriad arrangements we have with inspecting people's lives, they do not have a great deal of privacy left. I think it is probably time that governments and oppositions and the whole lot of us had a bit of a rethink about what we do with individual privacy, and look at the sorts of arrangements we provide for members of the bureaucracy to enter on lands and to inspect people who occupy those lands and do it in a manner which I think is perhaps a little more up to date than it appeared to be in the 1950s when this was in fact put forward. I think it is time now to look at that very carefully.

I will mention another matter, and I think a new provision in these arrangements is the provision that relates to a notice which can provide for vermin-proof fencing to be erected. While under the old legislation the inspector had very broad powers to do anything that was necessary in order to contain a vermin problem, the vermin-proof fence, of course, at that stage was not specified. That came under a very general provision of taking whatever requirements were necessary, and a notice could in fact provide that necessary actions were taken, and one of those, of course, as we might imagine, may well have been vermin-proof fencing. But I did want to ask you what provisions there were as to cost. Quite clearly there are very savage implications for people who occupy land who may be in the plantation business and, while there are affected areas of the State that may be quite delighted that they will be in receipt of protection under this legislation, and can in fact continue their farming practices - and we all have sympathy for those who are fiercely trying to fight on to farm against bush blocks which are overrun with vermin, that there is on a number of occasions a need to be looking at this.

What worries me is that the power that the minister has to declare vermin to be vermin or a particular species to be vermin and the power he has through his inspectors to provide that the landowner then constructs vermin-proof fencing. Quite clearly, the implications for those who are in, for example, the plantation business, may well be that they simply come to the end of their tether. The expense of providing effective vermin-proof fencing, which my colleague is of course totally alert to, may be more costly than a landowner can properly bear. It may indeed do a great deal to impede industries - and in fact the Government would feel the same way - that we on this side of the Chamber are trying to encourage.

So I do have some concerns that, while the current minister may not go on and declare a particular species to be vermin and may not see the need for notices to be issued to have vermin-proof fencing constructed, the power is nonetheless there and any other minister may indeed go on to do that with quite savage implications for an industry which we believe is most important as far as the future of this State is concerned. I do have those worries because that is specified in there - it was not before. I know it was envisaged and it could in fact be done quite clearly because the aspect of the legislation meant that all reasonable measures could be taken.

I would like to get the minister's view with respect to how that might be handled and whether or not the Government sees any risks inherent in these sorts of provisions because, to me, they seem to amount to something that could be particularly damaging for people on plantations, and indeed some people in farming occupations who simply cannot provide the correct fencing. I am assuming that those who are in farming - of course if they are overrun with vermin then quite clearly their neighbours are likely to be overrun with vermin as well. So if there are rabbits on one patch, there will be rabbits on the next patch as well. But the implications to me seem to be very strong indeed and I think are quite worrisome in terms of the power of the minister in an area that could have very costly implications for those who are in certain industries, particularly the plantation industry.

I would like to have the minister's view and perhaps he can just allay my fears with respect to the costing of these arrangements, whether the cost is borne by both landowners. Perhaps I am in the business - and I am not - of only running plantations; I do not have any farm ground at all, but there is a small block next to me and that farming block has trouble with vermin - we appreciate their problems and understand what they are affected by. Perhaps the minister could indicate: is
the provision to be a sharing of costs with respect to that vermin-proof fencing if that is prescribed under the notice? What applies there? I have to say that I do have some worry with regard to what can be classified and what the notice will provide.
I do note that under those provisions where the inspector can ask for the suppression and destruction of all vermin on that land - which is an extraordinary provision, I suppose; I do not know how you guarantee that you ever get rid of all rabbits on a patch of land, much as you might want to do it. Inherent in that, you can of course ask for certain poisons to be used. What role does the landowner play in that set-up? Do you have much of a say with respect to what kind of poisons you want used or do not want used on your property? What are the provisions that apply there? I would be interested to hear the minister's response because they are powerful provisions. Certainly we do not want a plague of rabbits: certainly we do not want a plague of any pest, but I am just interested in the costing provisions and how they apply - and also, the powers of the inspectors.

Mr LLEWELLYN (Lyons - Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment) - I thank the members for their support of the bill. I suppose I need to repeat again that the legislation really is legislation that is a review of the existing vermin destruction act and has, in effect, renewed that act in modern language and modern form, and it has translated the provisions of the existing act into this bill in different form but nevertheless the same provisions are there. So everything that is in the bill has been in the previous act with the exception of the issues that I outlined in the second reading speech and, principally of course, the question of being able to engage in the farming of rabbits. So maybe if there were specific civil liberty issues, modern approaches to law enforcement and so on, those sorts of issues need perhaps to be raised in the Committee stage and it would be more appropriate to do that because really they have been retranslated out of the existing legislation.

On the question of the TFGA we did speak to Mr Rance a week or so ago and provided all the information to him. There has been a long-term view - and the member would know from the period when he was minister and indeed probably as a member of the TFGA too, that the longstanding policy of the TFGA was to oppose rabbit farming. However I think things have changed in regard to that and principally in respect to the need for us to comply on a competitive basis and so on, and in recent discussions that we have had with the TFGA executive officer in particular he has been quietly accepting of the situation. However I think there is a caveat in that the matter has not actually been to a full council of the TFGA and that has been indicated by the executive officer associated with it, but he has been supplied with all the information.

I do not really know what happened with the notes that Max Kemp normally delivers to the Leader of the Opposition and her office, so I cannot understand why the member did not, as normal, receive the second reading speech. Mr Bonde is indicating that he did not have a copy of the second reading speech but I have been advised that it was provided and it may have gone astray - I do not know - but I apologise for that if that is the case.

So if we can deal with the other issues in the Committee stage, I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read the second time.