MOVES are afoot to hijack Primary Industires Minister Niall Blair’s “landmark” biosecurity reforms, as political opponents lodge changes to water down the draft legislation.
Trespass offences listed under the Biosecurity Bill came under scrutiny in parliament last week.
The bill – introduced to better manage pests, disease and weeds – was picked apart as rival parties proposed amendments to reduce penalties for breaches of the law and raise the bar for prosecuting trespassers.
They also alleged the “rushed” legislation gave the government power to hand down excessive fines for breaches.
Labor’s primary industry spokesman Mick Veitch called for the reforms to be sent for review.
“I am concerned about the lack of time we have been given to work through this bill... and about the precedent of fining an individual $1.1 million for a reckless act under a category one offence,” he said.
“Will the minister advise what type of reckless act would incur a $1.1 million penalty?”
If passed in its current form, the bill would repeal, in whole or in part, 14 laws to create what Mr Blair has described as a “thoughtfully developed piece of modern legislation... with the essential tools and powers to manage pests, diseases, weeds and contaminants.”
“Our world-class biosecurity system will be strengthened and our state cemented as a leader in biosecurity,” Mr Blair said to parliament.
“The bill will help NSW maintain its enviable market access and
reputation for high-quality, safe
and disease-free food and fibre.”
However, the Greens and Animal Justice parties both refused to support legislation they argue would unfairly target animal activists.
Greens MP Mehreen Faruqi said she would not accept laws “that will silence and jail” activists.
The Greens’ amendments would grant increased power to the Environment Minister and Office of Environment and Heritage when a biosecurity matter was deemed to have environmental implications.
Animal Justice Party amendments would bolster trespassers’ ability to mount a defence in cases if they
could argue they were trying to prevent animal welfare risks.
Animal Justice Party MP Mark Pearson wants maximum individual penalties for section 2 offences reduced from $220,000 to $5000, and maximum penalties for companies reduced from $440,000 to $25,000.
He said the bill gave the government power to impose excessive penalties on activists, who he said would “prefer to be at an opera, Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony or a Coldplay concert”, rather than entering properties in the early hours of morning or late at night.
The Christian Democratic Party (CDP) appears to have aligned with the Shooters and Fishers Party to bring a raft of changes around controls for game hunting.
Their joint amendments, which have since been removed from the parliamentary website, would have automatically presumed an individual’s innocence in a suspected biosecurity offence if their action resulted from causes over which they had no control, or if “reasonable precautions and due diligence” had been applied.
Further amendments (that were also removed) proposed that, should legal proceedings be brought against a person for a biosecurity breach, the onus of proof would be removed from the alleged offender, and instead placed on the government to prove an individual was culpable.
However, the two parties still have amendments up for debate, one being future control orders for game animals requiring consultation with the Game and Pest Management Advisory Board.
Shooters and Fishers MP Robert Brown said during debate there was general anxiety over the impacts of the bill, and a lack of information.
“If people find themselves at the wrong end of the law with a $1.1 million penalty hanging over their heads it will be daunting for them to prove... they are not guilty,” he said.
Debate will resume in parliament on Tuesday following budget estimates.
