Tuesday, 12 November 2024

Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:09): I rise to speak to the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, and I want to make a couple of points in relation to the importance of this bill and indeed acknowledge the sector. As a woolgrower’s daughter, a meat grower’s daughter and a cropper’s daughter, I understand the importance of agriculture and the long associations my family have had with the agriculture industry over many, many, many decades in Victoria and in Australia.

What this bill does, though, is amend a number of acts with the aim of making improvements to food safety regulation – another very important element of what governments are charged to do. The key changes include creating new offences in the Dairy Act 2000 relating to the sale, delivery or provision of raw milk; making changes to improve the administration of Dairy Food Safety Victoria; amending the Food Act 1984 to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on local councils relating to inspections of registered food premises; giving the Secretary to the Department of Health power to declare requirements for the display of registration information relating to food premises; removing a requirement that proceedings against a food operator relating to food sent for analysis must be commenced within 90 days; amending the Meat Industry Act 1993 to enable PrimeSafe to share information more efficiently in specified circumstances, such as sharing information with Agriculture Victoria or the Department of Health – noting that PrimeSafe also have a very important role to play in terms of maintaining the high standards of agriculture and meat products in this state and enabling that reputation to be enhanced and to be maintained; and of course amending the Seafood Safety Act 2003 to expand the fit and proper person test for assessing licence applications. I will return to elements of this part of the bill a bit later, but I am pleased that the government has agreed to support the coalition’s amendments, which will address these issues, because of the nonsense that this particular component of the bill – before the government supported our amendments – had been proposing. As I said, I will come back to those amendments.

In relation to amendments to the Dairy Act, I did mention raw or, as it is known, unpasteurised milk, which is banned from sale for human consumption in Australia, and that is an important aspect of our safety requirements. The requirements in Victoria in particular apply to licence-holders only, and they can be penalised for breaches of licence conditions, such as selling raw milk products without adding a bittering agent. There is good reason for that to occur. What that means is that unlicensed operators cannot be charged for breaches. The bill closes that loophole to bring all businesses under the regulatory framework, which is a sensible measure that the coalition supports.

Another change that has the industry support is the removal of the requirement for Dairy Food Safety Victoria, DFSV, to hold an annual meeting with senior industry representatives after submitting its annual report. I mean, it is just extraordinary that we are even talking about this in legislation, quite frankly. What I understand is the meetings are poorly attended and not an efficient form of stakeholder engagement. DFSV can use resources for this purpose more effectively in other ways such as digital communications. I think, again, in this day and age, in 2024, when we have the ability to communicate in that way, what a sensible move that is. Other administrative changes enable the selection committee to recommend appointments to the DFSV board in the case of a vacancy or absent committee member, and this more flexible approach prevents delays in the process of appointments.

In amending the Food Act, the bill implements recommendations from the Auditor-General’s report last year Regulating Food Safety. These changes to the Food Act are designed to reduce unnecessary burden on local councils regarding the inspection of registered food premises. The Secretary of the Department of Health is given power to declare requirements for food premises to display registration information. Whilst I understand that that is an important element that we need to maintain to have proper processes in place, we need to ensure that those processes are actually adhered to. I have to mention I Cook Foods in regard to this, because this is exactly what did not happen. We had the chief health officer shutting down an excellent food operator. Ian Cook, his family and the 40 people that worked for the Cooks had an extraordinary set of circumstances that led to the closure of I Cook Foods. I have not got time, unfortunately, to go into the details.

But this Parliament held two inquiries into that saga, and it was a saga, because in the first inquiry we found out that even the chief health officer did not provide proper evidence to the committee. In fact you wonder what on earth he was doing, whether he was actually across what he was supposed to be doing or whether there was a deliberate misleading of the committee. But what he said during that first inquiry was that I Cook were the sole suppliers of food to Knox hospital. It was just an outright lie, and I am pleased that last year in November the Supreme Court found that the former chief health officer Brett Sutton unfairly shut down I Cook Foods. Whilst it is just devastating and disappointing to the Cooks because of the investment they put into their business, they did have that satisfaction that the Supreme Court made those findings.

I just need to go back to that matter because it goes to the process that I spoke of earlier. In the minority report that the Liberals and Nationals provided to the inquiry – Ms Bath, were you on that one with me?

Melina Bath: No, I wasn’t, but I listened with interest.

Georgie CROZIER: It was Ms Lovell. In fact a lot of Victorians listened with interest, because what we found and what we said was:

It is a matter of great concern that Professor Sutton’s incorrect evidence was allowed to stand as part of the record for 14 months. This is despite the fact that senior departmental officials had clear evidence that his testimony regarding food suppliers was inaccurate.

Had Mr Christy not come forward, goodness knows what may have occurred. That is what I am talking about when you have got senior departmental operatives such as the chief health officer misleading the Parliament and misleading the committee. The whole thing was just appalling. To this day, understanding what I know in terms of the condition of the woman who was subjected to the entire shutdown, well, there was a lot that never came out in that inquiry that I was privy to, and I think it was said previously that justice was not done to the Cook family and in fact an injustice was done to them. That is why you have to get these things right, because that was a legitimate business.

If I go back to the whole issue around how this thing started, it was back in 2019 when I raised Community Chef in the Parliament, which was, I might add, set up by the then federal minister responsible, none other than Anthony Albanese, who was a great friend of the then health minister Daniel Andrews. They cooked up that little Community Chef together. When I got hold of the Pitcher Partners report, which I finally got tabled during the inquiry, it showed that there was a grant provided by then Minister Albanese, who provided a grant of $9 million. There was a Department of Health and Human Services grant of $6 million, and then the health minister, as I said, was Daniel Andrews. There was a loan from the ANZ Bank of $9.5 million, a loan from Hobsons Bay City Council for $1.87 million and $2.2 million of equity from shareholder councils. No-one could say whether those loans had been repaid. In fact it was more taxpayers money down the tube while a legitimate business itself was shut down, and it was found by the Supreme Court that it was shut down unfairly. That is why it is very important when you are making legislation that you do get things right and that, if the Secretary of the Department of Health is given this power to declare requirements for food premises to display registration information, they do not abuse it like it was abused with Dr Sutton.

Another necessary change in the bill is removing the requirement that legal proceedings in relation to a food sample taken for analysis must be commenced within 90 days. I understand that this timeframe is often insufficient to allow proper investigation, particularly if food samples need to be tested overseas, and that does occur on occasion.

Amendments to the Meat Industry Act address issues around current outdated restrictions on information sharing that can hamper investigations, and the meat and seafood regulator PrimeSafe is unable to share information easily with other departments. For example, the minister currently must intervene to allow PrimeSafe to share information with Agriculture Victoria in relation to animal welfare. I think Ms Bath might mention this in terms of the pig inquiry that this Parliament undertook.

Melina Bath: Mrs Broad was on it.

Georgie CROZIER: Yes, Mrs Broad. I sat on that final deliberation, and I could not believe that the government was siding with the Animal Justice Party and what the Animal Justice Party was actually requiring some food producers to do. It still astounds me that the government was backing some of those archaic and very unnecessary and unfair provisions.

The bill updates confidentiality provisions so that PrimeSafe can share information more efficiently in specified circumstances. As I said, while we accept the intention is to improve processes, we have concerns around various aspects of the bill in the context of this legislation to be introduced, the Animal Care and Protection Bill, and I just mentioned that pig inquiry that the Economy and Infrastructure Committee conducted last year. So we are concerned about broadening the scope of information sharing, including reporting requirements, which has the potential to allow private information to be shared without knowledge or permission of the business involved. We do not want Big Brother overseeing that without businesses understanding exactly what is going on, and that is something that I am sure the shadow minister will address at the time. We do need to ensure that there is a balance between the necessary provision of information to allow for timely and thorough investigations and allowing them to maintain privacy of business information on the other.

As has been highlighted, the Shadow Minister for Agriculture, my colleague Ms Kealy, raised concerns around the expansion of the fit and proper person tests for seafood licences – absolute nonsense – and she so clearly articulated the elements around what a fit and proper person test or application must consider. They must be ‘of good repute, having respect to character, honesty and integrity’, and it goes on further to include associates, business associations and business associates of associates, and a person who holds a relevant position in the seafood business must also be of good repute. So you can see how ridiculous that is, and that is why we have enormous concern about this whole definition around how you can even describe how someone is of good repute when it is not defined and what considerations are used to inform the decision that meets the appropriate standard. As I said, there are a number of pieces of legislation that this impacts. There are 42 pieces of legislation in fact that mention a fit and proper person test, and only three of those make reference to good repute. These are the Meat Industry Act, the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 – only in relation to cultivation of opium poppies – and also the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003. It is extraordinary that it is put into those three acts specifically, and we do have serious concern around this.

As I said, there is the additional criteria that is being applied to licensees in the seafood industry in this bill where the good repute requirement extends to family members, associates, business associates and associates of business associates. Again, what a nonsense, and it smacks of absolute hypocrisy from the Labor government, who do not apply those same standards when it comes to their own links and associations and their associations of associations, and I particularly am referencing the union movement and the CFMEU in particular, where you have known people. As Ms Kealy has highlighted, you have got John Setka coming into the Parliament listening to maiden speeches, yet look at his reputation. Is he a person of good repute when you have seen all of these aspects in the CFMEU, the corruption that has gone on in this state?

John Berger: On a point of order, President, I fail to see what the relevance to this bill is of Ms Crozier talking about the CFMEU.

Georgie CROZIER: I will explain if you like, President.

The PRESIDENT: I will not uphold the point of order at this point. Ms Crozier is the lead speaker and she does have some more latitude than other speakers, but I will try and direct her to the bill, if I can.

Georgie CROZIER: I will go back to the bill. The bill talks about the fit and proper person test. This means that they must be of good repute, having respect to character, honesty and integrity. The bill goes further to include associates, business associations and business associations of associated associates. A person who holds a relevant position in the seafood business must also be of good repute. I am making the point what a nonsense it is and how hypocritical the government is when they have got direct links and associations with people like John Setka and the CFMEU, who have corrupted the Big Build, and the appalling mismanagement and waste that has gone on. You have got bikie gangs in there, you have got people of disrepute who are absolutely running roughshod over the Premier, who was the transport infrastructure minister for years and is now the Premier, and you have got these elements in this bill, and that is why we are moving the amendment –

John Berger interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: which you agreed to, Mr Berger – your government has agreed to it because you can understand what a nonsense it is to have this in this bill. It is extraordinary. I do not know who is drafting your jolly bills, but it just shows how incompetent the government is when you have to have elements like this and you do not even understand the implications of what you are doing. It just is extraordinary. On that note, if I may circulate the amendments which go to this very point –

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Georgie CROZIER: The first of the amendments that the Liberals and Nationals are proposing in my name seeks to insert this new division to follow clause 27:

‘Division 3 – Licensing

27A Fit and proper person

In section 16(2)(b) of the Meat Industry Act 1993 omit “, or an associate of the person”.’.

That is in relation to the Meat Industry Act. We are seeking to have an understanding of an associate of that fit and proper person included in that, In clause 30, page 17 of the bill, our amendment is to omit all words and expressions on several lines. I will just read it out:

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

That is what we are saying. That does not need to be in this bill. You need to have the clarification around the Meat Industry Act, which these amendments seek to achieve. We thank the government for understanding that that is a huge concern to the industry. They have seen sense in agreeing to support the Liberals and Nationals’ amendments that will improve this bill. I do want to thank the government for their support on that.

Can I say again: we do have some concerns around some other aspects that we can talk about when other bills come into this place, but in terms of making sure that our food safety regulations are adhered to and there are safety measures in place but that they are fair and businesses are not being unduly compromised or put at a disadvantage to support our agricultural industry, I think that all those in the industry should be applauded for the work they do in sometimes very trying circumstances when nature takes its path and it is out of their hands. They do a remarkable job in providing food, fibre and huge impacts to our economy. With those words, I will end my contribution there.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:29): Well, it had to happen eventually – the libertarian gets up and talks about raw milk; what a cliché. If you know, you know. I am going to talk about raw milk even though there are other things in this bill. When I was a little boy, we used to live on a little farm out in Cranbourne – yes, there used to be lots of farms out in Cranbourne – and we had some cows. I still remember as a little boy milking the cow into the bucket, and we had a cream separator. We separated the cream, and on one occasion we made butter from it, which was actually delicious, and I remember drinking the milk. The idea that sharing that milk with the next-door neighbour would have led to my late father receiving a fine of tens of thousands of dollars, as proposed by this bill – frankly, I think my dear father would be turning in his grave, so there is no way in the world that I can support this.

On some of the other things in this bill with regard to seafood licensing, the Libertarian Party will be supporting the opposition’s amendments there – they do provide an improvement, as outlined by Ms Crozier. But nevertheless, on the expansion of the penalty regime and the tightening down on raw milk, I just think that lots of people who live in country areas milk cows and they share this sort of thing, and the idea that they are going to be liable for these enormous fines is intolerable and I cannot support it.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:31): I am pleased to contribute to the debate on the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. This bill will give Victorians confidence that the food we consume is safe to eat and also give members of the various agricultural industries peace of mind as they conduct their business. This will be achieved by strengthening the regulations across several agricultural industries and by making alterations to a series of acts to improve communication between food regulatory bodies. Agriculture is a major part of the Victorian economy, and our farmers are truly the backbone of our community. They should be incredibly proud of the work that they do. This bill will support their industry, whether it be dairy, seafood or livestock. By strengthening the legislation and regulations applying to these industries, every participant within the industry can be assured that they are safe from causing harm. This amendment bill will make changes to several acts. These include the Meat Industry Act 1993, the Seafood Safety Act 2003, the Dairy Act 2000 and the Food Act 1984. It is similar to recent amendment bills we have seen in the past relating to agricultural regulations in the state of Victoria.

First, the bill amends the Meat Industry Act. It will introduce changes to confidentiality requirements. The updated confidentiality requirements are designed to allow easier information sharing under the Meat Industry Act and improve the efficiency of regulation in the industry. The bill provides who may share confidential information and under what circumstances that information may be shared. There are currently sections providing for circumstances under which confidential information controlled by the Meat Industry Act can be shared and how it must be handled. However, without these amendments the act does not specify exactly who is responsible and able to share and handle this information. These amendments establish that an official person who the confidentiality section of the act applies to is one of the following: officers or employees of the authority – i.e. the PrimeSafe inspectors who conduct audits or inspections; former members, officers or employees of the authority; and former inspectors. By including a clarification of who this section of the act applies to, the regulatory body will be more effective in its management of confidential information.

Now that we have established who may use the information, how may the information be used as prescribed by the act? There are already specifications as to the disclosure of confidential information within the act; these amendments simply serve to further clarify the circumstances. Firstly, the information can be shared while performing functions under the Meat Industry Act or other relevant acts. Additionally disclosure of confidential information is allowed to public sector entities. However, this disclosure is only permitted if it relates to the administration of laws affecting the individual whose information is being disclosed. Similarly, disclosure may be permitted on a case-to-case basis with the full consent of the individuals to whom the information applies. Information may be shared with bodies responsible for food safety regulations. It is vital these bodies can function at the highest level. This is a public safety measure. As public safety must always be the top priority, this bill also provides that information may be disclosed if it is used in combating a public health concern. Finally, disclosure is permitted in the context of court or tribunal proceedings or if ordered by the court or as required or authorised by this act or any other law.

There are a couple of industries that I want to point out. There is the dairy industry. It is the backbone of many regional communities thanks to the employment and economic benefits it brings. Due to the $3 billion it brings into the Victorian economy, we should be incredibly proud of our dairy farmers in this state. Other industries that fall under the agriculture sector also contribute greatly to the Victorian economy and employ vast numbers of Victorians. For example, the horticultural industry produced nearly 2 million tonnes of fresh produce during the previous financial year. That was a quarter of Australia’s national fresh produce production. The nearly 2 million tonnes of fresh produce was worth almost $4 billion, but most importantly the industry supports over 14,000 jobs in our regional communities. As for our grain industry, 1940 specialist farms covering 3.5 million hectares produce 8.8 million tonnes of grain. In fact this industry has been growing, meaning we nearly outproduced New South Wales with half the land. The industry made around $4 billion last year and contributed 21 per cent of Victoria’s agricultural output. With nearly 10,000 jobs, the grain sector is just another example of how vital agriculture is to the economy. Every single agricultural sector in Victoria is a big revenue maker and big employer. The numbers alone reflect this. These numbers reflect an industry that needs regulatory support and legislative support like the bill before us.

To wrap up today I want to talk about a topic I always mention, and that is consultation. The Allan Labor government is committed to our ongoing engagement and consultation with industry stakeholders. This will address any questions or concerns about the bill. We will engage in targeted consultation sessions and the publication of detailed information on the Agriculture Victoria website. So far we have consulted with PrimeSafe, Dairy Food Safety Victoria and various government departments – a multipronged approach. This includes the Department of Health, the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions and the Department of Treasury and Finance. In addition, we have engaged with peak bodies like Dairy Farmers Victoria, Seafood Industry Victoria and the Australian Meat Industry Council. It is important to listen to those from industry.

The amendments to the Food Act in particular are in direct response to recommendations made by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, also known as VAGO, in their June 2023 report on regulating food safety. The report highlights the need to reduce administrative burdens and improve transparency for consumers regarding food premises registration. I also want to note the work that SARC, the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, did on the bill. SARC is an invaluable tool in our democracy and is an important part of the Parliament’s function. The Allan Labor government is currently considering their feedback, and it is my understanding it will respond soon.

To summarise my contribution, agriculture is important to this state through every stage of the supply line. I commend the bill to the house and seek for my colleagues to join me in support of that.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (17:38): I am pleased to rise today to speak on the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, and in doing so I would like to put on record my thanks and gratitude to our Shadow Minister for Agriculture Emma Kealy, the member for Lowan, for the very constructive work that she has done on this piece of legislation. If you listened to her contribution and those of the Nationals in the lower house, you would hear and understand the grave concerns that Emma had in relation to particularly the seafood industry and the impediments and onerous restrictions that were going to be placed on them and therefore the industry and therefore the flow-on effects of that into our Victorian economy and jobs in our communities. She was very feisty, as she often can be, in that but pointed out some real and live issues. In response to Emma’s contribution and her subsequent negotiations with the Minister for Agriculture,, which can happen and does when Parliament works at its very best, Minister Spence has produced a better outcome for this piece of legislation. Therefore if those amendments that my colleague Ms Crozier has circulated today on behalf of the Liberals and the Nationals are accepted, then certainly the Nationals will not oppose this bill. But it is worth just drilling down into a couple of elements of this bill to put them on record.

Also, in relation to Mr Limbrick’s conversation about raw milk, I grew up on a dairy farm, so I certainly have had my fair share of raw milk. My understanding of this bill is that it is not meant to capture those who have a cow in their backyard or in their small farmlet, or even if you are on a massive dairy farm, rotary dairy farm et cetera. If you are drinking it and sharing it with the neighbours, this bill does not capture that. What it does capture is a loophole; it closes a loophole where businesses do not hold a licence and are not effectively mandated to meet the requirements of a licence. This bill will incorporate the licence conditions into new legislation and will close a loophole in relation to the provision of raw milk.

Many years ago, in fact 30 years ago, when I was a young girl just into business, I ran a health food store for a number of years, and we sold raw milk. We actually sold raw goats milk. We got up very early in the morning, drove to the back of beautiful Boolarra, collected that goats milk and sold it on the day. Under those provisions today, that would be illegal, and I understand that. But back in the day it certainly was provisional, and everybody enjoyed that goats milk. But there was very much a serious case involving bath milk, as it is now classified, and selling raw milk, which has to have an additional additive to make it bitter. There was a case where it was attributed to a young infant who died from drinking bath milk. These sorts of provisions need to be dealt with and done sensibly, and that is a little bit of context around that first Dairy Act amendment in this legislation.

It also looks at regulation and reduction of regulatory burden and amending the Food Act 1984 to reduce the necessary requirements and regulation on councils participating concerning inspections of food premises. Likewise, going back to the early 1990s when I ran that health food shop and owned that store, over a 10-year period certainly we had our fair share of council officers. Health inspectors would come in and say, ‘Look, I know you are running a clean and tidy business, but this is our requirement.’ We are not saying that that should not exist, but we are saying that where there can be regulatory burdens streamlined, then that is a good thing for both council and businesses alike and for commercial entities and the people purchasing goods.

The other one that is there is in relation to information sharing. This bill amends the Meat Industry Act 1993 to enable PrimeSafe to share information more efficiently with other agencies like Agriculture Victoria and the Department of Health. Whilst we do not have an overall problem with that, we are making amendments in this bill in relation to fit and proper persons in the Meat Industry Act. But the part that I would just put on record is my concern about this government – well, I will say Labor Party MPs in this house. We saw it back in the previous Parliament when they were particularly friendly and cosied up to the then-incarnation of the Animal Justice Party in the farm trespass bill that the Nationals brought to this house with the Liberals and pushed through and had legislation, finally, two years later.

The concern I have is with the government. I heard Mr Berger just then professing the greatness and importance of our agricultural sector, but there seems to be a disconnect between the messaging that we are hearing here today – I appreciate that message – and what is actually happening in inquiries. You have got the pig inquiry, and my colleagues Mrs Broad and Ms Crozier were participating members. But certainly it seems like there is a disconnect between the important work of our pork industry – it serves the community and serves to feed our state, our nation and even internationally – and the impact of the ever-tightening screws that the Animal Justice Party would put on our livestock industries, because ultimately their aim is to cut, suspend, squash and remove the livestock industry from Victoria and Australia, period. I do get concerned that there are members of the government, MPs – yes, they are allowed to go on and listen to evidence and have their opinion, without a doubt – who will listen to some of those more extreme recommendations in their pig inquiry report, and some of that also goes to information sharing. I note that Mrs Broad was very much a party to the minority report. I ask the government and the ag minister to distance themselves from those extreme elements in that report.

In relation to the administrative updates in the dairy food safety industry, we are looking at removing some of the requirements and regulatory burdens and making that more streamlined, even to the effect of holding an annual meeting and enabling the selection committees to make decisions in a more astute and streamlined way.

But in terms of the fit and proper person test and the Seafood Safety Act 2003, certainly with Ms Kealy’s driving of this, we have heard about grave concerns in the seafood industry in relation to associates of associates having to be of clear character, honesty, integrity and the like. I just want to put on record some of our praise and emphatic re-endorsement of our seafood industry. Eastern Victoria Region is half of Victoria’s coastline, and we have a fantastic seafood industry. I was at the San Remo fishing co-op only a month ago talking with Wolfgang Platzer about the positive conversations he was having about his seafood industry and that co-op and the work they do down there and the 12 fishing fleets they have and the 30 direct co-op members that they have but also the importance of the food it generates. Again, if we look at the world and at being more mindful about carbon dioxide emissions and the like and the footprint on our society, eating local seafood in our local home state is very important without doubt. Lakes Entrance is another fantastic fishing co-op.

I want to put some things on record about the economic contribution that our seafood industry on my side of the state makes to our Victorian and local economies. In relation to East Gippsland, we know that whole eastern side contributes $80 million of added value and provides around 800 full-time jobs in a variety of sectors and interesting occupations that facilitate that industry. In terms of the Gippsland, Mornington Peninsula and Bass area, there is roughly $30 million in added value and it supports over 300 full-time equivalent jobs. I think it is important to just put on record our thanks for that.

In summing up in relation to the importance of the seafood industry, not only have we got the industry and not only have we got employment, we have got the importance of eating local and fresh domestic fish. We have respecting the cultural heritage of our fishing industry. Those who have been listening to me in this place will certainly know the importance of the New Haven jetty, which once was a commercial fishing jetty and is now locked off from society under this government – we are rallying against that from that part of the world – but also the tourism, and I think it is really important. People love to go in situ. We say this all the time and there are government ads in relation to ‘go local’ – go into our regions, taste our local produce. It is that whole paddock-to-plate, or in this case ocean-to-plate, experience that is so very important for our hospitality sector.

In terms of the fit and proper person test, we hope that the government is going to accept our amendments – and Ms Crozier has read those in – but it is going into that next layer. We are going to seek to have omitted from this piece of legislation whether an associate of the applicant or licensee has any business association with a person who is not of good repute – how do you define that? It is not defined – having regard to character, honesty and integrity. One very important point that my colleague the member for Gippsland East Tim Bull has asked we drill down into in committee stage is to discuss and ensure that the government is ruling this out: in relation to the amendments to the seafood act regarding a person who holds a relevant position in the seafood business, are skippers of trawlers and fishing fleets and crew of commercial fishing operations considered a relevant position in relation to the management of the business or its operations, and therefore will they be assessed as to whether or not they are of good repute? Could the minister at the table when she gets to that point discuss that? With that, as I said, it has been a convoluted but I hope very positive outcome – increasing oversight, but not too much, and improving the safety for Victorians, but also not putting that onerous burden on the seafood or livestock meat industry.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (17:51): I rise to support the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, and I am pleased to speak on this legislation. It is an important step towards strengthening Victoria’s food safety regulatory framework, amending several key acts: the Food Act 1984, the Meat Industry Act 1993, the Seafood Safety Act 2003 and the Dairy Act 2000. 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. This will lead to a more transparent, consistent and effective food safety system, benefiting consumers and producers alike.

From a public health and safety perspective, particularly around, as I mentioned before, raw milk, it is going to help to prevent foodborne illnesses, ensuring that consumers can trust the safety of dairy products in Victoria. Similarly, the strengthening of licensing requirements for the seafood sector ensures that only those who meet high standards are entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the safety and quality of seafood products. From a regulatory efficiency perspective, it will allow regulators to work more effectively together, responding swiftly to any emerging issues that might affect the food supply chain. From an industry sustainability perspective, the necessary regulatory adjustments will support its growth and sustainability. It is the sustainability of the agriculture sector that is really important and is one of the key drivers in the government bringing this legislation and the government’s consistent efforts in the space of agriculture.

We heard a bit of claptrap over there from the Nationals, trying to link the Labor Party to the Animal Justice Party. They like to conveniently ignore that most of their policies are driven out of Queensland by miners. If the Queensland National Party had their way, well, they would obviously be putting a nuclear reactor in prime agricultural land and ripping up farmland to frack it. We know that is where the Nationals’ policies come from, if they want to throw mud. Four of the last premiers in this state came from regional Victoria and were Labor MPs. I know it grinds the Liberals that regional seats that used to be the Liberals in the 90s – I remember growing up there when Kennett ripped the guts out of it all – are all Labor now. In Geelong, Ballarat – the Liberals want to sit there and say that they own rural communities, they own regional communities, but when I go out to somewhere like the lakes, they absolutely love what has happened with the ability for sport and recreational fishing there.

Melina Bath interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: I would love to invite Ms Bath, if she has heard of the peninsula. It is in her electorate – $2 billion worth of agricultural products. Come to the peninsula, Ms Bath; see the agricultural products, see the horticultural products; come and enjoy paddock to plate, as you discussed.

I want to commend this bill to the house. I want to stress that we historically and currently have strong, brilliant agriculture ministers in the Labor government. We have great regional representation in the government of Labor MPs, and I commend this bill to the house.

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:55): I also rise to speak on the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, and I also note that the bill amends the Dairy Act 2000, the Food Act 1984, the Meat Industry Act 1993 and the Seafood Safety Act 2003. We are very, very pleased that the government has said it has agreed to the coalition’s amendments, and we are looking forward to seeing it vote with us on that since once again we have had to put a little bit of extra thought into a bill.

I do have to reinforce some of what my colleague Ms Crozier said about what has happened to the Cook family and their business and what an incredible disgrace it has been for a local man and a local business area to be impacted by a situation through no fault of their own. It makes me wonder then when we look at this bill and it includes the implication, which is very concerning to us, that we have had people in this industry, the meat industry, that were not fit and proper people. This is incredibly laughable when you consider the history and the track record of this government. I mean, how on earth is it going to discern what a fit and proper person is when it cannot even have proper transparency and accountability with the way it uses its money, when it does not understand what is okay and what is not okay and when it is not prepared to do a full, thorough and transparent investigation into things like, for example, the workings of the CFMEU? I do not really think that this government should be putting these sorts of words into a bill when it cannot itself understand what a fit and proper person is. To simply imply that hardworking Victorians that are working in the industry with livestock, with seafood and with meat may not be fit and proper is simply insulting, particularly when we consider what happened to the Cook family. Why do we think Mr Cook continues to put his hand up for different levels of government? Because he has seen what has happened and he has experienced what has happened under this government, which really has no right to determine what is fit and proper. In fact it is incredibly laughable that they even think to put something like that into a bill, and one has to wonder where on earth they get their benchmark of what is fit and proper.

I do not want to say too much, because clearly I am losing my voice. But I do want to say that we are not particularly happy with elements within the bill because of this but we are very pleased that the government has said it is going to support our amendments, and we look forward to that with great delight. I do want to just add one more thing – well, actually I think I will stop there. But I do want to say that we do support these industries. We are concerned that there are complete moves afoot that are constantly pushing on our farmers and on our industries, trying to make it incredibly difficult for Victorians to survive and to be able to provide for their families and indeed for the community at a cost that is affordable. We need meat. We enjoy our meat. I love seafood, and quite frankly I do not want anything to be impairing these industries or our farmers.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (17:59): It is my pleasure to speak on this bill this afternoon, the Agriculture and Food Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. This bill amends the Meat Industry Act 1993 to enable Victoria’s meat and seafood regulator PrimeSafe to more efficiently share information in specified circumstances. It strengthens integrity by introducing fit and proper person criteria, and I will address some of the comments from opposite. It creates stronger protections for the sale of raw milk, makes a number of governance improvements and amends the Food Act 1984.

Just in terms of context, in south-western Victoria, like most regional communities in Victoria, my own home region of south-west relies on a clear, accountable and enforceable food safety regulatory framework. As one of the largest producers of food by value in the nation, this is important not only to our region in south-west Victoria but also to the state as a whole. Food and Fibre Great South Coast mention on their website:

South West Victoria is Australia’s top agricultural production region, delivering over $4.6 billion in output annually. The food and fibre sector is also the region’s largest, contributing 60% of the region’s GRP and 21.6% of all jobs.

The south-west region boasts a mature food-processing sector, including – and these are the kinds of businesses that can be impacted by these kinds of regulations – Saputo at Allansford, Midfield meats in Warrnambool, Bega in Koroit, Fonterra at Cobden, Australian Dairy Nutritionals, Australian Lamb in Colac and ProviCo in Dennington, just to name a few. In addition, the region includes significant agricultural education at South West TAFE and Glenormiston. There are many pre- and post-farmgate businesses that rely on the productivity and reliability of food products in our region. These new regulations are absolutely important for the south-west, given the centrality of agriculture and food processing in our regional economy. What is more, the farmers, fishers and food processors of western Victoria need assurance that their products will reach their market destinations in a compliant way, which is very important.

You can see that the smooth running of our agriculture and food production industries in Victoria is extremely important. Supply chain traceability and accountability are vital in the food industry. Our regulatory framework provides accountability to consumers and supports the export market. We need to protect the value that our farmers, fishers and food processors create. We do not let dangerous products or rogue operators threaten the reputation of our industries. Most importantly, regulation must effectively protect the community. Victorians enjoy some of the highest quality fresh food in the world. We need to empower our local councils and food safety regulators to make sure that this can continue to be the case.

One of the examples that the bill addresses is the use of raw milk, and it will strengthen the ban on the sale of raw milk. Raw milk can contain organisms that cause severe gastroenteritis. Consuming it runs the risk of severe illness or death, particularly for children and the elderly. The ban is currently part of dairy licences, which makes it difficult to enforce, so creating an offence in the Dairy Act 2000 allows for stronger penalties that reflect the seriousness of the risk, bringing it into line with the penalties. As someone who was raised on raw milk – and I am sure maybe if some of the people opposite were in the chamber, they might have also been raised on raw milk – I know the potential dangers of third-party sale of unpasteurised milk products. You simply cannot transport and onsell raw milk, and to claim that you can demonises processers, who use simple heating technology to pasteurise milk and to ensure that no bad bacteria are in the milk.

Before I close, I just want to address the fit and proper person test. I think there is a little bit of hysteria from those opposite in relation to that. The fit and proper person test is conducted for board appointments across many, many sectors in health, in water, in education and in the private sector as well. I am sure that if those opposite see that from that perspective, they will feel a lot more comfortable about the definition of a fit and proper person. There I will leave my contribution, and I support the bill.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (18:05):(By leave) Thank you, President, and thanks to the chamber for granting me permission. I rise today to speak against this bill, and I would like to begin by adding my support to Mr Limbrick’s comments regarding the farmers and food producers upon whom we all rely and for whom I just will not support increasing the fines and over-regulating. But regarding the Liberal Party’s amendments I will be enthusiastically supporting them. In fact I had a sense of deja vu when I was reading them. There I was reading about the idea of removing the idea that you can measure a person’s character, their honesty, their integrity and their worthiness for a role not by their own actions but by the actions of their associates and their associates’ associates. Where have I heard that before recently? Thus I was pleasantly surprised to see that the idea of guilt by association two or three times removed was called nonsense and ridiculous by the Liberal Party in this house. As I have been saying for about two years now, you cannot prove guilt by association, and to attempt to do so risks horrendous damage to innocent people. Reputation is very important, and it is unfair to seek to punish or damage a person of good character and repute for the actions of mere associates or associates of associates whom they happen to know.

How should we measure a person’s own good repute? Is a person of good repute if they bully and lie and defame others and get away with it? If a person has done nothing wrong but rather other people who they may happen to have interacted with have, then should leaders and bureaucrats feel free to destroy that innocent person’s reputation, barring them from holding positions, from earning money for their family and from just interacting in society politely without being a pariah or even advocating for causes close to their hearts, even if it is just something as simple as seafood? Thankfully this chamber appears to agree that the answer is no. So I will finish with a quote that I read earlier today. Unfortunately I cannot find its author. ‘It’s a weak, insecure and dishonest man who seeks to make himself look accomplished not through his own efforts but by defaming others.’

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (18:09)

Georgie CROZIER: I might, if I may, just direct my questions through clause 1 in the interests of time rather than going clause by clause. I am wondering, Minister, if you could provide an explanation. What is the current process to appoint to a vacancy in the membership of the committee or when a member is absent for any reason from the Dairy Food Safety Victoria board?

Jaclyn SYMES: For clarity, the board appointment process for DFSV is the same as for PrimeSafe. The minister must appoint a selection committee formed by nominations from key industry groups, which provides recommendations to the minister for appointment to the board. The minister must take into account those recommendations in appointing new board members. The minister must also take into account the balance of specific skills outlined in the act. The minister then makes the appointment.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, thank you for that clarification. Could you also clarify: how will the government ensure that DFSV continue to report directly to stakeholders and engage in a meaningful way in the absence of an AGM or any AGM requirements?

Jaclyn SYMES: The Dairy Act 2000 currently requires DFSV to hold a general meeting with senior representatives of the dairy industry organisations within three months of submitting its annual report to the minister. This requirement is an overly burdensome and insufficient mechanism for industry engagement with, as reported, sparse attendance by industry representatives. Removing the requirement will enable DFSV to focus resources on more effective and inclusive mechanisms to engage with industry, such as the Dairy Industry Consultative Forum, the small business forum and the Dairy RegTech community of practice. It is our expectation that these measures are about facilitating and enhancing consultation as opposed to reducing it.

Georgie CROZIER: Could you also provide some clarity around whether raw milk will still be able to be sold for stock purposes without the addition of a bittering agent? Then I have got a couple of other questions in relation to raw milk. How many times have unlicensed operators been caught selling raw milk without a bittering agent and without having met other licensing requirements? And the final question around raw milk is: what has been the impact of unlicensed, raw or bath milk retailers on human health? How many cases have been brought to the attention of the government?

Jaclyn SYMES: I will deal with your first question because I have got the answer at hand in relation to a producer’s ability to provide raw milk to pig producers for use as stockfeed: there is no change in this. Dairy producers that are dairy industry licensees will still be able to provide raw milk as stockfeed to pig producers. So I can confirm that there are no changes.

In relation to the numbers of cases and the like, I might just seek some advice from the box to see how specific we can be in relation to that. We know that there have been a number of businesses selling raw milk, but it is rare, and I think the stat is only one prosecution.

Yes, Ms Crozier, I can confirm that in the last decade there has only been one case taken to prosecution. We know of one business in Victoria that is currently selling raw milk. We can draw from the experience in New Zealand, where there were10 cases of raw milk being sold that were connected to outbreaks.

Georgie CROZIER: Thank you very much. If I can ask in relation to compliance and enforcement: in relation to the removal of the 90-day limit to prosecute, can you give specific examples of where this cap has stopped the ability to prosecute or provide how many times this has occurred? I think that the shadow minister was told in the bill briefing that some food testing can take longer than 90 days. Could you give some examples of those tests? What were the requirements and where would they have been tested?

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to the 90 days, in identifying a possible offence under the Food Act, the department and councils do prioritise harm identification and reduction. A decision to institute a proceeding can often not be contemplated until after other compliance and enforcement options have been exhausted and the source of any risk to public health contained. The department also needs to gather samples, analyse the samples and obtain other evidence to determine whether to institute a proceeding. Given this, 90 days, and even 189 days with an extension, is not a feasible timeframe to prepare for and institute a proceeding in these circumstances in every instance. That is the advice that I have received.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, what requirements to display information related to food premises will be required for businesses not based in Victoria, such as those that are located on the Victoria–New South Wales or Victoria–South Australia border? And will online businesses be exempt from display requirements, including online businesses not based in Victoria? They might have an international presence, but they are still selling here. Could you provide some clarity around that?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Crozier, at a high level it is possible for entities based outside Victoria to commit offences under the Victorian Food Act. Victorian authorities can investigate and initiate proceedings against such entities. Alternatively, it may be more appropriate that offences be referred to the equivalent regulators in the relevant jurisdictions.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, how will the government ensure that food businesses in Victoria are not unfairly burdened with additional licensing red tape or disadvantaged in comparison with businesses based outside Victoria?

Jaclyn SYMES: The bill will deliver more efficient and effective regulation by Victorian food safety regulators and therefore make it easier for Victorian businesses to engage with them. The amendments to the Food Act in particular are proposed on the recommendation of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office and are, as such, designed to reduce regulatory burden.

Georgie CROZIER: That is good to hear. Minister, the inquiry into pig welfare in Victoria recommended mandatory installation of CCTV, accessible by the relevant department. Under the legislative changes outlined in this bill, would CCTV footage be able to be shared once it is provided to the department?

Jaclyn SYMES: I note at the outset, in relation to recommendations of the parliamentary committee, that a response to that has not been required yet and it is under consideration. But to answer your question, PrimeSafe will only be able to share information, including information regarding animal welfare at the facilities they license, with specified persons and in the specified circumstances that are outlined in the act. Animal welfare groups are not specified persons, and sharing information with animal welfare groups is not within the specified circumstances. PrimeSafe will not be able to provide information in response to requests from media or animal welfare organisations, such as CCTV footage, from a business or audit reports. PrimeSafe will be able to pass on information to another regulator if breaches of other relevant laws or regulations are identified – for example, share CCTV footage collected during investigation with WorkSafe if the footage shows potentially unsafe workplace practices.

Georgie CROZIER: Just in that response to that last question I had, so PrimeSafe will be able to share that, as you pointed out, but not animal welfare groups or anyone else. But is there an obligation for PrimeSafe or the department to notify an affected business if that information was to be shared? Was that what you just clarified, or could you just clarify that for me, please?

Jaclyn SYMES: I can confirm PrimeSafe will not be required to share information about their regulatory activities with a business.

Georgie CROZIER: Why is that? Why are they not obliged to in circumstances where CCTV footage has been acquired from a business?

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to their regulatory activities, it may form part of matters that they need to look into, so therefore they would not be required to pass on information that might jeopardise some of the work that they are doing.

Melina BATH: Minister, I have a question in relation to seafood safety. Are you happy if we ask it in clause 1?

Jaclyn SYMES: I sure am.

Melina BATH: This relates to a topic of my contribution, new section 14(4) of the Seafood Safety Act 2003, which is on page 17 and the top of page 18 of the bill. It is in regard to a person who holds a relevant position in the seafood business. Tim Bull particularly and people in his patch have raised this issue. Are both the crew and the skipper captured in that? Are they considered relevant positions?

Jaclyn SYMES: This question must have been well canvassed, because I have advice that has been prepared to specifically answer your question about skippers and crew. No, being a skipper or a crew member does not automatically mean you are in a relevant position to be considered as part of the fit and proper person assessment of the licensee. A relevant position in relation to a seafood business means (a) the position of director, partner, trustee, manager or other executive position or secretary, however that position is designated, and (b) any other person associated or connected with the ownership, administration or management of the business or its operations. Unless the skipper or the crew member also holds one of those above positions in the business or is themselves the licensee, they will not be considered as part of the fit and proper person assessment of the licensee. As an example, abattoirs as large businesses can employ up to 300 or 400 staff. Any convictions that these employees may hold or whether they are of good repute are not automatically taken into consideration in assessing whether a licensee is a fit and proper person under the Meat Industry Act – a similar application to the fish industry.

Melina BATH: That will give some separation and provide some comfort to them, not that they are not fit and proper persons, but it will just create that distinction in the bill.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 27 agreed to.

New clause (18:23)

Georgie CROZIER: I move:

1. Insert the following New Division to follow clause 27 –

‘Division 3 – Licensing

27A Fit and proper person

In section 16(2)(b) of the Meat Industry Act 1993 omit “, or an associate of the person”.’.

As I outlined in my contribution to the debate, the Liberal–Nationals are moving this amendment, and I am very pleased that the government is supporting it, as explained in my contribution earlier.

Jaclyn SYMES: I thank Ms Crozier for moving her amendment. We are both vessels for colleagues who have spent some time working through those issues, and I would like to congratulate the work of Mr Bull and Minister Spence in relation to conversations in relation to this –

Georgie CROZIER: Ms Kealy.

Jaclyn SYMES: Sorry – all the friendly Nat people and Lib people over there. We are all supporters of the industry, and I understand that this amendment is something that is not bothersome to the government.

New clause agreed to; clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 (18:25)

Georgie CROZIER: I move:

2. Clause 30, page 17, lines 17 to 21, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

3. Clause 30, page 17, line 22, omit “(e)” and insert “(d)”.

4. Clause 30, page 17, line 26, omit “(f)” and insert “(e)”.

As outlined in my substantive speech earlier, for the same reasons we are pleased the government has supported us in these amendments on the fit and proper person test, and I think that will be an enormous improvement to the bill.

Jaclyn SYMES: Same amendment, two different acts. This one is Bull; the other one was Kealy. Anyway, thank you for the conversations that have resulted in the ability for the government to accept the amendments as put.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 31 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (18:26): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (18:27): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with amendments.