HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-09-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Veterinary Services Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 August 2023.)

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:34): I rise to speak in support of the Veterinary Services Bill; however, SA-Best does have several amendments that I hope will be supported and which I will outline shortly.

This bill, and the legislative changes contained in it, come as a result of extensive consultation with the profession and other relevant stakeholders. Change is needed to catch up with the times and demands of the profession, and the industries that they serve. These changes have been designed to modernise veterinary practices with the needs of the profession, the interests and expectations of the communities which rely on their expertise, and to reform regulatory practices. Animal welfare is also a prime consideration here.

Many South Australians own pets, while there are numerous others who work with them, either in primary production and livestock industries or in recreational and sporting areas. Australians spend $33 billion annually on their pets. Thirty-four per cent spend about $2,000 a year on their pets. When these animals require medical attention and treatment, we place strong faith and confidence in the professional capabilities of veterinarians, just as we do with doctors and clinicians when it comes to our own health. We need to be assured these professionals are skilled, properly resourced, and meet the required standards for animal care and welfare.

There are about 900 registered veterinarians in South Australia and, according to the minister, that number continues to grow, but it is not a trend being repeated in other states. In Queensland, a recent report revealed vets were dropping out at an alarming rate and abandoning regional parts of that state due to excessive workloads, long distances that need to be travelled and also empathy fatigue. I do not think any of us appreciate nor understand just what a mentally and physically demanding job this is, with long and irregular hours, having to contend with disrespectful and demanding customers, or the unpredictability of the behaviours of the animals they must care for.

I admire the work that they do and the compassion they show, particularly when pet owners must make difficult choices about their ailing or terminally ill pets. Those of us who have had to decide whether to terminate the life of a suffering animal we love, which had been part of the family, know just what a gut-wrenching decision it is for not only the owner but also the vet who must administer the end treatment. Just like doctors dealing with humans, this is about dealing daily with life and death situations and all the emotions of suffering and dealing with unexpected outcomes that come with it.

There are two vets in this chamber: the Hon. Nicola Centofanti and the Hon. Sarah Game. I extend my expression of thanks for the work that you have done. Where would we be without those skills?

Vet burnout is universal. Studies in Australia, the UK, Europe and the United States have made some alarming findings about the mental health and wellbeing of vets caused by a variety of factors. Disturbingly, one vet will die by suicide every 12 weeks in Australia alone, according to the Australian Veterinary Association. Vets are four times more likely to take their own lives than the general population, and twice as likely as healthcare workers.

The Australian Veterinary Association and other associated professional bodies are implementing mental health support, mentoring, and motivational programs to ease their workload and stress, as well as educating animal owners about the roles of vet teams and understanding the costs that are involved in treatments. Vets are not high-income earners as many like to think. Most receive a modest salary despite their workloads and working environment.

Garry Putland, the father of New South Wales vet Sophie Putland, who took her life in 2021, recently told a New South Wales parliamentary inquiry looking at the workforce shortages in the profession that people were ignorant of the high costs involved in owning and caring for a pet, and that they needed to be educated that the service provided was not free or subsidised like Medicare is with humans. Mr Putland has started Sophie's Legacy, an organisation which works to make the industry safer and reduce customer abuse arising from bill shock. Let us hope the changes in this legislation before us today will also help address the black dog crisis in the profession.

The essence of this bill deals with regulation to improve services to users and providers through changes to the regulating authority, which will now become the Veterinary Services Regulatory Board of South Australia. The composition of the board will have members with the appropriate knowledge, corporate governing skills and experience and will be presided by a vet or another member who may be considered more suitable in that role. The board will also be required to collaborate with veterinary authorities in other states to achieve consistency in national regulation.

One of my amendments deals with prescribing that the board meets at least six times a year, but I note that in the past the board has actually met on more occasions. This measure would ensure more timely resolutions of any complaints or disciplinary procedures the board must deal with, although more serious matters will be referred to SACAT.

The Australian Veterinary Association has expressed its concerns to me about the length of time some matters take to resolve, in some cases years, causing more harm than good. Regular meetings will be conducive to help reduce the length of proceedings and also give the board opportunities to make up-to-date assessments about the industry and implement strategies to support it. Other measures include changes to encourage vets to accept jobs in regional areas and support returning non-practising professionals, and an updated register of vets who may be called upon in emergency situations like wildfires or dealing with outbreaks of animal diseases.

There is also a provision for limited registration involving practitioners from overseas or interstate. I note here the concerns of the Law Society in its submissions on the bill, that persons who may not have the appropriate level of qualifications or have the experience required to achieve a desired standard of care may not fit into the definition of a fit and proper person.

One of my amendments deals with this by defining the scope of being a fit and proper person to be registered. It is based on the model adopted successfully in Western Australia. It covers a person's history of compliance with various animal welfare laws but also the Controlled Substances Act and any criminal history and behaviours that show a person is not of good repute. Again, it is part of the Western Australian model. It also covers unprofessional conduct and a failure to pay fees, fines and costs that are required under this act.

Other amendments I am proposing are to strike out the clauses dealing with mandatory reporting by a medical practitioner, and where an employer other than a vet provides a service if a vet is considered medically unfit to provide services. As it stands, the clause requires a person to submit a report to the board stating the reasons. Failure to do so could incur a fine of $10,000. I consider this to be an unnecessary burden placed on the reporter, but it could also lead to other consequences, with vets reluctant to seek medical treatments from the professionals they are seeking assistance from and for fear of losing their livelihood and further damaging their health and wellbeing.

The removal of this clause has the support of the Australian Veterinary Association. I seek leave to table a letter my office received from Mr Graham Pratt, the AVA's national manager for advocacy and campaigns.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It is also an invasion of a person's privacy. I would like the minister to explain the need for this, if there is any evidence to support it, and how many other professions make this demand. I propose also striking out the following clause, which is consequential, where restrictions and suspensions can be placed on a vet by order of the executive officer or the minister or by the board where a board member who is a legal practitioner is present. I indicate that SA-Best will be supporting the opposition amendments.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT