Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]

VETERINARIANS AMENDMENT (FEES AND PENALTIES) BILL 2005

Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this bill is to introduce a two tiered scheme of vet registration in the Northern Territory. Up until these changes only single form registration has been available with no distinction made between whether the vet was living and operating locally or principally located and registered in another jurisdiction, although visited the Territory occasionally for professional purposes. All have been subject to the same application process and annual registration fee. The amendments will usher in primary and secondary registration for vets and vet specialists.

Vets who are registered interstate, in their home jurisdiction, will find secondary registration more convenient, with a streamlined application process, and registration will be cheaper. The offer of secondary registration will be an incentive to attract an increased number of vets to register in the Territory, especially as the annual fee will be half the cost of a primary registration. One positive result will be the additional availability of vet services that could be on offer and able to respond to areas of potential and met needs which may arise from time to time.

The Australian Veterinary Board Council proposed in 2002 a model for secondary registration for vets when they are operating away from their home jurisdiction. All jurisdictions endorsed the proposal, and jurisdictions have either amended their veterinarian legislation accordingly or, like the Territory, are in the process of doing so. These changes are consistent with the principles of mutual recognition and are, in a practical sense, an acknowledgement that many professionals such as vets are increasingly expected to operate in the national market. Qualifications, training and interstate registration have, for quite some time now, been recognised, but this change will take it a step further and tailor a registration scheme for the needs of cross-jurisdiction activities of registered vets. These changes will not only affect interstate vets, but will be beneficial to our local members of the veterinarian profession. Our local members will, in turn, enjoy the reciprocal benefits of mutual recognition when they apply for registration to operate professionally in another jurisdiction.

Changes of registration will result in the need for a different fee structure to accommodate the two-tier registration scheme. The necessary adjustments to accommodate the new differential fee structure will be included in amended Veterinarians Regulations. At this stage, no fee increases are contemplated but it will be a matter kept under review by the Veterinarians Board. Given the need to amend the legislation to accommodate a new registration scheme, the opportunity has been taken to convert the current monetary penalties in the legislation to penalty units in accordance with government policy. At the same time, a review of the current penalties regime in the act was conducted to ensure that the penalty levels are equivalent to similar penalties across Northern Territory legislation. The review resulted in some minor adjustments and modifications, which is to be expected after 10 years of operating the scheme without change. The Department of Justice endorsed the outcomes of the review. The penalty conversion table is at clause 14 of the bill.

Finally, section 53 is to be amended by deleting the power to make regulation to control advertising by vets. This action will be done in the interest of legislation tidiness. The specific regulations that previously existed to regulate advertising by vets were removed from Veterinarians Regulations several years ago, and so no controls continue in force. Removal of this regulation-making power in the act is consistent with the National Competition Principles and was a recommendation of the National Competition Council. These types of regulatory controls over the business activities of professionals are no longer considered necessary, nor are they appropriate in fostering competitive market and are viewed as anti-competitive.

Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and I would like to table an explanatory statement.

Debate adjourned.
Continued from 13 October 2005.

Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the opposition does not have any serious problems with these amendments that are put forward, but when I went out to speak to the industry I received a mixture of results. I have to say that we would be cautiously supporting this bill.

I consulted with industry about the two-tiered scheme of registration. They wanted to know what the benefit was to the industry when other professionals have to pay for registration in the Northern Territory. The explanatory paper said that this secondary registration is half of the fee of the primary registration, and that it will be an incentive to attract greater numbers of interstate veterinarians to register and visit the Northern Territory. There were some vets with whom I spoke in the Northern Territory who are very cautious about that move and others who do not see it as an issue.

Therefore, we on this side of the House do have some caution towards the amendments to the bill, but we do support the bill.

Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, unless there are any other speakers, I would just like to make a few comments.

I read through the minister's second reading speech closely and could still not work out why this was introduced in the first instance. He said that the main purpose is to introduce a two-tiered system of veterinarian registration. When I look at other professions – medical, nursing, lawyers, architects, engineers, you name it – just about every profession has the requirement to be fully registered in each jurisdiction prior to their practice. However, in veterinary practice, it appears that other jurisdictions have gone the same way as the Northern Territory, which is to have a two-tiered system.

As the member for Katherine advised earlier, she sought advice from industry and received mixed advice - some people have supported it and others have not. If the offer of secondary registration will be an incentive to attract registrations, yes, I can see that happening. However, I do not see any nett benefit to the Territory. Just because you are registered in the Territory does not mean that you can be practising in the Territory. You hope you will practise in the Territory, but you do not necessarily have to and, if you are physically located in the other states, you are unlikely to be practising in the Territory. On the principle of mutual recognition, if you are registered in the Territory you can also be registered interstate.

If there is a movement of vet services into the Territory, is there likely to be a movement of vet services out of the Territory as well, because our vets can now be registered interstate. Therefore, I do not see a nett benefit to the Territory. However, if somebody is fully registered and has to pay reasonable fees to be registered, it is more likely that they want to practise in the Territory. Otherwise, it is just a mere formality to get your name on the list.

The member for Katherine also mentioned that there have been concerns expressed to her that you can get vets - or any other profession for that matter - of not so high repute wanting to be registered in the Territory as well, and how they would be controlled when they are registered and allowed to work in the Territory.

I see no value in this alteration to the act. I seek the minister's explanation, because he did not explain that clearly at all in the second reading speech, so that we can set, on the record, the rationale for allowing two-tiered vet registration when all other professions have not been accorded the same opportunities. It just does not add up at all, and I seek the minister's explanation.

Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker I thank the opposition for their support. I would like to explain why we actually went to the model of primary/secondary registration. It is not something that we thought of in the Northern Territory; it was suggested by the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council in 2002. They proposed a model of primary/secondary registration as a means of reducing registration requirements for vets seeking to operate interstate away from their home of primary registration. That was adopted by all jurisdictions, which now either have amended their legislation to incorporate the model of primary and secondary registration or are in the process of doing so. This is a way to recognise, across all jurisdictions, that it will not necessarily work all the time in one jurisdiction, or work 80% of the time in Victoria and 20% in the Northern Territory.

There are problems with access to vets in the Northern Territory. It is very easy for us in the urban centres to go to the vet and treat our animals, however, I am well aware that, in some of the regional centres, even Tennant Creek, they have problems. In Tennant Creek, apparently, a vet from Alice Springs visits once a week. It will be good to attract more vets to the Northern Territory, and if the secondary registration with a reduction of the fees is something that will attract them here, so be it. It is not something that this government thought of; it was proposed by the vets themselves, through their Australasian Veterinary Board and, like other jurisdictions, we were pleased to oblige.

Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.

 

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]