Page 1558 - Week 05 - Thursday, 7 April 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Speaking with responsible officers is the issue I have found exceedingly difficult this week. The principal issue of concern raised with me by the ACT Rural Lessees Association—some 120-150 taxpayers in the ACT—and the cattle council is what appears, in section 33 of the Animal Diseases Act, to be a blanket prohibition on the use of live vaccines.
I do not claim to be a specialist in veterinary medicine, but all of us would know that live vaccines are used quite safely in human health, and that—we could work by extrapolation—in some cases they could be used appropriately in animal health. This provision seems to override any of the nationally agreed standards for implementing and using veterinary medicines.
There is an organisation called the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, which gives approval for the use of veterinary medicines. It is the sort of agricultural equivalent of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. If the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority says it is all right to use it, I cannot see why a few bureaucrats in the ACT should write a blanket prohibition on its use.
In addition to that, for a range of endemic and exotic diseases that can have wide impacts, there are national veterinary implementation plans called AUSVET plans. In an AUSVET plan you will have bits that will say what the treatment is and what you can and cannot use in particular circumstances.
If you want to rule out using live vaccines—say a live vaccine for an anthrax outbreak—you put it in the anthrax AUSVET plan; you do not put it in a piece of legislation as a blanket prohibition, because it is likely to be the case that you will end up with one piece of legislation—a nationally approved AUSVET plan—acting against the legislation in the ACT.
I think it is wrong-headed—I think it is muddle-headed—but I am open to being persuaded. I have asked at length, “Can I please speak to the government vet”—to get an understanding of where he was coming from, when we organised this. I spoke to the parliamentary drafters, who said that they drafted it like that because that was the way the government vet wanted it. I do not know how many emails I have sent to the minister’s office saying: please may I speak to the government vet. At this time I have not had an opportunity to speak to the government vet.
My preferred outcome for today on this bill would be that we agree to the bill in principle and then adjourn it. I will so move when the time arises because I think that is the best way. If this comes back in three or four weeks time, we will then have had an opportunity to speak to the vet and there will have been an opportunity for the government to speak to the cattle council. It does not seem to have crossed their minds that they might do that. Then we might end up with everyone sitting around a table. We can work it out, everyone will be happy and we will have a better piece of legislation. This is not a bad piece of legislation; I just think it could be better.
There are a few other issues here of concern. The principal one is that raised by the scrutiny of bills committee and what seems to be their constant chorus of, “We are concerned about the creeping in of strict liability offences.” I have been reading scrutiny
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .