Bull v Director General, NSW Agriculture

[2002] NSWADT 193

CITATION:	Bull v Director General, NSW Agriculture [2002] NSWADT 193
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Monty Bull RESPONDENT Director General, NSW Agriculture
FILE NUMBER:	013267
HEARING DATES:	15/04/02, 20/05/02
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	05/20/2002
DATE OF DECISION:	10/01/2002
BEFORE:	Britton A - Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Apiaries Act - compensation on account of destruction of bees - Bees - compensation on account of destruction of bees
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Apiaries Act 1985 Apiaries Regulation 1995
CASES CITED:
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT T Morgan, solicitor RESPONDENT N Sharpe, barrister
ORDERS:	The decision not to grant Mr Bull's claim for compensation under the Apiaries Act is affirmed

1 Monty Bull (the applicant) is a beekeeper who has applied to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Director-General, NSW Agriculture (the administrator) not to grant him compensation under s 28(1) of the Apiaries Act 1985 (the Act). The Act establishes a compensation scheme for the owners whose bees are destroyed because they are diseased.

2 In April 2001 Mr Bull applied to NSW Agriculture for compensation for the loss of 118 beehives and the same number of queen bees. By letter dated 11 July 2001 the administrator refused Mr Bull’s application (the original decision). Mr Bull sought internal review of that decision. On 12 October 2001 the administrator affirmed the original decision (the internal review).

3 The issue for determination in this inquiry is whether the administrator made the correct and preferable decision having regard to any relevant factual material and any written or unwritten law: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act (NSW) 1997 (the Tribunal Act), s 63(1).

Relevant Legislation

4 Part 5 of the Act deals with compensation for the loss of bees. Section 29 provides that where compensation is payable under Part 5 and there is only one owner, compensation is payable to that owner.

5 Section 28 of the Act confers a right of compensation where an owner destroys or irradiates bees that are infected with a “compensatable disease”. Section 28 relevantly provides:

(1) Where any queen bees that have become infected with a compensatable disease are destroyed under section 24, or pursuant to a direction under that section, or any beehives or appliances that have become so infected are destroyed or irradiated under that section, or pursuant to such a direction, compensation is, subject to subsection (2) and section 30, payable as provided by this Part to the owner of the bees, beehives or appliances.

(2) Compensation is not payable under this Part in respect of queen bees, beehives or appliances:


(a) …

(b) where the bees, beehives or appliances were acquired by the claimant when the claimant knew, or had reasonable cause to suspect, that the bees, beehives or appliances were infected with a compensatable disease at the time of acquisition,

(c)…

(d) where the claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of section 22 with respect to the bees, beehives or appliances, or

(e) where the claimant has, through the claimant's own deliberate, reckless or negligent conduct, caused or contributed to the bees, beehives or appliances becoming infected with the disease which rendered it necessary to destroy, or direct the destruction of, the bees or, as the case may be, rendered it necessary to destroy or irradiate, or direct the destruction or irradiation of, the beehives or appliances.

6 Section 3 of the Act defines a “compensatable disease” as one specified in Schedule 3 of the Act. American foulbrood (Bacillus larvae) is the only disease so specified.

7 Section 24 of the Act relevantly provides:

(1) Where, on inspecting premises on which bees are kept, an inspector is satisfied on reasonable grounds that any bees, beehives, apiary products or appliances on those premises are infected with a notifiable disease and are thereby a source of immediate danger to other bees, whether kept on those premises or elsewhere, the inspector:

(a) may direct the beekeeper concerned to cause the bees to be destroyed or, as the case may be, the beehives, apiary products or appliances to be destroyed or irradiated, forthwith or within such period as the inspector specifies, or

(b) may, either forthwith or after giving a direction under paragraph (a) that is not complied with, destroy those bees or cause them to be destroyed or, as the case may be, destroy or irradiate those beehives, apiary products or appliances or cause them to be destroyed or irradiated.


(2) Where, on inspecting premises on which bees are kept, it appears to an inspector that any bees, beehives, apiary products or appliances on the premises:

(a) are infected with a notifiable disease, or

(b) are liable to spread such a disease,

but are not an immediate source of danger to other bees, the inspector may direct the beekeeper concerned to treat the bees, beehives, apiary products or appliances, or to take other specified measures, in such manner and within such period as the inspector specifies in the direction.

(3) If a beekeeper fails, within the specified period, to comply with a direction given by an inspector under subsection (2), the inspector or another inspector may treat the bees, beehives, apiary products or appliances or take such other measures in respect of them as were specified in the direction.

Where an inspector gives a direction under subsection (1) (a) or (2), the inspector shall make an inventory of the bees, beehives, apiary products and appliances to which the direction relates.

…

8 Section 3 of the Act defines a “notifiable disease” as one specified in Schedule 1 of the Act. American foulbrood is so specified.

9 Section 22 of the Act requires beekeepers to notify the Director-General or an inspector when first suspecting the presence of a notifiable disease:

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a beekeeper shall, within the period of 24 hours after first becoming aware or first suspecting that any bees, beehives, apiary products or appliances in the beekeeper's possession or under the beekeeper's control are infected with any notifiable disease, give notice of the existence or suspected existence of that disease to the Director-General or an inspector.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a notifiable disease where an order under subsection (4) is for the time being in force to the effect that notification of that disease is not required under subsection (1).

(3) Any beekeeper who fails to comply with subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a penalty not exceeding 20 penalty units.

(4) The Governor may make orders for the purpose of subsection (2).

10 Section 30(1) sets out a number of other limitations on a person’s entitlement to compensation under the Act.

(1) Compensation is not payable under this Part in respect of any queen bees that have been destroyed or in respect of any beehives or appliances that have been destroyed or irradiated unless within 60 days after the destruction or irradiation a claim for compensation in the prescribed form is lodged in the prescribed manner with the Director-General giving the prescribed particulars of the destruction or irradiation and the claim is verified as prescribed.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where a claim for compensation is made after the expiration of the period of 60 days referred to in that subsection, the Minister may authorise the payment of the whole or any part of the compensation which would have been payable had the claim been made during that period if the Minister is satisfied that reasonable grounds existed for the delay in making the claim.

11 The prescribed form, prescribed particulars and the prescribed method of verification are dealt with in cl 15(1) of the Apiaries Regulation 1995 (the Regulations) and provides:

(1) For the purposes of section 30 (1) of the Act, a claim for compensation is:

(a) to be in Form 4; and
(b) to give the particulars necessary to complete the form; and
(c) to be lodged at an office of the Department of Agriculture; and
(d) to be verified by an inspector as provided in that form.

12 Form 4 is set out in Schedule 1 to the Regulations.

Background

13 On 12 October 2000, Mr Bull entered into an agreement with a beekeeper, Mr Sternbeck, to purchase 200 beehives. The parties agreed that ownership in the bees would pass to Mr Bull once he completed a pollination, on behalf of Mr Sternbeck, at a kiwi fruit farm located in Somersby. Shortly after 12 October 2000, Mr Bull moved Mr Sternbeck’s bees to three properties located at Salt Ash, Milford and Somersby. This pollination was completed on or about 7 November 2000.

14 Mr Bull kept a diary in which his partner, Ms Lewis, recorded various matters relating to the bees (the work diary).

15 The work diary reveals that on 24 October 2000 Mr Bull detected two “suspect” hives. Throughout the remainder of that year, and into the early part of 2001, Mr Bull discovered and subsequently destroyed more suspect hives by burning them.

16 On 17 January 2001 Graeme Brown, Regulatory Officer, NSW Agriculture was contacted by Mr Bull and together they inspected about 14 of Mr Bull’s hives. Both concluded that some were infected with American foulbrood disease (AFB). Mr Brown sent samples of the hives for testing. These tests revealed that some samples tested positive to AFB, a highly infectious disease. European foulbrood disease (EFB) was also detected. Under the Act, compensation is payable in certain circumstances for bees destroyed on account of AFB. EFB is not a compensatable disease.

17 Mr Brown conducted a further four inspections. On 6 February 2001 he inspected 39 hives at Bob’s Farm. On 28 February 2001 20 hives he inspected 20 hives at Salt Ash. On 14 March 2001 he inspected 22 hives at Salt Ash, and on 4 April 2001 he inspected 13 hives, again at Salt Ash. On all occasions Mr Brown detected some AFB.

18 On about 4 April 2001 Mr Bull handed to Mr Brown an application for compensation on the prescribed form (Form 4). The form was complete except for Section 2: Verification of Claim by Apiary Officer. A covering letter, requesting permission to burn rather than irradiate more than ten hives, was attached, addressed to Mr Mick Rankmore, Regulatory Specialist, Apiaries, NSW Agriculture. The application for compensation was signed by Mr Bull and dated 13 March 2001.

19 On 5 April 2001 Mr Rankmore telephoned Mr Bull to obtain more information about his compensation claim and was told that Mr Bull had already destroyed the beehives. Mr Rankmore claims he was told that all 118 beehives (and queen bees) were destroyed. Mr Bull said he could not remember precisely the number he gave Mr Rankmore. The work dairy reveals that about 80 hives had been destroyed by 5 April 2001.

20 NSW Agriculture’s policy is that any direction issued to beekeepers to destroy beehives must be in writing. Mr Brown was authorised to issue a direction to burn up to ten hives.

21 In a memo dated 10 April 2001 Mr Brown stated:

“Monty Bull has kept a record of most of the destruction and burning dates and could show evidence of the work carried out.

The claim is very high in dollars but the work was carried out, and the infection is under control…Due to the amount of work, I would support at least a part claim as Sternbeck, due to ill health would not have been able to suppress the infection.”

22 It is not in issue that careful inspection and various control measures are needed to prevent the spread of AFB. An information leaflet prepared by NSW Agriculture advises, “…bee colonies must be carefully examined for disease several times each year. Brood should be thoroughly examined for American brood disease at least twice a year in spring and autumn.”

Respondent’s Submissions

23 The original decision gave the following reasons for refusing Mr Bull’s application for compensation:

You destroyed the beehives for your own management reasons as indicated in your letter dated 2 April 2000

No direction was issued to you by an inspector for you to destroy the beehives by burning,

and your conduct has contributed to the spread of disease in your beehives.

24 Ms Sharp for the respondent submits that there are six reasons why Mr Bull is not entitled to compensation. First, Mr Bull had reasonable cause to suspect at the time of purchase that the hives were infected by AFB. Therefore he is ineligible for compensation under s 28(2)(b) of the Act. Second, no direction authorising the destruction of the bees was ever issued to Mr Bull on behalf of NSW Agriculture. The right to compensation only arises, asserts Ms Sharpe, if a direction is given to destroy the bees: s 28(1) and s 24 of the Act. Third, Mr Bull failed to notify NSW Agriculture after first becoming aware or first suspecting that the bees were infected with a notifiable disease. Fourth, Mr Bull’s recklessness contributed to the bees becoming infected with AFB: s 28(2)(e) of the Act. Fifth, an officer of the Department did not verify Mr Bull’s compensation claim in respect of his queen bees. Section 30 of the Act provides that compensation is not payable for queen bees unless a claim for compensation has been lodged in the prescribed manner and within 60 days of the destruction of the bees. Sixth, laboratory tests establish that Mr Bulls’ bees were infected with both AFB and EFB. Ms Sharpe asserts that it is impossible to know, on the material available, what proportion of the hives subject to Mr Bull’s claims were infected solely by EFB, which is not a compensatable disease.

Ground 1: Mr Bull had reasonable cause to suspect disease at the time of acquisition

25 Section 28(2)(b) of the Act provides that compensation is not payable in respect of queen bees, beehives or appliances where the claimant knew or had reasonable cause to suspect that the bees… were infected with a compensatable disease at the time of acquisition.

26 A claimant is not entitled to compensation if he or she knew or had reasonable cause to suspect that the bees were infected at the time of acquisition. Section 28(1) makes clear that only an owner may claim compensation: “compensation is, subject to subsection (2) and section 30 payable to the owner of bees…” The word “acquisition”, which is not defined in the Act, is critical to the operation of s 28. It is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as:“n 1. the act of acquisition or gaining possession: the acquisition of property. 2.something acquired: a valued acquisition.-v.t. 3. To order and acquire new material, as books for a library.” According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Third Edition, it means “the act of or instance of acquiring”. Acquire is defined as “to gain by and for oneself; obtain; come into possession of”. It is apparent that acquisition can mean something less than ownership and may mean merely coming into possession of something.

27 The only evidence before me about the terms of the agreement between Mr Bull and Mr Sternbeck was that given by Mr Bull and Ms Lewis. According to Mr Bull, a verbal agreement was reached that he would “own” the bees after the pollination for Mr Sternbeck. He said the agreement was contingent on the bees being disease-free.

28 The best evidence is that Mr Bull took possession of the bees in early October but ownership did not pass until on or about 7 November 2000. In my view the critical time for determining whether Mr Bull knew or suspected that the bees were infected is early October 2000 and not, as submitted for the respondent, 7 November.

29 It is abundantly clear that by 7 November 2000 Mr Bull knew or had reasonable cause to suspect that at least some of the 200 hives he had purchased from Mr Sternbeck were infected with AFB. In evidence-in-chief he claimed that before January 2001 he had only detected a few “suspect” hives. However, under cross-examination it was revealed that before 7 November a number of suspect hives had been detected: two at Salt Ash on 15 October 2000; a further two at the same location on 24 October 2000; two at Millgate on 26 October 2000 (detected by Mr Bellamy); two at Somersby on 2 November and a further hive at the same place on 7 November 2000. In all, nine hives had been detected by 7 November 200. This account is broadly consistent with Mr Bull’s work diary.

30 I note, as advised by Mr Morgan for Mr Bull, that his client has recently suffered a serious head injury, which it is claimed had affected his memory. In the course of the proceedings a number of inconsistencies emerged in Mr Bull’s testimony. I do not draw the inference that Mr Bull intentionally sought to mislead the Tribunal but rather that the explanation for any inconsistencies most probably lies in the combination of the passage of time and his recent injury.

31 I accept Mr Bull’s evidence that he took all reasonable steps to control infection including incinerating the contaminated hives and sterilizing the extraction equipment as soon as he became aware that some of the hives were infected. As an experienced beekeeper, he was aware that the spread of infection could threaten his own bees and livelihood and thus he had a real incentive to take careful steps to contain the infection. It appears to me that he genuinely believed that it was possible to contain further outbreaks through stringent disease control measures. Such belief may explain why he elected not to return Mr Sternbeck’s bees after the pollination exercise was complete.

32 Had only one “suspect” hive been detected and the infection control measures been put in place, it may be arguable that he did not have reasonable cause to suspect, in early November, that the remaining hives were infected. However, given that a number of separate and isolated outbreaks of disease had been identified by that time, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that he had reasonable cause to suspect that some of the remaining hives may have been infected. While he may have taken reasonable steps to control the infection it is apparent that shortly after the bees came into his possession he was on notice that some of the hives suffered from infection.

33 While at the time ownership passed, to Mr Bull, he knew that at least some of Mr Sternbeck’s bees were infected, it is less straightforward whether he knew or had reasonable cause to suspect the bees were infected at the time he took possession of them. The diary entry for 12 October confirms that Mr Bull was not overly confident that Mr Sternbeck regularly inspected his bees. He knew that Mr Sternbeck had not looked after the bees for at least a short period before he took possession of them.

34 Mr Bull said he asked Mr Sternbeck whether the bees had ever suffered from disease and told they had not. He conducted a random inspection of hives and found no infection. He denied the proposition, put to him in cross-examination, that he knew at the time of purchase that Mr Sternbeck had a reputation for keeping diseased bees.

35 Having considered all the evidence, I am not satisfied on balance that at the time Mr Bull acquired (or took possession) of the bees he knew or had reasonable cause to suspect that they were infected. He sought and was given an assurance that the bees were “clean”; he took steps to verify this assurance by inspecting the bees. The pre-acquisition inspection may have fallen short of the ideal but it cannot be inferred from that, that at the relevant time Mr Bull knew, or had reasonable cause to suspect, that the beehives were infected with AFB.

Ground 2: No direction was given to destroy the bees

Evidence

36 In his statement tendered in these proceedings, dated 12 April 2002, Mr Brown claimed that on 17 January 2001 he told Mr Bull he could either burn or irradiate the hives and that if he intended to burn more that ten hives he needed written approval from NSW Agriculture. He said he could not recall telling Mr Bull on that day that written approval was needed to burn hives, but thought he must have, as this was his standard practice. He said he provided Mr Bull with a compensation form “someway down the track”.

37 According to Mr Brown, he was delegated with the power to issue beekeepers with a direction to destroy up to ten hives. Where more than ten hives were detected he said it was necessary for him to obtain approval from his superiors, Mick Rankmore or Keith Oliver.

38 Mr Rankmore gave evidence that it was the practice of NSW Agriculture to put in writing any direction to beekeepers to irradiate or burn hives.

39 Mr Brown said he did not direct Mr Bull at any time to burn any hives, as it was apparent to him that he was going to burn the hives as he found them. According to Mr Brown “He [Mr Bull] was doing the correct thing by destroying the diseased material.”

40 Mr Brown gave evidence that once infection was identified NSW Agriculture recommended that as a preliminary step to prevent further infection the infected hives are “locked up” and the bees “depopulated” or destroyed by petrol. In this state the beekeeper could await permission from NSW Agriculture to destroy the hives without risk that the infection would spread. In Mr Brown’s opinion it was best to destroy the hives within a few days of “locking up” the hives.

41 Mr Bull and Ms Lewis gave evidence that Mr Brown was aware that throughout the early months of 2001 Mr Bull had taken steps to progressively destroy a number of beehives. According to Mr Lewis, it was not until the end of March that Mr Brown advised that permission was required to burn the hives. Mr Bull said he could not remember if he continued to burn hives after he had become aware that permission was needed. Mr Bull said that Mr Brown assisted him to complete a compensation form but was told not to send it in while occasional infections were still being identified. In his application for compensation Mr Bull nominated Mr Brown as the “Inspector Authorising destruction or irradiation.”

Findings and Conclusions

42 It is common ground that on 17 January Mr Brown discussed with Mr Bull the merits of burning or irradiating the infected beehives. At that time Mr Brown was aware that Mr Bull preferred to, and, in fact had, burned a number of infected hives.

43 The evidence is in conflict as to when Mr Brown first told Mr Bull about the need to obtain permission to burn hives. In his statement, prepared about a month before these proceedings, he asserts that he did so on 17 January. However in his oral testimony he conceded he could not recall telling Mr Bull on that day that permission was needed but thought he must have, as that was his practice.

44 This conflicts with Mr Bull’s claim, corroborated by Ms Lewis, that they were not told of the requirement to obtain permission on 17 January. Ms Lewis said they were not told until late March. Mr Bull could not recall exactly when he was told.

45 The evidence of all witnesses on this point can hardly be considered independent. On balance however, I am satisfied that Mr Bull was not told that permission was needed to burn beehives until after 17 January.

46 As conceded by Mr Brown, compensation was not discussed at the 17 January meeting. He could not recall exactly when this was raised. Nor could Mr Bull or Ms Lewis. The best evidence shows that compensation was raised on or before 13 March when Mr Bull partially completed the compensation form provided by Mr Brown.

47 Did Mr Brown advise Mr Bull about the need to obtain a direction to destroy bees in order to access compensation? The evidence of Mr Bull and Ms Lewis was that Mr Brown could not ok their claim for compensation; this had to be cleared by his “higher ups” but he had told them this was “merely a formality”. They say they were not warned that compensation would be payable only if a written direction was issued by NSW Agriculture.

48 In cross-examination, Mr Brown agreed that he did not tell Mr Bull that his claim for compensation would be futile [because there was no direction] as “it’s not my decision.” Interestingly, in cross-examination he said he did not verify Mr Bull’s application for compensation (ie complete Section 2 of Form 4) because the hives had been treated by burning “…before I had a discussion about irradiation against burning.” This may explain why Mr Brown did not draw to Mr Bull’s attention the futility of his claim in respect of those hives destroyed before 17 January. However, it does not explain why he failed to caution Mr Bull against continuing to burn bees after that date without direction. It also does not explain why, in his memo dated 10 April 2001, he recommended partial compensation.

49 In my view it is more probable than not, that neither Mr Bull nor Mr Lewis were told before 4 April 2001, that the absence of a written direction to destroy the beehives was fatal to any claim for compensation. While reference is made in Mr Brown’s memo of 10 April 2001 to having advised Mr Bull to seek approval from Mr Rankmore, it is apparent that when he wrote the memo he did not consider the absence of a direction would be fatal to Mr Bull’s claim. This would explain why he apparently stood by and watched Mr Bull destroy hives without permission and later recommended partial compensation.

50 In my view, the evidence reveals that Mr Brown failed to properly advise Mr Bull of the consequences of failing to obtain a direction to destroy the beehives. This is a most serious matter. Mr Bull went to NSW Agriculture to advise of an outbreak of infection. He sought and was given assistance from Mr Brown about the infected hives and his claim for compensation. A critical matter relevant to eligibility for compensation under the Act was not drawn to Mr Bull’s attention.

51 It may be that an action is available to Mr Bull against NSW Agriculture. However, this is not the issue for determination in these proceedings. The Act makes clear that a right to compensation only arises if a direction was given to destroy the bees: s 28(1) and s 24. It is common ground that a written direction was not issued to Mr Bull to destroy the beehives. Nor am I persuaded that Mr Bull was verbally directed by Mr Brown or any officer of NSW Agriculture to destroy any beehives although it is apparent that Mr Brown took no steps to prevent or caution Mr Bull against destroying the beehives. Despite what I have identified as significant shortcomings in the advice provided to Mr Bull, the Act is clear that the right to compensation under s 28 depends upon a direction being issued under s 24. As a matter of statutory construction no right of compensation exists without a direction to destroy the bees (or the inspector personally causing the beehives to be destroyed). Accordingly Mr Bull’s claim for compensation must fail because he was not directed to destroy the bees.

Ground 3: Failure to notify of suspicion of AFB within 24 hours

52 In case I am wrong in respect of Ground 2, I turn to consider the third ground relied upon by the respondent namely Mr Bull’s failure to advise NSW Agriculture within 24 hours of his suspicions of AFB.

Evidence

53 According to Mr Bull’s work diary he found two suspect hives on 24 October 2001; two on 2 November and a further two on 7 November.

54 His oral evidence was that he found two suspect hives at Salt Ash on 15 October. Mr Bellamy gave evidence that he detected two suspect hives when he assisted Mr Bull inspect hives at Millfield on 26 October.

55 Mr Bull gave evidence that when he detected suspect hives at Somersby in early November he contacted Mr Brown who dropped off some slides at his property so that samples could be taken. Ms Lewis supports this claim.

56 Mr Brown said he could not recall exactly when Mr Bull first contacted him about the infected hives - it could have been late in 2000 or early in the New Year. He agreed that he did drop off slides at Mr Bull’s property.

Findings and conclusions

57 Section 22 of the Act provides that a beekeeper shall, within 24 hours of first becoming aware or first suspecting that any bees, beehives, apiary products or appliances in their possession or under their control are infected with any notifiable disease, give notice of the existence or suspected existence of that disease to the Director-General or an inspector. AFB is a “notifiable disease” under the Act : s.3; Sch.1. It is an offence to fail to so notify NSW Agriculture : s.22(3).

58 Section 28 (2)(d) provides that compensation is not payable where the claimant fails to comply with the provisions of s 22.

59 While there is no note in the work diary, I accept the evidence of Mr Bull and Ms Lewis that Mr Bull first contacted Mr Brown sometime in the first week in November 2000.

60 This means that Mr Bull failed to notify NSW Agriculture of his suspicions until about three weeks after the first suspect hive was discovered (according to his oral testimony) or after about two weeks (according to his diary). At the time of notification five separate outbreaks of disease had been detected (or according to the work diary, two separate outbreaks).

61 Mr Bull explained that he did not contact NSW Agriculture when he first became aware of the infection, as he was not aware that he was required to - and in any event as at mid October the beehives remained in the ownership of Mr Sternbeck. The Act makes clear that the obligation to notify falls on a beekeeper whenever bees are in his or her possession or control. It is not open to Mr Bull to rely on his ignorance of the law to escape the consequences of failing to notify within the prescribed time.

62 Accordingly, under s 28(2)(d) Mr Bull is not entitled to compensation.

Conclusion

63 Given my findings in respect of ground 2 and 3 it is not necessary for me to determine the remaining grounds relied on by the respondent. For the reasons set out, I consider that the administrator made the correct and preferable decision in refusing Mr Bull’s claim for compensation.

64 It is regrettable, however, that the advice provided to Mr Bull by an officer of NSW Agriculture fell short of the ideal. Given this I recommend that NSW Agriculture take urgent steps to review the training provided to its frontline officers and consider making available to prospective claimants clear written advice on the eligibility requirements for compensation under the Act.