- - The notice must include: the time and purpose of the entry, a description of all things done while at the place (or in the vehicle or vessel or aircraft), the time of departure as well as the Authorised Officer's name and contact details.
- - The requirements to leave a notice without the occupier being present is consistent with other existing legislation administered by Agriculture Victoria (e.g., section 82(4)(c) of the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994).
- - Standard operating procedures have been prepared for Authorised Officers on exercising their powers for entry. These emphasise a conservative and cautious approach to ensure that any evidence gathered can be used in any enforcement action.
- - This approach is consistent with other existing legislation such as the Environment Protection Act 2017.
- - Circumstances that would be unreasonable would include situations where the production of their identity card would require the Authorised Officer to undertake excessive travel, or where it would delay the collection of time sensitive evidence.
Claim:
There are heavy penalties for obstructing entry to property, under new sections 54J and 54K of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992.
Facts:
New section 54J of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992 relates to failure to comply with a requirement of an Authorised Officer.
- A person must not, without reasonable excuse, fail or refuse to comply with a requirement of an Authorised Officer under this Act.
- - The new section includes protections to provide an exemption where there is a reasonable excuse to not comply.
- - An example is a situation where an Authorised Officer requires a person to produce a document, but they are unable to do so as they are stored within a safe that the person cannot access.
- - A person commits the offence if they obstruct, threaten or intimidate an Authorised Officer, who is performing a function or exercising a power, or a person who is assisting an Authorised Officer.
- - Offences for the obstruction, threatening or intimidation of Authorised Officers are common to other Victorian legislation. For example, the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994 and the Summary Offences Act 1966.
- - This offence is required to allow Authorised Officers to conduct lawful investigations unhindered.
- - The maximum penalty for this offence is 100 penalty units, which is appropriate to deter offending.
Claim:
Fines increased from $1,800 to $10,000 for providing false and misleading information, under new section 54L of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992.
Facts:
- Penalty units for the new section 54L are consistent with existing offences – there is no increase.
- The existing Act includes offences under section 59 for false or misleading statements that relate to chemical use.
- - For example, advising a person to use an illegal chemical or stating that there are no spray drift sensitive crops next to the target area or applications made under the Act for licences or permits.
- - This could include falsified records of chemical use or vexatious complaints against a neighbour.
- - The amendment allows Authorised Officers to allocate time more effectively which would otherwise be wasted on vexatious complaints and issues.
- - This increase is to deter behaviour that puts Victoria’s livestock industry at significant risk.
- - False and misleading statements relating to the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994 have the potential to severely impact on the integrity of our traceability systems and consequently damage trade relationships.
- - Examples of false and misleading statements include fraudulent use of vendor declarations, livestock identification tags, or other documentation relating to livestock traceability.
- - The actual penalties handed down are determined by the Courts.
- - The Courts may impose penalties at the higher end of the scale for offending resulting in high levels or risk of harm, or repeat offending.
Claim:
The Government has put in place laws that allow them to charge Victorians the money it costs them to destroy their own food supply, under section 20 of the Agriculture Legislation Amendment Act 2022, which amends section 58 of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992.
Facts:
- Destruction orders are an existing provision in the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992.
- Destruction notices are an appropriate tool to manage high-risk incidents, such as contaminated crops or unlawful use of chemicals.
- Destruction notices can only be issued when the sale or use of a chemical product, fertiliser or stock food is prohibited; or the agricultural produce is, or likely to be, contaminated by chemicals, such as pesticides.
- There are no changes to the existing, limited circumstances, when destruction notices can be issued.
- Amendments to section 58 broaden the scope of destruction notices issued under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992 to allow discretion for alternatives to destruction, such as recycling.
- – In the absence of the amendments, the Act limits the scope of a destruction notice and is not consistent with Victoria’s policies for waste reuse and recovery.
- - The terminology “or otherwise dealt with” in the amendments to section 58 will provide a broad scope of options including reuse, recycling, or treatment.
- - For example: an Authorised Officer finds a person not trained and authorised to use an agricultural chemical product. The best outcome may be to issue a notice requiring them to return the agricultural chemical to the manufacturer for potential reuse, rather than destroying the product.
- - The amendment clarifies that cost recovery may be achieved via a Court and is consistent with other existing Acts such as the Environment Protection Act 2017.
