Page 1428 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 3 May 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Turning to some other elements, the Environment Protection Regulation is also being amended relating to agvet chemical products. The Environment Protection Regulation defines “agvet chemical products” as either an agricultural or veterinary chemical product under the agvet code of the ACT. An amendment is included in relation to storing and using agvet chemical products authorised by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, or the APVMA.
The amendment introduces an exception to allow for the use of agvet chemicals in a responsible manner by a veterinary surgeon in a way that is not specifically authorised by the authority. This practice is sometimes referred to as an off-label use. Off-label use of agvet chemical products is a common and widely accepted practice in the veterinary profession. As the provision was previously worded, vets who used an agvet chemical product in an off-label manner without the specific authorisation of the authority were inadvertently committing an offence.
This amendment establishes an exception to the offence provision. No offence is committed if the person is a vet or another person following instructions issued by a vet and used the product in the course of treating an animal under the vet’s care. The practice of veterinary surgeons continues to be governed by the Veterinary Surgeons Act 2015, the Veterinary Surgeons Regulation 2015 and other legislation. The Veterinary Surgeons Regulation establishes the required standard of practice for veterinary surgeons.
This amendment has been developed in consultation with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. I think we can see this exception is framed in a way that is overseen by the national regulator and that vets continue to operate within quite a significant framework of oversight. This is quite an appropriate amendment in that context.
There are some minor policy amendments to the Heritage Act. The Heritage Act, of course, contains heritage significance criteria. There is a specific criterion in relation to places or objects that have the potential to contribute to an understanding of the ACT’s cultural or natural history. In contrast to all of the other criteria, this criterion does not contain a threshold indicator. This means that places or objects considered for registration under this criterion are assessed against a much lower threshold compared with other criteria.
This amendment provides a threshold indicator so that only places or objects of territory level significance or higher are registered on the ACT Heritage Register. This is in line with the other criteria and ensures a consistent approach to the threshold for heritage significance in the territory.
Minor policy amendments are also made which detail the process for making an urgent provisional registration application. The Heritage Act provides no substantive grounds on which the council can assess whether the application must be accepted. These amendments require the applicant to explain the circumstances that require an urgent provisional registration decision to be made. This means the council will not be required to accept an urgent application unless it is satisfied that an urgent provisional
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video