Page 1892 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that any failure to report the potential notifiable disease will have an impact on the percentage share that an affected industry must contribute towards the eradication cost.
This action ensures that there is an incentive for all industries and governments to be up-front about any new exotic disease incursions that may arise in their jurisdiction. The response agreement also outlines comprehensive actions to be taken to ensure containment of the disease. These actions are supported by a series of AusVet plans which have in turn received acceptance from all governments and concerned industries. However, the response agreements and the AusVet plans all require supporting legislation to be enacted in each jurisdiction to underpin the actions that are required to be taken in such emergency animal disease situations.
As the Chief Minister identified upon tabling this bill, certain aspects of our principal animal disease legislation will benefit in any future disease incursions with some tweaking to provide greater clarity and certainty during such emergencies. I will not be discussing all amendments contained in the bill today. Instead, I will be focusing on the issues which will provide improved powers, declarations and resources for authorised persons in managing any animal disease outbreak in the ACT.
The first amendment I would like to address within the bill is clause 18. This clause will allow the Chief Executive to appoint public servants from other jurisdictions, provided they have the responsibility for administering similar legislation to our Animal Diseases Act. It will also allow the Chief Veterinary Officer to delegate his or her power to these public servants from other jurisdictions.
I believe that this is a very important inclusion in the principal act. Similar provisions already exist in other legislation on our statute book, such as the Gene Technology Act 2003. The Emergency Act 2004 also allows interstate emergency service workers to provide assistance here in the ACT, as we know. Also, the Animal Welfare Act 1992 allows the Chief Executive to appoint non-public servants to be inspectors for the purposes of the act. That is how the RSPCA is authorised to provide inspector services for the government.
As members would be aware, the ACT has comparatively minor animal industries within its borders. As such, the government resources for dealing with such industries are also similarly modest. To put it simply, it is not feasible for this jurisdiction to fund a large number of positions to be on standby in case an exotic or endemic animal disease is detected within our boundaries. Should an animal disease be detected within the ACT, it is imperative that the ACT is able to access expert public servants from other jurisdictions to help manage, control and contain the outbreak.
As the Chief Minister identified, should such a serious animal disease outbreak occur here, it may be necessary for us to utilise the skills of our interstate counterparts to combat the disease, just as we would help them should they request it. Emergency situations require assistance immediately. This is not a case of fudging our responsibilities; it is just the cold, hard face of reality, Mr Speaker.
The ACT does not employ the number of specialised public servants that would be necessary in such an extreme situation. Let us face it: should the ACT be the epicentre
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .