Tuesday, 29 October 2024

Bills

Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ros Spence:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Emma KEALY (Lowan) (15:17): It is always an absolute delight for me to be able to speak in this place on the value and importance of agriculture but also around food, because without agriculture we do not have our fabulous food that we all enjoy. In regional Victoria we grow the food on your table, we grow the fibres that you wear on your back and we really do make such a considerable economic contribution to the state. I thank all of our food and fibre producers right across the state because they are not always valued. Sometimes they are utterly disrespected, and sometimes they have to live through conditions which they have absolutely no control over.

I would at the outset like to acknowledge that we are having an extraordinarily difficult growing season this year. There are large expanses of the state – in fact most of the state, apart from probably around the Gippsland area, the far east and south-east of the state – which have had below average rainfall. In many of the areas state we have got rainfall that is within the bottom 10 per cent ever for rainfall conditions, and of course that is having a huge impact. Down in the dairy area in the south-west of Victoria there are areas where there is simply insufficient groundwater. We are not having run-off yet – it is not going into the dams – and at this point in time it looks like about 25 per cent of our dairy producers in that region will run out of water this year. They will have to cart water. Just to put that into perspective of how much water is required – it is not simply turning on a tap; there are no taps down there and they have got no access to a pipeline system – some farmers are looking at having to cart seven semi-loads of water every day to keep the water up for their dairy cattle. It is an enormously time-consuming thing to do to cart water. It allows for a lot of thinking time. It costs a lot of money, but around that thinking time, it does make you realise you are only going financially backwards.

So I would put a message out, particularly to our dairy farmers who are looking at water carting this year: we are all looking out for you, we have got your back, we will always stand side by side with you and we will certainly make sure that we do whatever we can to protect and support the dairy industry this year but also in the years to come. If it does not rain next season – if we have another season like we have had this year –100 per cent of dairy producers in the south-west will not have sufficient water on property. This is a really big problem. While I understand the government have announced some grants that are available to people who are drought affected – $5000, like-for-like funding – my understanding is that they have been exhausted. It was oversubscribed before it actually even opened. I would urge the government to extend the scope of the funding that is available but also look at more substantial ways that these farmers can be supported in the short term but also in the longer term.

There is a fantastic opportunity for the government to put some money behind the Simpson pipeline project, which would provide water security to dairy farmers and communities in that Corangamite Colac– Otway area of the state around, obviously, Simpson. It is something that was considered many years ago by Wannon Water. We need to make sure that the state government are looking at putting money on the table to take pressure off farmers. We need to make sure that they are leaning on the federal Labor government to ensure their proportion of the funding is also on the table. Given that we are heading into a federal election it would be a very, very good time for all governments to be talking about that and taking that conversation to landholders down in that zone.

Further round through the Western Districts of course low rainfall has really impacted on pasture growth, impacting our lamb numbers in the area. There are estimates that on the land through that area there has been a decrease of about 20 per cent of stock – so a 20 per cent destocking rate. That does not just get restocked overnight; it will take a considerable amount of time to build that back up again. We are also seeing reverse selection. Usually farmers will select the ewes that have the most lambs, if I can put it in a simplistic way for the chamber today –

Jade Benham: The most fertile.

Emma KEALY: The most fertile, yes. The ones that throw out the most eggs are the ones that we like to keep. This year there has actually been reverse selection, so the ones that are more likely to have triplets or show a history of having triplets or even twins are the ones they are getting rid of when they are going to market. That will, again, have an impact on future stocking rates through the west.

The other thing that we are competing with, particularly in the Western District, is that our pastures – what is left of them – are turning into kangaroo feedlots. There are kangaroos absolutely everywhere causing an enormous amount of damage to farmland. We should not have so much competition. When kangaroos are breeding up in our state forests and plantation timber areas and those areas are harvested, or we get to this time when there is not as much rainfall and there is not as much grass growth on the forest floor, then we see all of those kangaroos coming out onto private land and simply grazing it down to the bare earth. There is no support available for farmers in those scenarios. There are no obligations on the state government to manage the wildlife that breeds up to plague proportions on their own land. Can I say – and I have said it in this place many times – the state is the worst neighbour you could possibly have. They do not do a lot to manage their fence lines. It is very difficult to get them to come in to manage fence lines, particularly when there are broken fence lines because of a tree which has fallen from their side.

We also have this impact, as I have referred to, of kangaroo numbers breeding up and other areas of wildlife competing with stock for grazing areas. Also, as we have seen out in the north-west of Victoria in the big desert area at Wyperfeld National Park, we are seeing the build-up of dingoes, which can now come across and attack stock with absolutely no recourse for the landholder. There is no way for them to even have those animals trapped and then taken further away, hundreds of kilometres away into the big desert of the Wyperfeld National Park forest. We are now seeing those dingos come further and further out because they are chasing water. They are even threatening campers in the area.

Again, this is an animal – it is wildlife – that has been allowed to run outside of its normal area and outside of its normal habitat. We are not calling for these dingoes to be culled. We understand that there is a view at this point in time that they are protected, even though the numbers have stayed steady for about a hundred years. But if the government have interest in looking and understanding more about dingoes, then I urge the government to look at a different mechanism – maybe trap and release if possible. Another option which I have taken to the minister is that we actually put collars on these animals so we can track them, trace them and understand their movements more. We could perhaps even look at e-collars so that we can geofence them into an area away from stock, away from other domestic animals and away from campers, who are feeling threatened at this point in time, as it is impacting on tourism through the area as well.

In the rest of the state we have got impacts. We have had multiday frosts, which are impacting on crop growth through the Wimmera in particular, but that goes right through again into the north-west and central districts. If you had any crop standing, I think low rainfall wiped out about 50 per cent of the usual yields and the frost has taken out another 50 per cent. Then just for the third part of being hit by issues that we cannot control, we have had a hailstorm through the region as well. North of Horsham there is considerable hail damage right through to the border, and it is south of Horsham also. Then of course the Casterton community was hit really, really hard. They are still reeling. There is certainly not a sheet of Laserlite left in Casterton that has not got holes punched through it. There are so many businesses and homes that have been impacted there, and I do thank the CFA, the SES and the council, who have done an incredible job, and all of the people who have turned out to help one another, to clean up after that mess and to offer homes for people whose homes have been inundated with water. I just think the Casterton community is incredible. I have spent a lot of time there over my entire life and particularly recently. I know that they will come together as a stronger community as a result of that hail damage.

There have not been fabulous seasonal conditions this year. I like to share that message; I have got the opportunity because I am the lead speaker on this bill. Everybody, when you are sitting down tonight and enjoying your dinner, spare a thought for the farmers. They do a really good job. They are often persecuted as destroying the land, harming animals and doing other terrible things, but they take pride in how they manage their land, they take pride in how they look after their stock, they take pride in the produce that they send to market and they take pride when they see their goods on supermarket shelves. They contribute so much to our local community. So I give a vote of thanks to our farmers, and we should all be doing that if nothing else. If there is a unity ticket on anything, it should be that. Our farmers deserve a lot more credit than what they get for what they contribute to the state of Victoria and to Australia more broadly.

To get into the details of this bill, there are a number of acts which are impacted: the Dairy Act 2000, the Food Act 1984, the Meat Industry Act 1993 and the Seafood Safety Act 2003. A lot of these changes are around cutting back red tape and making our system a little bit more responsive to make the minister’s job easier in some respects – and I mean that with due respect – to stop some toing and froing and ministerial intervention where they do not actually add anything to that process.

There are of course concerns that we have around some of the aspects that are outlined in this bill, and I will go through those in my contribution today. There are a couple of significant concerns, and I would just like to touch on one of those to start with. It is very difficult for us to form a position on this because changes in the Meat Industry Act within this legislation include elements that improve information sharing. In and of itself within this bill it seems that it is looking – and the intent is – to build more efficient systems within the department and between the department and the minister’s office. However, we know that very soon we will see a new bill, the Animal Care and Protection Bill, which will replace the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986. We do not know what is in that that yet. Actually I will be briefed on this in about half an hour, so I will learn a little bit more. It may not be the final version that we see. But in opening the door to further information sharing, we do not understand what information will be available and what further information may be shared and how private businesses – our farmers, our producers and our processors – will be informed and be part of that process.

This is very important, and it is not just putting up a red flag for the sake of it. We know that there are significant changes that the government is currently considering as part of the Legislative Council Economy and Infrastructure Committee inquiry into pig welfare in Victoria, and there are a number of recommendations that are not supported by industry in that inquiry report. There are particular recommendations around mandatory placement of CCTV within food processors. There is a lack of understanding at this point in time, because we are so early in the process, and we have got Labor MPs who voted for significant changes to the way that pigs in particular and meat are processed in Victoria that would widen the scope of information that is disclosed and available to the government on a regular basis.

We then have the next step of this bill coming through, which broadens the amount of information that can be shared, and then we have got another tranche of legislation which we have not seen yet, which will again be able to put different mechanisms and different reporting structures in place. So in many ways, while we understand and we take on face value what the government are putting to us – that we want to improve efficiency of sharing information – we do need to make sure that is done in a way that is inclusive of the rights of privacy of farmers and food producers, our producers and processors, to make sure that they are informed about when information is being used and where it is being shared. And we want to make sure that that in no way can ever be exploited, because we have already seen so much personal information shared through the work of – I am not going to mention their names – various people who just simply want to make sure we are all vegans or eating bugs. I am not going to be eating bugs. I like steak, I like roast pork, I love bacon, I love pork crackling and I love banh mi. I love salami too. I must admit I do love a salami. So we need to make sure we protect that and we need to make sure the balance is right. It is very difficult to assess where that will sit.

Tim Richardson interjected.

Emma KEALY: And I know there is unified support, member for Mordialloc. He loves his bacon too. He just loves it. He does love it.

A member interjected.

Emma KEALY: We will get to Moreton Bay bugs very, very shortly, actually. We will get to those.

We have got other elements of this legislation. We have got changes to the Dairy Act 2000 in relation to the sale of raw milk for human consumption. There is a loophole at the moment. There can only be penalties put in place for a breach of a licence condition around selling milk without the relevant bittering agents and other safety matters that we have got in place so people do not drink raw milk and get sick. But if you do not have a licence, you do not have those conditional requirements. So I can understand the rationale behind that and we certainly support that.

There are also changes to the administrative structures of Dairy Food Safety Victoria. This includes removal of requirement for their AGM. The industry have called for that. They have not got anybody attending and there is a lot of duplication, so they are looking at other ways they are engaging with their stakeholders and the wider industry rather than having an AGM, which is not fit for purpose anymore. It is also around making sure that the appointment process for vacancies on the board takes into account those times when somebody steps down or is no longer on the board, that decisions can still be made in a timely way and appointments can be made efficiently and effectively.

We have also got changes to the Food Act 1984. There are a number of aspects to this about reducing unnecessary burden on local councils associated with inspections of registered food premises. These recommendations are in line with the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office report Regulating Food Safety, which was tabled last year in June 2023. These are just making sure we have an efficient timeframe. There are strict timeframes at the moment for the time that can be charges laid. That does not take into account the time it can take for testing. We were told that it can take a really long period of time – months – particularly if food substances that may be contaminated need to be sent overseas for processing. So it is opening up those timeframes to ensure that infringement notices can be issued where appropriate and the process is not likely to be hamstrung by other caps on the periods in which they can be applied.

I do have a significant concern around the changes in relation to the Seafood Safety Act. This specifically relates to the new assessments, but not in relation to being a fit and proper person; I think that we can all accept that. But I am concerned that there are further aspects to the assessment of who is a fit and proper person, in relation to family members, associates, business associates and associates of business associates of that licensee all being assessed as to whether they are of good repute.

Now, there is no definition of ‘good repute’ within the bill or within the broader legislation that the bill amends. That is why today I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government conducts stakeholder consultation on a definition of ‘good repute’ and a right of appeal for seafood licensees prior to the suspension of their seafood licence.’

This is of great concern to the commercial fishing industry. Nobody disputes that there should be a fit and proper person test, but when we look through other pieces of legislation in Victoria which mention ‘fit and proper person’ and have that test within the legislation, of the 42 acts which this is relevant to only three make reference to ‘good repute’. So it does seem that this is going a step too far in specifically targeting the seafood industry, the commercial fishing industry, and that it has not been properly considered what the impacts might be on an industry that is so very important to Victorians.

If we go through the acts where there is a fit and proper person test and a mention – this is an additional criteria – of being of good repute, it is included in the Meat Industry Act, and it is included in the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, but only in relation to the cultivation of opium poppies. Thirdly, there is mention of the fit and proper person to also be of good repute within the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003. There is not that additional requirement, which is in the seafood licensing elements of this bill, which refers to family members, associates, business associates and associates of business associates also being of good repute.

I find it unusual that the government is taking aim particularly at commercial fishermen around this, and it is not just commercial fisherman. This means that they are also putting under the microscope the employees, the investors in that company and their family members – their spouse, their children, their siblings. It is a very wide net – if I can use that analogy or that pun perhaps, an appropriate pun – that this assessment will cast. And we do not know what ‘good repute’ means. We do not know. Can we trust whoever will make that decision – who is of good repute and who is not – to make a decision which is sound, when there is no definition?

But more so, if you read through how this amendment works within the operating act, it appears that there is not any right of appeal for that seafood licensee before the licence is suspended. So a decision can be made that somebody has a family member or an employee who is not of good repute, they have their licence suspended and then some time later, once their licence is suspended, they have an appeal process that they can go to. But it is very clear in the bill that their licence for commercial fishing will be suspended until such time that that decision is reviewed and reversed. This is of great concern, and I do not believe it has been thought through. I do not believe that it is well understood by the government, but certainly it has created an enormous amount of unrest within the commercial fishing industry.

I will note that in the Bellarine electorate there are a very high number of businesses that will be impacted by this. In the Bass electorate there are also a large number of businesses that will be impacted by this. There will be businesses that will not be able to continue to operate. There will be commercial fishing businesses that will not be able to continue to operate simply because of things that they are not aware of that then put them to be deemed to be associating with people who are not of good repute. It is very, very concerning. And let us face it, when we look at the Labor government, how can they really assess who is of good repute, and why haven’t they applied this test to other legislation which is currently in force? Why hasn’t it been applied to the Trade Unions Act 1958? Why isn’t there a test for members of a trade union and secretaries to be of –

Chris Couzens interjected.

Emma KEALY: This is the state legislation. I am getting interjections from the member for Geelong that it is okay –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): Through the Chair!

Emma KEALY: not to have the test in the Victorian Parliament for the Trade Unions Act. Maybe that is why – I think I might have caught one on the hook – the government is not keen to have wideranging application of this additional criteria for people within a trade union to be of good repute, because who does Labor rely on every single election? Who comes around? The CFMEU come around, don’t they? We hear that time and time again. The Big Build projects –

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, I am not sure what the union movement has to do with the agricultural industry and this bill.

Emma KEALY: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I have made it very clear in my speech – and I am the lead speaker on this legislation – that I am further dealing with the changes within this bill which talk about assessing people as being of good repute. I simply am going through when that test is not applied to other legislation within the Victorian Parliament.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): I will make the ruling. There is no point of order. There was some kind of straying a bit from the bill, so I ask the member to come back to the bill.

Emma KEALY: It is quite clear that the Victorian Labor government have no interest in applying this high standard – which is a very grey standard, because there is no definition of good repute – to people on their own side. For some reason they want to apply this in a way that is appropriate for commercial fishermen but is not appropriate for the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005. It is not in there. It is not in the Adoption Act 1984. It is not in the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2018. It is not even in the Firearms Act 1996. It is not in so many aspects of very important legislation where if you were going to apply a test that a fit and proper person must also have all of their family members, all of their business associates, their employees and all of their associates be of good repute – but we have seen that Labor are not targeting any of these groups that are their friends that make donations. We are seeing only the commercial fishing operators targeted.

This is completely wrong, but it is no surprise, because there are so many aspects where Labor will apply one set of rules to their own and one set of rules to everybody else. We look at how many members of the Victorian Labor Party would be sitting in their place if they had to go through a test of being of good repute and their family members being of good repute and their associates and businesses associates being of good repute. We have had John Setka in this place as a guest to hear a maiden speech – that is how you go for good repute! That is Labor’s good repute. That is your associates in good repute. You have got members of the Labor Party in the chamber who are of such poor repute that they are not even allowed to sit in their own party room. They not allowed to sit in their own party room, but there is no test there for being of good repute when they look at their own people, when it comes to their own people.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): Through the Chair!

Emma KEALY: And you have got women in this place sticking up for them. You have got women in this place who are standing up for a man who is not safe enough to sit in the party room –

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, what has this got to do with the agricultural bill?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): I ask the member to come back to the bill.

Emma KEALY: This is entirely relevant, Acting Speaker. This is all about a fit and proper person test. The government members may not like talking about it.

Daniela De Martino: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Lowan is defying your ruling.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): Member, I ask you to come back to the bill.

Emma KEALY: There is a whole amendment, and I encourage you to read the bill, which is around changes to the fit and proper person test to include aspects of considering that family members, associates, business associates and associates of business associates must be of good repute. It is a bar that the Labor government will not hold to their own members. It is a bar that the Labor members are happy to stand in here and defend.

Members interjecting.

Emma KEALY: They are happy to interject. The member for Wendouree and the member for Eureka are happy to stand up and defend their own friends in here who have been kicked out of their party room for inappropriate behaviour against women, and they will back them in just because they are Labor. It is hypocrisy that we see time and time and time again. It is not just that. How many IBAC reports do we need to see to show that Labor do not care about being of good repute? How many times do we need to see reports from the Victorian Ombudsman that show that Labor Party members in this place are not of good repute? How many times do we need to see that before it actually comes into effect that what Labor –

Juliana Addison: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I take offence as a member of the Labor Party and a member of this place. I ask for a withdrawal of that offensive thing that she said about me and the many colleagues on this side of the house. You are a disgrace.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): It was a general statement, so it was not particular to anyone, but I ask the member to come back to the bill.

Emma KEALY: It is interesting that it is so sensitive for Labor members to talk about people of good repute who they associate with. I ask them to apply the same guidelines that they apply to themselves to the commercial fishing industry. They are happy to have the fit and proper person test, but do not hold them to a higher level than the Labor government is willing to hold themselves to. It will impact on jobs in Bass and Bellarine, and Labor should support my reasoned amendment.

Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (15:47): I am delighted to rise to speak on this important bill. I find it extraordinary that someone who in their opening statement professed to care about the agriculture industry would spend a good proportion of their time just talking about irrelevant issues and attacking the government. I think it really speaks to their commitment to regional Victoria. There is nothing more telling than the numbers in the house – that on this side of the house we have 18 regional members. I think that speaks to the connection that Victoria has with the Labor government.

But, look, I think it is really sad that this has just turned into some strange slanging match when we are actually here to try and support our farmers. We are seeing some pretty difficult times in agriculture, and I know that Minister Spence, the Minister for Agriculture, has spent a lot of time in the south-west talking to farmers about their challenges, and I was really delighted to see the drought funding package. The lead speaker seemed to think it was not enough, but I think what we have really got to do is focus on the future and how we work with these climatic conditions into the future. That funding was really about trying to look at ways to futureproof farms.

Let us get back to this bill, because that is why we are here. I am very pleased to stand to speak on the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. It is an important bill in that it creates some regulatory consistency across the different sectors.

I find it extraordinary that the member for Lowan is on such a warpath about the seafood industry and the changes the amendment will make when in fact what it is doing is creating consistency. In fact the fit and proper person requirement already exists in the meat industry and really what we are trying to do is bring consistency. So instead of the hysteria from the other side about what will happen to people’s private data and why this is being inflicted on the seafood industry, it is in fact just bringing it into line with the meat industry. To suggest that we have in some way got it in for the seafood industry is pretty ludicrous. But I suppose that for the people on the other side, who like to so often share lobsters with mobsters, I can understand that they perhaps are a little bit dubious about this legislation. But let us make it very clear for the member for Lowan that in fact this is not seeking to in any way penalise the seafood industry, it is just about bringing it into alignment with the Meat Industry Act 1993, which is so important.

There are a couple of different aspects to this bill. Of course there is the public health and safety element, and it is incredibly important that we continue to strive to guarantee that our product is safe and healthy and the best in the world. I am really, really proud to be the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture. I think that agriculture plays such an extraordinary role here in Victoria. It is a $20 billion boost to our economy, and across production and food manufacturing there are over 150,000 jobs. It is incredibly important that we continually look to legislation to support and guarantee the extraordinary reputation that our food and fibre industry already has overseas. By ensuring the public health and safety through changes to the Dairy Act 2000, we are making sure that consumers can continue to have the confidence they have always had in our fantastic product. We only need to look back to 2014 and the terrible passing of a young person who had in fact drunk raw milk and that was believed to be the cause. It is so important that consumers maintain the confidence that they have always had.

In addition to the public health aspect, what is so important about this bill is really enhancing regulatory efficiency. This will mean that PrimeSafe can share more information within a regulatory environment. In agriculture things can move so quickly, and it is incredibly important that we understand the different industries and the different supply chains out there. You only need to look at the very sad outbreak in my own electorate of avian flu last year and how incredibly important it was that Agriculture Victoria could stand up and act incredibly quickly because that information was shared. When we are looking at any sort of biosecurity, access to hands-on, fast information is incredibly important. That will be the same within the Meat Industry Act now that we bring PrimeSafe along.

It is also really about supporting industry sustainability. It is, as I say, an absolute cornerstone of our economy – agriculture – and it is really important that we continue to grow sustainably. In some ways what this bill will do is reduce some of the regulatory burden on local councils and bring requirements into alignment.

I have been absolutely delighted to travel around a lot of this beautiful state representing the Minister for Agriculture and have seen so many wonderful farm producers on all sorts of different levels. I was really delighted to visit a pig farm recently who have just got their licence for a mobile abattoir and to watch the care and concern with which they run their farm. But of course they talked about having to do PrimeSafe inspections on a fairly regular basis and that they welcome some of this fine-tuning to the act.

Agriculture really is an absolute powerhouse; it is vital to our economy. Victoria alone contributes two-thirds of Australia’s dairy industry and almost half of our sheepmeat and is a leading producer of grains and horticulture. Given that we export about $20 billion in terms of dairy, meat and horticulture, it is really vital that we continue to address legislation and make sure that we have the strongest legislation around these regulatory bodies. We need consumer and international confidence in our dairy regulators, in PrimeSafe and of course in our seafood regulators as well. This bill, whilst it might seem to make some small regulatory amendments, actually certainly protects what is a fundamental industry for us here in Victoria.

I would like to take a moment to thank the extraordinary folk at Agriculture Victoria. I see daily the extraordinary work and commitment that they put into the agriculture industry in Victoria. It has been a delight to work alongside them and to visit many farms that are going through so much at the moment. I am delighted that our minister has put forward a very important drought support package, and I know that between the minister and AgVic we will continue to support the agriculture industry in Victoria.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (15:57): I am pleased to rise to speak on the bill before us, the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Like others, I will certainly note the importance that agriculture plays in Victoria and the contribution it makes to our economy. Having grown up living on a working farm, I am pretty hands-on and know exactly about that sort of contribution, particularly in relation to the beef industry – and probably more so with the red cattle rather than the black.

I will note that Victorian agriculture is the second largest contributor to Australia’s agricultural economy, second to New South Wales. It is worth, in Victoria, about $20.2 billion, which is not too bad a figure and is something that we need to make sure that we continue to support. Whilst this bill is not going to set the world on fire, it will just tinker around the edges a little bit.

I do feel for the staff at Agriculture Victoria. The previous member did give them a lot of praise – and I do equally, because they are very helpful – but I am feeling for them as their numbers are slashed through the government’s mismanagement and mishandling of the budget.

In relation to the beef industry, I will note that in 2021–22 – I had hoped we would have some more recent figures, but we do not – the beef industry was worth $2.9 billion and the dairy industry was worth around $3 billion. With exports – these are 2022–23 figures; even within the agriculture sector the years, the information and the data provided are not consistent. In 2021–22, $3 billion was the value of milk produced in Victoria, but the dairy exports in 2022–23 were worth $2.5 billion. In 2021–22 there were just under 3000 dairy farms in Victoria, and I note how difficult it has been for a number of people working in that sector and the pressure that the dairy industry finds itself under.

This bill also refers to the seafood industry, and I note that some more than 18,000 tonnes of seafood, anything from abalone to snapper, are harvested each year. To get your head around how much a tonne is: I always like to think of a good-sized bull as being equal to a tonne, so when you have got 18,000 of those lined up you get an idea about the quantities that we are talking about.

Whilst this is about agriculture, and this side of the house particularly are supportive of that industry, I support the reasoned amendment that has been put forward by the member for Lowan, the Shadow Minister for Agriculture:

That … ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government conducts stakeholder consultation on a definition of ‘good repute’ and a right of appeal for seafood licensees prior to the suspension of their seafood licence.’

I will come to that a little bit later.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill tinkers around the edges. It is there to address regulatory risks, to streamline functions of the regulators, to try and improve the consistency between acts and to provide increased clarity to Victorian primary production businesses. The acts that it amends are the Dairy Act 2000, the Food Act 1984, the Meat Industry Act 1993 and the Seafood Safety Act 2003.

I am going to touch briefly on the dairy and the raw milk component of that. I note that changes were made to the sale of raw milk in December 2014 under Minister Garrett at the time. It is some almost 10 years on, and we are now making some legislative changes, when it seemed to be working, as far as I was aware, quite well. I know that at the time raw milk was being banned there was a lot of outcry in my electorate, actually, because we had a provider of raw milk in the Upper Yarra. So many people, nearly 400 families, relied on that raw milk, having grown up on raw milk, and those living on dairy farms will produce it and use it on a daily basis.

So currently the sale of raw milk for human consumption is not permitted. Dairy Food Safety Victoria currently use licence conditions to ban the sale of unpasteurised milk for human consumption. This is what happened in 2014. At the time there was raw milk being marketed as bath milk. It is not allowed to be sold at all without the addition of things like bittering agents so that it cannot be taken or swallowed. But apparently there is a loophole where businesses who do not hold a licence are not effectively mandated to meet these licence conditions, and so the bill will incorporate licence conditions into the legislation to close this loophole.

I want to now touch on the changes to the seafood industry, and I will note that we have some key seafood areas in the state. We have got San Remo – and I noticed the member for Bass was in the chamber before, but now she is not. Down in the Bellarine – the member for Bellarine is in the chamber. We have Lakes Entrance and Apollo Bay – different, key areas for seafood harvesting. I cannot imagine, certainly, what those members, the member for Bellarine and the member for Bass in particular, are being told by the seafood sector in their electorates, because what this bill does is it introduces or expands the fit and proper person test for seafood licensees. Absolutely you can read it here, how far it goes, and it goes very far.

It expands the definition of a ‘fit and proper person’, and it includes something that really surprises me:

… whether the applicant or licensee is … of good repute, having regard to character, honesty and integrity …

But further, it goes on to include that an associate, business associates, business associates of associates or a person who holds a relevant position in the seafood business must also be of good repute, having respect to character, honesty and integrity.

So this is what I love: there are 42 acts in the Victorian legislation which have clauses regarding a ‘fit and proper person’. Only three of these contain a similar reference to being of good repute. First of all I ask: who is going to make that decision around somebody being of good repute – or a business associate of their associates? This is becoming really quite far-reaching. So those in the seafood industry, their families, their friends and their associates are held to a much higher bar than most others, and in particular to a much higher bar than the government, who are introducing this, hold themselves to.

There have been umpteen reports through IBAC and the Ombudsman which relate directly to the Labor Party and to the government. I want to read a quote from Operation Watts, which was a joint investigation from the Ombudsman and IBAC into the allegations of serious corrupt conduct involving Victorian public officers, including members of Parliament. It says –

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is on relevance. We are talking about an important agricultural bill, and all we are getting from the other side is some sort of political game. Can we talk about the bill, please? Can we talk about agriculture?

Cindy McLEISH: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, if the member familiarises herself with the legislation and perhaps turns to page 17 and works through each of these, she will know exactly what –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Thank you, member for Eildon.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): The mood until now had been not soporific, it had been interesting and engaging. I ask members to recommit themselves to discussing the bill.

Cindy McLEISH: I am talking about part 5, new section 14(3), which outlines the proper person test, honesty and integrity, and I am making that comparison and I will continue to make that comparison about the bar that is being set for the seafood industry and that of the government. We have quotes here from Operation Watts:

… I always knew I was on the taxpayer dollar. I know that it wasn’t right …

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, why are we talking about anything other than the agriculture bill? I know that the member would like to try and prosecute this argument, but let us stick to agriculture instead of political game playing. Perhaps they would have more regional members if they did.

Roma Britnell: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, this is absolutely within the bill and the scope of the bill. How can this possibly not be relevant to this bill? It is about a fit and proper person test within the seafood industry licensing act.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (16:07): I rise also to make a contribution to the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, and I am very pleased to do so, because the Allan Labor government is all about ensuring that we have the right legislation and the important legislation to make sure that we are protecting Victorians and consumers. This bill of course is all about that as well as making some amendments to just increase efficiencies based on feedback and experiences that there have been with the various pieces of legislation. The Agricultural and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 is going to improve – and we have heard previous speakers talk about these things – the operational functions of the Victorian food safety regulators, and it aims to provide more effective and efficient delivery of safety regulations in Victoria. There will be amendments to the Food Act 1984, the Meat Industry Act 1993, the Seafood Safety Act 2003 and the Dairy Act 2000. The purpose is, as was mentioned a little bit earlier, to amend some deficiencies in some aspects of legislation, because of course this is what legislation is all about – it is a living thing. It is in response to and covers things that are happening in the real world, and of course because of changes maybe some people have found a loophole or a way around something or information that has been received shows that something is not working in the way that it was intended. We then talk about coming here and making amendments to improve that legislation, which again is to improve the way things work for Victorians.

I am just going to go through each aspect of each act and do a bit of a brief outline of the changes that are going to be made to each of those pieces of legislation. I should also add that some of these changes have been based on recommendations from the Auditor-General’s office and also based on consultation with stakeholders, including the peak bodies of all of the industries that are affected by these legislative improvements that we are looking to make.

I have to say before I go into that it is good to be up here, because I have had a great interest in food labelling and food safety for many, many years since my time with, originally, the food preservers union as an official and then later on as the secretary of the food and confectionery division of the AMWU. I know the union along with consumer groups, the farmers federation and a number of other employee groups did a lot of advocacy around improving food labelling laws in particular but also using those labels to ensure better protection for food safety. This now does happen, although there probably could be a bit of a bigger font – things that talk about how much of a particular manufactured food item in the grocery store or the supermarket actually has local content. There was often really shonky labelling that implied, for example, that it was made in Australia or made from products of Australia, but then when looking further it might have only been 1 per cent of the total product or just the packaging rather than the actual food that was in that packaging. So this sort of legislation is important, and my union background in the food industry has of course given me a great interest in it.

The Food Act 1984 – this is around trying to support and assist local councils, who have carriage of a lot of food safety legislation, to ensure that they can better and more efficiently go about their inspections. Small things, for example, also make things a bit easier – requirements to display registration and things like that– and make compliance and checking a little bit easier for authorities. There are also changes to the Meat Industry Act, and those are around allowing PrimeSafe, Victoria’s regulator, to share information with other agencies in specific circumstances. What this is all about is that PrimeSafe may go into a place and it may well be that in terms of PrimeSafe or the meat industry legislation that that operator is complying, but it may be in breach of other legislation that is covered by other agencies or regulators, and this is about clarifying that, for example, a representative of PrimeSafe could pass on breaches of other regulations or other areas, such as animal welfare, to the relevant authorities for that to further be investigated, so it is just clearing up something like that.

Agriculture is and continues to be one of the cornerstones of the Victorian economy, and the Allan Labor government fully supports and recognises the enormous contribution that the industry makes to Victoria. When looking at the agriculture industry there is also the food manufacturing industry, and I would like to give a bit of a shout-out to all those food manufacturers that operate in the north. There are many food manufacturing businesses that operate in Thomastown, and of course we also have the Melbourne markets, which bring produce down from all over the state to sell to wholesale. This sort of legislation then also does have quite a bit of an effect on the food manufacturing sector as well as the agriculture sector.

There was discussion just before about the changes to the Seafood Safety Act 2003 and the strengthening of the fit and proper person criteria for assessing food licence applications. Well, I would not have thought there is anything wrong with ensuring that licence holders in the seafood and fish industry are tested in terms of fit and proper person criteria to ensure that the industry is operating to a particular standard that we expect and also to ensure that we are protecting consumers.

It seems fairly hypocritical, because I think there is certain –

Roma Britnell interjected.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY: Well, I think the opposition seem to have a bit of a hypocritical view in terms of these things where they are asking for people that represent workers to strengthen fit and proper person tests and things like that, and yet they do not want that in other places when it comes to unions and supporting workers rights.

The bill introduces into the Dairy Act new offences looking at some changes to the sale or the provision of raw milk, and as has been said, a former minister and former member of Parliament sadly passed away as a result of some terrible things that were going on way back when this legislation was introduced when raw milk was becoming a danger in Victoria. Legislation was passed there, but of course as I was saying earlier, going back to the introduction of my contribution to this bill, things happen, experiences are observed or technology changes – whatever that change may be – and legislation has to change to adapt to ensure that whatever those new circumstances or things that have arisen that were unintended or were not expected, then the legislation is amended to ensure that those protections continue. That is what is happening here where we are reducing some of the loopholes in raw milk sale, ensuring that there are penalties and consequences and regulation whether you hold a licence or not, so pretty obvious things.

Just before closing I would like to give a quick shout-out to a number of food manufacturers both in dairy and meat. We have got That’s Amore Cheese in Thomastown and Floridia, also in Thomastown. We have got Bertocchi and La Ionica and so many other important and great businesses that are providing employment as well as great food for all of us to eat.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (16:17): I rise to speak on the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, and I do so coming from an electorate that relies heavily on the agricultural industry and is a very proud producer of food that is exported all over the world. Whether it is food or fibre, the electorate of South-West Coast is a massive contributor and one of the largest contributors from the agricultural sector in our state.

Agriculture is clearly important, and we want to see improvements. This is a bill that comes before the Parliament when have got a state Labor government who have clearly dropped the ball in Victoria. We have got a massive debt pending of $200 billion, and we have got some major problems: a crisis in health care, a crisis in education, a crisis in housing – we cannot get enough roofs over people’s heads, you cannot get a rental property. We have got child protection issues, and as the Shadow Minister for Child Protection I cannot believe we have got a system where we are seeing record numbers of children dying in care and reports of abuse of children in record numbers. So we have got a state in crisis, and here we are with an agricultural bill which does some pretty minor things, and one of those minor things is the changes to the raw milk part of the act. I have been very involved in dairy for decades, and I understand the importance of not selling raw milk and the importance of how we have to pasteurise milk to keep the reputation of our markets safe, so I do not disagree with this at all. However, in 2022 the amendments were made because there was a loophole where raw milk could end up causing grief, and here we are again, because the government forgot in 2022 to include businesses that do not hold a licence to come under the area where you can effectively prosecute someone for selling raw milk, so a very minor change.

Another minor change is where the meat and livestock industry will have an information-sharing aspect, and all we can really understand from this bill is that it will make it easier for the department, not for farmers. So we are not even really sure what this all means.

And then there are changes to the Seafood Safety Act 2003. I know Labor are getting really upset by us talking over here on the other side about the government putting this fit and proper person assessment in for the seafood industry. There are some acts of Parliament that do have that, but why are you picking on the seafood industry? Why are you picking on commercial fishermen? Why would you pick on commercial fishermen? What was the rationale for that? No-one has asked for it, no-one has called for it, but here we have a government who are just tinkering around the edges while the state is in crisis, trying to find a piece of legislation to introduce into the Parliament to look like they are actually doing something, instead of actually addressing all these critical issues like the housing crisis, the health crisis, the education crisis, the energy crisis or the child protection crisis. I cannot even begin to fathom why we are picking on the commercial seafood industry and are checking out whether their family members, their staff members, their cousins and their brothers are of good repute and then actually putting in the legislation that they have no right of appeal if their licence is removed. Can you imagine your assets like a boat sitting idle, your staff sitting idle, your assets not working while somebody at their leisure within the government department decides whether or not you are a fit and proper person or you are associating with people of ill repute? It just makes no sense. This government is out of control and has completely lost the plot.

I certainly recognise the importance of agriculture. Agriculture is a very challenging industry to work within, because you cannot control the elements; you absolutely cannot. That is why farmers deserve our respect. It is the same with the commercial fishing industry – they deserve our respect. They work in all sorts of conditions to produce amazing-quality seafood so we can have seafood that comes from Victoria. Just like the farmers – we can have the products of beef and dairy and lamb that come from Victoria. In my part of the world we have got an incredibly important dairy industry, and I will just share some of the figures. We have 858 farmers who go out morning and night, and in all conditions, milking cows, caring for the young calves, looking after the environment. They have to understand the agronomy of the soil. They need to know what fertiliser regimes to put on to keep the equilibrium within the soil profile. They understand animal health and wellbeing issues. They are nutritionists, they are agronomists, they are vet nurses and vets – they have to have the skills of an all-rounder individual. Obviously we are calling on experts as well, like qualified agronomists and qualified vets, but the depth of knowledge and understanding of a farmer is extraordinary.

The farmgate value of dairy products produced out of the south-west alone is $1.3 billion of revenue that is generated from the dairy farmers who do that hard work. That is 109 billion litres of milk per year. That is an enormous amount of product that we should value. That includes one freight train every single night going out of the region filled with meat and milk from our region. My region alone produces 36 per cent of Victorian milk. The people employed equate to 2600 employees, and that is just on farm. It is important that we recognise the value of agriculture and do not just get up here in the Parliament and have the Allan Labor government constantly saying, ‘We really care about agriculture.’ It is time to put your money where your mouth is. We have seen farmers go through some really challenging times around the south-west, particularly in the north or down in the Heytesbury area, where they do not have water underground and the area relies on run-off. As my colleague the Shadow Minister for Agriculture Emma Kealy, the member for Lowan, outlined earlier, these farmers are having to bring semi-loads of water in to make sure the animals can have enough water to drink. Also in times like this you are seeing truckload after truckload of hay. These are tens of thousands of dollars per truckload, and a truckload twice a week is absolutely not unheard of. We need to recognise that if we want to have clean, green food produced in our state, we do need the Allan Labor government recognising the importance of farmers, not picking on people like the commercial fishermen or making things easier for the government rather than the meat and livestock industry. Actually talk with the farmers and say, ‘How can we really embrace what you do to ensure a sustainable future?’, because that is what the farmers want.

That is what they have practised for absolutely generations. Generation after generation, they have been thinking of the future, understanding the past and the impact they make on the soils, on the environment, on the animals, to make sure it is as sustainable as it possibly can be. You know, we have only got 7 per cent of the earth’s crust that we can actually harvest. Anyone who thinks that we can just all become vegans – each to their own. But the actual earth’s crust, you cannot harvest from cropping all over it. Go to Scotland. Have a look at the moors. Tell me how you could run a tractor up some of those hills and put a plough in. Have a look at many of the areas around my volcanic country. I farmed on a volcanic farm that you could not possibly run a plough through. You have to be able to farm to the conditions. If you take all the animals off, you may end up with more blackberries, more ragwort and more gorse than you could ever imagine or contend with.

Trust the farmers who have been working the land, and work with the farmers. They do get the balance right. They do understand where to harvest crops, where to plant and where animals are best utilised, whatever animal that may be. Sometimes, in some parts of the world, that is goats, and in some parts of the world it is crops where we can see it is better for the environment than leaving it go to waste. That is what we would see if we put forward this idealistic overlay of thinking from people who do not know how to farm, who have never worked with animals and never worked with the environment and never worked in the weather day after day, who think they are experts on how to farm and how to get the balance right between the environment and food production. But farmers do know, from generation after generation of experience. And together with science, together with the community, let us work towards a future that is sustainable and embrace our farmers.

As a government, that is what we always think is the best way forward as Liberals. What I see across the aisle is a very idealistic Labor Party who pretend they care, when really they have not got an absolute clue. We cannot see the benefit of the $5000 benefit per farm that we are seeing at the moment. I mean, one truck of hay on my farm was at least a $20,000 investment, which probably lasted half a day. But anyway – (Time expired)

Paul MERCURIO (Hastings) (16:27): I am very happy that it is my time to make my contribution to the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Just to touch on what this bill seeks to amend, it will make small changes to the Food Act 1984, the Meat Industry Act 1993, the Seafood Safety Act 2003 and the Dairy Act 2000 aiming to improve the operational functions of Victorian food safety regulators and deliver more effective food safety regulation. Basically what that means is this bill is there making small changes to support our farmers, not to regulate them or push them into a little box, but just to help them to do, and continue to do, what they do so well.

Food – we all need it. We all have our favourite dishes, places to eat and places to buy from, and we all want to make sure we know what we are getting and that it is not going to make us sick as well. I have got a story for you. As consumers we can do our part to make sure that the food we prepare is safe. We wash our hands before touching anything, clean vegetables and make sure things are cooked through, even if it means sacrificing a few pieces of chicken to see if it is no longer pink in the middle. Please actually do not do that. Please get a food-safe fast-read food thermometer – much better for you. But we also want to be sure that where we buy our food from is safe, and our producers across Victoria certainly want this as well, which is why food safety is so incredibly important. This bill will make sure that our food safety regulations are effective, transparent and doing their job to protect consumers and producers as well. This bill will also better protect the restaurant trade, as restaurateurs can be safe in the knowledge that the produce they buy and prepare comes from a place where it has been treated appropriately.

It reminds me of a story from way back in 1986 –

A member: You weren’t born in 1986.

Paul MERCURIO: I was. My then girlfriend and I were travelling around Florence – I married her the year after; I am still married to her, which is great – and we went to a little trattoria in the back streets of Florence. We had a lovely meal. I cannot quite remember what my girlfriend had, but being an adventurous eater I had the rabbit. At the end of the meal the waiter came up and took my girlfriend’s plate and said, ‘How was that?’ My girlfriend said, ‘Delicious.’ Then the waiter took my plate and said, ‘How was that?’ I said, ‘It was delicious.’ As he walked off, he looked me in the eyes and went ‘Meow’. Now, I am pretty sure it was rabbit, but there are a lot of stray cats in the streets of Florence.

A member interjected.

Paul MERCURIO: I am not going there. But my point is: if they had this kind of bill back then in Florence, that would not have been at all a possibility. Anyway, moving right along, when it comes to food, a safety concern has to be tackled quickly and effectively – especially if you do not think you are eating what you are. Any time wasted can lead to an outbreak of illness or, in worst-case scenarios, death.

A member interjected.

Paul MERCURIO: Indeed. This bill will make changes to the Meat Industry Act 1993 that will allow the regulator, PrimeSafe, to share information on specified circumstances directly with the Minister for Agriculture and Agriculture Victoria. Currently PrimeSafe inspectors cannot share information that they have legally gathered as part of their duties with other regulators, government agencies or law enforcement unless the minister intervenes. These changes will allow those inspectors to report directly to the minister or Agriculture Victoria, ensuring that animal welfare is taken seriously and those who are doing the wrong thing are identified and steps are taken to rectify the situation. Further, with these changes PrimeSafe will not be able to provide information to the media, creating online naming and shaming, or share information about the compliance history of a business. It is simply to allow them to pass on information to the appropriate body or regulator, ensuring a more transparent food safety process and reducing the risk of poor business practices.

The bill will enhance and clarify regulations surrounding raw milk, which is prohibited for consumption in Australia due to serious food safety risks. I did hear a member previously in the debate say that we got it wrong because we did not include this in the act when it was looked at in 2022. The fact is, our job is to find things we may have missed and clarify them, and that is what this bill is doing. We are looking after our community. Raw milk can contain harmful bacteria, such as salmonella, E. coli and listeria, which can cause severe illness or even death, particularly in vulnerable groups, such as young children, pregnant women, the elderly and those with weakened immune systems. To mitigate these dangers, requirements to pasteurise milk in line with the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code and to treat raw milk products such as bath milk in ways that deter human consumption by putting bittering agents in them will be incorporated directly into the Dairy Act 2000, currently administered by Dairy Food Safety Victoria. Moving these requirements from existing dairy licensing conditions into the Dairy Act will make it simpler for those in the dairy industry and sellers of raw milk products to understand their food safety obligations regarding raw milk. These changes will also ensure that penalties for non-compliance reflect the significant risk that raw milk presents to public health.

I am aware that in the market in Victoria you can buy something called cold-pressed raw milk. What happens is once this milk is bottled and sealed it is then placed into special machinery and it goes through a process of cold-water high-pressure processing to destroy harmful microorganisms. Interestingly, there are other food substances, like juices, dips, meat products, seafood and some beers, which are also pasteurised with high-pressure processing. The Food Standards Code requires milk to be pasteurised either by heat or by other methods that achieve an equivalent food safety outcome. The high-pressure processing pasteurises the milk without heat, but the cold-pressed raw milk is by no means raw milk. I thought I would just let people understand that if they are listening at home or even in the chamber.

An additional change this bill will make is to the Seafood Safety Act 2003, and a lot of that has been talked about already. This change is essentially bringing the seafood industry in line with the meat industry, as it is allowing for PrimeSafe to ensure that seafood safety licensees are fit and proper persons, and not allowing businesses to use the illegal activity of phoenixing, which is where someone closes a business and transfers it to a new business yet everything is still controlled by the same people.

Putting in place a fit and proper person provision just makes sure that seafood licences are being issued to those that are doing the right thing, which is producing high-quality seafood for Victorians. We have all gone to fish shops and we are not sure whether we are buying tiger prawns that have been farmed up in Queensland or out in the Indian Ocean or in Vietnam, so there is to some extent unfortunately people that will always flout the law.

Not only will this bill make food safety regulation more transparent, safe and effective, but it will also address key recommendations made by VAGO, which is the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, in their June 2023 report Regulating Food Safety. VAGO audited five of Victoria’s 79 local councils to examine whether councils were complying with their legislative responsibilities for food safety to protect the public. VAGO found that not all audited councils were complying with the requirements to assess or inspect all premises, and they made a number of recommendations to the Department of Health. The amendments to the Food Act included in this bill address one of those recommendations, and work relevant to the other recommendation is being processed and progressed by the department.

Just talking about not just farmers but food producers and manufacturers, I used to do a food show, and I travelled around Australia and New Zealand and I also went to Kenya meeting farmers, going to farms, going to producers, talking to the people that really cared about their animals, really cared about their crops, really cared about the land. I always felt that it was the farmers that really understood what was going on with climate change – the farmers that have their feet in the dirt every day and are looking after the future of the land for our families. This bill is not about farmers or producers doing the wrong thing. They care deeply about their produce, they care deeply about giving us the best possible food and produce that they can. The changes are small changes to the Food Act, they are needed and I think they should always be taken seriously. In closing, I would like to say I am pretty sure it was rabbit. I commend this bill to the house.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (16:37): I am delighted to rise and make a contribution on the agriculture and food safety legislation. The irony of speaking on this bill today protecting and supporting agriculture is that many in this place have heard me talk about Meadow Creek. It is a little village, a little farming area, just 24 k’s south-east of Wangaratta. There is an application process for a solar farm or a solar factory that is going in there, and that closes today, and everybody in our region has been trying to feverishly put in objections to this solar farm – or this solar factory, as we call it up there – because it really will be a scar on the landscape like the one at Glenrowan.

In this bill we are talking about protecting agriculture and food safety in legislation. It is really important that we do not just look at what is here in front of us in terms of this legislation. If we are serious about protecting agriculture and food safety, we need to be more broad about all this because, as I say, communities like Meadow Creek deserve to be heard and they deserve to be able to go on and produce food for the world. If we want to get concerned about food safety and agriculture, we have got to start there. By doing that we could send some ministers up our way to have a talk to the locals and understand exactly what they believe is going on here, and we could make sure they do it during the day, because they would drive past the Glenrowan solar factory that is currently there and they would see what the landscape will look like going into the future.

However, I will talk about the bill for a moment. It talks about the new offences in the Dairy Act 2000 relating to raw milk, and as an ex-dairy farmer myself for 20-something-odd years, I certainly understand the dairy industry well. It is an area that we do need to protect, this food safety. I know the raw milk was done in about 2020, I think – maybe three or four years ago – so I do not know whether it is a fix-up of a botched mistake or whether there is a value-add to what we did back then.

Certainly we will not have to worry about raw milk if we keep putting solar farms on all our beautiful dairy land, and we will have farmers like the Hourigans in Milawa that will not exist anymore if we continue down this this pathway.

I do have concerns about the amending of the Seafood Safety Act 2003, and I know the member for Eureka got a little bit hot under the collar when the member for Lowan started talking about the fit and proper person test. There are genuine concerns about that fit and proper person test. New section 14, which is inserted by clause 30 of the bill, seeks to expand consideration of a fit and proper person to include whether the applicant or licensee is of good repute, having respect to character, honesty and integrity. This is further extended to include an associate, business associations and business associations of associates. A person who holds a relevant position in the seafood business must also be of good repute, having respect to character, honesty and integrity. I think the member for Lowan was merely trying to sort of point out that if you are going to accept this in the seafood industry, make sure that we have this fit and proper person test across all industries. Do not just make it for the seafood industry. Let us go for the building industry, the CFMEU, trade unions, as she mentioned. We need to do this across all sectors to make sure –

Members interjecting.

Tim McCURDY: In fact we should also make sure that members in this place pass the fit and proper test. The member for Frankston is asleep, I think.

Paul Edbrooke: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, could you please bring the member back to the bill? It has been a wide-ranging debate, but he is now waffling on into an area that no-one knows what he is talking about.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): I uphold the member for Frankston’s point of order, and I ask the member to refer to the bill when he is discussing the fit and proper person test in relation to the bill, please.

Tim McCURDY: I do point out that this is in the bill. New section 14 is in the bill, and I had read that out.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Yes. Discussion in relation to the bill, please.

Tim McCURDY: It is in relation to the bill, and it is in relation to agriculture. As I say, the member for Lowan said we need to apply this across all industries, not just hand-pick the industries that suit you to do it that way. It is important that we look at it across all industries.

As I say, this fit and proper person test for the seafood industry, which is in the bill – let us clarify that it is in the bill. Good luck to the member for Bass when she sits down to talk to fishermen at San Remo. I grew up down in that region, so I do know a lot of the fishermen. I am more than happy to take her to meet and sit down and discuss with the fishermen how this is going to affect their industry, whether or not it is going to affect their industry, and explain to them how this fit and proper test applies and how it may or may not affect those people and what the words ‘good repute’ actually mean. I think, as I say, we should all need to pass that test. I also note the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee has written to the minister about new section 14, expressing that this section trespasses unduly upon rights and freedoms. It is not just us who have got concerns about that new section 14. As I say, introduce it for one, introduce it for all, because I think the member for Lowan said it is not even in the Firearms Act 1996, and I would have thought it would need to be in there.

We are talking about agriculture and food safety legislation. In this place last sitting week I spoke about the Queensland fruit fly and the funding that was ripped out by this government – $14 million. Fruit fly prevention funding is not about supporting farmers on their farms, because they combat fruit fly on their own farms. They do an excellent job of making sure that fruit flies are kept to a minimum or eradicated on their farms, but you cannot stop fruit flies in a backyard of a veggie patch in Cobram or Mooroopna or Invergordon or Shepparton, somewhere like that. That is where this program was very good at educating and assisting people in towns to make sure fruit fly did not explode and end up on our farming communities, and now the money has been taken out of that. Again, on one hand we talk about looking after and protecting agriculture and food safety, and on the other hand, we are ripping money out of fruit fly prevention. Again I say to the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture if you want to come to Cobram, I will sit down with the fruit growers association, and we can talk about the funding of protection against the Queensland fruit fly, because that money is going to make it very difficult for their industry. Not through anything that they do, it is what others do that is going to affect them. As I say, Labor come here and talk about protecting farmers, and there are two examples: Meadow Creek and certainly in the solar factories and fruit fly as well.

So if the government wants to truly support agriculture, let us talk about the pork industry, the poultry industry, the meat industry and the dairy industry. Mother Nature can be very difficult, and between international prices, exchange rates and dumping of products, it does make life difficult and a very difficult landscape for farmers. That is why they do need the support, because every year is different. We are seeing a green drought down in the south-west at the moment down near Warrnambool. We have got a fairly good season up north and it is not bad in Gippsland. But Mother Nature can deal a pretty average hand sometimes, so it is all about supporting the farming community when they need it.

I do want to support the reasoned amendment from the member for Lowan:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government conducts stakeholder consultation on a definition of ‘good repute’ and a right of appeal for seafood licensees prior to the suspension of their seafood licence.’

I think it is important that we do that, and I do hope the government sees fit to support that reasoned amendment because it would be a sensible and a fair result to do that and make sure that everybody gets a fair hearing.

Again, there are other industries and other areas, not just in my patch. The member for Euroa would agree with me that over in Colbinabbin there are other solar renewable projects that are affecting agriculture again. So we cannot stand in this place and just say we want to protect agriculture and say we want to protect this part of agriculture but not that part of agriculture. I think it is important that the Minister for Agriculture and the parliamentary secretary come and understand some of the smaller issues that are going on in our smaller communities, because they are not small issues. They are big issues for them in smaller communities, and I think it is really important that they understand all that, rather than just cherrypicking what they want to talk about in protecting farmers.

I note the member for Thomastown said there is not anything wrong with strengthening a fit and proper test, and we are saying, as we have said all along, if it is good for one, it is good for all.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (16:47): I am very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to debate on what is yet another important piece of legislation that is before the house this evening. It is always dangerous, I find, to follow someone like the member for Hastings on a bill that relates to food, because the member for Hastings is very much known for his ability in the kitchen.

Paul Edbrooke interjected.

Josh BULL: He is, member for Frankston; he is very passionate, and certainly in conversations that I have had with him I think he puts most of us to shame in terms of his cooking ability.

I do want to say, though, that this is another important piece of legislation, as I mentioned earlier, that is before the house and goes to strengthening food security and food safety practices and is an important step in strengthening Victoria’s food safety regulatory framework and supporting that ongoing safety and quality of agricultural products, as other members have mentioned this afternoon.

The bill comes before the house after what has been extensive consultation with Dairy Farmers Victoria, the Australian Dairy Products Federation, Dairy Australia, Victorian chicken meat council, Australian Pork Limited, Australian Meat Industry Council, Seafood Industry Victoria, Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance, Victorian Farmers Federation and many, many others. What is important when it comes to this bill and other bills that are before the house is to ensure that the work on the ground, the work that is done by a whole range of industry and agricultural bodies and of those that work within industry each and every day, and those conversations with government, those messages, are heard. We know and understand, and it should be a shared view across both sides of the chamber, that working with key partners and listening to the work that is done with the spirit or the intention of making sure that we can get the very best possible framework in place is something that is very important, and that relates to not just this bill but other legislation that comes before the house.

As other members have mentioned, the legislation addresses the complexities of the agricultural sector by amending several key acts, the Food Act 1984, the Meat Industry Act 1993, the Seafood Safety Act 2003 and the Dairy Act 2000, aiming to ensure the effective operation of our food safety regulators and aligning with the government’s commitment to safeguarding consumer health and the integrity of agricultural industries.

We know that the bill aims to streamline food safety regulation in our state, not just improving the operational efficiency of regulatory bodies such as PrimeSafe and Dairy Food Safety Victoria but also introducing new provisions to strengthen the oversight of high-risk products like raw milk, enabling more effective information sharing amongst regulators and reducing the administrative burden on local councils and businesses, leading to what should be a more transparent, consistent and effective food safety system, providing benefits to consumers and producers alike.

As we know and as I have heard a number of members touch on, this is a very important industry to the Victorian community. It is very important in terms of jobs and economic benefit to our state and an important part of our social fabric in many ways. What we need to do as legislators is to make sure, as I mentioned earlier, that we are working with those peak bodies and that we are understanding some of the challenges and the nuances that come through the day-to-day operations of these entities but also ensuring that we are providing a range of changes that are contained in this bill, which as I mentioned earlier, go to efficiency and improving safety and standards. Reducing administrative burden is something that we very strongly support.

I will go to the amendments to each act – to the back end of the speech, if we can call that. The amendments to the Meat Industry Act look toward changes to enable PrimeSafe, Victoria’s regulator for meat and seafood, to share information in specific circumstances. This allows PrimeSafe to collaborate more effectively with other agencies like Agriculture Victoria, which is vital for maintaining confidence in the meat industry. That goes to the point before, that having the opportunity to collaborate and share across different agencies is something that is important and goes to a more streamlined and efficient approach.

If we look at the Seafood Safety Act, the key change is the introduction of the fit and proper person criteria for assessing seafood licence applications with the aim of ensuring that licence-holders meet appropriate standards, safeguarding the reputation and quality of our seafood sector, and by setting higher standards to ensure that those who meet strict criteria can participate in the industry and going to improving consumer trust.

The updates to the Dairy Act go to the regulation of raw milk, which I have heard other members speak about at length about, and the high-risk product by creating new offences for the sale, delivery or provision of raw milk. As is expected, this is critical for protecting public health and making sure that those risks that can arise in this space are minimised, and that is important when it comes to community safety.

The revisions to the Food Act go to reducing the administrative burden on local councils by amending inspection processes for registered food premises and allowing for a more efficient approach, empowering the Secretary of the Department of Health to declare requirements for food premises to display registration information, increasing transparency for consumers. These are important changes. Finally, there is the removal of the 90-day requirement for instituting proceedings based on food sample analysis, providing greater flexibility and enforcement actions.

What this all comes down to is making sure that public health and wellbeing are at the heart of changes within this bill, and ensuring, of course, that it enhances regulatory efficiency, making sure that processes and pathways are done in a sound and effective way – something that I am sure you support, member for Bentleigh – and that industry sustainability continues to move forward. Taking us back to where I was earlier, it ensures that two-way conversation in what is a very dynamic industry – an industry that, as I mentioned earlier, provides for significant employment and provides for what is in many ways a sensational product that goes from market to communities for a whole range of events in a whole range of places. It will make sure that we are working with industry to not just reduce burden but improve safety, which is something that this government will continue to deliver, and this is a key component of that.

If we take for just a moment some of the challenges that I know other members have spoken about before, our hope and our intention with this piece of legislation is that many of those challenges and the operations that are conducted within the industry are improved, not just from a regulatory sense but by making sure that we continue to grow and thrive and work with our partners right across government. That is something that I know we are bringing forward and we are making sure that those conversations continue to happen in what is yet again another piece of legislation that goes to making our state both stronger and fairer, and supporting industry but also providing for a safer product for so many people right across this state, which is something we support. For those reasons and many more I commend the bill to the house.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (16:57): I am very pleased to rise today to talk on the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Where I live, I come from one of the highest dairy-producing areas in Australia. Any protection in the agricultural space I will always support, especially around dairy. In my area, the wider Gippsland area, we actually produce around 2 billion litres a year of milk down our way, which equates to about 23 per cent of Australia’s supply, and they do that over 1100 farms. So anything that protects the dairy industry I will always talk passionately about, because if this industry fails in my region a lot of my communities will suffer in the long run. It is as simple as that. I have a lot of friends who are dairy farmers in my electorate, everywhere from Buln Buln to Willow Grove, out to Neerim South, out to Erica and around the whole region. The region is 4500 square kilometres; I am not going to name every one of them. But it is very important that we protect the dairy industry, and part of this bill does that.

I think the biggest problem we are having with this bill in the debate today is probably amending the Seafood Safety Act 2003 to introduce a fit and proper person criteria for assessing licence applications under the act. I think that is the bone of contention here today. It is not that this side of the chamber disagrees with all of the bill; it is only some of the bill.

The member for Sunbury talked about spirit and intention, and that is all well and good, but I think the other thing we need to talk about is unintended consequences. It is one thing I am finding more and more often in this job when I see bills come through – although the bill may have good intent, it may be in the spirit of what was put forward, there is always an unintended consequence at the end of the day where the government has to really, really think about what they are doing.

In regard to the seafood safety section of the bill, the contentious issue here is:

whether an associate of the applicant or licensee is not of good repute, having regard to character, honesty and integrity –

It goes on to say:

whether the applicant or licensee … any business association with any person who is not of good repute, having regard to character, honesty and integrity –

The problem we are having here is that section, because there is no definition of ‘good repute’ and that is the problem. I suppose if we look at it in a practical sense, if the owner of a fishing vessel employs someone who somebody else’s opinion deems not of good repute then their business suffers.

Look, I get along with the Minister for Agriculture pretty well. I actually think she does her best; I really do. But I think this section of the bill we have got to be very, very careful of, because I do not see too many ex-accountants on fishing vessels. Quite often they may pick up people that have had a chequered past, but they can be people that are trying to rebuild their lives too. People deserve a second chance. If it is the case that the person that owns the fishing vessel employs someone that has a previous conviction, does that mean their boat has to sit in the dock because that person might not be of good repute? This is the point. Who determines it and what it is? This goes to the reasoned amendment from the member for Lowan. The reasoned amendment reads, and it makes sense:

That … ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government conducts stakeholder consultation on a definition of ‘good repute’ and a right of appeal for seafood licensees prior to the suspension of their seafood licence.’

It would be pretty upsetting for an owner of a seafood licence to get shut down because he may have unintentionally been with someone who is not of good repute. This is the problem right here.

I agree with, definitely, fixing up the Dairy Act 2000. Obviously prior to our time in this chamber – it sounds like from what I have heard today – a bill was brought forward, and this is fixing a loophole or something that was missed out in that bill. That is all well and good. As I said, I want to protect the dairy industry as much as I possibly can.

There has been a good argument today about one rule for one and not for the other. On this side of the chamber this year we tried to introduce a bill around the CFMEU. We were very specific in what we said about that, and that was that any person working on a government project needed to have a police check. We actually defined what the problem was: if you were linked to bikies or linked to organised crime, you could not work on a government project. That was very, very different to what this is. We had defined the problem, and that was the part we wanted to clean out of the construction industry. This part is too broad. It is way too broad. This is why the member for Lowan has put this reasoned amendment forward. It is a commonsense reasoned amendment.

I know the minister’s staff over there have probably done their best, but I really do think they need to go back and fix this part up, because it is just too broad. It comes back again to the unintended consequences of a bill and the ramifications of that bill. Who determines what behaviour is of good repute? For example, if I got a speeding fine, does that disqualify me? This is what we do not know, and I think it is a very fair question. Is a person who lost their licence for doing 130 k’s an hour down the road of good repute or not of good repute? Where is the threshold in this? It could be more defined, like if you had committed murder. Let us talk about the fishing industry, for example. Maybe this is where they were trying to go, but they did not quite get there. If you had broken abalone laws, for example, if you exceeded your bag limit on abalone laws – fair enough, you are not a person of good repute, because that is reflective of that industry.

Or maybe you keep exceeding catch limits; maybe that person is not of good repute to hold a fishing licence. Those types of clear definitions make sense to me, and I think they would make sense to normal people. I think this is the problem. This is why we are having this debate today around this bill, because it is all around that seafood act and just the ambiguity of what it is – good repute – and how broad that term can be. If you stole a fishing vessel, then you are not a person of good repute. I mean, God forbid you might be trying to sell a cat and pass it off as a fish – that would not be too good either – or a rabbit. But that is the problem with the bill, and that is why we are here where we are today. We do not fully endorse this bill for good reason, mainly because of the seafood section of the bill and the broadness of what ‘good repute’ can mean.

I am concerned for – just around the corner from me down at Inverloch – the member for Bass’s area, and the member for Bellarine should be a little bit concerned too, because she has a lot of fishing vessels down there. The member for Bass has a lot of fishing vessels in her area, and it is not that far from your area either, Acting Speaker Mercurio, in the seat of Hastings. You would hate to get knocks on your doors from constituents, from fishermen, saying, ‘I’ve been shut down because I associated with someone who this authority has deemed of not good repute.’ This is the problem. This is where the government needs to fix it up. Spirit and intention are one thing – it is all great to have spirit and intention – but unintended consequence is the reality of the bill that is going to pass today. And the unintended consequence of this bill is people with fishing vessels, with fishing licences, could really be held at dock because of a good-repute clause.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (17:07): I am also rising to speak on the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Listening to the debate that we have had so far in the house, it explores a calibration of safety and of risk and of efficiency in the context of effective regulation. I do want to respond to a couple of the things that the member for Narracan said in his contribution, recognising that he represents a lot of dairy farmers in that part of West Gippsland – and a beautiful part of the world it is too. The reason I think he is concerned on their behalf is that he recognises the consequences of what would happen if, for example, there was a bad actor in the supply chain and the evisceration of the value that has been accumulated over generations in the Victorian dairy industry because of the reputation we have, the very valid and well-earned and hard-worked-for reputation as being a clean and green producer and a market that can be trusted on the global market to be an exporter of reliable and, crucially, safe products.

But the member for Narracan and several of his other colleagues have talked about and have expressed concerns with the dimensions within this bill which would amend the Seafood Safety Act 2003 to harmonise its operation with the meat and livestock industry. I am not going to touch upon the remarks of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. I do note that SARC, which does play an important role in the legislative process, has written to government and government is considering that letter and will provide a response in due course. But the purpose of that fit and proper person test and the amendments within the Seafood Safety Act are in a sense designed to prevent exactly the same kind of bad actor from destroying the accumulated value in the dairy industry and to make sure that there are those safeguards in the seafood industry.

I think the member for Bass and the member for Bellarine and others who represent coastal communities would get a lot of knocks on their door if government had not taken action to prevent bad-faith actors, those who engage in phoenixing, from undermining the reputation of the entire aquaculture and wild catch industry we have in Victoria, which has been growing significantly in recent years. I believe the value of aquaculture in Victoria is already over $50 million. The wild catch take is a similar amount. The sector as a whole makes a $300 million contribution to the Victorian economy, and of course that is concentrated in regional areas, like those represented by the outstanding members for Bass and for Bellarine and for the other coastal regions.

The outstanding member for Bellarine has entered the chamber. Those fishermen down on the Bellarine that are represented by her I know would be concerned if there were not safeguards built in to our regulatory system, because if you take consumer confidence for granted, you can lose the value of that whole industry instantaneously. I point to a couple of examples I have had, I suppose, second-hand or indirect exposure to. The first: in the UK in the 1980s when bovine spongiform encephalopathy, a condition that affects animals and causes incredibly significant brain damage, in effect, entered into humans via variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. It came about because farmers were feeding beef cattle in effect the ground-up bones of other livestock. The reason it affected me is because until this year I was not able to give blood in Victoria because there was, as with anybody who lived in the UK for longer than six months for a certain period of time, a significant risk, or a risk that was deemed unacceptably high, to the recipients of any blood transfusion. But perhaps even more significantly, the value of the beef industry in the UK was destroyed in effect overnight, and it has only very gradually repaired its reputation. Beef and the beef cattle industry accounted for about 38 per cent of British agricultural output before the BSE outbreaks came about in the 1980s. That dwindled incredibly quickly, and it is that kind of risk that we are grappling with, whether it is seafood, whether it is the dairy industry or whether it is other primary producers across Victoria. Those people who are working so hard, who are in the elements and who have worked the land for generations, and all of that hard work is put at risk if we do not have an effective biosecurity agricultural regulatory regime that can ensure an alignment or a balance, if you will – or calibration rather is the word I am looking for – between safety, risk and efficiency, because the consequences of not getting it right can be absolutely catastrophic.

As I said, the BSE outbreaks indicate it, but also another classic British example is foot-and-mouth disease, which was traced back to a farm very close to where I grew up, where it emerged that the farmer had been feeding his livestock untreated waste. He had not notified authorities of the outbreak, and given that speed is of the essence in those scenarios, the actions of one farmer – one bad actor – had a catastrophic impact for the entire UK agricultural sector as well as that of Europe more broadly and indeed the tourism sector, given its reliance upon access to green open spaces. So they are just a couple of indicative snapshots of what can happen if the settings are not right.

I come back then to the rationale for having a fit and proper person criterion within the Seafood Safety Act 2003. I note of course that the minister and government will respond to SARC, but the intent is to prevent bad-faith actors, people who engage in phoenixing to move seamlessly from one business to another and through their actions can perpetrate significant harm upon every other person who is working hard to make a living, as it were – to coin a phrase – and to contribute to that significant output that we have in the aquaculture and wild catch industry in Victoria.

It is important, because the economic contribution of food and fibre and of seafood to the Victorian economy cannot be overstated. I talked a little bit about the contribution of aquaculture, which has grown very significantly in recent years, but again for all of these industries, whether it is our beef cattle, whether it is our wheat or whether it is our milk exports in whatever form they might take – whether it is milk solids or powder – none of it is viable and sustainable unless there is consumer trust in the products that we have. There is a reason why our milk products are so keenly sought in countries and markets like China. It is because consumers in countries like China do not have confidence in their own agricultural sector and in their own food regulatory systems, and as a consequence they have voted with their feet and their dollars and are chasing Victorian products instead. The competitiveness and the competitive quality – the differentiators that our products have – can only endure as long as that consumer confidence in Australia and in Victoria as a well-regulated, clean, green, as it were, but fundamentally safe food market endures.

Acting Speaker Mercurio, you have talked a little bit yourself about the consequences of that being taken for granted or people playing fast and loose with it. If we take excessive risk with this, it would have a cataclysmic impact upon not just the Victorian economy but the Australian economy more broadly. Certainly in Victoria our food and fibre exports – and that is exports; that is not economic activity but in just exports alone – totalled $19.6 billion in 2022–23. We are Australia’s largest food and fibre exporter by value, and we account for well over a quarter of the national total. Again, if we do not get the regulatory settings right, if we do not have a harmonisation of the regulation of meat with seafood, we put at risk that hard work. We put at risk the generational hard work of farmers, of primary producers across Victoria. That is something that I think the Minister for Agriculture and her team are keenly aware of, and it is why they have engaged in so much consultation with peak bodies throughout the aquaculture, the dairy and the broader agricultural sector to ensure that there is an awareness of the intent of this bill – because it is farmers themselves who will lose the most if we do not get this right, if there is a biosecurity outbreak, if there is an erosion of trust in our dairy industry, in our aquaculture industry or in the catch that comes from our coastal waters. These are critical parts of both what it is to be a Victorian and to engage in as a tourist or as a visitor to our beautiful regional economies, but it is also the underpinning of our economic vitality as a state. These are significant drivers of export value. They are significant employers. All of that is put at risk and can be put at risk by a very small number of people. It is important to get this right. I commend this bill and the regulatory changes that it makes to the house, and I hope it has a speedy passage.

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (17:17): I rise to make a contribution on the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. As we have heard from previous speakers, this bill amends the Dairy Act 2000, the Food Act 1984, the Meat Industry Act 1993 and the Seafood Safety Act 2003, and it is intended to address certain regulatory risks, streamline the functions of regulators, improve consistency between the acts and provide increased clarity to Victorian primary production businesses.

There is one particular element of the bill that I wish to mainly focus on. I want to go into a bit more detail on that than maybe some of the previous speakers have, and that is the element that expands the fit and proper person test for the seafood industry. I acknowledge the member for Greenvale just gave some additional detail on that, which was good. But between houses I would like to see quite a bit more detail provided on that particular issue, and I would like to explain why. This bill expands consideration of a fit and proper person to include whether the applicant or licensee is of good repute having respect to character, honesty and integrity. That is fine. But there are so many unanswered questions in relation to the other elements of this, including, obviously, what is the definition of ‘good repute’. But where it gets more complicated is that this bill intends to further extend it to an associate. It extends it to business associations, and business associations of associates. Good luck policing that. Does that mean you need to do a background check on every person that you are developing some sort of a friendship with or you might be caught out by this? It also says it relates to a person who holds a relevant position in the seafood business – they must also be of good repute, having respect to character, honesty and integrity. When it talks about a position within the seafood business, this is in reference to staff. It is talking about staff, so let me paint a bit of a picture for you here.

That then applies to the deckies on the fishing boats, it applies to the filleters of fish, and we have very significant fishing fleets operating at a number of our coastal communities: I think of Lakes Entrance in my electorate but also San Remo and down at Portarlington on the Bellarine. You have got Port Phillip. You have got Warrnambool. You have got Port Welshpool. There is a fishing presence in Port Fairy and in Portland. No doubt there are many other locations as well. These are fishing sector businesses that, like many other businesses in this state at the moment, are finding it very difficult to access staff. It is not easy for them to source appropriate staff. A job at sea with its very, very long hours and hard manual labour is certainly not for everyone. Among these crew members, these deckies, are people who are getting their life together. They are on the road back. They might have made a poor decision or two in the past, but they are getting their lives together and trying to make the most of their second chance. This fit and proper person test proposed by the government relates to a person who holds ‘a relevant position in the seafood business’; we want to know what that relevant position is. Does that apply to all staff or not?

That is the level of detail we have not got, and I am hoping speakers on the other side or the government between houses can give us a bit more detail on that. Will the business owner who has given this person a helping hand – and maybe even they have advanced to a management position within the business – be punished for giving these people a second go if they fail this fit and proper person test? As other speakers have said, why is this being applied to the fishing sector? I am reliably told there are 42 acts in the Victorian legislation that have passed through Parliament which include clauses relating to a fit and proper person, but of these only three or four contain a reference or similar references to being associated with a person, and that is another grey area. I am sure the commercial fishing sector in the Labor electorates of Bass and around the Bellarine Peninsula have got some question marks over this, because the fishing sector more generally, including some of their representative groups and agencies that we have spoken to in the last few days, need clarity on these issues. If there is nothing to worry about, tell us about the detail, but it should not be applying to a sector that is going to have people knocked out who are having a go and trying to get their lives together in an area where employees are hard to find.

I am also aware through this chamber that the Scrutiny of Acts and Legislation Committee has written to the minister expressing concern that this section of the bill has impacts on freedom of association. It is simply unreasonable that we are applying a test that all associates of seafood licensees must be of good repute. It is just unreasonable. It is not consistent with food safety regulation in other jurisdictions throughout Australia, and as yet – and I have been listening in my office down there – I have not heard a good explanation of the detail that we would need and the seafood industry would be comfortable with to support this bill. I will also add that these extra layers are an administrative burden to these fishing operations. It will add more cost to ensure these processes are undertaken, it will disadvantage us with other states and therefore it will disadvantage us with seafood imports. The cost of local seafood rises when we put additional administrative burdens on the seafood sector. I said in this chamber just last week when I was talking about the commercial fishing sector in Lakes Entrance that we are already a net importer of seafood. We are an island nation and a coastal state and we import 70 per cent of our seafood. It appears to me the government either has not fully considered the impact of this on the seafood industry and those staff members working in it or does not know the detail as yet that we need to know to be able to support this bill. So apart from the financial disadvantage and the impact it will have on some employees – or the potential impact, because we do not know the detail – there are two major questions in addition to those that need to be asked. The first is: why is this being applied to the seafood industry and covering off on associates of those in the sector? And what are the details of this test?

Is it going to impact our deckies? Is it going to impact our fish filleters? Does it prevent a deckie getting promoted to a management position because they would then be implicated in this issue? They are the issues I have got around the seafood industry.

Just briefly before I finish, as our lead speaker the member for Lowan stated, there are some simmering concerns in the meat sector that broadening information sharing will allow for private information to be shared and potentially published without the knowledge of the business – we need some clarity on that between houses – and with no right to a fair process or natural justice being outlined if that occurs. Further, on the type of information that will be mandated to be gathered or reported, I believe there will be an overarching framework in future legislation. That is likely to be covered off not through the legislation but when the minister goes through the non-legislative process of putting those details in place, and that is of particular concern as well. This means that changes to information gathering or reporting will not be known until the regulations are determined by the minister.

So again we have a bill with an overarching framework, and it will be the detail in the regulation that will determine whether it is appropriate or not. So we do not really know what we are signing on for here; we have got some of this stuff that will be determined in regulation later. We are being asked to pass a fit and proper person test for the seafood industry with no detail whatsoever. At the very least we should not be disadvantaging the commercial fishing sector by burdening them with this.

There will be a lot of people very uneasy at the moment. I know of a number of people in the Lakes Entrance fishing sector that, yes, have made some poor decisions, but they are on the way back. They want to know that this is not going to rule them out of having a job or getting a job promotion. It is another case of legislation coming in here lacking the details that we need, and hence we will not be supporting this bill. I certainly support the reasoned amendment of the Shadow Minister for Agriculture.

Alison MARCHANT (Bellarine) (17:27): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. I might speak a little bit about what this bill means and what it will do, and then I will get into the fabulous Bellarine electorate. We have heard a little bit about the Bellarine electorate today, which is lovely. This bill will amend the Food Act 1984. It will also amend the Meat Industry Act 1993, the Seafood Safety Act 2003 and the Dairy Act 2000 to improve the operational functions of Victorian food safety regulators and provide more efficient and effective delivery of food safety regulation in Victoria. This is about implementing some food safety and public health policy and streamlining those organisational functions of the Victorian food safety regulators, including the meat and seafood regulator PrimeSafe and the dairy regulator Dairy Food Safety Victoria. This aims to improve overall consistency between the acts, it will address several recommendations of Food Act reforms that had been made by VAGO, the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, and it is going to provide clarity around various regulation requirements, particularly for Victorian food businesses.

This bill is important for all of us as consumers of food. We need to ensure there is a safe system of regulation enforcement, and it is there to help prevent any illnesses, hospitalisations or even death, or eating the wrong things, like maybe rabbit.

The Bellarine Peninsula is truly a foodie’s paradise. I represent an electorate that is a significant contributor to the food and fibre sector and the food manufacturing industry as well. It does draw a whole lot of visitors and locals with its rich array of all those culinary experiences. We have fresh produce. We offer a diverse mix of that paddock-to-plate or farm-to-table dining experience, artisan products, award-winning wineries and distilleries, and if you can picture it, it is also set amongst the stunning coastal backdrop with hinterlands in the middle of the Bellarine, our true agricultural centre.

Bellarine has incredible cafes, restaurants, farm gates, producers, bakeries, butchers and food manufacturers, including some of my favourites: Lard Ass Butter, who do an absolute amazing butter – garlic butter is my favourite – and Bellarine brownies. We have Lonsdale Tomato Farm, roadside stalls for honey, farmers markets nearly every weekend and you can go and pick your own berries at a couple of the berry farms as well.

As we have indicated today, many have said we have an incredible seafood industry on the Bellarine. We have our famous Portarlington mussels and abalone. Portarlington is very much known as the mussel capital of Victoria and I would argue probably Australia in that 60 per cent of Australian mussels come from Portarlington. It is an absolute booming industry for us on the Bellarine, but it is not only fantastic for our economy in terms of jobs and tourism and our local food industry; the mussels themselves are also cleaning our waters in our bay. They are really important to our marine ecosystem, and they do actually filter our waters in our bay.

I have been very fortunate to go out on Portarlington Mussel Tours, which is a 40-year-old mussel trawler that has been refurbished. It is a beautiful boat that you can go out on. You will sail along Portarlington, learn about mussel farming and hear directly from Lance, who is the owner and the farmer of Portarlington mussels. He will take you out to the waters where the mussels grow. He lifts up the ropes with the mussels growing there and you pick your own lunch. You get a bucket, and you get to pick the mussels and put them in the bucket. You then get to go have a drink or sit down and watch him clean and cook the mussels. Then he presents you with an absolute culinary delight of a whole lot of different mussels cooked in different ways. It is absolutely fantastic; I recommend people go out and do it. You really get to learn about the food and the importance of our farmers who are relying on that type of industry. I think there is more and more appetite – excuse the pun – to learn about where our food comes from, the producers of that food, the story behind their food and where it comes from and of course that it is safe and healthy and fresh.

That is what you can also do at a farmers market. I have actually got a little bit of my own personal experience. A few years ago another family and I, two busy mums who thought we did not have enough to do, started a little boutique farm, and we would sell garlic and berries at farmers markets. Doing that, I got to speak directly to customers, and they were so passionate about knowing how the food was grown, how it was cleaned, how it was produced, where it was from, the kilometres it might have travelled and any pesticides or things that might have been used. We were organic, which is a great story to also tell, but people were really wanting to know about their food. In doing that I had to go through the council and make sure that we were complying with all the regulations that we do here as well and that we are setting today, and it is a really important process. Proudly I would do that to ensure that the food that we were producing was also healthy and safe.

We also have a thriving tourism industry on the Bellarine and that is surrounded almost by food itself. We have a terrific experience called the Q Train where you can jump on an old steam train and experience Bellarine food and wine; it is absolutely a magnificent way to experience the Bellarine on a plate. We have many cafes and bakeries. Ket Baker is one I have had the minister come visit. They do incredible sourdough and croissants, and there is a line out the door every time you visit there. It really is a foodie experience. We are committed to fine producers, we have a place to enjoy that delicacy and we learn about the farmers as well.

I think that is probably my audition for Postcards or Getaway.

Food safety is also very crucial, though, for our trusted brand on the Bellarine and our Victorian brand as a tourism and food destination. When visitors come to enjoy the unique flavours of the Bellarine and our fresh offerings they do bring those expectations of high-quality safe dining experiences. Upholding our food safety is not only protecting the health of our communities and our guests, but it also ensures the sustainable reputation of our region. With a commitment to vigorous standards and transparency we do enhance our visitor confidence, we promote the return of tourists and we celebrate our local food scene in a responsible way. Food safety plays a significant role in building and maintaining that consumer trust, and when businesses adhere to those strict food safety standards consumers do feel more secure in their choices and more likely to return. Additionally, a strong food safety culture enhances reputable industries such as restaurants, grocery stores and food production, and health is that priority. Beyond individual health and trust in food safety, it does have a broader implication for our public health and our economy. We know that widespread foodborne illnesses can strain our health system and can lead to economic losses, closures or decreased spend in affected sectors. Ensuring our food safety is not just for individuals but for stable, healthy and thriving communities, and that is certainly what we have on the Bellarine.

I am really pleased to speak on this bill and contribute to a bill that is about improving our regulations of food safety, increasing that clarity around Victorian businesses and making sure that consumers are at the heart of our food regulations as well. I encourage people to come to the Bellarine, experience the food wonder that we have on offer on the Bellarine, from seafood to all those cafes and bakeries and other food producers – come to a farmers market, speak to farmers, hear about the food. I commend this bill to the house.

Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (17:37): I rise today to contribute to the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, and I do that because of course it is of great interest to the people of Polwarth, who I enjoy representing here in the in the Parliament each week. We are dealing with amendments in this omnibus bill to the Meat Industry Act 1993, the Seafood Safety Act 2003, the Dairy Act 2000 and the Food Act 1984. Those four acts are vitally important for the day-to-day operations of a seat like Polwarth, whether it is our prime cattle and lamb markets that grow, produce and value-add right across my region, whether it is the Australian Lamb Company, the big lamb abattoir in Colac, or the variety of boutique meat producers right around and increasingly at farmers markets, food fairs and festivals right across not only the Polwarth region but Geelong and Melbourne and elsewhere. You will buy meat which has been beautifully grown, butchered, produced, packaged and sold right throughout Victoria, coming from our beautiful countryside.

The Seafood Safety Act – the Apollo Bay harbour of course is renowned for its lobster and crayfish exports. The changes from China, being prepared to take on that market again, will be of huge benefit to our crayfish boats and licences along the coast and the smaller catch out of Port Campbell also, which ebbs and flows a little bit, but it will probably pick up again now that the Chinese market is opening up opportunities again. It is a fantastic industry. Of course many visitors from around the state will have spent some time in recent years at the Apollo Bay Seafood Festival. Unfortunately the seafood festival did not go ahead this year because this government ran out of money and failed to support the local community in keeping that world-class event up and running, so that was a bit of a loss to regional tourism, I must say, but hopefully we can get the support back behind a festival like that, that not only brings great regional tourism to further points in the state, but also celebrates the wonderful food and produce from that area

Of course you cannot talk about Polwarth and not talk about the Dairy Act. The dairy industry of course is much better than in Gippsland. In south-west Victoria we are the dairy capital; 30 per cent of the dairy product of the country comes out of Colac. It depends on who you want to talk to, but I think about 80 per cent of our cream and ice cream in the country comes out of our part of the world. Whether it is the wonderful Bulla brand or packaged up for various supermarkets and others, we produce a world-class product out of our part of the world. Not only have we got big, well-run family operations like the Bulla ice cream company, we also have some smaller producers such as Schulz Organic Dairy, Apostle Whey Cheese and others, who do a great job with a boutique dairy product. Not only are they putting our brand and our dairy product right around the country with a high-quality twist, they are also providing great employment opportunities throughout the region.

Of course the Food Act, the instrument that allows local councils to make sure that our restaurants and cafes and food providers are doing it well and doing it safely, is vital along the Great Ocean Road region in particular, where in only a few months time, from Melbourne Cup Day onwards, we will be welcoming on a regular basis literally thousands and thousands and thousands of people from all over Victoria, all over Australia and from around the world down to try some great restaurants rivalling those on the Mornington Peninsula and other second-rate spots around the state that sort of try and vie for the spectacular coastline that we offer in Polwarth, where we have real waves and real beaches as opposed to sort of manufactured waveless beaches.

A member: Haven’t you been to Gunnamatta?

Richard RIORDAN: Yes, but then you drown like prime ministers if you go out that side of the bay. We have got good, safe beaches with surfing carnivals and opportunities for everybody.

These four bits of legislation are important. It is always welcomed when the government cleans these acts up from time to time and contemporises them when necessary. However, as we so often mention in this chamber, it is hard to trust this government when it comes to getting its omnibus bills. We have had a flood of them in recent weeks where they come in and they disguise some otherwise reasonable work but they go and throw a few sneaky ones in.

I have got to say I was reading this bill in preparation for the presentation today, and it is actually like a marriage guidance counsellor’s reform act. The bit to deal with the fishing industry, the amendment to the Seafood Safety Act, is two or three pages discussing people’s personal relationships. I sort of thought to myself that we have got descriptions here of what an adult partner is, whether you live with them, whether you do not live with them, whether they can have financial interest in your life or not have financial interest in your life. There is quite an obsession with the personal relationships that fishermen have. I thought, ‘This is rather strange. What on earth could be the ulterior motive? Of all the things for this government to obsess about, it is who is having sex with who in the fishing industry.’ I thought, ‘This is a rather strange obsession,’ because we have seen this government turn a complete blind eye to crime in the building industry. We have seen this government turn a complete blind eye to the misbehaviour of its own members in this chamber, where they take dogs for chauffer rides. We have had Speakers go off and live in caravans and claim hundreds of thousands of dollars. We have seen all sorts of strange things happen, and this government turns a blind eye. But now we have a piece of legislation that wants to know every intimate detail of a fisherman’s private life. I thought, ‘That’s strange.’

But it gets worse. Not only do they want to know who you are having sex with and if you live with them and what your mortgage repayments are, they are now obsessed with who your friends are. Imagine if they applied some of these things, like whether an associate of the applicant or licensee has any business associations, to the member for Mordialloc, for example. Where did he get his stamps from? I mean, that would be the question you could ask. The Labor Party could apply some of this to its own membership and applications.

Anthony Cianflone: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the honourable member has totally strayed from the bill here. On relevance, what he is talking about has nothing to do with the substance of the bill. I ask that you draw him back to the substance of the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): I would ask the member to come back to the substance of the bill.

Richard RIORDAN: Thank you for that guidance, Acting Speaker, but I am just talking about the relevance of the fit and proper person and people of good repute test that we are applying to the fishing industry.

The fishing industry, certainly in my part of the world – as I said, in Apollo Bay and Port Campbell – is an important industry. It is vital. Fishermen often engage in value-add to their business. So when the catch comes in in the morning, certainly in Apollo Bay, there is a fisherman’s co-op.

Are we now sort of having to judge your character and whether you can have your fishing licence and your involvement in the fishing industry depending on who is at the fryer cooking the fish in the fish shop? We now need to know who your wife is, who your partner is, who your husband is and who their association is with. These are sort of strange provisions, and I guess the reason we raise that question is because the fishing industry, like all other industries in primary industry, are often small- to medium-sized enterprises. They are hardworking people and they are out doing the hard yards. A fisherman’s life is pretty rugged. It is hard work; it is long hours. To think that you have now got to come back and in order to keep your licences and in order to keep your business and have a relationship with the government – because unfortunately to maintain your accreditation and to be able to export your product and be engaged in long-term profitable financial and commercial arrangements you have to maintain a good relationship with your business. So it is of concern to the opposition that this government has decided to bring this in. They have not explained what the rationale is for this rather intrusive element that takes up about half of this rather thin document, this omnibus bill that they are bringing in.

Michael O’Brien interjected.

Richard RIORDAN: Well, that is right. Yes, member for Malvern, the fishing industry is probably not the most important thing in Malvern, but they could apply to the legal profession, I guess. Are the legal profession fit and proper people? That could be something. But do not pick on our fishermen. They are good people down in Apollo Bay. I think they have enough to worry about in life: what the swell is like, whether the south-westerly is coming in, whether the catch is going to be decent and whether the Chinese are buying the lobster and the crayfish. There is a lot for fisherman to worry about on a day-to-day basis, and one should not have to be the marital status of people in the industry, who they are associated with or what they have done in their past. These are not relevant concerns. Unfortunately, this has been brought to the Parliament without proper debate and discussion with the industry. The industry are telling us they have not been sat down with, and this has not been justified. So I support the amendments made by the Shadow Minister for Agriculture.

Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (17:47): I too rise from our side of the house to support the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Before I go to the substance of the bill, I would like to just address some of the points that were made in terms of the reasoned amendment that was moved by the member for Ovens Valley, I believe, but were elaborated on by today’s member for Lowan. Because the reality is and the fact is that most of the other industries across the food sector and agriculture sector actually already do have a fit and proper person test across respective sectors. The test is already in place. All we are doing, Leader of the Nationals, is streamlining and making the seafood industry consistent with the meat industry. It is already in the Meat Industry Act 1993. The fit and proper persons test is already in the Meat Industry Act 1993, in the beef industry, across the poultry sector and across the pork sector. So I was very confused, to say the least, when the current member for Lowan seemed to be a bit irate – as other members have been – that the test would be applied now to the seafood industry if this bill were to pass, to such an extent that she and others have proposed, and continue to propose, a reasoned amendment. As I said, what we are proposing is not inconsistent with what is already in place across the sector.

I note that the clause formed part of the original Meat Industry Act 1993, and the Minister for Agriculture at the time in 1993 was a guy by the name of Bill McGrath, a Nationals MP who was also a former member for Lowan. In his second reading speech on 8 April 1993, he spoke glowingly of the fit and proper person test:

Finally, the Meat Industry Bill significantly broadens and strengthens the provisions for ensuring that only fit and proper persons operate in the Victorian meat industry.

Under the new arrangements, every applicant for a licence will be required to nominate a natural person as the operator of the meat processing establishment covered by the licence and to display the name of that operator prominently on the premises.

So it is curious and baffling to see that today’s member for Lowan very much is arguing against the spirit of the member for Lowan at the time, who moved that fit and proper person test into the then Meat Industry Act 1993. It was good then, but it is not good for today.

In speaking to today’s bill before us, the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill, I would like to also acknowledge the Minister for Agriculture Ros Spence and her team for bringing this bill to the chamber. Of course Victoria is Australia’s agricultural heartland, with Victorians and many other parts of Australia relying on our farmers, our food producers, our agribusinesses and our food beverage manufacturers every single day. Playing a critical role in supporting economic, employment and social wellbeing of our regional and rural communities, the agriculture and food sectors also play a very important role in supporting the prosperity of our suburban and inner-city communities through, as I said, food and beverage wholesalers, fresh fruit markets, food processors, our manufacturers, our agribusinesses, our restaurants and our cafes.

Peter Walsh interjected.

Anthony CIANFLONE: You can come and have a coffee in Coburg one day, Leader of the Nationals – I will show you what it is all about. These sectors have a big flow-on effect in terms of economic and employment outcomes across Pascoe Vale, Coburg and Brunswick West.

That is why this bill is so important, building on many previous reforms designed to protect and sustain this important part of our economy in terms of agriculture and the food sector. Of course along with our ongoing action to combat climate change to strengthen the resilience of these sectors, the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Incident Response) Bill 2023 that we moved almost this time last year was also another example of our commitment to preserve and protect these sectors from risk. This bill represents yet another important step towards protecting and strengthening Victoria’s food safety regulatory framework and supporting, as I said, the ongoing resilience, safety and quality of our agriculture products.

The bill aims to streamline food safety regulation in Victoria, improving the operational efficiency of regulatory bodies such as PrimeSafe and Dairy Food Safety Victoria. It introduces new provisions to strengthen the oversight of high-risk products like raw milk, enables more effective information sharing among regulators and reduces administrative burdens on local councils and businesses. In essence it will lead to a more transparent, consistent and effective food safety system, benefiting consumers and producers alike. The bill, as we have heard, addresses many of those complexities across those sectors by amending a number of acts, including the Food Act 1984, the Meat Industry Act 1993 and, yes, the Seafood Safety Act 2003 by inserting a fit and proper person’s test, as well as reforms to the Dairy Act 2000, because, as I did touch on earlier, maintaining the health, wellbeing and confidence in our agriculture and food sectors is critically important to our entire state’s prosperity.

As set out in the Victorian government’s agriculture industry overview of January 2023, the sector continues to play an increasing role in terms of economic and jobs output, contributing $17.5 billion in production to the state and $17.9 billion in total food and fibre exports for the state. It is made up of 21,600 farm businesses. It supports 150,000 agricultural, food and beverage manufacturing jobs across the state, and overall it contributes $16.5 billion directly towards our gross state product. Victoria is also the number one producer of milk, with 5.65 billion litres or 64 per cent of our national milk production coming from Victoria. We are the number one Australian producer for sheep meat, making up 47 per cent of national production. We are also Australia’s number one producer for vegetables, making up 22 per cent of production. Finally, in terms of prepared foods such as prepared milk formulas and the like, they make up 36 per cent of national exports.

With respect to the seafood industry, the bill very much goes to our state’s seafood exports which were previously valued at $245 million, with Victoria accounting for around 17 per cent of Australian seafood exports as of a couple of years ago. According to ABS data, it shows that the average take-home seafood expenditure per person in metro Melbourne is approximately 14 per cent higher than the Australian average. We love our fish and chips.

Speaking with respect to the diligent work of our public health and food safety officers across my community of Merri-bek, most of whom will likely have some sort of role to enforce many of these reforms and monitor them, according to the council’s 2022–23 annual report, the average time taken by council officers to respond to food-related complaints locally has remained stable at 2.92 days. That is below the three-calendar-day average since 2018. Seventy-two per cent of identified food premises received a food safety assessment in 2022 – an improvement on the previous year – and 277 noncompliances were identified through assessments and inspections for the last financial year of food premises, all of which, 100 per cent, council says, were followed up to ensure compliance, with relevant safety food standards having been since achieved. I thank and I acknowledge the CEO Cathy Henderson and her team of officers for this diligent work in maintaining safe hygienic standards across our local food outlets.

As I said from the outset, while rural and regional Victoria may be the heartland of our agriculture sector, it is very much our state’s manufacturing sector which has long been the vehicle through which the value of the sector has been leveraged and maximised.

Of the 150,000 jobs associated with the sector, over 82,400 jobs, more than half, are directly associated with the food and beverage manufacturing sector, with our state’s overall manufacturing sector home to 30 per cent of the nation’s manufacturing output, consisting of $31 billion of industry and 23,000 firms and employing 260,000 people. As I have previously also said, NORTH Link is our regional economic body and plays a tremendous role in advocating for Melbourne’s north, increasingly becoming the home of food manufacturing in this country. I also acknowledge the role of La Trobe University in the north, which has over $300 billion in assets, out at Bundoora mainly, specifically dedicated and devoted to studying agriculture and food processes.

Along with these opportunities there are also many current businesses in my community I would like to acknowledge that really value-add to the agriculture sector and provide an amazing array of local food and culinary offerings, employing many local people. Emil’s Cafe at 347 Reynard Street in Pascoe Vale is the latest addition to our local culinary scene. Brothers John and George El-Khoury have literally refurbished their parents’ old corner milk bar and family home into Pascoe Vale’s newest brunch spot. It was originally opened in 1978; their hardworking parents Emil and Houda El-Khoury raised their six children at the rear of the building while running the milk bar out the front. Years later the brothers have come back to their roots and realised a dream, taking over the lease of the building they humbly grew up in. Now it really serves a beautiful Arabic, Middle Eastern and Lebanese influenced menu utilising some of the very best produce from across the state.

Down the other end of Reynard Street at number 202 is the gorgeous, new cafe Two Franks, in West Coburg, founded by sisters Angie and Chryssie, who, like yours truly, grew up on the Reynard Street corridor. Two Franks draws on our suburb’s long multicultural history to begin a new chapter where locals meet to share in their love of soulful food and hospitality. The cafe is named Two Franks because the shop at 202 Reynard Street was previously a butcher for many, many years – which I went to, living around the corner as a young kid. It was owned by two butchers – separate butchers, by the way – who were both named Frank. I have also had the pleasure of welcoming the Minister for Small Business Minister Suleyman to my electorate to visit a number of local businesses, including Jack & Daisy cafe in Pascoe Vale and Di Benedetto as well in the lead-up Father’s Day and to celebrate their role in fostering a prosperous local economy. I commend the bill.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (17:58): It is important for the member for Victoria’s food bowl – in fact Australia’s food bowl – to contribute on the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. As you probably know by now, I am very, very passionate about the agricultural space given that we are producing food and fibre for the entire world in our red sandy loam soils, which can grow just about anything. Because this is part of the agriculture bill, it is a great chance for me to do as others have done and talk about the agriculture sector and particularly what a terrible season this season is going to be and already is.

Harvest has started for our broadacre farmers. Without rain, it is very low, if crops have survived the hail and frost; it is being cut for hay at the minute. Beulah is a place where beer is born, and I say that because they grow a lot of barley, and that is where beer comes from. It is going to be a very, very challenging season for our food producers in the north-west. Like I said, there has been very little rain, less than 10 per cent of average annual rainfall to get us to this point. There are some real challenges ahead. In the south-west, we have heard already, it is a green drought.

I think it is really important while we are talking about agriculture and food in particular – they go hand in hand – that we acknowledge the struggles that our food producers are under at the moment and the challenges that they face coming into this season and acknowledge those that are out on headers 24 hours a day for the next couple of months, harvesting what they can to get some sort of revenue into their pockets.

I hear often from farmers and from food producers that they feel like the government is trying to put them out of business with all of the audits, with all of the new legislation, the impossible compliance. This is not going to help those involved in the industries that are pointed out in this bill. But it is very important that I do contribute on this bill and mention how challenging this season will be, not just in broadacre farming, in irrigated agriculture as well. Like I said, there was hail not that long ago and we have had late frost. It is going to be a hard season, and it is very important that I get that on the record.

Lily D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park – Minister for Climate Action, Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (18:01): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.