Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Well we might be taking the debate on this bill in one part but there is a lot of material to canvass I would suggest inside of that. I'd like to begin with what was in fact in the bill as Part 1 which is the Animal Welfare Act 1999. I actually think this is a really good example of a case where we're looking to make—unlike in an earlier bill today—something that is actually a minor and technical yet meaningful change to that legislation to bring it into the context of the way the world is today. Particularly there is the ability to use technology to help manage both the activities that are taken in trapping and capturing animals but also to the degree—because ultimately the animal trapped may well have only one final outcome coming but at least through that process it makes that journey if you will somewhat more humane.So this change here will allow that if a trap is remotely monitored such as through a remote sensor or perhaps through something connected wirelessly or through cellular to a remote monitoring station the ability to know that an animal has been trapped in a trap means that the trap therefore doesn't need to be manually inspected within the same time frame that currently exists under the Animal Welfare Act which is within 12 hours after sunrise on each day that the trap remains set. This provision actually allows that to be extended out to 24 hours and I think it's a very sensible change because the status of the trap can be known the status of an animal being live-captured can be known and it is a better reflection of the technology that people will use in trapping operations today. In fact it also supports the Predator Free 2050 goal that the previous Government put in place and which I think we can acknowledge that this new Government is also continuing with. So the last thing I think we would want to have is a situation where old world legislation was failing to keep up with new world technology and potentially if we didn't make this change we could at least make the Predator Free 2050 goal more difficult to obtain if not impossible.So I think it's a good change. It's one of those changes that has meaning even though in itself it's not terribly complicated and it certainly isn't controversial. So I'm certainly pleased that we did that.Now when this bill was in the Governance and Administration Committee there wasn't a great deal of discussion as it happened because of the nature of the suggested changes but there were a couple. One of those for instance was around the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act. An odd situation is where in a partnership which doesn't have employees it could be difficult to have one of those partners as a compliance officer because the compliance officer under the Act as it exists today is written in such a way that they are an employee—and of course a partner of a partnership that has no employees is not an employee. It's a very sensible consideration to say that we're committed to making sure that we comply and have enacted that legislation for good reason so the change that is in this Statutes Amendment Bill will expressly allow that a partner in a partnership which doesn't have employees—one of those partners is able to have the role of that compliance officer.So that is another example as I say of a sensible shift. It is acknowledging that sometimes in this House even when legislation does go through the full legislative process—which didn't happen today with a bill but it generally does—and even when that bill might have gone through a number of weeks or longer in a select committee process it is still possible that legislation can exit the House that has a couple of anomalies in it or things that perhaps just weren't traversed sufficiently to capture them on the way through. So statutes amendment bills are a very good vehicle to round those strays up if you will and to make those small changes to correct them and in the case of that compliance role that's another example of that.There are many others in here and in a subsequent call I will talk about others. For instance I'd like to talk about the interim protection orders and consequences that we also discussed at select committee. But at this stage I'm going to offer one of my colleagues—and maybe even a member across the Chamber might like to take a call. Seeing as they didn't want to leave early today maybe they might actually have something to say about this bill. It's a meaningful bill so hopefully they do.