Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Virtual Fencing) Regulation 2025

The Hon. EMMA HURST ( 14:02 :21 ): I continue my contribution to debate on the motion. Shock collars should be monitored to mitigate any adverse effects. To spell it out, this means that a person can use shock collars with no consideration of animal welfare. Shock collars can be used to cause unnecessary pain. Shock collars can hinder access to food, water and shelter, and there is no requirement to intervene when a shock collar is having an obvious adverse effect on an animal. How can this seriously be called an animal welfare regulation? As it stands, there is no legal obligation to ensure that shock collars are fit for purpose or are appropriate for the breed, age and size of a cow. There is no legal obligation to ensure shock collars do not injure an animal or prevent their normal everyday behaviour. There is no legal obligation to incorporate break points in the system that would prevent animals being strangled, trapped or injured.

There is no legal obligation to prevent someone from intentionally manipulating or modifying the use of shock collars to inflict more cruelty. There is not even a legal limit or threshold for the strength of electric shocks that are delivered, or the duration, number or frequency of electric shocks. There is no cap on the maximum charge of electric shocks delivered by these collars. The complete absence of restrictions for shock collars sets a dangerous precedent. I have raised these issues repeatedly, as have many concerned stakeholders, including RSPCA Australia. Even the Federal department of agriculture raised concerns. But instead of addressing the issues and taking the minimal steps to enforce mandatory safeguards and limitations, the New South Wales Government simply bundled all of the concerns into voluntary guidelines. The concerns have been referenced, not addressed. This is not just second‑rate regulation. It is completely deficient. It must not remain in force.

I gave the example of an animal who crossed a virtual boundary but, for whatever reason, cannot get themselves back within the boundary. How will animals like that one be protected from ongoing electric shocks? What if they are attempting to escape from fire? The guidelines recommend that shock collar users should—not must—consider this. There is no guarantee that the size, shape, material, design or fit of the collars and devices to be worn by animals would be at all appropriate for animals in general, let alone for animals of specific ages, living in specific climates or with individual needs. What about animals who are ill, injured or unable to learn the system? Why is there not a mandatory provision that shock collars be turned off when animals are transported by a vehicle? These things sound intuitive and obvious, and perhaps some manufacturers will take them into account, but the fact is they are not requirements.

I spent decades working in this space and can tell members with complete confidence that animals are not afforded a level of care that is intuitive or obvious. Often they are not even afforded a minimum standard of care. Having no mandatory regulations around shock collars is extremely frightening. We cannot ignore the psychological impacts. RSPCA Australia explains that an electric shock can produce an acute stress response, and a Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry [DAFF] report made similar findings that animals may experience unpredictable pain, agitation and prolonged stress. The DAFF report says that it is particularly significant with virtual fencing, because the learning requirement for animals is far more complex than the learning required for engaging with visual cues, like a physical fence. On top of that, the boundaries can change at any time, which may leave animals in a state of chronic stress. Shock collars are described as invisible and somewhat intangible, but the devices that animals are forced to wear are far from it. They pose serious physical and psychological harms.

There are countless other issues. Shock collars are not about wildlife. The protection of wildlife is not the intention of the regulation. In fact, those who switch to the use of shock collars do not have to remove old fencing. Fencing can then be left to degrade, becoming even more dangerous for wildlife. This regulation change is likely to have adverse outcomes for wildlife, as removing old fencing is expensive and the Government is not offering funding to remove that fencing. What that means is the very fencing that is causing harm to wildlife in the first place is likely to remain. Where left in place, fences pose risk of injury and entanglement for wildlife, and that is even more so when they are no longer maintained but only partially removed or left in a state of general disrepair. Fencing—in whatever state of repair—that transects habitats and swathes of deforested farming land will remain fragmented and will continue to obstruct natural animal populations and migration routes.

But there is also this: Virtual fencing is not even in the best interest of farmers. Cows become hypervigilant, anxious and harder to handle, which is the opposite of what good management aims to achieve. It is well documented that chronic stress in cattle reduces welfare, impairs immune function and increases fear‑based behaviours. Do farmers really want that, and have they been campaigning to reduce animal welfare and drive animal protection laws backwards in New South Wales? If they have, then that needs to be exposed. If they have not, then why has the Labor Government done this? I suspect the Hon. Mark Latham will have some evidence and questions on this alternate motivation. The issues with the regulation are endless. There are too many to remedy and it comes down to this: Shock collars are cruel and illegal. We must not enshrine a double standard by allowing their use on cows. Pain is the mechanism, fear is the method and cruelty is the outcome. Shock collars should remain illegal in New South Wales, and we must disallow the regulation from going forward.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales, and Mini ster for Western New South Wales) ( 14:08 :01 ): I oppose this motion on behalf of the Government. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Virtual Fencing) Regulation 2025 was made on 12 December 2025 and enables the use of virtual fencing technology in New South Wales under defined conditions intended to protect animal welfare, public safety and biosecurity. The regulation prescribes that the NSW Animal Welfare Guide for Virtual Fencing of Cattle is an evidentiary guideline, meaning it is admissible in evidence in proceedings under the Act or the regulation. The guide sets out animal welfare considerations intended to inform operational decisions by suppliers and users.

Use of virtual fencing devices is limited to beef and dairy cattle, reflecting the strongest evidence base and practical experience about the effective use of such technology. The regulation clearly defines the devices that are legal. They must be neck worn, use behavioural algorithms designed to support rapid associative learning and apply a cue hierarchy where audio or vibration cues precede any electric cue. Electric cues are applied only if the animal does not respond to the non-aversive cues. The NSW Animal Welfare Guide for Virtual Fencing of Cattle specifies that the devices should not be used on animals that do not learn to respond to cues. The regulation requires that users undergo training from the manufacturer or supplier prior to using the device or system. There will also be an education campaign that builds on the guide and the information the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development has already published on its website. The education campaign will reinforce the regulatory requirements with users and other key stakeholders.

The regulation also contains clear requirements about monitoring and oversight when the devices are used. The person activating the system must be on the same property as the cattle and be satisfied that monitoring arrangements are in place so a person can deactivate or remove a device if it malfunctions or causes distress. Importantly, animal welfare obligations remain under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, including that virtual fencing must not cause unnecessary pain or distress. Public safety is protected because the regulation requires that virtual fencing can only be used for internal fencing, not as the sole method of containing cattle within a property. It cannot be used for border fencing, except between neighbouring properties where landowners have reached a mutual written agreement. Biosecurity is protected through the regulation as virtual fencing devices are prohibited from being used to contain or manage a biosecurity risk as defined under the Biosecurity Act 2015.

The Government will monitor the implementation of the regulatory changes, which will be evaluated after two years, to assess how the framework operates in practice. The regulation and guide were developed with consultation involving stakeholders representing animal welfare bodies, animal welfare enforcement agencies, suppliers of the devices, industry bodies, and science and veterinary expertise. The regulation and guide were developed based on the Australian Animal Welfare Guide for Virtual Fencing, which is underpinned by a comprehensive and independent scientific literature review and is being finalised through a national working group.

Virtual fencing is a contemporary ag tech approach that can support more flexible and potentially more welfare‑focused livestock management, particularly in rotational grazing systems. The technology enables data‑driven management, including insights into herd movement and activity patterns, and it may reduce reliance on some traditional herding methods such as repeated use of quad bikes and dogs, which can cause stress to cattle and are time‑consuming for farmers. The policy intent of regulating—rather than leaving unregulated—virtual fencing is important to provide clear parameters for acceptable use, supported by the guide and its evidentiary status.

The potential benefits of virtual fencing for farmers are clear. They include reduced internal fencing and maintenance costs associated with internal fencing, particularly where frequent paddock reconfiguration is needed; improved rotational grazing efficiency through the ability to reconfigure paddocks rapidly without constructing internal fences, supporting more responsive grazing management; operational flexibility through quick adjustments in response to seasonal changes, feed availability, pasture conditions or operational needs; reduced labour and materials used for fencing and some livestock movements, promoting safer stock management approaches by influencing movement in a controlled way; and precision grazing outcomes by maximising pasture utilisation and supporting productivity through targeted grazing management and improved information on herd movement and activity.

It is important to note that the regulation prohibits the use of virtual fencing devices to manage a biosecurity risk. However, the technology has features that can support biosecurity and disease management outcomes, including improved monitoring and early detection from movement and behaviour data that may help identify abnormal patterns that could indicate health issues earlier. That may assist operational decisions to separate sick or high-risk animals more quickly. It is important to note that the regulation and the guide contain strong animal welfare safeguards. The devices must enable rapid associative learning and can only be used with animals that demonstrate that they are able to learn from the cues. While the regulation does not set a strict age limit, the requirement in the guide—that the animal be able to learn cue responses—means that devices are less suitable for younger calves. The guide indicates use should be supported by documented procedures for assessment and monitoring, including considerations such as cattle size and weight.

The electric cue must only be used after audio or vibration cues are not heeded. The electric cues delivered by the devices are much weaker than that of a conventional electric fence—less than one‑tenth of the strength. The guide requires that devices should include features to mitigate risks from technology failure. The devices should trigger pauses based on animal behaviour, location or connectivity. A pause temporarily disables cue delivery and requires assessment before resuming. Users are alerted when the system identifies the need for intervention. This regulation is important in facilitating modern management techniques on farms. It supports improved productivity with the right safeguards in place to improve animal welfare. It has been developed through a robust process that considered feedback from a broad range of stakeholders. It is an entirely appropriate regulation made in an entirely appropriate way. It should not be disallowed. This option should not be taken away from landholders.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL ( 14:16 :03 ): The Opposition strongly opposes this disallowance motion. I acknowledge the good work of our shadow Minister for Agriculture, Brendan Moylan, in relation to this issue. He made sure I was very well informed on the matter before I addressed the motion in the House.

The Hon. Wes Fang: You already knew it all.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: I certainly did not and I am very grateful to the member for Northern Tablelands for helping me out. I am sure some of my other colleagues, including the Hon. Scott Barrett, who has a deep interest in this space, will also make contributions to debate. This disallowance motion is ill-advised and appears to have been drafted without any real knowledge or firsthand experience of animal welfare or modern grazing systems. I will be very clear: This regulation does not weaken animal welfare laws. It regulates virtual fencing under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. It places it within a framework. It sets standards, creates oversight and ensures animal welfare. This debate should not be about ideology; it should be about modern tools for modern farming.

When it comes to animal welfare, we on this side of the Chamber are clear that our farmers have the strongest possible incentives to protect the welfare of their livestock. Their livestock is their livelihood. A stressed, injured or unhealthy animal is not just a welfare issue; it is an economic loss and, more importantly, a moral responsibility. Virtual fencing can actually reduce welfare risks that come with traditional systems. It reduces barbed wire injuries, entanglements, the need for constant physical infrastructure across paddocks, and capital outlay and ongoing maintenance costs, which means less time fixing fences and more time managing stock properly.

The technology itself is often misrepresented. The Hon. Emma Hurst talked about shock collars. I have been advised that the primary cue is audio. Animals quickly learn boundaries and evidence from jurisdictions like Victoria shows that they adapt rapidly. The stimulus is minimal and used as reinforcement. Other jurisdictions are already using the technology safely and successfully. The regulation ensures that, when virtual fencing is used in New South Wales, it will be used properly, with training standards, oversight and compliance requirements in place. If members are genuinely concerned about animal welfare, then regulation is the responsible approach, not prohibition.

In practical farming terms, the technology fits squarely within modern grazing systems. It enables better rotational grazing, improves pasture management, supports soil health and allows producers to respond dynamically to seasonal conditions. On large grazing properties the cost of installing and maintaining physical fencing across every contour, creek and hill is enormous. Virtual fencing provides flexibility without compromising control. During emergencies such as bushfires, floods or droughts, the ability to move stock quickly without having to cut or rebuild kilometres of fencing can make an enormous difference.

There are positive environmental outcomes as well. Virtual fencing reduces the need for physical fencing along riparian zones such as creek and riverbanks, where driving posts and stretching wire can disturb fragile areas. It allows stock to be excluded from sensitive vegetation without intrusive infrastructure. It helps protect waterways. It assists regeneration and biodiversity management. These are outcomes that should be supported by the House, not opposed. The question becomes: Why should the House disallow a regulation that enables innovation, embeds safeguards, supports animal welfare and delivers environmental benefits? The answer is that it should not.

We can uphold strong welfare standards while embracing technology. Those are not competing ideas. The regulation provides clarity, a framework and certainty for producers who are trying to operate responsibly in a challenging environment. Disallowing the regulation would not advance animal welfare; it would simply deny regional New South Wales access to a tool that is already working in other jurisdictions. This is about backing evidence, farmers and practical outcomes. For those reasons, the Opposition does not support the disallowance motion. I thank the shadow Minister for Agriculture for his strong position on and support of the matter before the House.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD ( 14:20 :39 ): On behalf of The Greens, in my capacity as our animal welfare spokesperson, I contribute to debate on the disallowance motion. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Virtual Fencing) Regulation 2025 introduced changes from 12 December 2025 to allow the use of virtual fencing devices "for controlling and monitoring the movement of beef and dairy cattle in New South Wales". Virtual fencing has long been controversial, with competing benefits and costs. It can improve pasture and environmental management—we are told—and can reduce labour and costs associated with fixed fences in some circumstances.

From an animal welfare perspective, any resulting removal of physical fences may reduce wildlife fence entanglements and facilitate easier wildlife movement, and offer the potential to improve both human and animal safety during emergencies. However, the use of electric shocks to train animals—which, at its core, is what virtual fencing seeks to do—raises significant ethical and animal welfare concerns. Best practice animal training cautions against their use and points to other methods of training that are both more effective as well as more humane. What is the impact on an animal who does not understand how to avoid shocks or who learns slowly, or if the technology fails or is the subject of human error?

Unlike a physical electric fence, which is visible, there are no visual cues for a virtual fence. The virtual boundary is invisible, only identifiable by sound cues. The collar cannot be moved away from or escaped. That makes the use of shock collars particularly cruel where an animal may be deaf but not yet identified as such. Some studies have shown an increased vigilance and anxiety in cows wearing shock collars, which is unsurprising. In any case, every animal learning to use virtual fencing needs to be shocked as they learn, and that shock needs to cause enough pain for the animal to learn to avoid it. Some animals learn after one shock but some animals will receive six or more shocks over hours or days before learning. If the virtual fencing is then moved, the animal needs to learn all over again, being shocked or learning other cues until they work out the new boundary. That is if everything goes as planned.

Equipment malfunctions can lead to animals being shocked indiscriminately and poor collar fit can lead to irritation or ulceration of the skin. And then there is deliberate or accidental misuse by the people operating the system. I would not put a shock collar on my dog because I view it as unbearably cruel. If we are going to allow it for other animals, we must ensure that that use represents the right balance with other competing interests. This task may be made easier if there is more and better research on the use of virtual fencing. However, as the RSPCA notes, much more research is needed before the impacts of virtual fencing can be properly understood and regulated. The RSPCA's position is to support:

… the use of non-aversive methods (those that don't require unpleasant stimuli, for example, plain wire non-electrified physical fencing) to fence and herd farm animals.

The RSPCA says:

Virtual fencing technology has the potential to cause injury, pain, and distress, for example due to poorly fitting collars, the application of electric shocks, the expectation of electric shocks, and individual learning differences.

Importantly, the RSPCA points out the particularly risky and unethical use of virtual fencing where an animal is deaf, not fully grown or has a baby still at foot. There is also insufficient evidence to support its use on animals other than cattle. It points out the need for adequate food, water, shade and shelter to be provided within the containment area and the need for regular monitoring of collared animals to ensure their wellbeing. Critically, it notes that virtual fencing technology should not be used to separate out individual animals from a larger herd, and it should not be used to herd animals. That last point is worth highlighting. If the idea of virtual fencing is to train an animal with the minimum number of shocks possible where an invisible boundary is located, that boundary needs to be fixed and not moving depending on where herding is occurring.

The virtual fencing regulation follows the attempt by Mr Phil Donato in the other place to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 to exempt virtual fencing from the prohibition on certain electrical devices on animals. Whereas the Donato bill was broad and sought to apply the exemption for use of virtual fencing on all stock animals, which would have included cattle as well as horses, sheep, goats, deer, pigs and poultry, the virtual fencing regulation confines the exemption to beef and dairy cattle. That is important, because most of the research undertaken on virtual fencing is for its use on cattle, with less research available on sheep and a very limited evidence base on goats.

A few years ago the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry [DAFF] published a literature review of virtual fencing scientific research, international standards and policies, and existing industry standards and practices. That review concluded that the animal welfare implications of virtual fencing can vary depending on many factors, including species. The authors assess that the overall risk to welfare associated with animals not learning how to interact with the technology was "high" for cattle and "very high" for sheep. In relation to virtual fencing, they also note:

… processes and associated animal welfare safeguards are much more advanced for cattle than for sheep or other animals …

… the strong flight response or horses to threatening stimuli would appear to pose additional challenges to the successful deployment of VF, compared with livestock species such as cattle.

In other words, the risks to animal welfare vary between species and it would not be appropriate to support the use of this technology on animal species where the risk is high or unknown. The fact that the virtual fencing regulation does not attempt to go beyond beef and dairy cattle is positive compared with the Donato bill. We are also glad to see that the regulation does not attempt to apply the exemption to perimeter fencing. However, the regulation is concerning in two main regards. Firstly, it is concerning in its application to herding. As noted, there is no justification for allowing shock collars to be used to herd animals. Its use as a means of day‑to‑day control without even pretending it is about educating the animal is unreasonably cruel and a lazy way to replace paid labour. The second major concern is around enforcement. We know that the circumstances in which the technology is deployed and managed will directly influence the impact it has on the animals. The review commissioned by the DAFF concluded:

… the animal welfare implications of VF can vary depending on many factors, such as the species, herd size, pasture size and quality, access to water, interaction with humans, as well as individual animal temperament, learning ability and previous experience.

It is essential that, if legalised, the necessary standards are in place to ensure best practice use and to avoid unintended harm. Where virtual fencing technology is legally permitted, the use of collars should be subject to regulation that ensures safeguards are in place to protect the welfare of animals. That includes adherence to standards that ensure appropriate use and avoid animal harm, as well as third-party monitoring and auditing to verify compliance. The virtual fencing regulation requires non-aversive cues, like a vibration or audio cue, to be used before any shock can be delivered, and also requires a person to be "on the same property" with the animals at all times the device is activated to ensure that the device is deactivated or removed if it malfunctions or causes the animal distress.

Let me unpack that. If the device malfunctions or causes the animal distress, it is assumed that a person simply on the same property as the animal—perhaps a kilometre away and asleep—will be able to deactivate or remove the device. Not only is that an acknowledgement of how cruel and painful these devices can be, and that they can and do malfunction, but it is also ridiculous to suggest that that very real animal welfare risk can in any way be reduced by the requirement that a person be on the same property at the time. That is before we consider the lack of enforcement. We are notoriously light on animal welfare inspectors in this State. It is absurd to think that anyone is going to be checking that these collars are used in a way that reduces the risk of harm to animals.

I will not mince my words—zero puns intended. One of the greatest threats to humanity, to the environment and to the climate is industrialised animal agriculture. Animal agriculture produces 65 per cent of the world's nitrous oxide emissions, which has a global warming impact 296 times greater than carbon dioxide. The intense land clearing in our country to make way for more and more grazing land, and the impact the industry has on our native wildlife, is profound. That is before we get to the intense animal cruelty and breach of community expectations that goes unchecked across the country. The impact of the regulation is to allow the increased intensification of animal agriculture by reducing labour costs associated with herding, and to allow for more intensive stocking density, which in turn will lead to greater land clearing, greater emissions intensity and greater impacts on climate. I am not just theorising. NSW Farmers made a submission to the inquiry into the Donato bill, which stated:

The average beef cattle production farm in NSW is 420 head within 1,380Ha.

The submission tells us the cost of installing the fencing and then the cost of physical fencing, allowing two rotations a week et cetera. And then it tells us about an additional saving that, apparently, will allow it to have a higher intensity rotation, make more profit and allow it to expand its operations. In other words, that means more industrialisation and automation, greater bang for your buck, and the squeezing out of smaller farmers in favour of denser, more profitable corporate farmers.

The United States has 40 per cent of all of its agricultural land owned by non-operator owners, with massive and increasing landholdings by institutional investors like pension funds, BlackRock, Blackstone and more. That is happening in Australia as well. Canadian investment fund PSP Investments operates 45 properties across 153,000 hectares of Australian farmland. Macquarie Agriculture has a portfolio spanning 4.5 million hectares. Hancock Agriculture owns further tens of thousands of hectares worth $2 billion. The list goes on and on. Small farmers are getting squeezed out and outcompeted on price. With the new technology in place, soon farmers will be replaced by a remotely operated software service, and the only hands on site will be a subcontracted operator in a dark room full of computer screens.

There are benefits to wildlife from virtual fencing compared to some physical fencing, but there are certainly other ways that the risk to wildlife from physical fences could be reduced. As the mover of the motion points out, there is no requirement in the regulation to remove physical fences anyway, so the assumed wildlife benefits need to be considered with those facts in mind. The question is whether we are convinced that those benefits outweigh the significant negative animal welfare consequences, the loss of jobs and the acceleration of land degradation associated with virtual fencing technology, and whether continuing to give industrialised agriculture a free pass by not requiring it to take steps to reduce the industry's impact on our environment and native wildlife is a good long-term strategy for the planet. The regulation is a step in the wrong direction and should be reconsidered.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM ( 14:40 :45 ): I support the disallowance motion due to integrity concerns about the process underpinning the regulation. I am no great fan of zapping cows in the neck. I do not know what has gone wrong with traditional farm fencing. But my bigger concern relates to the role of Brent Thomas, who appears to have had the inside running on the Government's decision to legalise virtual fencing. Who is Brent Thomas? He is a former Labor Party candidate who ran for the Federal electorate of Hughes in 2010. He is often described as part of the "Minns mafia"—the gang of four of Chris Minns, Jamie Clements, Brent Thomas and Damian Kassabgi. How has Mr Thomas ended up as the director of strategic relations at Halter, the dominant—near monopoly—virtual fencing company in the market? Because of the Government's decision, Halter has become the fastest growing company in New Zealand in the sale of virtual fencing.

There is nothing in Brent Thomas's CV that is consistent with his move to Halter. His CV and that move are totally incongruous. Mr Thomas started with an education in law at the University of Technology Sydney. He moved to UNSW Business School. His first work experience listed on LinkedIn appears to be head of corporate affairs for eBay and chief of staff for PayPal Australia. He then moved to vice-president of public policy and corporate affairs for Mastercard. A work pattern emerges that is a long way from zapping cows in the neck. He then moved to Airbnb, where he was director of public policy for the Asia Pacific and head of public policy for Australia and New Zealand. His most significant corporate role was as the global public policy campaign director for TikTok. He was a part-time member of the board of directors at TikTok Australia through to September 2024, under some ownership and guidance of the Chinese. He was also the global public policy director for Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan at TikTok through to August 2023.

Mr Thomas then emerged as the director of strategic relations for Halter, a New Zealand company in agriculture, so far away from his tech and corporate experience over decades at those other companies. How has that happened? One thing I know for sure is that he would not have made that radical career shift on the expectation that selling virtual fencing would remain illegal in New South Wales. He could not make money from the sale of illegal products. It would be extraordinary if Mr Thomas moved to virtual fencing without an understanding that, at some stage, the Minns Government would legalise it in New South Wales. That is the commonsense proposition before the House.

Mr Thomas joined Halter in early 2025, ahead of Minister Moriarty's announcement on 30 April 2025 of the Government's intention to legalise virtual fencing. Previously, the Government had opposed in the other place the private member's bill of the member for Orange concerning virtual fencing. There was a Government policy shift to then embrace it some time after Mr Thomas had joined that particular New Zealand company. Mr Thomas was part of Halter's Tasmanian tour of virtual fencing early last year, which a number of MPs also attended. Of great concern to me, in the opaque ways of this Government, is that despite orders for papers and questioning in the House and at budget estimates, we still do not know what contact the Premier had with his good friend Brent Thomas before the Government's decision on 30 April last year. We do not know and they have not answered whether the Premier declared an interest at Cabinet once it made its decision to legalise virtual fencing. It would be extraordinary if the Premier had not made that declaration, given his longstanding friendship and personal relationship with Brent Thomas. They are legitimate concerns about cronyism in the Minns Government.

The Hon. Tara Moriarty: Point of order: I have let the member go. I appreciate that he has some points to make, which he has been making for some months. We are debating a disallowance motion for a regulation. There has to be some relevance to the regulation, not just a speech about a citizen of New South Wales.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: To the point of order: I am outlining the reasons why I am supporting the disallowance motion and not wanting virtual fencing to proceed on the basis of integrity and cronyism grounds, which I am articulating to the House.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Ms Abigail Boyd ): The member is being directly relevant to the disallowance motion.

The Hon. Tara Moriarty: He has not got there yet. He has not linked it yet.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I am explaining to the House the reasons why I am voting in favour of the motion. It is on integrity grounds. It does not have to relate to cow zapping. I do not have to have a PhD in cow zapping, bird brain.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Ms Abigail Boyd ): Order!

The Hon. Tara Moriarty: The member is going to withdraw that. I am not copping that. I am here as a Minister doing my job. I am not going to cop that kind of bullshit from him.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I am not going to cop interference that is just nonsense from a stupid person.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Ms Abigail Boyd ): Order! The Hon Mark Latham and Minister Moriarty will resume their seats. First, the Hon. Mark Latham used offensive language towards the Minister. Secondly, the Minister used unparliamentary language. I ask the Hon. Mark Latham to withdraw his comment.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I withdraw and apologise to assist the House.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Ms Abigail Boyd ): Regarding the point of order taken by the Minister, having some of the background in my head already, it is possible that I knew the contribution was related to the motion. I cannot pinpoint the part in the speech. I believe the member is coming to it if he has not already. The Hon. Mark Latham has the call.

The Hon. M ARK LATHAM: Every word I have said has related to the Government's decision to legalise virtual fencing and my opposition to that on integrity and cronyism concerns. The Government's failure to be open and transparent in the matter has drained my confidence in the process. I cannot profess to be an expert on virtual fencing, but I have not got confidence in the integrity underpinning the process. That guides my voting decision in this place. I support the Hon. Emma Hurst and her disallowance motion because of those integrity grounds.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON ( 14:47 :42 ): I make a brief contribution to debate on the disallowance motion, in addition to my colleague's contribution earlier. I also refer to the contribution of the Hon. Mark Latham. There are just three virtual stock fencing companies in the whole of Australia, one of which is Halter. It is a big and fast‑growing multinational company. I do not believe that it is a complete coincidence that the Government announced its support of virtual fencing just seven days after the Minister for Agriculture met with the director of strategic relations at Halter, Brent Thomas, who was formerly involved in advocating for the sale of Rosehill racecourse to developers—the pet project of Premier Chris Minns. We can call it a coincidence. But as members of this place, we find that our work intersects, and we see people's names in Standing Order 52 documents, in the media or in ASIC records. They are the facts. Perhaps we should also be interrogating the dealings of people who have significant influence over the most senior elected representatives in New South Wales—namely, the Premier—particularly when we are debating motions in this place like this disallowance motion.

The difficulty we have at the moment is that we cannot rely on the ministerial code of conduct and Ministers' diary disclosures are hard to follow and access. Members have to join the dots. We are asked to look not just at the laws and regulations that come before us, but also the integrity of them, where they are coming from and who is doing business in New South Wales. If there are links, connections or motivations, they should be brought to the attention of the House so that members and the people of New South Wales know who runs the State and what motivates changes to our laws. Clearly this company stands to make enormous amounts of money once the Government changes the law and endorses a particular way of managing land. That change will sweep across the State. Is this part of a sweetheart deal between the Premier, his big business friends and those favoured crossbench members in the other place? We do not know, but the reality is that we have a disallowance motion before us.

There is a significant amount of merit in virtual fencing. There is no doubt about that, because we know that animals experience harm and die in mass numbers along traditional fencing, especially during floods and fires. We have all seen that. We should be cognisant of what we can do to assist wildlife fleeing from those disasters and how we can reduce the impact on them in a radically changing climate environment that will see more floods and fires across our regional and rural landscapes. We rightly spend a lot of time focusing on what we can do for ourselves and our communities. We do not live in a void without wildlife, and to do so would be the worst imaginable future.

Fencing poses significant hazards by restricting movement, separating populations and causing injuries or death through entanglement and entrapment. Barbed wire poses major threats to nocturnal species such as bats and gliders, while solid, high fences block larger animals such as emus and kangaroos from migrating and accessing water. Delicate ecosystems that demand free movement of native animals so they can access water and habitat corridors require an approach to fencing that can block stock while leaving ways open for threatened and other native species. I am one of those people who has "done her time" looking after wildlife. I am sure I will again do my time again looking after wildlife because I am a woman over 50.

The Hon. Wes Fang: You can't be over 50!

Ms SUE HIGGINSON: Thank you, Wes. I think you are right: It is impossible to believe I could be over 50. When we talk to wildlife rehabilitators and rescuers, we know the peril they experience when they turn up to a call and it is so often an animal trapped in wire fences. We deal with that all the time. It is traumatic. When an animal is caught, there is a moment when you do not know whether it will survive or have to be euthanised. You look around and think, "God, if only this fence wasn't here." Often it is an internal fence on a property not a boundary fence. We face that problem every single day on farms.

Installing internal fencing on a property requires removing quite a lot of native vegetation. Some impacts can be avoided and radically reduced if we do not have to install internal paddock fences on properties. It could also improve the health of a property, because you do not have to manage static environments where one paddock is constantly getting flogged because that happens to be where the gate in the fence is. Farmers can be much more agile and modern in their farming practices. Farmers desperately need to be more versatile, agile and innovative in the way they manage their properties because they are adapting and changing to the constraints that climate change is bringing.

Long barrier fences blocking migration routes for species is also a radical problem. We are encouraging the migration of threatened species because current habitats are no longer fit, and we are dealing with the migration of species more rapidly than we would like. Thousands of native animals are affected annually by fencing. Land repair and rehabilitation can be made much easier for farmers. Blocking heavy grazing animals from sensitive environments, particularly creeks and rivers and riparian areas, is also vital. I am not sure how many members look at waterways as they drive through or fly over New South Wales, but our creeks and rivers are in such a mess right now. Their water quality is under pressure. Long before we were known as "The Greens" we have been advocating for keeping stock out of creeks and rivers and watering animals elsewhere.

Without doubt, there are problems with what the Government is doing. There is drastic need for more work and more research. There are significant animal welfare issues in all of the things we do regarding intensive animal agriculture. The reality is that our lands everywhere are suffering from the intensification of animal agriculture. This motion is an opportunity for all of us to look at how we can do it better. I say this as a farmer, but of course I am a cropper and not a grazier.

The Hon. MARK BANASIAK ( 14:57 :10 ): It should come as no surprise that the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party will oppose this disallowance motion. Picture this: a cow ambling toward an invisible line, not with dread, but with the gentle nudge of a sound or vibration, a courteous prelude before the mild electric cue ever dares to intervene. That sequence is etched in ink within the regulation. It is sacrosanct. Sensory warnings first, electrical only as a last resort, automated and boundary-bound, with no room for human error. No farmer is out there playing Zeus with a remote, zapping cows. The cattle get more warning than we do as parliamentarians for most legislation in this place.

The Hon. Wes Fang: That's a good one!

The Hon. MARK BANASIAK: I note the interjection. Leading veterinary behaviorist Dr Alison Hanlon said, "Cattle adapt with astonishing speed, associating auditory cues with safety zones, rendering the electrical prompt a rarity, mere whispers in the wind after initial training." Heart rates barely flicker and stress hormones remain. Contrast this with the traditional electric fences that deliver an instant, unforgiving jolt. Anyone who has grown up around farms has either accidentally or not so accidentally tested that theory, probably more than once. I can attest to playing the daisy chain game with my mates with electric fences. It is not fun, and we did not learn after the first time.

Virtual fencing guides the animal away before the point of being zapped. The regulation unequivocally states that this is not a free-for-all. It is cattle exclusive and grounded in evidence. There are no collars for sheep or any other animals. Only bovines benefit from the system, which is tailored to their bovine brilliance. The Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development reported that virtual boundaries unlock rotational grazing's full potential, bolstering soil regeneration, pasture vitality and carbon sequestration—so better soil, healthier pasture and smarter land use. Rotational grazing is one of the best tools we have, but it is incredibly labour-intensive. Virtual fencing allows producers to move grazing areas digitally, which means better pasture recovery, more even grazing and healthier paddocks. Virtual fencing keeps cattle out of creeks, wetlands and erosion-prone areas without the need to build fences that wash away or fragment habitat. Wildlife can move freely, waterways are protected and landholders can respond instantly to changing conditions.

Conversely, physical fencing devours precious time and money. It requires kilometres of wire to erect and endless patrols and mending, only to crumble under floods that drown dreams or fires that scorch livelihoods. They are also a physical barrier between life and death for livestock. On occasion they prevent stock from moving to safety in the event of fire or flood. Virtual fencing allows producers to manage stock inside their properties without rebuilding kilometres of wire every time nature does what nature does. Disallowing the regulation would not improve animal welfare; in some cases, it would do the opposite. No-one cares more about the welfare of cattle than the people who live and work with them from sun-up to sundown, 365 days a year. Frankly, disallowing the regulation is not protection; it is sabotage.

The motion would doom animals to the very harm it purports to prevent. Members are throwing rocks at farmers from the suburbs of Sydney. Those same members show no reasonable interest in understanding our farmers and their modern farming practices, outside of taking cute photos with calves. The disallowance motion highlights the serious disconnect of some members from the realities of rural life. Frankly, it reflects everything that frustrates regional people about politics. For generations our farmers have kept this country moving forward, through droughts, floods, fires and market shocks. Their needs, livelihoods and expertise far outweigh social media profiles and token gestures. They are owed respect, not judgement, from those who have never walked in their boots. The motion is misguided. We can support animal welfare and modern agriculture at the same time, and the regulation does both.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON ( 15:01 : 3 4): I seek leave to make a correction to my contribution.

Leave granted.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON: In my contribution I said the Government announced its support for virtual fencing just seven days after the Minister for Agriculture met with the director of strategic relations at Halter, Brent Thomas. I now understand that it was the other way around. The meeting occurred seven days after the announcement. It is important to correct the record.

The Hon. ROD ROBERTS ( 15:02 : 1 9): I make a brief contribution to debate on the disallowance motion moved by the Hon. Emma Hurst, which I do not support. Along with the Hon. Scott Barrett from The Nationals, as well as the member for Murray and the member for Orange from the other place, I went to Tasmania to look at virtual fencing in operation. We did not read it in a brochure; we went there. I put on record that we were invited as guests of Halter, which arranged the visit but did not pay for our accommodation or airfares. All parliamentarian attendees sponsored their visit themselves, so there is no quid pro quo, and I want that on record. The term "lived experience" is commonly used in this House—from 2019 onwards, so it is not a recent invention. Members know that I used to graze cattle. Unlike Ms Sue Higginson, I am not a cropper. There were no crops on my property. We grazed cattle.

Of course, as members also know, we spelled thoroughbred racehorses and bred harness racehorses, but our main income came from cattle. I know that farmers respect their livestock. A heifer in calf nowadays—a heifer is a young cow—is worth about $3,500. If a farmer had 100 of those on their property—and 100 is not a lot, though it is a significant number—that is $350,000 worth of livestock, so that farmer wants to look after them the best they can, and farmers do. The advantage of virtual fencing is that it removes from the mustering and moving process the need for dogs, stockwhips, polyethylene pipe—which we have all used in the past—all-terrain vehicles and motorbikes roaring around mobs, which clearly does not do them any good. Virtual fencing is an advancement in technology.

Some members have said that fencing helps farmers to manage their paddocks. I will explain my point in layman's terms for those who do not understand. If I go to a smorgasbord, I will eat the prawns and oysters first, before I go to the other end of the buffet to eat the devon. Cattle are no different. They pick out and eat the clover and the good grass. That is where they camp and that is what they eat. They might be in a big paddock of 30 acres or 40 acres, but they will stick to the good stuff. They would survive quite well on all the others, but they are gluttons, just like us. They just want to eat the good stuff. We would not physically fence off the good stuff, because that would cost a fortune. But if we fence it off virtually, they will move and eat the other feed. If they eat the good stuff down to the ground, that is when they get down to the dirt, and then the weeds come through and there are productivity losses.

Virtual fencing also has its advantages in times of natural disaster, like floods and fires. As members know, we can switch off the fences. Stock can be moved so farmers can let them go. We have all seen the horrific images of cows caught up in barbed wire fences during floods. If we turn off the fence, the animals can get through the floods. They will work their way to higher ground; that is their natural instinct. The same goes for fires. If we turn off the fence, they will move. They might scatter around the local neighbourhood, and it might take weeks to muster them back again, but they will be able to get away. That also saves the taxpayer lots of money later on, because farmers do not need to apply for government grants for flood, drought or fire relief to help reconstruct their fences. There is a lot to virtual fencing.

Some members have said that virtual fencing damages cattle, but have those members seen a calf caught upside down in a barbed wire fence? When wild dogs or foxes chase calves around a property, the calves run straight into the barbed wire fence, where they get tangled upside down. That can be avoided with virtual fencing, which provides good animal welfare. Another member touched on the difficulties with fencing creeks. I used to have a creek running through my property. We can only fence on flat, level ground; we cannot fence down into the creek because the next decent rain or flood that comes through will take the fence with it. We have to put up chicken wire with logs tied to the bottom of it, in the hopes that it will float during heavy rain and then drop back down when the rain stops. That is very inefficient and it is not very good for animal welfare.

When calves became bogged in my creek, I would have to get my neighbour to help me drag them out with his tractor. Imagine the stress those cattle were under. We had to tie ropes around their legs and then we had to apply just the right amount of pressure to drag them out of the creek without pulling their legs out of their sockets. Virtual fencing prevents that from happening. I have seen it in action and it works. I did not read about it in a brochure; I went to Tasmania and saw it. The animals were not jolted or shocked; they were gently coerced into moving with sound and vibration. That is what it is all about, which is a good thing. I support the regulation and I do not support the disallowance motion.

The Hon. NICHOLE OVERALL ( 15:08 : 3 7): I contribute briefly to debate on the motion. I reiterate and concur with much of what members have presented in debate. I also raise a number of points provided to me by those on the land who have spoken to me about the topic, including members of my own family who live on property in the great Riverina. Given how important it is, it is a shame that there are some politically loaded questions around this technology. That seems to arise far too regularly under this Government, whether it be around virtual fencing, asbestos, the renewables rollout—I could go on. Coming back to the topic at hand, I note that while I respect the Hon. Emma Hurst's position, I reiterate and concur with the position of The Nationals in not supporting the disallowance motion.

Virtual fencing technology is designed to help improve farming productivity and animal welfare practices, including by modernising cattle management, which can only be a good thing. Numerous benefits of virtual fencing have been identified this afternoon, including supporting environmental protection, and animal welfare is paramount in them all. Other important outcomes of virtual fencing include the reduction in labour and infrastructure costs for farmers because, as we just heard from the Hon. Rod Roberts, farmers are not required to install and maintain physical fences. The Hon. Sarah Mitchell and the Hon. Scott Barrett spoke also about the huge benefits of virtual fencing when compared with the damage that can be caused to physical fences by natural disasters, and the untold time and resources that go into repairs following fires, floods and other hazards.

Virtual fencing is geared towards assisting with grazing management by providing more precise control of how it is done. That can only be a good thing, whether it be in selecting the areas grazed, better utilising pasture or assisting in environmental and sustainability outcomes, which are also really significant and important. For example, virtual fencing enables the exclusion of cattle from sensitive areas such as waterways, native vegetation and wildlife habitat without building physical barriers—which, as we have also heard this afternoon, create so many more impacts. Excitingly, we are witnessing the important technological progress of modern farming methods. Virtual fencing will improve herd monitoring and offer better animal health insights by providing real‑time data on cattle movement, activity and welfare. It is not possible to obtain that information through more traditional means of keeping cattle contained. Significant animal welfare improvements flow from that.

Studies both overseas and here in Australia have demonstrated that cattle experience minimal stress responses when interacting with virtual fences. Of course, safeguards and best practices are absolutely critical. As the Hon. Scott Barrett mentioned, virtual fencing has the potential to reduce stress when it comes to things like mustering using dogs or quad bikes. We also heard about the potential physical damage that can be caused by animals caught up in traditional fencing. The technology gives farmers greater flexibility and resilience through more responsive control of livestock and real-time insights that traditional fences simply cannot provide.

In conclusion, we cannot ask our farmers to be more productive, more sustainable, more climate resilient and more competitive but then deny them access to the tools they need to help them achieve those outcomes. If we are to truly support regional New South Wales, maintain good environmental stewardship and keep the State's agricultural sector globally competitive, we must back innovations like virtual fencing.