Agriculture and Environment Committee

Portfolio Committee

View on parliament.qld.gov.au

Bills Reviewed (15)

Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Bill 2017Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 39, 55th Parliament - Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Bill 2017, government response2017-09-08

Agriculture and Environment Committee: Report No. 39, 55th Parliament - Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Bill 20172017-08-11

Committee findings

The Agriculture and Environment Committee examined the bill and recommended it be passed. The bill introduced a ban on lightweight single-use plastic shopping bags, established a beverage container refund scheme, and amended the end-of-waste framework. Submitters overwhelmingly supported the measures, and the committee made three additional recommendations focused on recycling industry representation on the scheme's governing board, performance benchmarks for the container refund scheme, and specifying those benchmarks in regulation.

Key findings
  • Support for the bill's measures was universal across submitters, with broad agreement that the community was ready to transition away from single-use plastic bags
  • The container refund scheme's flexible design was considered well-suited to Queensland's decentralised geography, allowing a range of collection solutions
  • Concerns were raised about ensuring the Product Responsibility Organisation's board included recycling industry expertise and avoided conflicts of interest
  • The government accepted recommendations on performance benchmarks and partially accepted the recycling industry board representation recommendation, opting to achieve it through regulation rather than amending the bill
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends the Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Bill 2017 be passed.
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be amended to mandate the inclusion of a recycling industry representative on the board of the Product Responsibility Organisation.
  • The committee recommends that the Minister report to the committee on progress in reaching relevant benchmarks within two years of commencement of the Container Refund Scheme.
  • The committee recommends that the Minister specify in regulation those benchmarks referred to in Recommendation 3.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Nature Conservation (Special Wildlife Reserves) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017Lapsed

Agriculture and Environment Committee: Report No. 40, 55th Parliament - Nature Conservation (Special Wildlife Reserves) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20172017-08-11

Committee findings

The Agriculture and Environment Committee examined the bill over two months, receiving 34 submissions and holding a public hearing. The committee could not reach a majority decision on whether the bill should be passed. Government members supported the bill but recommended several amendments, including requiring the Minister to be satisfied that land is of 'outstanding conservation value' before declaring a special wildlife reserve. Opposition members filed a statement of reservation strongly opposing the bill, citing concerns about permanently removing land from agricultural production, pest and weed management risks for neighbouring properties, and overly broad ministerial powers.

Key findings
  • The committee found a discrepancy between the bill's stated intent to protect land of outstanding conservation value and the broad 'State interest' criteria actually contained in the bill
  • The Cape York Land Council Aboriginal Corporation raised concerns that the bill may violate the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 by not requiring native title holders' consent in the same way as freehold owners
  • Stakeholders including AgForce Queensland and Queensland Farmers' Federation raised concerns about impacts on neighbouring properties from pest, weed and fire management on special wildlife reserves
  • The Queensland Law Society considered the bill was not 'good law' because the Minister's powers extended well beyond the stated conservation purpose
  • Conservation organisations and private landholders such as South Endeavour Trust supported the bill as a mechanism to attract private investment in conservation on land of outstanding value
Recommendations
  • Government members recommended that clause 12 be amended to require the Minister to be satisfied that the area is of outstanding conservation value before declaring a special wildlife reserve
  • Government members recommended that the Minister assure the House in the second reading speech that native title rights and interests will be adequately considered and protected
  • Government members recommended that the Minister inform the House on what compliance and enforcement mechanisms will be implemented to protect special wildlife reserves
  • Government members recommended that clause 12 be amended so that conservation agreements must contain terms regarding prohibited land uses including forestry, resource tenures and fossicking
  • Government members recommended that the Minister assure the House that consultation will be undertaken on proposed amendments to the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008
Dissenting views: Opposition members Pat Weir MP (Condamine) and Lachlan Millar MP (Gregory) filed a statement of reservation strongly opposing the bill. They argued it would permanently remove valuable agricultural land from production, create pest and weed risks for neighbouring properties, and grant the Minister overly broad powers. They cited the Queensland Law Society's view that the bill was 'dangerous' because the 'State interest' criteria allowed the Minister to do far more than preserve high-value conservation land.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Sustainable Queensland Dairy Production (Fair Milk Price Logos) Bill 2016Did not recommend passage2nd reading failed

Agriculture and Environment Committee: Report No. 33, 55th Parliament-Sustainable Queensland Dairy Production (Fair Milk Price Logos) Bill 2016, government response2017-08-09

Committee findings

The Agriculture and Environment Committee examined the private member's bill and recommended it not be passed. The bill proposed a government-operated fair milk price logo scheme for Queensland dairy products, but the committee concluded a legislated scheme was not the appropriate mechanism. Instead, the committee recommended the Minister direct the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to investigate supporting the Queensland Dairyfarmers' Organisation to devise and operate an industry-led marketing scheme. The government accepted that recommendation but did not accept the suggestion to consult with other jurisdictions on similar schemes.

Key findings
  • The committee recommended that the bill not be passed, finding a legislated fair milk price logo scheme was not the appropriate approach.
  • The committee supported the concept of fair milk pricing but favoured an industry-operated marketing scheme over government legislation.
  • The government accepted the recommendation to work with the Queensland Dairyfarmers' Organisation on an industry-led scheme.
  • The government did not accept the recommendation to consult with other state and Commonwealth ministers, noting other jurisdictions' dairy industries are based on manufacturing milk markets rather than drinking milk markets.
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Sustainable Queensland Dairy Production (Fair Milk Price Logos) Bill 2016 not be passed.
  • The committee recommends that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries direct his department to investigate options for supporting the Queensland Dairyfarmers' Organisation to devise and operate an industry-operated marketing scheme, potentially including fair milk price logos.
  • The committee recommends that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries consult with his counterparts in other states and territories, and with the Commonwealth Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, regarding the institution of similar schemes in order to increase the sustainability of the Australian dairy industry as a whole.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Waste Reduction and Recycling (Waste Levy) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 33, 55th Parliament - Sustainable Queensland Dairy Production (Fair Milk Logos) Bill 2016, interim government response2017-07-13

Committee findings

The Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee examined the bill over six weeks, receiving 37 written submissions and holding public hearings in Ipswich and Rockhampton, as well as conducting site visits. The committee recommended the bill be passed, noting the opportunities the waste levy would provide to develop Queensland's recycling and resource recovery industry. Two statements of reservation were filed: one by the Member for Noosa calling for permanent ring-fencing of levy revenue for environmental initiatives, and another by the LNP members opposing the bill as a cost impost on families and businesses.

Key findings
  • The waste and recycling industry broadly supported the introduction of a waste levy as a necessary price signal to encourage diversion from landfill, noting Queensland had fallen behind other states without one.
  • Local governments and industry groups raised significant concerns about the proposed 4 March 2019 commencement date, arguing insufficient time for infrastructure upgrades such as weighbridges and IT systems.
  • The proposed two-zone levy system (levy zone covering 38 local government areas with populations over 10,000, and a non-levy zone for the rest) drew criticism from regional councils who argued the population threshold was arbitrary and did not account for local economic conditions.
  • Several stakeholders questioned whether less than 10 per cent of the estimated $1.3 billion in levy revenue being directed to environmental programs was sufficient to support the recycling industry transition.
  • The committee noted the department's advice that it would consider amendments to accommodate disposal of mining waste from multiple resource activities to a common facility.
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends the Waste Reduction and Recycling (Waste Levy) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 be passed.
Dissenting views: Sandy Bolton MP (Member for Noosa) filed a statement of reservation supporting the recommendation but raising concerns that levy proceeds were not fully allocated to councils for waste management, that changes of government could affect the levy's continuity, and that revenue should be permanently ring-fenced for environmental initiatives through primary legislation. The LNP members, represented by Jon Krause MP (Member for Scenic Rim), filed a statement of reservation opposing the bill, arguing it was a tax on families and businesses with less than 10 per cent of revenue directed to environmental programs, that no specific modelling on the impact to small business had been undertaken, and that the bill would disproportionately affect regional communities lacking recycling infrastructure.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Land, Explosives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Agriculture and Environment Committee: Report No. 33, 55th Parliament - Sustainable Queensland Dairy Production (Fair Milk Logos) Bill 20162017-04-13

Committee findings

The State Development, Natural Resources and Agricultural Industry Development Committee examined the bill and recommended it be passed. The committee made three recommendations, including requests for the Minister to address Aboriginal corporations' requests to have additional land parcels protected from mining interests, and to respond to concerns about onus of proof and self-incrimination protections in several clauses. The government accepted or noted all recommendations.

Key findings
  • The committee found the bill's amendments to the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 and Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991 would reduce compliance burdens and enhance Indigenous land access
  • Aboriginal corporations including the Olkola Aboriginal Corporation requested additional land parcels be included as protected land under the bill
  • The committee identified fundamental legislative principle concerns regarding onus of proof provisions in petroleum and gas clauses and self-incrimination protections in the Explosives Act and Land Act amendments
  • The bill introduced a new framework for remediation of abandoned gas and petroleum operating plant sites
  • The committee found the bill would enhance home ownership opportunities for Indigenous persons by providing options to set social housing prices by agreement
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
  • The committee recommends that the Minister provides advice in his second reading speech on the request by the Olkola Aboriginal Corporation, the Batavia Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation and the Chuulangun Aboriginal Corporation to have additional land parcels included in proposed new section 27A of the Bill as protected land, and a possible formal mechanism or process that allows Aboriginal corporations to nominate Aboriginal land, at the request of the traditional owners, for protection from mining interests.
  • The committee recommends that the Minister, in his second reading speech, respond to the matters identified in the report in relation to: Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (Clauses 265, 270, 286) regarding onus of proof; Explosives Act 1999 (Clauses 57, 58, 63, 64) regarding protection against self-incrimination; and Land Act 1994 (Clause 203) regarding protection against self-incrimination.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Land and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 32, 55th Parliament - Land and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016, government response2017-03-22

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 32, 55th Parliament - Land and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20162017-03-07

Committee findings

The Agriculture and Environment Committee examined the Land and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 and recommended it be passed with three additional amendments. The committee addressed concerns raised by the Local Government Association of Queensland about trustee resignation provisions and compensation for local governments. The government accepted all recommendations and proposed amendments during consideration in detail.

Key findings
  • The Local Government Association of Queensland raised concerns that proposed amendments would weaken relationships between the State and local governments
  • The committee found that the trustee resignation provisions in Clause 24 could tie local government trustees to their functions against their will
  • The committee identified that Clause 27 needed amendment to ensure local government trustees receive proper notices and that compensation is explicitly payable by the State
  • The committee found no compelling policy rationale for restricting rolling term lease extension applications to the last 20 years of a lease term
  • The bill also introduced a priority notice system to replace settlement notices, consistent with national standards already adopted in Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends the Land and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 be passed.
  • The committee recommends that Clause 24 of the Bill be amended, in accordance with the recommendations of the Local Government Association of Queensland, to remove the proposed amendments and instead require a notice period between the receipt of a resignation by the Minister and the resignation taking effect.
  • The committee recommends that Clause 27 be amended to provide for the provision of notices to local government trustees under the proposed sections 321E, 321G, 321H and 321J, and to alter the wording of the proposed section 321K to make it clear that compensation is payable by the State, not local government.
  • The committee recommends that section 164C(5) of the Land Act 1994 be amended to permit holders of rolling term leases to make one application for extension at any point during the term of the lease.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Environmental Protection (Underground Water Management) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 25 - Environmental Protection (Underground Water Management) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016, government response2016-11-09

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 25, 55th Parliament - Environmental Protection (Underground Water Management) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20162016-10-25

Committee findings

The Agriculture and Environment Committee examined the bill over six weeks, receiving 141 individual submissions and three form submissions from a total of 1,896 people. The committee recommended the bill be passed but also recommended the Minister examine the impact on mining licence holders' short-term prospects and affected communities. Key issues included the transitional provisions for advanced mining projects, the absence of ecologically sustainable development principles from the new scheme, and strengthened make good agreement rights for landholders.

Key findings
  • The bill moves underground water management for mining from the Water Act to the Environmental Protection Act, requiring water impacts to be assessed as part of environmental authority applications
  • Resource industry groups strongly opposed transitional provisions requiring advanced projects to undergo an additional associated water licence process, arguing it amounted to double assessment
  • The most frequently raised concern from submitters was the lack of statutory recognition of ecologically sustainable development principles in the new scheme
  • The bill strengthens landholders' positions in make good agreement negotiations by lowering the burden of proof for bore damage and requiring resource tenure holders to bear all dispute resolution costs
  • The committee had significant concerns about flow-on impacts on regional communities, particularly around the New Acland Stage 3 mine expansion and its 275 full-time employees
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
  • The committee recommends that the Minister examine the impact on relevant mining licence holders' short-term prospects, and the resulting impacts on affected communities, and present his findings in the Bill's second reading speech.
Dissenting views: Rob Katter MP (Member for Mount Isa) filed a statement of reservation, declining to support the committee's recommendations. He raised concerns about insufficient stakeholder consultation (particularly the absence of a regulatory impact statement) and the potential negative economic impacts on communities reliant on mining projects that had already progressed through other approval processes.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Vegetation Management (Reinstatement) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20162nd reading failed

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 19, 55th Parliament - Vegetation Management (Reinstatement) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, government response2016-08-17

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 19, 55th Parliament - Vegetation Management (Reinstatement) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20162016-06-30

Committee findings

The Agriculture and Environment Committee examined the bill over three months, receiving a large volume of submissions from landholders, environmental groups, indigenous organisations, and industry bodies. The committee was unable to reach a majority decision on whether the bill should be passed, reflecting the deeply divided views on vegetation management regulation. However, the committee unanimously agreed on five recommendations addressing self-assessable codes consultation, vegetation mapping accuracy, the reverse onus of proof provision, environmental offsets impacts, and transparency around the offsets regime.

Key findings
  • The committee was unable to reach a majority decision on whether the bill should be passed, reflecting the polarised nature of the vegetation management debate
  • The committee unanimously recommended that the reverse onus of proof provision in clause 6 (new section 67A) be omitted from the bill, citing fundamental legislative principle concerns about the rights and liberties of individuals
  • Significant concerns were raised about the accuracy of vegetation mapping and the availability of resources and information for landholders to understand their obligations
  • The bill's retrospective commencement provisions (back to the date of introduction) raised fundamental legislative principle issues regarding the rights of landholders
  • Multiple submitters, including the Cape York Aboriginal Land Corporation, opposed the prohibition on clearing for high-value agriculture and irrigated high-value agriculture, citing impacts on indigenous economic development
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Minister explains to the House the consultation process that will be undertaken on the updated self-assessable codes, including details of who will be consulted.
  • The committee recommends that the Minister provides an update on the steps and timescales to improve the accuracy of vegetation mapping and to proactively engage with landholders to provide updated property maps correcting inaccuracies.
  • The committee recommends that the element of clause 6 of the bill, which inserts new section 67A into the Vegetation Management Act 1999 to reverse the onus of proof in relation to vegetation clearing offences, be omitted.
  • The committee recommends that the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection engage with the property, resources and development sectors to assess and establish the full impact of the proposed amendments to the environmental offsets regime.
  • The committee recommends that the Minister informs the House of the outcomes of the assessment of the impacts, including potential costs, of the proposed amendments to the environmental offset regime.
Dissenting views: The Member for Mount Isa (KAP) filed a Statement of Reservation rejecting the bill outright, citing the significant impact on landholders and developers, the lack of consultation during the bill's formation, and the government's unwavering position despite being unable to find consensus among stakeholders. He also raised concerns about the bill's impact on indigenous owners and producers, noting the Cape York Aboriginal Land Corporation did not support restrictions on vegetation clearing for agriculture. Non-government members included separate comments throughout the report reflecting their disagreement with aspects of the bill.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Nature Conservation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015Did not recommend passagePASSED with amendment

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 13, 55th Parliament - Nature Conservation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, government response2016-05-05

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 13, 55th Parliament - Nature Conservation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20152016-02-05

Committee findings

The Agriculture and Environment Committee examined this bill to reverse 2013 amendments to the Nature Conservation Act 1992, reinstating stronger protections for national parks and conservation parks. The committee could not agree on whether the bill should be passed, but made seven recommendations addressing Indigenous involvement in protected area management, conservation park management principles, and the rights of grazing lease holders. The government accepted recommendations 3 through 7 and went further than recommendation 2 by retaining Indigenous involvement in the Act's object rather than moving it to a secondary section.

Key findings
  • The committee was divided on whether the bill should be passed, reflecting disagreement between government and non-government members over the balance between conservation and other land uses
  • The majority of submissions supported reinstating conservation of nature as the sole object of the Act, reversing 2013 changes that added commercial and recreational use objectives
  • Indigenous stakeholders raised concerns about removing references to Indigenous involvement in protected area management from the Act's object, leading the committee to recommend retaining this wording
  • AgForce and grazing lease holders were concerned about the reversion of approximately 78 rolling term leases to term leases, which could narrow their appeal rights on renewal decisions
  • The committee raised fundamental legislative principle concerns regarding the potential impact on Aboriginal tradition and Island custom
Recommendations
  • The committee could not agree on whether the bill should be passed.
  • The committee recommends that wording about the involvement of Indigenous people in the management of protected areas be incorporated into section 5 of the Nature Conservation Act 1992.
  • The committee recommends the bill be amended to require the department to consult with and seek the consent of the landowner of a national park (Cape York Peninsula Aboriginal land) when declaring a special management area.
  • The committee recommends clause 9 be amended to incorporate the wording of section 17(1)(d) into the management principles for a conservation park.
  • The committee recommends clause 17 be amended to remove the reference to national park (scientific) from the definition of prescribed national park.
  • The committee recommends the Minister consider amending clause 27 to require management plan amendments for national park (Cape York Peninsula Aboriginal land) to be prepared jointly with the Indigenous landowner.
  • The committee recommends the Minister consider the rights of agricultural and grazing lease holders regarding their appeal rights over lease renewal decisions.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016Recommended passagePASSED

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 17, 55th Parliament - Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20162016-04-28

Committee findings

The Agriculture and Environment Committee examined the bill, which introduces compulsory registration for dog breeders to combat puppy farms and also amends the Biosecurity Act 2014. The committee received 226 submissions, with the vast majority supporting compulsory breeder registration. The committee recommended the bill be passed, noting it strikes the right balance between animal welfare expectations and the needs of primary producers.

Key findings
  • The vast majority of the 226 submissions supported compulsory registration for dog breeders to help identify and shut down puppy farms
  • The bill provides an exemption for primary producers breeding working dogs for supply to other primary producers, which attracted both support from working dog associations and concern from animal welfare groups about potential loopholes
  • The committee considered fundamental legislative principles issues regarding reverse onus of proof provisions and the breadth of regulation-making power in the bill
  • Animal welfare organisations including the RSPCA, Animal Liberation Queensland and others called for strong enforcement measures
  • The bill also amends the Biosecurity Act 2014 with consequential and minor changes
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Environmental Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Bill 2016PASSED with amendment

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 16, 55th Parliament - Environmental Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Bill 2016, government response2016-04-21

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 16, 55th Parliament - Environmental Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Bill 20162016-04-15

Committee findings

The Agriculture and Environment Committee examined the Environmental Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Bill 2016, which aimed to extend environmental liability to related persons of companies that fail to meet their environmental obligations. The committee could not agree on whether the bill should be passed, but made six recommendations for amendments including removing provisions that could impose liability on landowners such as native title holders, requiring a statutory guideline for administering the 'related person' provisions, and consulting on executive officer liability thresholds. The government supported most recommendations and proposed amendments.

Key findings
  • The committee could not agree on whether the bill should be passed with proposed amendments
  • The Queensland Law Society raised concerns that related persons could be made liable without it being established they contributed to or were aware of the company's non-compliance
  • The committee recommended removing subsection 363AB(1)(b) to protect native title holders and farmers from being caught as 'related persons' through land ownership
  • The committee recommended reducing the proposed 85% financial threshold for executive officer liability, with the government proposing to reduce it to 75%
  • The government held approximately $7 billion in financial assurance at the time, with 9 mining operations deemed 'high risk'
Recommendations
  • The committee could not agree whether the Environmental Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Bill 2016 should be passed with the amendments proposed in the report.
  • The committee recommends that the Minister consider amending clause 7 of the Bill to include other terms used in new Division 2 such as 'executive officer' and 'related person' to assist users of the legislation.
  • The committee recommends that subsection 363AB(1)(b) in clause 7 be omitted from the Bill.
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be amended to require the Minister to table in Parliament a statutory guideline that will stipulate the manner in which the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection will administer the provisions contained in clause 7 section 363AB.
  • The committee recommends that section 363AC of clause 7 be amended to require that the administering authority may only issue an environmental protection order to a related person of a company if the authority has also issued an environmental protection order in the same terms to the company, where the company is still in existence.
  • The committee recommends that the Minister directs his department to consult with the Queensland Law Society, Queensland Resources Council, the Queensland Environmental Law Association, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and other stakeholders, in relation to sections 522A and 535B of clause 15, to identify a less onerous percentage than the 85% proposed.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Racing Integrity Bill 2015PASSED with amendment

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 15, 55th Parliament - Racing Integrity Bill 2015, government response2016-04-20

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 15, 55th Parliament - Racing Integrity Bill 20152016-03-15

Committee findings

The Agriculture and Environment Committee examined the Racing Integrity Bill 2015, which proposed establishing a new Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC) to oversee integrity and animal welfare in the racing industry. The committee made eight recommendations, including amendments to broaden animal welfare functions and limit ministerial directions. Notably, the committee could not agree whether the bill should be passed, reflecting divided views on the reforms. The government supported all recommendations in full or in part.

Key findings
  • The committee could not reach agreement on whether the bill should be passed, reflecting divided views on the racing integrity reforms
  • The estimated overall operating costs of the new Queensland Racing Integrity Commission were approximately $25.9 million, with $8.9 million in additional Queensland Government funding required
  • The committee raised concerns about the absence of costings in the explanatory notes and the likely impact of increased costs on the racing industry's viability
  • Animal welfare was a significant focus, with recommendations to broaden the Commission's functions and bar licence applicants with animal cruelty convictions
  • Racing Queensland raised concerns about staff eligibility restrictions for commissioner positions and the funding model for the Commission
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that departmental officers consult with racing industry stakeholders in relation to the implementation of provisions contained in the Bill.
  • The committee recommends that the Minister provides the House with an assessment of the likely costs for government of implementing the Racing Integrity Bill 2015, including staffing and program costs.
  • The committee could not agree whether the Bill should be passed.
  • The committee recommends that clause 10(1)(l) of the Bill be amended to broaden the Commission's functions to include the promotion of animal welfare and the prevention of animal cruelty, including the provision of training to racing industry participants.
  • The committee recommends that clause 13(2) of the Bill be amended to provide that the Minister is not able to give the Commission a direction in relation to a decision made by the Commission under the rules of racing.
  • The committee recommends that clause 68(3)(b) be amended to stipulate that a licence application cannot be granted for an entity whose executive officer has a prior conviction for an animal cruelty offence.
  • The committee recommends that, after the agreed provisions have been in operation for twelve months, the Minister considers the need for further amendments to the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001.
  • The committee recommends that the Minister consider amending the Bill to limit the proposed process for reviews of decisions about racing information authorities.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Agriculture and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015Recommended passagePASSED

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 7, 55th Parliament - Agriculture and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20152015-10-01

Committee findings

The Agriculture and Environment Committee examined the bill and recommended it be passed without amendment. The committee identified no issues with the bill, which made miscellaneous amendments across nine pieces of agriculture-related legislation. The committee raised one point for clarification, asking the Minister to clarify whether the application of agricultural chemicals by automated drones would be geographically logged.

Key findings
  • The committee identified no issues with the bill and recommended passage without amendment
  • The bill amended nine Acts covering agricultural chemicals, animal care, biosecurity, forestry and stock management
  • The amendments were assessed as machinery in nature or unlikely to have significant adverse impacts, and did not require a Regulatory Impact Assessment
  • The committee was satisfied with the department's consultation processes
  • The committee raised a point for clarification regarding geographic logging of agricultural chemical application by automated drones
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Agriculture and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 be passed.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Sugar Industry (Real Choice in Marketing) Amendment Bill 2015Did not recommend passagePASSED with amendment

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 6, 55th Parliament - Sugar Industry (Real Choice in Marketing) Amendment Bill 20152015-09-14

Committee findings

The Agriculture and Environment Committee examined this private member's bill introduced by the Member for Dalrymple, which sought to protect canegrowers' interests in sugar marketing by recognising grower economic interest and grower choice of marketing entity. The committee concluded the bill should not be passed in its current form, citing an unsatisfactory consultation process, the absence of a regulatory impact assessment, insufficient evidence of market failure, and irreconcilable positions among key industry participants. The committee recommended a regulatory impact assessment be completed before the House considers the bill's passage.

Key findings
  • The committee found the consultation process was unsatisfactory as it excluded key stakeholders from the sugar industry
  • No regulatory impact assessment had been completed, leaving the potential economic impacts of the bill unknown
  • The committee found insufficient evidence of regulatory or market failure to justify the significant regulatory amendments proposed
  • Queensland Sugar Limited advised that grower choice could be achieved under existing legislation through commercial arrangements without new legislation
  • The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries was unable to identify alternative amendments to achieve a commercial solution
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the completion of a regulatory impact assessment of the bill by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries be required before the House considers the passage of the bill in its present form.
  • The committee recommends that the Minister request the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to conduct a regulatory impact assessment of the bill in conjunction with the Queensland Productivity Commission, and that the Minister table the department's report prior to the second reading debate.
  • The committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in its periodic review of the Sugar Industry Act 1999 consider the efficacy of the collective bargaining provisions, the need for recognising grower choice, the need for arbitration for resolving disputes, and the future viability of Queensland Sugar Limited.
  • The committee recommends that the Treasurer consider whether arrangements should be provided for members to access confidential advice on regulatory impacts from the Queensland Productivity Commission for the development of private members' bills.
Dissenting views: The Member for Burnett and the Member for Mount Isa filed Statements of Reservation supporting the passage of the bill with amendments. They proposed amendments based on an exposure draft bill that would recognise grower economic interest in cane supply agreements, allow grower choice of marketing entity, and provide a dispute resolution mechanism, while avoiding expropriation of property rights and not prescribing pre-contractual arbitration.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors
Exhibited Animals Bill 2015Recommended passagePASSED with amendment

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 2 - Exhibited Animals Bill 2015, government response2015-05-21

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 2, 55th Parliament - Exhibited Animals Bill 20152015-05-08

Committee findings

The Agriculture and Environment Committee examined the bill, which proposed to consolidate and streamline the licensing of exhibited animals in Queensland under a single risk-based regulatory framework, replacing provisions spread across several existing Acts. The committee recommended the bill be passed with amendments, making seven recommendations focused on reducing regulatory burden on mobile exhibitors, adjusting minimum exhibition requirements, and improving the clarity of risk management obligations. The government agreed to all recommendations in full or in principle.

Key findings
  • The bill consolidated licensing provisions from three existing Acts into a single framework covering animal welfare, biosecurity, and safety risks for exhibited animals
  • Mobile exhibitors, who made up about half of all permit holders, raised significant concerns about restrictions that disadvantaged them compared to fixed exhibitors such as zoos
  • The committee recommended reducing minimum exhibition hours and providing exemptions for circumstances where animals were temporarily unsuitable for exhibit
  • The committee raised concerns about regulatory complexity and recommended the department develop template management plans and application guidelines to assist small business exhibitors
  • The government agreed to all seven committee recommendations in full or in principle and committed to consulting exhibitors during development of regulations
Recommendations
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be passed with the amendments proposed in this report.
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be amended to specify that a 'regular enclosure' at a 'regular enclosure site' need not be open generally to the public, provided the exhibitor still meets minimum exhibition requirements and the enclosure meets required standards.
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be amended by removing clause 76(4) in relation to the minimum three hour on each occasion restriction.
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be amended at clauses 76(2) and (3) to reduce the minimum annual hours to 50 hours in each calendar month and 600 hours in the year.
  • The committee recommends that the Bill be amended to provide exemptions to clauses 75 and 76 for reasonable circumstances where an animal is temporarily not suitable for exhibit or where exhibit may impact on relevant risks.
  • The committee recommends that the department considers alternative licensing requirements such as a tiered 'proportionate to risk' application and approval process, and considers limiting the regulatory impact of the management plan requirement.
  • The committee recommends that the department clarifies the use of 'significant relevant risks and adverse effects' and 'relevant risks and adverse effects' within the Bill, and develops application guidelines to assist authority holders.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors

Inquiries (29)

policy
policy
oversight
policy
bill
bill
bill
bill
bill
bill
bill
policy
policy
policy
bill
policy
bill
bill
policy
policy
bill
bill
policy
policy
bill
bill
bill
bill
bill

Other Reports (47)

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 42, 55th Parliament - Consideration of the Auditor-General's Report 12 : 2016-17 Biosecurity Queensland's management of agricultural pests and diseases, government response

audit2018-02-28

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 42, 55th Parliament - Consideration of the Auditor- General's Report 12: 2016-17 - Biosecurity Queensland's management of agricultural pests and diseases, interim government response

audit2017-11-30

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 45, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled 14 June - 8 August 2017

Subordinate Legislation2017-10-13

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 44, 55th Parliament - Annual Report 2016-17

Other2017-10-06

Agriculture and Environment Committee: Report No. 35, 55th Parliament - Barrier Fences in Queensland, government response

Other2017-09-19

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 43 - 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled 10 May - 13 June 2017

Subordinate Legislation2017-09-05

Agriculture and Environment Committee: Report No. 42, 55th Parliament - Consideration of the Auditor-General's Report 12: 2016-17 - Biosecurity Queensland's management of agricultural pests and diseases

audit2017-08-30

Agriculture and Environment Committee: Report No. 41, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislationtabled 22 March - 9 May 2017

Subordinate Legislation2017-08-11

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 38, 55th Parliament - 2017-18 Budget Estimates - Additional Information

Other2017-08-04

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 38, 55th Parliament - 2017-18 Budget Estimates

Other2017-08-04

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 34, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled from 30 November 2016 to 14 February 2017, government response

Subordinate Legislation2017-07-27

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 37, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled between 1 March 2017 and 21 March 2017

Subordinate Legislation2017-06-21

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 35, 55th Parliament - Barrier Fences in Queensland

Other2017-06-21

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 36, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled 15 - 28 February 2017

Subordinate Legislation2017-05-29

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 34, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled from 30 November 2016 to 14 February 2017

Subordinate Legislation2017-05-18

Agriculture and Environment Committee: Report No. 24, 55th Parliament - Hendra virus EquiVac® vaccine and its use by veterinary surgeons in Queensland, final government response

Other2017-04-21

Agriculture and Environment Committee: Report No. 29, 55th Parliament - Review of the Drought Relief Assistance Scheme, government response

Other2017-04-03

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 31, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled 12 October to 29 November 2016

Subordinate Legislation2017-03-03

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 24, 55th Parliament - Hendra virus EquiVac® vaccine and its use by veterinary surgeons in Queensland, interim government response

Other2017-01-24

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 30, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled 14 September - 11 October 2016

Subordinate Legislation2017-01-03

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 29, 55th Parliament - Review of the Drought Relief Assistance Scheme

Other2017-01-03

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Information Paper No. 3, 55th Parliament - Inquiry into the impacts of invasive plants (weeds) and their control in Queensland

Inquiry2016-11-11

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 28, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled 17 August - 13 September 2016

Subordinate Legislation2016-11-11

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 27, 55th Parliament - Annual Report 2015-16

Other2016-11-11

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 26, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled 16 August 2016

Subordinate Legislation2016-10-31

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 24, 55th Parliament - Hendra virus EquiVac® vaccine and its use by veterinary surgeons in Queensland : Corrigendum

Other2016-10-31

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 23, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled between 25 May 2016 and 14 June 2016

Subordinate Legislation2016-09-16

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 22, 55th Parliament - Consideration of the Auditor General's Report 20: 2014-15 - Managing water quality in Great Barrier Reef catchments

audit2016-08-12

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 21, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled between 17 February and 24 May 2016

Subordinate Legislation2016-08-12

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 20, 55th Parliament - 2016-17 Budget Estimates - Additional Information

Other2016-08-12

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 20, 55th Parliament - 2016-17 Budget Estimates

Other2016-08-12

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 18, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled on 16 February 2016

Subordinate Legislation2016-05-11

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 14, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled between 10 November 2015 and 1 December 2015

Subordinate Legislation2016-03-14

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 12, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled between 16 September 2015 and 27 October 2015

Subordinate Legislation2016-01-22

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 11, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled between 15 July 2015 and 15 September 2015

Subordinate Legislation2015-11-24

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 10, 55th Parliament - Annual Report 2014-15

Other2015-11-06

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 9, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled between 5 May 2015 - 14 July 2015

Subordinate Legislation2015-11-06

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Information Paper No.2, 55th Parliament - Inquiry into barrier fences in Queensland

Inquiry2015-11-05

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 8, 55th Parliament - Fisheries and Another Regulation Amendment Regulation (No.1) 2015, government response

Other2015-10-14

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 8, 55th Parliament, Fisheries and Another Regulation Amendment Regulation (No.1) 2015

Other2015-10-08

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 5, 55th Parliament - 2015-16 Budget Estimates - Additional information

Other2015-09-08

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 5, 55th Parliament - 2015-16 Budget Estimates

Other2015-09-08

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 3, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled between 28 October 2014 and 26 March 2015, government response

Subordinate Legislation2015-08-27

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 4, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled between 27 March 2015 - 5 May 2015

Subordinate Legislation2015-07-20

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Information Paper No.1, 55th Parliament - Review of drought assistance measures

Other2015-07-17

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 3, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled between 28 October 2014 and 26 March 2015

Subordinate Legislation2015-05-27

Agriculture and Environment Committee : Report No. 1, 55th Parliament - Subordinate legislation tabled between 27 August - 14 October 2014

Subordinate Legislation2015-04-29