Page 1890 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
authority lead to the ACT Chief Veterinary Officer or to an officer from their home jurisdiction? Of course, a muddy chain of command will not help in a crisis. I expect that these arrangements are being clarified through the meetings of the emergency animal diseases subcommittee.
Similar corroborative powers are in place for similar scenarios such as in the Emergency Act. I and my staff have closely examined provisions which clarify when an authorised person can search a vehicle to check for animals or other material that may be carrying a disease, and these sorts of powers always throw up issues of property rights and personal liberty. However, in this instance I am satisfied these powers are justified.
The amendment clarifies that vehicles on a public road can be inspected at any time, day or night. Previously, they could only be inspected during normal business hours. But, of course, diseases do not keep normal business hours. The legislation requires the powers to be used reasonably—that is, when the person has reasonable grounds to suspect that an animal or other material in the vehicle is infected with a disease.
The night-time search is only available for vehicles which are travelling on a public road, not when a vehicle is located at someone’s residential property. The searching is limited, therefore, to times at which vehicles are travelling and potentially transporting the disease. This, of course, is a key way to prevent the spread of these diseases.
I want to comment on one further aspect of the bill. I note with great interest that the amending bill provides scope for regulations to be made that require vendors to provide a broader range of declarations about the animals they sell. For example, vendors currently may need to declare certain health issues about their stock or certain chemicals that are used on them.
The new amendment recognises that diseases and their prevention may also be connected with the use of certain farming practices, and in particular the use of genetically modified organisms. I appreciate very much that the ACT government has left the door open to the possibility of requiring these declarations, and I hope that it reflects a deeper understanding that GM technology does raise serious agricultural and human health issues.
I would urge the government to explore how it can fully apply this precautionary principle when it comes to genetic modification. I am sure the government now knows that New South Wales and Victoria are growing and harvesting genetically modified canola for the first time, and this now will become part of our food chain.
The ACT government has an obligation to look at the canola products that enter our jurisdiction where we still maintain a moratorium on growing GM canola. With the moratorium lifted in New South Wales and Victoria, the ACT must strongly represent Canberrans at the Food Regulation Ministerial Council to ensure that food labelling declares the presence of all genetically modified organisms. The meeting is on this month, I understand, and this is an area where the ACT can lead rather than casually defer to other states.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .