Page 3568 - Week 09 - Thursday, 23 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
animals. As I have already said, we do not know exactly what “restricted veterinary science” is because there are no regulations, but it stands in stark contrast to the rest of the bill.
I sought some explanation in discussions with officials and I think it was generally agreed that it would be better that these provisions were not in the bill than that they were, even though apparently they are in the New South Wales bill. I am not such a slave to conformity that we have bad legislation as a result.
The AVA raised concerns on animal welfare grounds due to the potential for harm if procedures are performed by unqualified lay hands. This provision appears to allow owners of livestock or their employees to operate on them. It is clear from the discussion with the officials that that is not what was intended, but the simple reading of the legislation as it currently stands is quite misleading. I intended to oppose this clause, but the government has agreed to omit them, and I will support the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 92, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 93.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.08): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 3583]. This amendment would require the two board members who are not veterinary practitioners to be resident in the ACT. One of the two non-vet members, if I can use that abbreviated expression, will be appointed to the board to represent community interests. The other will not have a specific role but will enable the board to access expertise in another field, for example, a lawyer or an academic.
I understand that the government will accept this amendment, but let me explain to the Assembly why I believe it is important. In relation to the board membership representing community interests, it is clear that ACT residents will be the vast majority of consumers of veterinary practitioner services. There may be some from over the border, but these will be a very small minority.
In the case of the president, for example, it would be open to the minister to appoint someone from outside the ACT who has experience in a particular field and who would add value to the work of the board, even additional to the appointee’s role as president. I also presume the board will have the capacity to call on expert advice in particular matters should it require it.
For the appointments of the two non-vet members, the interests of ACT consumers should be paramount and the primary driving factor. Later in the debate the minister will propose an amendment to insert a review clause in the bill which we will agree to, so the effectiveness of this residential restriction could be reviewed when the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video