CONTROVERSY has followed a recent amendment bill passed by the Victorian Government with the claim that farmers and shooters can be fined over $18,000 for sharing meat with neighbours, family or friends.

But several parliamentarians and organisations have said the claim is inaccurate and the disquiet in rural communities was unwarranted.

Reports claimed the bill meant hunters could be charged for shooting a pest animal like a rabbit and feeding it to the next-door neighbour’s cat, and a farmer who butchers their own meat was no longer allowed to share or gift this to their family and friends.

Much of the confusion can be attributed to an exchange on May 26 in State Parliament where South-Eastern Metropolitan MP, Gordon Rich-Phillips, questioned Western Victoria MP, Gayle Tierney, about whether the revised wording could mean common practices in regional areas run afoul of the law.

Mr Rich-Phillips used a hypothetical situation of a hunter harvesting and dressing ducks in the field and then giving two duck breasts to their neighbour.

“Is that going to be an offence under this provision?” he asked.

“If it is for personal use - and personal use is not giving it to someone else - it is fine,” Ms Tierney said.

“Otherwise there will be issues.”

“So, giving it to the next-door neighbour is an offence?” Mr Rich-Phillips asked.

“I am advised that, yes, that is the case,” Ms Tierney said.

She later added that “meat needs to be inspected so it is safe for consumption”.

Northern Victoria MP, Tim Quilty, released a statement that spoke against the bill and said it was a result of city-centric politics that did not involve stakeholders in developing policy.

“This bill demonstrates the divide between the country and the Melbourne-based Victorian Government,” he said.

“This legislation is completely unworkable and shows what a lack of consultation achieves. Many peak bodies have complained about not being approached by the government before this legislation was released.

“An authorised officer can now without court, order or warrant, enter someone’s property, demand documents and ask any questions that they wish.

“If a farmer, beekeeper or orchardist does not understand what is going on or does not provide the documents, or gives incorrect information to the authorised officer, they can be fined over $18,000.”

But the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA) – Victoria, released a statement that said his claims were inaccurate and the changes to the Meat Industry Act 1993 were effectively ‘housekeeping’.

SSAA Victoria said some of the answers Ms Tierney gave were merely “unhelpful and poorly informed” in an attempt to answer the specifics of the questions and said the reality of the bill was nothing to be concerned about.

“(Ms Tierney was) trying to ‘draw a line’ that the written legislation sensibly avoids drawing,” the statement said.

“The minister concluded her exchange with Mr Rich-Phillips with a commitment to ‘double-check a number of things’. SSAA Victoria are following up on that commitment.”

The Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) also backed the bill in a statement, calling the concerns about searches “misinformation being circulated”.

“The VFF believes this misrepresents and misinterprets the amendments set out in the bill,” the statement said.

“The VFF understands that authorised officers are required to present identification unless deemed unreasonable in the circumstances.”

The Spectator sought comment from Ms Tierney’s office and a Victorian Government spokesperson said in reply, “the amendments do not introduce any new offences, they improve clarity and remove inconsistencies.”

“Under the Meat Industry Act, a recreational hunter can harvest game and either process it themselves or use an unlicensed service provider to process the carcass for them,” the spokesperson said.

“This is to allow hunters to consume their recreationally harvested game.

“An unlicensed service provider is a provider of butchering services not licensed by Victoria’s meat regulator, PrimeSafe. These providers offer a very niche service, mostly for game and on-farm slaughter, allowing farmers and game hunters to have their meat processed for their personal consumption only.

“Meat processed by unlicensed providers cannot be sold or enter the broader meat supply chain and can only be consumed by the household it was prepared for.”

But Mr Quilty’s media adviser, James Trenery, said the bill’s own wording was clear and was still a concern, as were Ms Tierney’s answers in parliament.

“The fact is, in the bill itself it doesn’t say for the household or for personal consumption,” he said.

“It states: ‘a person must not - (a) slaughter for human consumption a consumable animal etc.’

“The minister (Ms Tierney) stated very clearly that if you supply meat to someone out of your household (the people that live there, not relatives etc.) then that is crossing the line and we must consider food safety.”

Mr Trenery also added the response of SSAA Victoria was not in step with the concerns of some of their members.

“We have spoken to SSAA members up here and they are also not happy with the bill,” he said.

“It is hard to understand why SSAA would downplay the consequences of the bill, but it would be handy for them to point out where in the legislation, it allows you to harvest, dress and share the meat with people not living in your house.

“For the (SSAA Victoria) article to dismiss this as ill-informed is incorrect. In the footage of the exchange, the minister clearly sought advice from the department who were there to directly inform the minister about the legislation and its consequences.”

Later in the May 26 discussion between Mr Rich-Phillips and Ms Tierney, the former had said “this is potentially a minefield you are opening up” and used another example of guests coming over for dinner, adding “these are very real, practical scenarios”.

“The advice is that if people did come over for dinner, yes, they could partake in the product,” Ms Tierney said.

“But they would not be able to take it from the residence.”

When asked how she expected the new provision to operate, Ms Tierney said “the objective in all of this is to try and minimise health risks”.

“If someone has food poisoning, there is a way of tracing it back to exactly how it happened and when it happened,” she said.

“That is why there is a fairly tight number of people that would be able to consume the meat that is harvested in this way.”

Local hunter, Terry Houlihan, said he didn’t trust politicians “who have never been past the tram tracks” and had little concept of how regional life and farming worked.

“It’s succeeded pretty well for 200 years doing it the way we’re doing it,” he said.

“It’s just total ignorance. They must lie awake at night trying to dream up all this rubbish.

“I say it quite regularly they’re just gradually eroding people’s right to farm.”

Western Victoria MP, Beverley McArthur, said she didn’t think the bill was problematic, but Ms Tierney had not communicated the changes well and understood why some in rural communities were worried.

“I’m concerned by the uncertainty which this provision has caused,” Ms McArthur said.

“In the Legislative Council, minister Tierney stated clearly that there was no intention of creating any new offence in this area, and that new law would simply make existing law enforceable.

“There is clearly significant public disquiet on this question, and I call on the minister to clarify the situation urgently.

“If, as they suggest, the purpose of this redrafting was to eliminate uncertainty, it’s clearly been an abject failure.”