Wool Marketing Regulations (Amendment)

Overview

The Wool Marketing Act 1987 was enacted to regulate the marketing of wool in Australia, ensuring orderly and efficient wool sales. The 1990 amendment introduced a regulatory change to address the need for a dedicated payment from the wool industry towards the control and eradication of exotic animal diseases. This amendment was necessary to provide financial support for the Exotic Animal Disease Preparedness Consultative Council established under the Exotic Animal Disease Control Act 1989. The policy objective of this regulatory amendment was to ensure that the wool industry contributes to the preparedness and response measures for exotic animal diseases, in alignment with the recommendations from the Consultative Council, while also maintaining the balance of contributions between the industry and the Commonwealth. The regulations were issued by the authority of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, in accordance with the provisions of the Wool Marketing Act 1987.

Scope and Application

The Wool Marketing Regulations (Amendment) 1990 pertains to the Wool Marketing Act 1987 and is issued under the authority of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. This regulation specifically amends the Act to facilitate a new payment from the wool industry for exotic disease control purposes. The amendment is necessitated by the Exotic Animal Disease Control Act 1989, which establishes a council and provides financial assistance for the control and eradication of exotic animal diseases, extending to the wool, sheepmeat, beef, dairy, pigs, poultry, buffalo, and goat industries. The amendment requires the Governor-General to consider recommendations from the Exotic Animal Disease Preparedness Consultative Council, nominated by the National Farmers’ Federation, when prescribing such payments, ensuring that the payments do not exceed the most recent recommendations. This regulation imposes an industry payment of $431,823 for the 1990/91 financial year, payable on 1 July 1990. The application of this regulation is thus confined to the wool industry, with its jurisdictional reach adhering to the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Key Provisions

The operative sections of the Wool Marketing Regulations (Amendment) Statutory Rules 1990 No. 53 are focused on implementing a new payment from the wool industry to support exotic animal disease control, as mandated by the Wool Marketing Act 1987 (section 127(1)). This amendment allows the Governor-General to make regulations prescribing the specific payment, which must be consistent with the Act and necessary or convenient for its implementation. In particular, the amendment introduces a new payment mechanism to fund the Exotic Animal Disease Preparedness Consultative Council’s activities, which aim to control and eradicate exotic animal diseases affecting various livestock industries, including wool. Under the regulations, the wool industry is required to make an annual payment into a trust account, which will be used to receive contributions and match them dollar-for-dollar with Commonwealth grant funds. This trust account is integral for funding initiatives aimed at preventing the introduction and spread of exotic animal diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease and avian influenza. The regulation specifies that the industry payment for the financial year 1990/91 is set at $431,823, payable on 1 July 1990. These obligations are clearly delineated to ensure compliance and effective funding of disease control measures. Breaches of these regulations could result in significant consequences. While the specific offences and penalties are not detailed in the explanatory statement, it is implied that non-compliance with these mandatory payments could lead to enforcement actions under the Wool Marketing Act 1987. Given the critical nature of the funding for disease control, failure to adhere to these provisions might result in legal action, financial penalties, or other sanctions as prescribed by the Act. The severity of penalties would depend on the specific breach and the impact on the preparedness and response to exotic animal diseases.