Page 1889 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of the territory to respond to outbreaks of animal diseases. Outbreaks of animal disease can have serious impacts on Australia’s food security, damage the economic wellbeing of Australia’s rural sector, threaten public health and, of course, cause morbidity and mortality in animals. It is important that Australia and the territory can manage these diseases effectively if they occur.
Destructive as they may be, outbreaks such as the recent equine flu outbreak do present the opportunity to review our practices and procedures and to improve them. Diseases such as this present a transborder threat, and successful implementation of national policies requires organisation and cooperation between jurisdictions. An ambiguity or gap in legislational process can cause serious consequences in a time of emergency. The most noticeable recent spread of an animal disease is the equine flu outbreak which occurred in Australia in August 2007. At that time the motivation of acts seemed to come, possibly disproportionately, from a wish to protect the racing and betting industry.
But there were also many other critical reasons for controlling this disease, and the equine flu outbreak led to an inquiry by former High Court justice Ian Callaghan. It identified serious flaws in Australia’s quarantine processes. His report recommended a number of changes, particularly in relation to the importation of live animals.
I am informed that following the equine flu outbreak the ACT also conducted its own review of its response to the outbreak, which resulted in the introduction of this bill. I would have been interested to see a formal report on the performances of the ACT agencies and the areas which were identified for improvement. However, this was an internal review only, so I trust that it was undertaken thoroughly and that the changes in this bill appropriately reflect the changes that are required. The Greens agree that the amendments made by this bill appear to be sensible clarifications, and we will be supporting its passage through the Assembly.
I will briefly comment on some of the proposed amendments. The bill makes a number of changes to bring the ACT into line with other jurisdictions. For example, it changes the title of the Director of Veterinary Hygiene to Chief Veterinary Officer, which is the title used by other states. I understand that there were some communication issues during the horse flu outbreak. Harmonised terminology is a good first step in overcoming this.
The bill also elaborates on the powers the Chief Veterinary Officer may exercise. It amends the act to articulate a power that had been previously exercised under the ambit of a catch-up power. It is certainly preferable to make explicit the powers that are used most frequently. The bill makes amendments that effectively allow for the secondment of qualified public servants from other jurisdictions to assist the ACT in the time of an animal disease outbreak. The legislation allows for the Chief Veterinary Officer to delegate powers to these out-of-state secondees. I understand that it is important to have adequate resources on the ground during the time of crisis.
I note, however, that the addition of this spare power to the act may need to be complemented with cooperative arrangements between the jurisdictions which formalise the use of these powers. For example, will seconded officers’ line of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .