2 INQUIRY INTO VETERINARY PATHOLOGY SERVICES REPORT · 2012. 12. 12. · 1. Introduction 1 PART A: VETERINARY PATHOLOGY SERVICES IN VICTORIA 2. Veterinary Pathology Services 5 3

1 ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE

2 INQUIRY INTO VETERINARY PATHOLOGY SERVICES

REPORT

JUNE 2003

___________________________________

Ordered to be printed ___________________________________

by Authority

VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT PRINTER

No. 21. Session 2003.

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO VETERINARY PATHOLOGY SERVICES - REPORT

PAGE ii

The Committee records its appreciation to all those who have contributed to the Inquiry and the preparation of this report. Many individuals and organizations made their expertise and experience freely available to the inquiry through the submission and hearing processes and the Committee’s inspection program; they are listed in the appendices. The Committee is also appreciative of the many regional veterinarians who participated in the Committee’s survey into veterinary pathology services and of Lisa Bannon, Emma Easton and Graeme Peacock of TQA Research who assisted the Committee with the design, conduct and analysis of the survey.

The report was drafted by Mr Brad Miles with technical assistance provided by Dr Kit Button. Ms Natalie Baran was the research officer assisting the Inquiry. Administrative support was provided by Ms Marion Pilley, with the research program under the direction of the Committee’s Executive Officer, Mr Brad Miles. Editing services were by Ms Heather Kelly. Cover design was by Geronimo Creative Services Pty. Ltd., with assistance from Dr Robin Condron. The cover photographs were provided by the Victorian Institute of Animal Science. Printing by Mercury Printeam.

Environment and Natural Resources Committee (2003) Inquiry into Veterinary Pathology Services – Report Parliament of Victoria.

ISBN: 0 9581185 2 3

Environment and Natural Resources Committee Level 8, 35 Spring Street Melbourne, Victoria, 3000 Telephone: (03) 9651 3533 Facsimile: (03) 9651 3537 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/enrc © State of Victoria


PAGE iii

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 54TH PARLIAMENT

MEMBERS

Mr George Seitz, MP, Chairman Hon. Graeme Stoney, MLC, Deputy Chairman Mr Hugh Delahunty, MP Ms Joanne Duncan, MP Mrs Christine Fyffe, MP Ms Jenny Lindell, MP Hon. Bob Smith, MLC

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 55TH PARLIAMENT

MEMBERS

Ms Jenny Lindell, MP, Chair The Hon. Andrea Coote, MLC, Deputy Chair The Hon Damian Drum, MLC Ms Joanne Duncan, MP The Hon Geoff Hilton, MLC The Hon Wendy Lovell, MLC Mr George Seitz, MP


PAGE iv

INQUIRY TERMS OF REFERENCE

Parliamentary Committees Act 1968

REFERRAL OF MATTER TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE

“The Governor in Council, under section 4F of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968, requests that the: Environment and Natural Resources Committee of Parliament Inquire into, consider and report to the Parliament on the adequacy and effectiveness of existing veterinary pathology services. In particular the Committee is required to:

a) assess the current and future requirements of the Victorian livestock industries, government and veterinarians for veterinary pathology services;

b) assess the adequacy and effectiveness of current veterinary pathology services (within the Department of Primary Industries and externally) to support the Department’s animal health programs and to meet the needs of the Victorian livestock industries;

c) make recommendations on the effective arrangements for provision of veterinary pathology services to meet the future needs of the Victorian livestock industries.

The Committee is required to report to Parliament by 30 September 2003”. Referred to the Environment and Natural Resources Committee by Order in Council of Tuesday, 15 April 2003, as gazetted on Thursday, 17 April 2003.


PAGE v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Environment and Natural Resources Committee iii Inquiry Terms of Reference iv Table of Contents v Preface vi 1. Introduction 1 PART A: VETERINARY PATHOLOGY SERVICES IN VICTORIA 2. Veterinary Pathology Services 5 3. The Current Service Model 13 PART B: CURRENT AND FUTURE REQUIREMENTS 4. Requirements of the Livestock Industry 23 5. Needs of Veterinarians 29 6. Government Animal Health Program Pathology Needs 31 PART C: ADEQUACY AND EFFECTIVENESS 7. Adequacy and Effectiveness of Disease Investigation Services 35 8. Adequacy and Effectiveness of Disease Surveillance 47 9. Adequacy and Effectiveness of Emergency Preparedness 55 PART D: FUTURE ARRANGEMENTS 10. Possible Future Arrangements and Recommendations 61 APPENDICES I. References and Endnotes 75 II. List of Written Submissions 79 III. List of Inspections and Briefings 83 IV List of Witnesses 85

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 2003 INQUIRY INTO VETERINARY PATHOLOGY SERVICES -REPORT

PAGE vi

PREFACE

The importance of veterinary pathology is perhaps little recognized by many, but is none the less an absolutely vital service if Victoria is to retain a strong and healthy livestock industry. As the British found during the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in 2001, it is too late to discover the importance of maintaining a high level of expertise and support infrastructure when an emergency situation emerges. In the past Victoria was at the forefront in the delivery of veterinary pathology services, with the staff and facilities of a network of Regional Veterinary Laboratories being of world class standard. It was, however, a very expensive service and new arrangements have been in place since 1994. With an increasing emphasis being placed on animal health issues by world markets, it was very appropriate for current arrangements to be revisited by this inquiry. The inquiry was greatly assisted by an array of regional veterinary surgeons, veterinary pathologists and scientists, and others who willingly contributed their knowledge, ideas and time. The inquiry was almost entirely undertaken by the Environment and Natural Resources Committee of the 54th Parliament. This committee received and considered written submissions, conducted hearings, undertook inspections across Victoria and had commenced considering its draft report. The new Environment and Natural Resources Committee has had access to all of the material collected and prepared by the previous committee and the work of our predecessors is acknowledged with thanks. In its inquiry report, the Committee has supported the basic structure currently used for delivering pathology services, but has made a number of recommendations for change. The Committee considers that the recommended changes will improve and enhance veterinary pathology services in a manner commensurate with their importance to the Victorian economy and the wider community interest.

Jenny Lindell, MP Chair

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 2003 INQUIRY INTO VETERINARY PATHOLOGY SERVICES REPORT

PAGE 1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION • The Terms of Reference • Background to the Inquiry • The Inquiry Process

1.1 The Environment and Natural Resources Committee is a joint investigatory committee of the Victorian Parliament with statutory power to conduct inquiries into matters concerned with the environment, natural resources and land-use planning.1 The Committee’s membership is drawn from both houses of the Victorian Parliament and includes all political parties represented in this Parliament.

1.2 This report of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee’s inquiry into veterinary pathology services is tabled in the Parliament of Victoria pursuant to Section 4O(1) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968.

THE TERMS OF REFERENCE

1.3 The terms of reference for the inquiry were originally referred to the Environment and Natural Resources Committee by Order in Council of 20 March 2001. The terms of reference required the Committee to inquire, consider and report on the adequacy and effectiveness of existing veterinary pathology services. The inquiry lapsed as a consequence of the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly and prorogation of the Legislative Council in order to hold a general election. Effectively identical terms of reference were issued by Order in Council of 15 April 2003. The full terms of reference are reproduced on page iv.

BACKGROUND TO THE INQUIRY

1.4 Under the Australian Constitution, the Commonwealth Government is responsible for quarantine and international animal health matters while the state governments are responsible for disease control and eradication within their own boundaries.2 In Victoria, this responsibility lies with the Chief Veterinary Officer Unit and the Animal Health Operations Branch of the Department of Primary Industries.3

1.5 Veterinary laboratories conduct pathology services that are critical for the identification of endemic and exotic disease at a state level. They also contribute to animal health programs at a national level.4

1.6 Prior to 1994, the former Department of Agriculture provided veterinary pathology services to the livestock industries from four regional veterinary laboratories – in Bairnsdale, Benalla, Bendigo and Hamilton – as well as the Victorian Institute of Animal Science (VIAS) at Attwood.5


PAGE 2

1.7 In 1994, the Department of Agriculture contracted a private company to operate the four regional veterinary laboratories and to be the preferred supplier of veterinary pathology services to the Government. In 1996, the Department initiated another tender process, with the successful tenderer operating from their own pathology laboratories. Consequently, the previous supplier ceased operations and dismissed all staff at the regional veterinary laboratories. 6 In Victoria there are now both public and private veterinary laboratories servicing the animal pathology needs of government and industry.

1.8 This Inquiry was referred to the Environment and Natural Resources Committee in accordance with a pre-election policy commitment of the Bracks Government to inquire and report on the adequacy and effectiveness of existing veterinary pathology services.7

THE INQUIRY PROCESS

1.9 The Committee has approached the Inquiry in a structured manner. The key elements of this process are illustrated in Figure 1.1 and summarised below.

Figure 1.1: The Inquiry Process

Prepare and Publish Discussion Paper

Call for Written Submissions

Undertake Inspections and Informal Briefings

Conduct Hearings

Research Survey

Assess Evidence

Prepare and Adopt Inquiry Report

Table Inquiry Report in Parliament and Publish


PAGE 3

1.10 The Committee resolved to commence the Inquiry on 18 February 2002. A discussion paper was prepared and released on 27 March 2002 to assist those wishing to make submissions to the Inquiry. It provided background on the past and current veterinary pathology services in Victoria and highlighted some of the key issues affecting animal health in Victoria. It also included a number of discussion points on which the Committee was particularly interested in obtaining feedback.

1.11 Advertisements calling for written submissions were placed in metropolitan and regional newspapers when the discussion paper was released and media releases sent to a large number of television, print and radio media. A two-month submission period followed, although late submissions were accepted. In all, 37 written submissions were received by the Committee. A listing of all submissions received is included in Appendix I. Copies of submissions other than one which was submitted in confidence may be obtained on request from the Committee.

1.12 The Committee also undertook an inspection program looking at a representative sample of veterinary pathology service providers and industry clients in Victoria. Representatives of the Committee also had the opportunity to be briefed by Dr John Anderson, the Director of the World Reference Laboratory for Foot and Mouth Disease at the Pirbright Laboratory in the United Kingdom. A list of the Committee’s inspections and informal briefings is included in Appendix II.

1.13 Public hearings were held in Bendigo, Melbourne and Traralgon, with 20 witnesses giving evidence. All hearings were advertised in the press, with all those on the Inquiry mailing list informed by letter. A list of witnesses is included as Appendix III. Transcripts of the public hearings have been published and are available on the Committee’s website or, on request, from the Committee.

1.14 To assist the Committee to better assess the level of usage and satisfaction with the current provision of diagnostic services in Victoria and identify improvements, a survey of all regional veterinarians was commissioned. A pilot survey was prepared and tested in consultation with the Victorian division of the Australian Veterinary Association and mailed out to all Victorian regional veterinarians on 4 June 2002. Of the 691 surveys sent out, a total of 273 were returned – an effective response rate of almost 40 per cent. The survey results provide a wealth of information, with some of the key results included in this report. The computer cross-tabulations prepared from the raw data are available on request from the Committee, as is a ‘market research report’, which is a comprehensive assessment of the results of the survey prepared by TQA Research on behalf of the Committee.

1.15 A draft report was prepared in October 2002 following the Committee’s assessment of evidence collected from all of these various aspects of the inquiry process.


PAGE 4

1.16 Following the tabling of the Inquiry report, the final stage of the inquiry process is the tabling of the government response. The minister who initiated the Inquiry or who has portfolio responsibility for the matters addressed by the Inquiry is required to inform the Parliament of the action, if any, the Government proposed to take in response to the Committee’s recommendations. The minister has six months from the date of the report being tabled in which to report. The minister may accept, reject or amend the Committee’s recommendations.


PAGE 5

CHAPTER 2 VETERINARY PATHOLOGY SERVICES • Defining Pathology Services • Providing Pathology Services • Delivering Pathology Services • Users of Pathology Services • Role of Veterinarians

DEFINING PATHOLOGY SERVICES

2.1 The Committee found that veterinary pathology covers a wide array of activities. Essentially pathology involves the search for and the study of lesions, abnormal structural and functional changes that occur in the body,8 especially those that result in disease or loss of production. Such work involves the study of cells, tissues, organs and bodily fluids and knowledge and techniques of anatomy and physiology. Veterinary pathology, in addition, requires knowledge of the normal development of an individual animal as well as normal biological variation, particularly the expected differences due to age and species.9

2.2 Typically, veterinary pathology is centrally involved in disease investigation. Samples may be subject to a range of specialist tests to enable a veterinary pathologist to provide advice on the likely cause of the disease.10 Some of the specialist disciplines used in veterinary pathology include:

a) gross pathology (seen with the naked eye); b) histological pathology (microscopic); c) microbiology – to determine bacterial and fungal causes of disease; d) virology – to identify viruses causing disease; e) biochemistry – to measure the concentration of chemicals in blood, tissues or

other materials; f) haematology – investigations into the cellular components of blood; g) serology – blood testing to detect the presence of disease; and h) parasitology – identifying parasitic causes of disease.

Finding 2.1

Veterinary pathology is central to the diagnosis of disease and involves an array of disciplines.

PROVIDING PATHOLOGY SERVICES

Staff 2.3 Veterinary pathology services are delivered primarily by veterinary pathologists, as well as other scientific and specialist staff, together with associated technical and non-technical personnel.


PAGE 6

2.4 Veterinary pathologists, as a minimum qualification, have a veterinary degree recognised by the registration authority of the state in which they operate. All Australian veterinary degrees are five-year courses. Many veterinary pathologists seek formal recognition as a Member of the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists (Pathology Chapter). Entry as a member requires additional training, typically including a minimum of two years ‘on-the-job’ experience working under an experienced pathologist, and formal examinations. Veterinary pathologists are recognised as specialists if they meet the requirements of the registration authority of the state in which they operate. Fellowship of the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists (Pathology Chapter) enables registration as a specialist veterinary pathologist.11 It typically takes five years after graduation to acquire the knowledge and skills to pass the Fellowship examinations.

2.5 Veterinary pathologists’ role is to diagnose the presence and nature of disease and to this end they will determine which tests are required, analyse the results of the tests and make conclusions as to a diagnosis which can then be used to treat the disease or its causal agent. They may directly undertake gross pathology (at post mortem) and histological pathology assessment.

2.6 Laboratory scientists have as a minimum qualification a degree in science, applied science, agricultural science or equivalent. Laboratory scientists frequently have additional qualifications, such as masters or doctor of philosophy (PhD) degrees. Such scientists supervise and/or undertake and/or develop specialist diagnostic tests relevant to their particular discipline.

2.7 Laboratory technicians usually have a technical qualification, for example a certificate in applied or laboratory science acquired from the TAFE sector. Some technicians have on-the-job training only. They normally conduct routine tests under the supervision of a veterinary pathologist or scientist.

Facilities and Infrastructure 2.8 While the study of gross pathology can be undertaken in the field, most veterinary pathology services require some form of constructed facility – typically a laboratory.

2.9 As the Committee observed during its inspection program, laboratories providing veterinary pathology services range from small operations, employing one or two people offering a limited range of tests, to large establishments offering a wide range of services.

2.10 Custom-built facilities typically have a specimen unpacking/reception area, freezers and cold rooms for holding specimens and a series of rooms (laboratories) for processing, examining and analysing specimens. Within such laboratories are specialised items of equipment for handling infectious materials (biohazard cabinets) and substances releasing noxious fumes (fume hoods). Laboratories have means of cleaning glassware (industrial washers), of sterilising equipment


PAGE 7

(autoclaves) and of disposing of various classes of waste (incinerators, medical waste contractors).

2.11 Custom-built facilities may, but do not always, include a dedicated post mortem (autopsy or necropsy) room with work tables and drainage which, in case of working with some infectious materials, can be diverted to a holding tank where fluids can be sterilised before being released to the general sewerage system. An example of such a facility visited by the Committee is the Department of Primary Industries’ post-mortem facility at the Victorian Institute of Animal Science, Attwood.

2.12 Biocontainment refers to the retention of micro-organisms within a defined space. Various levels of biocontainment are recognised. The Committee inspected the Australian Animal Health Laboratory (AAHL) in Geelong, which has the highest level of biocontainment with a ‘box within a box’ structure with increasingly lower air pressures towards the centre. Any airborne pathogens are drawn to the centre before being filtered out in exhaust air. Staff shower and completely change clothes when moving from a high to a lower security area. All waste is sterilised or incinerated before leaving the facility. The Victorian Institute of Animal Science’s facility at Attwood has a lower level of biocontainment. Other laboratories in Victoria may have only limited biocontainment ability.

2.13 Additionally, laboratories will have staff amenity rooms and offices or open areas devoted to administration. Modern laboratories use electronic means (email or fax) to disseminate results.

2.14 The Committee was told of the great importance of quality assurance in the delivery of veterinary pathology services. Most of the larger laboratories hold formal ISO (International Standards Organisation) and/or NATA (National Analytical Testing Association) accreditation. These accreditations are regularly audited and set out mandatory procedures and practices. Proficiency testing is also undertaken. An example is the use of ANQAP (Australian National Quality Assurance Program) for comparative serological testing between Australian and New Zealand laboratories. Such accreditation and formal proficiency testing is very expensive and the Committee found that a number of smaller laboratories did not participate in such programs primarily because of their high cost.

2.15 There are no mandatory quality assurance (QA) systems for providers of veterinary pathology services in Victoria. However, under Victoria’s Livestock Diseases Control Act 1994, premises used for “any diagnostic examination of any sample or specimen …” must be registered by the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (now, the Secretary of the Department of Primary Industries).12


PAGE 8

Finding 2.2

The provision of veterinary pathology services is reliant on highly trained personnel, specialised facilities and rigorous quality-control mechanisms. All of these services require expensive infrastructure.

DELIVERING PATHOLOGY SERVICES

2.16 It became very obvious to the Committee that laboratories are central to the delivery of veterinary pathology services. The services provided by veterinary pathology laboratories can be summarised as follows:

a) general health diagnostics; b) emergency animal disease diagnostics; c) research and training; d) monitoring and reporting of disease; and e) analytical services.13

2.17 Veterinary pathologists almost exclusively work within or in close partnership with a pathology laboratory. Larger private veterinary practices may include small laboratories that are used by field veterinarians or veterinary nurses for conducting routine pathology tests.

2.18 Various arms of government as well as an array of private sector laboratories are involved in the delivery of veterinary pathology services.

2.19 Virtually all non-metropolitan veterinarians use an external provider for veterinary pathology services, and use these external providers far more frequently than in-house facilities.14 An extrapolation of the results of the Committee’s survey of veterinarians indicates that a total of 12,261 external veterinary pathology tests are conducted each month for non-metropolitan veterinarians.15

2.20 External providers conduct nearly all toxicology, virology, histopathology and genetic/DNA testing, with veterinary practices most frequently using external providers for haematology and biochemistry/endocrinology testing.16

2.21 In addition, a number of private veterinary practices operate in-house services, such as haematology, biochemistry, parasitology and some microbiology. The Committee found that over half of the 175 non-metropolitan veterinary practices or organisations responding to its survey conduct in-house pathology testing.17 These practices carry out 30 diagnostic or veterinary pathology tests in-house each month. Extrapolated to all non-metropolitan practices, an estimated total of 6,827 tests are carried out each month.18 Veterinary hospitals may also undertake in-house pathology testing.

2.22 The most frequently conducted in-house diagnostic or pathology tests are summarised in Table 2.1.


PAGE 9

Table 2.1: The Most Frequently Conducted In-house Diagnostic or Pathology Tests

Test Percentage of Practices Conducting Test at Least Weekly

Biochemistry 38 %

Haematology 38 %

Cytology 36 %

Parasitology 34 %

Source: TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 24.

Finding 2.3

Public sector providers tend to undertake mostly complex, specialised and research pathology work that compliments the services provided by the private sector. Private sector providers may focus on provision of routine tests or particular specialised tests which deliver ‘private good’ benefits to clients. Duplication occurs between private sector providers of routine tests, but this offers competition.

USERS OF PATHOLOGY SERVICES

2.23 The principal users of veterinary pathology services are the traditional livestock sectors, including beef and dairy cattle, sheep and pigs. Users most frequently access veterinary pathology services through private or government veterinarians, although direct access by producers has increased n the past decade, particularly for parasitology tests.

2.24 Livestock enterprises based on non-traditional animals, such as alpacas, deer, and emus, are also users of veterinary pathology services, with the aquaculture industry an increasingly important user of veterinary pathology services.

2.25 The food industry uses specialised tests, particularly analytical chemistry, to determine the presence and concentration of chemical residues such as insecticides and herbicides and environmental contaminants such as heavy metals. It also uses microbiological tests to determine the presence of organisms contaminating food or to investigate cases of food poisoning. The food industry uses a variety of government, private and in-house laboratories to meet its needs. In general, analysis of chemical residues is a function of specialised analytical laboratories, rather than the role of veterinary pathology laboratories.

2.26 Animal breeders use veterinary laboratories for determination of identity and parentage (‘genetic fingerprinting’) and to support the industry’s selective breeding programs with some specialised genetic tests. For example, gene-sequencing


PAGE 10

technology is allowing laboratories to assist animal breeders to identify lethal genetic defects in stud stock.20

2.27 The industries serviced by veterinarians provide an indication of the composition of sectors likely to be users of veterinary pathology services. The Committee’s survey of non-metropolitan veterinarians found that the main sectors serviced were pets or companion animals (70%), livestock (68%), equestrian (43%) and wildlife (25%). The livestock industries serviced are shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Livestock Industries Serviced by Non-metropolitan Veterinarians

Livestock Industry Percentage of Non-metropolitan Veterinarians Who Service Sector

Cattle 64 %

Sheep 45 %

Goats/alpaca/deer 35 %

Pigs 21 %

Poultry 15 %

Aquaculture 3 %

Bees 2 %

Other 1%

Source: TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 17.

Finding 2.4

Of the livestock industries, the cattle and sheep sectors remain the major users of veterinary and veterinary pathology services.

ROLE OF VETERINARIANS

2.28 Veterinarians in private practice or those employed by government or by industry provide a crucial link between producers and veterinary pathology service providers. They have specialised knowledge of the diseases and conditions to which each species is prone. They know what samples are to be collected and how to preserve them, what tests are to be ordered and which laboratory provides the most satisfactory service.

2.29 When results are received, veterinarians use their knowledge of how to interpret the results and apply this to improving the health of the individual or group from which they were collected.


PAGE 11

2.30 Most producers do not have the knowledge or equipment to collect the correct samples, nor the knowledge of where to send them or how to interpret results. An exception to the above are the packaged diagnostic tests for parasitology, mostly in sheep. In this case farmers collect dung samples and send them to the service provider. The farmer and their nominated private veterinarian receive results by fax or mail.

2.31 While field veterinarians can and do undertake limited veterinary pathology work, such as gross pathology assessment at a field post mortem, the Committee learnt that, in general, referrals for particular tests are made to a veterinary pathology laboratory. Such referrals come from private veterinary practitioners and government veterinary officers acting on behalf of a client. Clients may include individual farmers, animal industry bodies, government, pet owners, zoos, animal breeders and performance-animal owners. Animal and biomedical research organisations are also significant users of veterinary pathology services.

2.32 The Committee was told that veterinarians refer pathology samples to laboratories for the following reasons:

a) they are employed to collect pathology samples for random or targeted animal disease monitoring programs;

b) they have been called upon to inspect a sick or dead animal, have made a diagnosis based on clinical signs and now need their suspicions confirmed or excluded by pathology testing; and/or

c) the general health, productivity or fitness of an animal requires investigatory pathology testing.

2.33 Most field veterinarians, particularly those serving the livestock sector, undertake gross pathology services to relate observed symptoms to the key signs of animal disease – with 94 per cent of veterinarians serving the livestock sector conducting post mortems.21 As laboratory-based pathology services provide veterinarians with the diagnostic support needed to confirm the presence or absence of suspected animal diseases, a large proportion of diseases, whether suspect or real, require pathology testing for confirmation or exclusion.

2.34 Almost all veterinarians surveyed by the Committee work in private practice, with veterinary clinics tending to be quite large (an average of five or six vets). The main animal sectors served by the non-metropolitan vets are pets or companion animals (70 per cent) and livestock (68 per cent), with the main livestock industry serviced being the cattle sector.22

Finding 2.5

Government and private field veterinarians provide a vital intermediary role in the provision of veterinary pathology services.


PAGE 12


PAGE 13

CHAPTER 3 THE CURRENT SERVICE MODEL • The Development of the Current Service Model • Services and Facilities • Who Pays • Post Mortems • Quality Assurance

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT SERVICE MODEL

3.1 Veterinary laboratory services were first established in 1908 by the Veterinary Research Institute (VRI) in Parkville. This coincided with the opening of the School of Veterinary Science by the University of Melbourne. In 1928 the university ceased to teach veterinary science beyond first year. However, the institute continued to provide veterinary diagnostic services for Victoria, including the government testing of Victorian milk supplies for tuberculosis. The Faculty of Veterinary Science was re-established in Melbourne in 1963, but the Veterinary Research Institute continued to provide diagnostic pathology services as a separate entity to the veterinary school, with funding support from the Victorian Department of Agriculture.23

3.2 The Department of Agriculture established a veterinary research laboratory at Attwood in 1969 to complement the services provided by the Veterinary Research Institute. In 1974, responsibility for the Institute was transferred from the University of Melbourne to the Department of Agriculture. In 1988 it was amalgamated with the veterinary research laboratory at Attwood and in 1989 the new body was transferred from its Parkville site to new facilities at the Attwood site, to create VRI-Attwood. In the 1970s and 1980s these public sector agencies employed around 12 veterinary pathologists.

3.3 In 1991 VRI-Attwood was amalgamated with the Animal Research Institute at Werribee to form a new entity known as the Victorian Institute of Animal Science (VIAS). This institute currently operates from campuses at Attwood and Werribee.

3.4 Coinciding with Australia’s Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign (BTEC), regional veterinary laboratories (RVLs) were established at Bendigo (1974), Hamilton (1976), Benalla (1977) and Bairnsdale (1977).

3.5 The laboratories were staffed with officers from an array of disciplines. Staff development was an integral part of their operation, including a regular program of staff placement to and from leading pathology laboratories in other jurisdictions, cadetships and postgraduate training while on full pay. Table 3.1 shows the number


PAGE 14

and type of staff employed by the Regional Veterinary Laboratories prior to a series of cutbacks in the early 1990s.

Table 3.1: Numbers of Staff at Regional Veterinary Laboratories circa 1980s Laboratory Veterinary

Pathologists Scientific Officers

Technical Officers and Assistants

Administrative and Support Staff

Totals

Hamilton 7 10 18 17 52

Bendigo 6 10 16 9 41

Benalla 5 8 13 14 40

Bairnsdale 5 8 10 11 34

Totals 23 36 57 51 167

Source: Personal communications with former directors and senior veterinary pathologists of the respective Regional Veterinary Laboratories.

3.6 The laboratories provided a comprehensive range of services, including: a) gross pathology; b) histopathology; c) haematology; d) biochemistry and toxicology; e) serology; f) microbiology; and g) parasitology.

3.7 Peak submission numbers were between 12,000 and 16,000 per year for each Regional Veterinary Laboratory.

3.8 Information and extension programs were provided. The Regional Veterinary Laboratories also became involved in many research projects. Examples of such research include:

a) at Hamilton – epidemiology and control of footrot of sheep, and ‘high tech’ work on vaccines for intestinal worms in sheep;24

b) at Bendigo – serotyping and vaccine development for coliform diseases of pigs, calves and poultry, and pathogenesis and epidemiology of enteric diseases of pigs;25

c) at Benalla – development and commercialisation of meat speciation test kits and expertise in fish diseases;26 and

d) at Bairnsdale – formulation leading to registration of the commercial products Footrite for treatment of footrot in sheep and ResQ, a novel treatment for diarrhoea in calves.27

3.9 Diagnostic services were free for all production animals until 1987, when limited fee-for-service arrangements were introduced for some packaged production animal tests, for example ‘Wormtest/Drenchtest’. At the same time, the


PAGE 15

laboratories were encouraged to perform companion animal tests (which had previously been discouraged) at private laboratory rates. Subsequently, subsidised fees were introduced for most production animal tests requested by farmers or private veterinarians. Up to the time of privatisation, testing requested by the Department of Agriculture remained free. Despite covering the cost of the free government services, the Regional Veterinary Laboratories were recovering a substantial proportion of their costs. For example, the laboratory at Bairnsdale generated approximately 45 per cent of its running costs.28

3.10 The above arrangements were in place until October 1994, when the state government contracted the Regional Veterinary Laboratory services to a private company Centaur International. Centaur leased the Regional Veterinary Laboratories buildings and equipment but employed its own staff, of which many were former Regional Veterinary Laboratories staff. Centaur charged commercial rates for all services, including those provided to the Government.

3.11 In November 1996, the Victorian state government awarded a new contract for provision of veterinary pathology services to Victorian Veterinary Pathology Services (now Gribbles Veterinary Pathology), a Melbourne-based laboratory. Centaur laboratories ceased operations and the staff were dismissed. Gribbles successfully re-tendered for the contract and currently retains the government contract for provision of veterinary pathology services.

3.12 The Victorian Institute of Animal Science (VIAS) remains in the public sector, with two veterinary pathologists providing specialised pathology services.

3.13 The closure of the regional veterinary laboratories also saw the creation of a number of smaller private pathology providers, most of which include or are led by former Regional Veterinary Laboratory staff.

3.14 The Committee understands that about five veterinary pathologists are currently employed by private sector pathology services in Victoria.

Finding 3.1

There have been substantial changes in the delivery of pathology services in the past 10 years. From almost exclusive delivery by the public sector, services are now delivered by an array of public and private providers, with the private sector dominating the provision of routine pathology testing.

Finding 3.2

There has been a substantial reduction in the number of veterinary pathologists employed in Victoria and, without intervention, this trend is likely to continue.


PAGE 16

SERVICES AND FACILITIES

3.15 Providers of veterinary pathology and analytical services in Victoria, both private and government, and the range of services they offer, are listed in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Providers of Veterinary Pathology and Analytical Services for the Livestock Sector

Provider Private or Government

Services Provided

Australian Animal Health Laboratory, Geelong

Federal Government (CSIRO)

Diagnosis of and research into exotic diseases

Victorian Institute of Animal Science (VIAS), Attwood

Victorian State Government (DNRE/DPI)

Specialised diagnostic services for endemic and exotic diseases

State Chemistry Laboratory, Werribee

Victorian State Government (DNRE/DPI)

Analytical chemistry services for a range of chemicals and some drugs

Gribbles Veterinary Pathology (Clayton and elsewhere)

Private enterprise Wide range of routine and specialised services; including the government’s contract for diagnostic services

IDEXX VPS (Mount Waverley and elsewhere)

Private enterprise Wide range of routine and specialised services; holds South Australian government veterinary contract

Gippsland Veterinary Pathology Services (Traralgon)

Private enterprise Range of routine tests and services targeted to the dairy industry

School of Veterinary Science, University of Melbourne (Werribee)

Government Range of routine and specialised services

Para-Tech Veterinary Services (Willaura)

Private enterprise Parasitological and anthelmintic services

Regional Laboratory Services (Benalla)

Private enterprise Range of biochemical analyses

Para-Site Diagnostic Services (Benalla)

Private enterprise Parasitological and anthelmintic services

Skilbeck Scientific Laboratory Services (Bairnsdale)

Private enterprise Small range of serological services

Source: Various submissions and personal communications.


PAGE 17

3.16 The largest number of submissions are made to Gribbles (54 per cent of all submissions). CVDL-IDEXX has a 14 per cent share of submissions and Gippsland Pathology Services a 10 per cent share. The Victorian Institute of Animal Science has a 4 per cent share of total submissions, but is used by more than half of non-metropolitan veterinarians.29

3.17 Under Victoria’s Livestock Disease Control Act 1994, premises from which veterinary pathology services are provided in Victoria must be registered. Other than the above requirement, the laboratories operate in a deregulated environment.

3.18 Services used by Victorian producers and veterinarians are not necessarily reliant on pathology laboratories with facilities located within the state. Laboratories offering veterinary pathology services exist in all Australian states as well as in the Northern Territory. Many of these laboratories have developed special expertise in one or more diagnostic procedure and referral of specimens between laboratories is common. Likewise, Victorian laboratories – particularly those offering specialist services – service users from around Australia.

Finding 3.3

Veterinary pathology services are provided in a fractionated manner. Required services may be sourced from different service providers; less frequently used providers may nonetheless deliver services that cannot be obtained from other providers. Comprehensive post-mortem services are limited and no extensive research and development of veterinary pathology techniques and tests is conducted.

WHO PAYS

3.19 Currently the ‘beneficiary pays’ principle is the basis for who pays for veterinary pathology services in Victoria.30

3.20 When the beneficiary is the farmer or producer, no subsidy exists and full fees are charged. Most veterinary pathology services are in this category. Examples include tests to determine the level of gastrointestinal parasites in animals, to identify the bacteria involved in a case of mastitis, or the causes of poor production in farm animals.

3.21 In the case where the livestock industry is considered the beneficiary, the industry may pay all or part of the cost of services. Examples in Victoria include the Bovine Johne’s Disease Test and Control Program and the Enzootic Bovine Leukosis Eradication Program. Levies collected from the sale of cattle are held in the state’s Cattle Compensation Fund. The Animal Health Operations Branch in Bendigo administers the fund. By agreement of the Cattle Compensation Fund Advisory Committee, the fund covers the costs of sample collection and farm audits by private veterinarians and laboratory testing by Gribbles. In the case of the


PAGE 18

Bovine Johne’s Disease Test and Control Program, partial compensation is paid to farmers for the value of reactor cattle slaughtered.

3.22 Recently a new national Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement for 63 defined emergency animal diseases was introduced.31 The parties to the agreement include the livestock industries and federal and state governments. Under the agreement, the 63 emergency animal diseases are divided into four categories that determine the share of costs to be borne by government and industry. Category 1 diseases are funded 100 per cent by government. Category 2 diseases are funded 80 per cent by government and 20 per cent by the applicable industry(s). The proportions are 50:50 for category 3 diseases and 20:80 for category 4 diseases.32

3.23 In Victoria, the Government – through the Department of Primary Industries – meets the full costs of testing for routine ‘public good’ services; for example, tests for cases of suspected emergency disease such as anthrax, some diagnostic tests for ovine Johne’s disease and for investigations into alleged breaches of Victoria’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986. The Committee understands that where large-scale undiagnosed animal deaths occur, Senior Veterinary Officers of the Department have the discretion to arrange diagnostic testing at government expense.

3.24 The Committee was informed that there were grey areas in relation to pathology services that would be paid for by government. There appears to be no written list of criteria or ‘trigger points’ which allow private veterinarians to call for help in the knowledge that their clients would not be charged for the investigation.

3.25 In the case of post mortems, it may be difficult to identify the beneficiary. The Committee was told that the reason for the “trend away from post mortems is simple: no one wants to pay for them”.33

Finding 3.4

The principle of ‘beneficiary pays’ appears to be well established and generally accepted with respect to pathology services. While the apportionment of costs for tests is clear for defined emergency diseases, where there are multiple beneficiaries or no direct private benefit the apportionment of costs remains an unresolved area with no written criteria or ‘trigger points’.

POST MORTEMS

3.26 A post mortem (also known as autopsy or necropsy) is the procedure where the body of an animal is dissected after death to examine organs and tissues for abnormal changes (lesions) and to collect tissues for further tests.

3.27 Post mortems are a procedure widely used by veterinarians. The Committee’s survey of veterinarians showed that a very high proportion – 88 per


PAGE 19

cent – of veterinarians conduct post mortems or arrange to have them conducted on their behalf. The survey found that on average non-metropolitan veterinarians in Victoria conduct 24 post mortems a year, with those serving the livestock sector conducting significantly more.34

3.28 The Committee learnt that autopsies can be conducted in situ (that is, where the animal died), at knackeries, abattoirs, at some private veterinary practices and at some veterinary pathology laboratories. The majority of non-metropolitan veterinarians conduct in-situ (73 per cent) and in-house (82 per cent) post mortems.35

3.29 The post-mortem facilities at the former regional veterinary laboratories are available to private veterinarians by arrangement with local Department of Primary Industries’ Animal Health staff. However, the Committee heard that in practice access may be difficult because of the absence of support staff, maintenance and occupational health and safety issues, and a lack of knowledge of their availability.

3.30 Issues determining where post mortems are conducted raised with the Committee include:

a) the availability of suitable facilities – knackery, private practice, post-mortem room;

b) the distance between death site and autopsy site; c) the distance between veterinary practice and autopsy site; d) the means of disposing of the remains – for example, by incineration (which

is expensive), burning or land disposal; and e) the size (weight) of the animal, access to lifting and soil-moving equipment

and/or suitable transport.

3.31 A summary of currently available facilities for post mortems is provided in Table 3.3.

Finding 3.5

Post mortems are a vital part of a comprehensive veterinary pathology service. They are difficult and expensive to conduct, particularly for large livestock animals for which only limited facilities are available.

QUALITY ASSURANCE

3.32 The Committee learnt that quality assurance can be achieved in three ways. Firstly, many tests are approved nationally under the Australian and New Zealand Standard Diagnostic Techniques. Standardised procedures for laboratory tests are maintained by CSIRO and are designed in accordance with international standards. Procedures for new tests are added as necessary and existing standards revised as appropriate.


PAGE 20

Table 3.3: Facilities Available for the Provision of Post-mortem Services Provider Animal Size Availability Support

Staff Disposal

Victorian Institute of Animal Science (Attwood)

Large animals, pet animals and small livestock.

Departmental use, mostly for notifiable and poultry diseases.

Yes Incineration

School of Veterinary Science, University of Melbourne (Werribee)

Large animals, pet animals and small livestock

Fee for service Yes Incineration

Australian Animal Health Laboratory (Geelong)


Only if an exotic disease is suspected

Yes Incineration

The former Regional Veterinary Laboratoriess (Hamilton, Bendigo, Benalla and Bairnsdale)


Departmental only or by special arrangement

No Commercial pickup and/or incineration

Abattoirs (various locations)

Collection of tissues from livestock (conventional autopsies not possible)

Only clinically healthy animals killed at the abattoir

No Not applicable

Knackeries (various locations)

Large animals At discretion of operator (disruption and safety issues)

No In knackery

In situ (on farm) Pet animals and small livestock (e.g. sheep and goats). Larger animals limited by availability of lifting equipment

At discretion of land owner and veterinarian

No On farm by burning or burial, but difficult for large animals*

Veterinary practices Pet animals and small livestock (e.g. sheep and goats)

At discretion of veterinarian

Usually available

Incineration or burial at municipal council tip

Private pathology laboratories

Pet animals and small livestock (e.g. sheep and goats)

Only at some of the larger facilities

Usually available

Incineration or burial at municipal council tip

Source: Various informal briefings and submissions.

* Note: On-farm disposal of large animals only if suitable lifting equipment and/or digging equipment available and no water table issues. Burning is possible, but expensive (e.g. one tonne of hardwood for large animal) and hazardous near dwellings or during summer.


PAGE 21

3.33 Secondly, laboratories can establish procedures under formal quality assurance programs such as those set down by the International Standards Organisation (ISO) and the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA), Australia’s government-endorsed provider of accreditation. This association accredits laboratories against criteria based on the internationally recognised standard ISO/IEC 17025:1999.

3.34 The third way is that laboratories may participate in proficiency-testing programs (such as the Australian National Quality Assurance Program – ANQAP) to ensure that results are consistent and repeatable across laboratories.36 The Australian National Quality Assurance Program facilitates inter-laboratory proficiency testing in government and private veterinary laboratories in Australia and New Zealand. It is operated by the Victorian Institute of Animal Science and focuses on serological assays used in quarantine, export certification and national disease-control programs. The program facilitates quality assurance in 28 government and private laboratories, most in Australia and New Zealand.37 Evaluation involves different laboratories undertaking the same procedure on test samples and comparing the results. Thus the process assesses the capacity of laboratories to perform procedures accurately – it is not a measure of actual performance on a day-to-day basis.38

3.35 The Committee notes that quality assurance commences at the point of specimen collection. The correct specimen must be collected in the correct manner and container, immediately labelled, stored at the appropriate temperature before being dispatched to the laboratory accompanied by paperwork (submission form) that is complete in all details. At the laboratory the specimen(s) and paperwork must be linked with a unique ‘submission number’ (and sometimes bar code); specimens must then be correctly stored before analysis. Analytical techniques should follow a set protocol – where applicable, the Australian and New Zealand Standard Diagnostic Techniques.

3.36 Laboratory results are generally sent to the person who submitted the specimens, usually a private or government veterinarian. They are sometimes sent to the owner of the animal or other person authorised by the submitter to receive a copy of the results. Laboratory results are not made available to third parties unless the written authority of the submitter or owner is obtained. An exception to this rule is where legislation requires a laboratory to provide government veterinary authorities with positive results for diseases that are notifiable under the Livestock Diseases Control Act 1984.

3.37 The Committee notes that confidence in the accuracy and repeatability of test results is not only critical for effective disease control, but is also critical to health authorities in countries that import live animals and animal products from Australia.39


PAGE 22

Finding 3.6

Well-established programs of quality-control measures are available, but are expensive and may not be fail proof. Smaller service providers who cannot afford participation in formal quality-assurance programs may nonetheless provide high-quality, reliable and secure results.


PAGE 23

CHAPTER 4 REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY • Basic Needs • Associated Requirements

BASIC NEEDS

4.1 The basic needs of the livestock industry for veterinary pathology services primarily involve:

a) disease diagnosis; b) disease control; c) meeting trade and market demands; d) meeting regulatory requirements; and e) support for new and emerging sectors.

Disease Diagnosis 4.2 Veterinary pathology services are the key to identifying the cause of illness or death in livestock, companion and other animals. They are also often important to identifying reasons for production loss. Producers, veterinarians, advisers and others may suspect a cause for production loss, illness or death in animals but in most cases this must be confirmed by collection and testing of samples.

4.3 Assistance from a veterinary pathologist or veterinary pathology laboratory service is particularly important for conditions not seen before or for the first in a series of cases. The Committee was told that equally important is the need to rule out certain conditions.40

4.4 It seems that where producers – and their veterinarians and advisers – can obtain access to affordable, accessible, accurate and rapid tests and procedures for the full range of veterinary pathology services, the actual provider of the service, be it private or government, is of secondary consideration.

4.5 Changes to the affordability and accessibility of services have occurred since the mid-1980s. For production animals free testing has been replaced by ‘user pays’ and access to regionally based services and specialists has become more difficult. Post mortems, in particular, are now expensive and difficult to conduct, even if personnel with the required specialised knowledge and experience can be obtained.

Disease Control 4.6 Among producers and veterinarians there appears to be a general concern that issues of cost, accessibility and expertise may be exposing Victorian (and Australian) animal industries to increased risk of failure to recognise both endemic and new/emerging and exotic disease.


PAGE 24

4.7 Early recognition of new/emerging and exotic disease is vital for effective control or eradication. For example, the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom was not recognised for a number of weeks after its initial occurrence. This was estimated to have prolonged the eradication campaign. Early recognition of anthrax near Tatura in the Goulburn Valley in 2002 resulted in rapid vaccination of all cattle on farms considered ‘at risk’. In the event, only two cattle on two outblocks died of anthrax. Several respondents referred to the initial failure to diagnose anthrax in the 1997 outbreak and speculated that the late diagnosis may have influenced the subsequent course of the outbreak.

Meeting Trade and Market Demands 4.8 Movement of live production animals between Australian states requires certification of status in relation to a variety of endemic diseases. Government veterinarians and livestock owners make declarations on the health status of production animals, based increasingly on objective laboratory-based assessments. For example, cattle moving from one bovine Johne’s disease zone to another are subjected to targeted blood tests on 50 older cattle in the herd, ‘check testing’, or having to meet a higher standard, for example, Monitored Negative (MN). All such requirements place demands on producers in their use of veterinary pathology services.

4.9 For movements of live animals overseas, importing countries insist on certification for diseases they wish to keep out of their countries. Certification requirements vary from signed statements that a disease has not been diagnosed on the property of origin for a specified number of years, to statements based on laboratory exclusion of disease.

4.10 In addition, importing countries are increasingly insisting on scientifically sound, national surveys to prove the absence of disease. The best example of this is the National Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Surveillance Program (NTSESP). The primary purpose of the program is to support trade by maintaining a surveillance system for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) that is consistent with the International Animal Health Code and assures all countries which import cattle and sheep commodities that Australia remains free of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or ‘mad cow disease’) and scrapie. Each year, this requires the detailed examination of several hundred cattle and sheep with signs of neurological disease that could be mistaken for spongiform encephalopathy. The Committee notes that it is important that Australia meets this requirement to assure continued access to export markets.

4.11 Requirements of the Office International des Epizooties (OIE), the key intergovernmental organisation setting standards of animal health and disease reporting,41 and Australian trading partners are increasingly demanding. The protocols for collection of materials must be documented and are subject to audit. Laboratory procedures must follow the Australian and New Zealand standard diagnostic protocols. 42


PAGE 25

Meeting Regulatory Requirements 4.12 There are three Victorian Acts that are the primary sources of the regulatory aspects of animal health programs in Victoria – the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992. All are administered by the Department of Primary Industries’ Animal Health Group.

4.13 Routine administration of this legislation regularly requires access to veterinary pathology and analytical services. In cases where alleged breaches of these Acts have occurred, officers of the Department of Primary Industries make use of the full range of veterinary pathology and analytical services to build dossiers of evidence that can be used to support the issuing of advice, warning letters, penalty infringement notices (PINs) or formal proceedings in a court.

4.14 In administration of the bovine and ovine Johne’s disease programs, positive blood tests must be corroborated by faecal culture and/or positive histopathology before herds/flocks can be classified as ‘Infected’. These procedures, including the collection and dispatch of samples and the laboratory procedures used, must be able to withstand scrutiny in a court.

4.15 In animal welfare investigations, field and post-mortem evidence, including photographs, is collected. Laboratory specimens needed to support the evidence are submitted to the Gribbles laboratory for analysis. For example, in a case where the Crown alleges ‘failure to treat’ a wormy sheep, staff collect specimens to quantify the worm burden, that is a total worm count and/or faecal egg count.

4.16 Analytical laboratories regularly screen meat, milk and other tissues or samples for antimicrobial, insecticide and heavy metal residues. Residues detected above maximum residue limits (MRLs) are investigated by staff of the Department of Primary Industries. Where breaches to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992 are detected, penalty infringement notices PINs or prosecution may follow. Lists of residues detected (and not detected) are published in the Animal Health Surveillance Quarterly Report.

Support for New and Emerging Sectors

4.17 In recent years there has been a growing use of veterinary pathology services by the so-called ‘new rural industries’. These industries include an array of livestock enterprises based on non-traditional animals. Animals now farmed include alpacas; cashmere, angora, meat and dairy goats; deer; emus; ostriches; and water buffalo.43

4.18 The aquaculture industry is an increasingly important user of veterinary pathology services. In Victoria, species grown include mussels, abalone, trout, freshwater native finfish, eels and yabbies.

4.19 The new and emerging sector requires veterinarians and consultants with sufficient knowledge of the species and production systems involved to be able to


PAGE 26

collect appropriate specimens. They should know which laboratories are able to analyse the specimens and how to interpret results and to apply them to correcting a problem in the field.

4.20 In the early days of an industry, there may be no veterinarian or consultant with the requisite knowledge and/or no laboratory offering the test required. Therefore industry or government funds are required for research into problems faced by the industry and means for transferring technology to both veterinarians and producers. The federal Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) has funded research and development into these industries.

Finding 4.1

The livestock industry primarily relies on the provision of a range of veterinary pathology services for the diagnosis of disease, but increasingly also to enable it to prove the absence of disease.

Finding 4.2

The testing for chemical residues in livestock and livestock products is becoming increasingly important for veterinary pathology investigations, as well as for meeting trade and market demands for ‘clean and green’ products.

ASSOCIATED REQUIREMENTS

4.21 The Committee learnt of the need for written information accompanying diagnostic submissions to be both comprehensive and accurate. The trading name, contact details and property identification number of the producer and the name and contact details of the submitter are vital to be able to report to the correct person and to assess disease distribution. Ideally the submission form should include the identity, species, breed, class and age of animal(s) sampled, the clinical signs or reason for sampling and, if appropriate, the number of stock affected and the number that have died.

4.22 A diagnosis correctly identifying the disease or condition is essential, both for the appropriate prevention and treatment of the condition and to determine the response government may take. For example, before government animal health services would consider an eradication option for an exotic disease, all those concerned would have to be convinced that the disease was correctly diagnosed. The Committee notes that failure to get this correct would unnecessarily jeopardise international trade and the financial and emotional wellbeing of the individuals and industries concerned.


PAGE 27

4.23 On occasions, diagnostic samples may not be submitted. Possible reasons include:

a) ignorance on the part of the animal owner of what is available; b) the cost of having a veterinarian collect samples and of laboratory tests; and c) unwillingness to risk having a notifiable disease diagnosed on a property with

attendant control or eradication costs, trading restrictions and possible reduced value of the animals or land.

Finding 4.3

Livestock producers seek veterinary pathology services that are inexpensive, accurate and offer rapid turnaround of samples.


PAGE 28


PAGE 29

CHAPTER 5 NEEDS OF VETERINARIANS • Disease Diagnosis • Disease Surveillance • Education and Information

DISEASE DIAGNOSIS

5.1 Field veterinarians, that is non-metropolitan veterinarians including government district animal health staff, require an affordable means of confirming or excluding a provisional diagnosis. This is in the interests of both the animal and its owner, but also for future cases that could be seen in the area. Access to post-mortem service and cost are both important.

5.2 Post mortems, particularly for grown cattle, horses and pigs are difficult to access, time consuming to perform and are very expensive. The person performing the autopsy and the animal must be brought to the same place and there are real issues around disposing of remains. Private practitioners admit to doing few post mortems because of the practical difficulties, the pressure of other urgent work and the unrealistic charges that would have to be borne by their client.44 Many field veterinarians also feel that they are inadequately trained for this specialised role. The Committee was told by field veterinarians that the regional veterinary laboratories met these needs and they miss the service that used to be provided.

5.3 The Committee’s survey of veterinarians found that the most important factors non-metropolitan veterinarians take into consideration when choosing an external pathology service provider are:

a) the ability to speak with a veterinary pathologist when necessary – 85 per cent of veterinarians consider this to be a very important factor;

b) turnaround times – 78 per cent consider this factor to be very important; c) access to sample courier service – 67 per cent consider this factor to be very

important, d) ability to provide all diagnostic services – 58 per cent consider this factor to

be very important; and e) provision of detailed interpretive reports – 56 per cent consider this factor to

be very important.45

DISEASE SURVEILLANCE

5.4 In its survey the Committee asked non-metropolitan veterinarians if they could identify any emerging trends that might increase future demand for veterinary pathology services. Four in ten surveyed veterinarians identified such trends. Of these, disease surveillance or monitoring was most frequently mentioned, with veterinarians servicing the livestock sector most likely to identify


PAGE 30

disease surveillance as the key trend impacting on the future use of veterinary pathology services (especially if they were involved in the pig or poultry sectors).46

EDUCATION AND INFORMATION

5.5 The Committee was told that private veterinarians access information for personal development from many sources; for example, from professional journals, newsletters, the Internet, seminars and conferences.

5.6 The information put out by former regional veterinary laboratories appears to have been particularly valued because it was written by ‘local experts’ and reported on local disease occurrence close to the time of that occurrence. Examples of such news sheets include the Gippsland Bulletin, which was published and distributed by the regional veterinary laboratory at Bairnsdale, and Animal Health Victoria, put out by the Department of Agriculture. There do not appear to be any similar information sheets currently available, although the Committee was told that some private pathology laboratories publish various forms of newsletter for their clients that include information on disease trends. At a national level, a range of national articles and narrative disease descriptions for each state, plus aggregated disease statistics, are published in the Animal Health Surveillance Quarterly Report available on the Animal Health Australia website.47 Some respondents felt that the lag time between disease occurrence and its publication in the quarterly report reduced the value of the information. The reports are also predominantly restricted to notifiable diseases.

5.7 Veterinarians, as well as veterinary pathologists, told the Committee that the skills of field veterinarians in identifying exotic diseases, undertaking post mortems and taking samples for pathology testing were adversely affected by their limited exposure to veterinary pathologists operating in the regional areas.

5.8 The Committee understands that continuing veterinary education is viewed as important by the veterinary profession. More particularly, the Committee’s survey of veterinarians found that obtaining information on local animal health trends and on improved specimen collection techniques is considered to be important by the majority of livestock veterinarians in Victoria.48 Indeed, 93 per cent regarded obtaining information on local animal health issues as important and 91 per cent regarded obtaining information on improved specimen collection techniques important.49 The Committee notes the Veterinary Practitioners Board of Victoria requires all registered veterinarians to undertake a minimum amount of training each year.50 Vets are responsible for arranging their own training programs.

Finding 5.1

Field veterinarians seek veterinary pathology services that offer ready access to a veterinary pathologist, detailed interpretive reports, rapid turnaround times, good courier services and an ability to provide all required services. Education, training and up-to-date local disease information are also vitally important.


PAGE 31

CHAPTER 6 GOVERNMENT ANIMAL HEALTH PROGRAM PATHOLOGY NEEDS • Legislative Basis • Current Animal Health Programs • Needs of Special Policy Initiatives

LEGISLATIVE BASIS

6.1 The Victorian Government is responsible for disease control and eradication within Victoria, but also works with the Commonwealth Government on Commonwealth responsibilities such as disease reporting, export certification and trade negotiation associated with quarantine and international health matters. The Department of Primary Industries works through its animal health programs to assist the state’s livestock industries to provide high-quality animal products to domestic and overseas markets. The Office of the Chief Veterinary Officer develops policies to ensure that the priorities of the Government and the livestock industries are met. The Animal Health Operations Branch co-ordinates the delivery of animal health programs across the state.

6.2 The Livestock Disease Control Act 1994 provides the main legislative framework in Victoria for the monitoring and control of livestock diseases and for providing compensation for losses caused by certain livestock diseases. The Act is supported by the Livestock Disease Control Regulations 1995, which provide for the eradication, prevention and control of diseases in livestock and generally prescribe forms, penalties and other matters authorised by the Act.

6.3 The animal health group within the Department of Primary Industries also administers the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992. Veterinary pathology or analytical services are also essential for the administration of these two Acts.

Finding 6.1

Veterinary pathology or analytical services are essential for the administration of legislation for the control of livestock disease, as well as for other Victorian animal health legislation.

CURRENT ANIMAL HEALTH PROGRAMS

6.4 The surveillance and control of disease is an important part of the animal health program and involves an integrated approach between the Department and livestock producers and processors, private veterinary practitioners and veterinary


PAGE 32

pathology laboratories. The animal health programs enable the Department to report on the status of livestock diseases, assess their risk to animal and human health and develop responsive policies and programs.

6.5 In summary, government animal health programs aim to: a) monitor disease occurrence; b) mitigate the economical and social effects of disease and chemical residue

occurrence; c) minimise the opportunity for animal diseases to affect humans (in co-

operation with human health agencies); d) facilitate the marketing of Victorian livestock products; and e) promote the welfare of farmed animals.51

6.6 Increasingly, animal health programs take a national approach to ensure consistency in their delivery across jurisdictions and to realise the economic and marketing benefits of dealing with disease and residue problems on a national basis. Early examples include the programs to eradicate pleuropneumonia, tuberculosis and brucellosis from Australia’s cattle industries.

6.7 A listing of current government animal health programs active in Victoria and the main provider of the associated veterinary pathology services required by the programs is provided in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Victorian Animal Health Programs and Associated Pathology Service Providers

Program Provider of Associated Veterinary Pathology Services in Victoria

National Organochlorine Residue Minimisation Program

State Chemistry Laboratory

National Antibacterial Residue Minimisation Program

State Chemistry Laboratory

National Ovine Johne’s Disease Control and Evaluation Program

Gribbles Veterinary Pathology (as the holder of the government contract)

National Transmissable Spongiform Encephalopathy Surveillance Program

Gribbles Veterinary Pathology and the Australian Animal Health Laboratory (AAHL)

National Bovine Johne’s Disease in South-Eastern Beef Cattle


Victorian Bovine Johne’s Disease Test and Control Program


Victorian Enzootic Bovine Leucosis Control and Eradication Program


Victorian Ovine Brucellosis Control and Eradication Program

A number of private veterinary pathology laboratories


PAGE 33

Victorian Pig Health Monitoring Scheme Pig Health and Research Unit (based at the former regional veterinary laboratory facility at Bendigo)

National Sentinel Hive Program Various

National Wildlife Disease Surveillance Various

National Arbovirus Monitoring Program Victorian Institute of Animal Science

Ausvetplan (the national plan which spells out the arrangements for emergency animal disease responses)

Various government laboratories

Source: Various governmental publications and personal communications.

6.8 All of the national programs include nationally agreed rules for program delivery that incorporate laboratory diagnostic criteria for each disease or chemical residue. These same principles apply for state/territory-based animal health programs.52

6.9 The animal health programs also involve the provision of information, support and education to livestock producers on animal health matters such as animal husbandry, nutrition, welfare, on-farm biosecurity and disease diagnosis and control.

Finding 6.2

An array of Victorian and national animal health programs are reliant on veterinary pathology services and require such services to be accurate, low cost and delivered in a timely and confidential manner.

NEEDS OF SPECIAL POLICY INITIATIVES

6.10 Policy initiatives, such as the Victorian Government’s food export promotion program, ‘Naturally Victoria’, are based on Victoria being a “producer of clean, green and safe food”.53 Such initiatives are underpinned by rigorous quality assurance and food safety standards, which in turn require monitoring of chemical residue status and ensuring that livestock are disease free. Consequently the ability to identify animal disease and being able to prove that livestock are disease free are key requirements of animal health programs.

6.11 Government policy initiatives also include support for particular specialised sectors, such as the aquaculture industry. Government support for such sectors, through initiatives like the Victorian Aquaculture Strategy54 and, more recently, The Blue Revolution,55 aim to expand investment and support industry development. Like the more traditional livestock industries, the ability to identify, prevent and treat disease is vital. The diseases of finfish, molluscs and crustacea are a very specialised area, with specialised veterinary pathology services needed.


PAGE 34

Finding 6.3

‘Clean and green’ marketing programs rely on high levels of animal health, which in turn rely on the ability to diagnose disease. Generalist disease diagnosis skills are inadequate for developing sectors or specialised sectors such as the aquaculture industry – these require specialist veterinary pathology skills.


PAGE 35

CHAPTER 7 ADEQUACY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF DISEASE INVESTIGATION SERVICES • Quality of Laboratory Service • Cost Effectiveness • Number of Laboratory Accessions • Availability and Quality of Diagnostic Tests • Post-mortem Services

QUALITY OF LABORATORY SERVICE

7.1 The Committee’s survey of veterinarians provided some information on the level of satisfaction of the service provided by external suppliers of pathology tests.56 The survey indicated clear differences in perceived satisfaction, with CDVL-IDEXX the stand-out performer – with nine out of ten users rating it as good or excellent.57 There was lower overall satisfaction with the other providers, including the main provider of external pathology services in Victoria, Gribbles Veterinary Pathology Service – 60 per cent of veterinarians rated it as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’), with nearly a quarter of veterinarians who submit larger numbers of samples to Gribbles (more than 31 samples a month) dissatisfied with its service. The overall satisfaction figures for the other two main service providers were 69 per cent for Gippsland Veterinary Pathology Services and 53 per cent for VIAS-Attwood. 58

Finding 7.1

It is of concern that the users of the main public sector provider of pathology services and of the holder of the contract for providing government health program tests have expressed comparatively modest levels of satisfaction.

7.2 Factors that were important in the choice of the provider of external services were varied. Factors found to be most important are:

a) availability of expertise; b) turnaround times; c) accessibility of services; d) range of services; and e) quality of reporting.59

7.3 A comparison of the importance of factors in choosing an external provider of pathology services is provided in Table 7.1.


PAGE 36

Table 7.1: Comparison of the Importance of Factors Considered in Choosing an External Provider of Pathology Services

Factor Percentage of Respondents Listing Factor as ‘Very Important’

Ability to speak with a veterinary pathologist when necessary

85 %

Turnaround times that meet expectations 78 %

Access to sample courier service 67 %

Ability to provide all diagnostic services 58 %

Detailed interpretive reports 56 %

Access to emergency results 34 %

NATA and/or ISO accreditation 32 %

Knowledge of local animal health issues 30 %*

Seven-day-per-week service 27 %

Ability to do post mortems 15 %

Lowest price/willingness to match lowest price 11 %

* Among veterinarians serving the livestock industry, the percentage was 37 per cent. Source: Derived form TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 63.

7.4 An analysis of the main factors raised follows.

Availability of Expertise 7.5 The Committee’s survey of veterinarians found that clearly the most important factor for veterinarians in choosing an external provider of pathology services was the “ability to speak with veterinary pathologist when necessary”. Some 85 per cent of veterinarians considered this to be ‘very important’ and none thought it not important.60

7.6 The Committee’s survey also found that the “opportunity to speak with a veterinary pathologist when necessary” varied significantly between service providers. For example, 88 per cent of veterinarians who use CDVL-IDEXX rated its provision of such opportunities as ‘excellent’ (57 per cent) or ‘good’ (31 per cent). Less than a third of veterinarians using the services of the Victorian Institute of Animal Science (the main government provider) or Gribbles Veterinary Pathology (the main private provider) considered that these providers offered ‘excellent’ opportunity to speak with a veterinary pathologist – with 6 and 3 per cent respectively considering that access was poor or unsatisfactory.


PAGE 37

7.7 Concern about poor access to veterinary pathologists was also a common theme in written submissions received by the Committee. Almost without exception, witnesses were highly complimentary of the work of veterinary pathologists that they had contact with – the issue of greatest concern was that there were not enough veterinary pathologists available after hours (an issue of particular concern for access to public sector employed pathologists), or available at all.

7.8 Certainly the number of veterinarian pathologists available in Victoria has been greatly reduced from the levels of 20 years ago. As indicated previously in this report, there were 35 veterinary pathologists working in the Victorian public sector (excluding those employed by universities), including two specialist fish veterinary pathologists and a number of poultry specialists. Twenty-three of these worked in regional Victoria. Few, if any, worked in private pathology laboratories.

7.9 Presently, in the public sector, the Victorian Institute of Animal Science employs two veterinary pathologists and has a manager with pathology expertise. None are located in regional Victoria. Gribbles Veterinary Pathology has four pathologists at its Clayton site and six consultants ‘on call’.61 Gippsland Veterinary Pathology has two consultants62 and has recently employed a full-time in-house pathologist. IDEX-VVPS has 2.5 pathologists in Victoria and one consultant pathologist.63 That is, around a dozen veterinary pathologists currently undertake full-time veterinary pathology work in Victoria, servicing the state’s livestock industry.

7.10 Concern was also expressed to the Committee about inadequate succession planning for veterinary pathologists. It was noted that veterinary pathologists are an ageing group, with few people in training. One submission received by the Committee from the acting Director of CSIRO’s Australian Animal Health Laboratory (AAHL) at Geelong stated that, “the discipline of veterinary pathology is close to extinction in Australia”.64 As the Committee was also informed in another submission that 50.4 per cent of general veterinary pathologists and 71.9 per cent of specialist veterinary pathologists are over 50 years of age,65 and that there are currently only six veterinary pathologists in training programs in Australia,66 such concerns seem to be well based.

Finding 7.2

Access to trained veterinary pathologists is very important but poorly provided for. At least part of the problem is the lack of specialist veterinary pathologists. The shortage of qualified veterinary pathologists will become worse if no proactive steps are taken soon.

Turnaround Times 7.11 The Committee’s survey of veterinarians found that ‘turnaround times’ were mostly satisfactory, although more than 5 per cent of users of services provided by


PAGE 38

Gribbles Veterinary Pathology and the Victorian Institute of Animal Science considered turnaround times ‘poor or unsatisfactory’.67

7.12 The survey results accord with the written and verbal evidence received by the Committee.

Finding 7.3

Turnaround times are not always satisfactory, although the Committee notes that expectations may not be met because of the nature of available tests, rather than because of the management practices of the service provider.

Accessibility of Services 7.13 Verbal evidence and written submissions indicated that accessibility of most veterinary pathology laboratory tests was adequate.

7.14 The Committee learnt that private laboratories provide and generally pay for courier services for their clients. Evidence received by the Committee indicated that the courier services are, by and large, considered efficient and suitable for sending samples such as blood and tissues. Couriers are not generally available for body parts or carcases.

7.15 Access to weekend courier services was raised with the Committee as an important issue. While a number of providers, including Gribbles Veterinary Pathology Services, offer a 24-hour, 365–day-a-year service, several witnesses commented on the difficulties of getting urgent samples to distant laboratories on weekends. Regular couriers were not available and special trips by couriers were too expensive. The concern was expressed that important diagnoses, such as anthrax, could be delayed or missed.

7.16 Veterinarians working with the sheep and poultry sectors were more likely to consider a seven-day–a-week service ‘very important’ than those working in other sectors (35 and 45 per cent respectively, compared with an average of 27 per cent).68

Finding 7.4

Courier services provided or paid for by pathology laboratories are mostly adequate, but out-of-hours emergency needs are inadequate

Range of Services 7.17 The results of the Committee’s survey of veterinarians indicated that a majority of non-metropolitan veterinarians prefer to use pathology providers who can supply a full range of diagnostic services. That is, ‘a one stop shop’ is preferred.


PAGE 39

7.18 Nonetheless, the Committee notes that smaller, specialist service providers have been able to develop a substantial client base – from both within and outside Victoria.

7.19 The Committee also was told that even where a ‘one stop shop’ is provided, the actual diagnostic tests required may be carried out by different laboratories through arrangement by the main service provider.

7.20 The evidence received by the Committee did not indicate that there were any obvious laboratory testing services that were not being supplied by at least one service provider.

Finding 7.5

Existing service providers are able to provide the range of generally required laboratory-based pathology tests.

Quality of Reporting 7.21 Detailed interpretive reports were of great importance for veterinarians – only one per cent did not consider this as an important factor in choosing a supplier of pathology testing services.69 The Committee’s survey of veterinarians also found that the provision of detailed interpretive reports varied significantly between service providers. For example, excellent ‘provision of detailed interpretive reports’ ranged from 14 to 41 per cent. A summary of the relevant survey results is included in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2: Ranking of the Provision of Detailed Interpretive Reports by Selected Service Providers

Victorian Institute of Animal Science

Gribbles Veterinary Pathology

CDVL-IDEXX

Gippsland Veterinary Pathology Services

Rated as ‘excellent’ 18 % 14 % 41 % 21 %

Rated as ‘good’ 24 % 42 % 37 % 45 %

Rated as ‘average’ 29 % 37 % 10 % 27 %

Rated as ‘poor/unsatisfactory’

29 % 6 % 10 % 6 %

Source: Derived from TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee.


PAGE 40

Finding 7.6

The quality of interpretive reports provided by veterinary pathology laboratories is highly variable. The Committee notes that the preparation of detailed interpretive reports will increase the cost of testing and may not be required for many routine forms of laboratory test.

COST EFFECTIVENESS

7.22 The issue of cost effectiveness of testing was raised in very few of the submissions received by the Committee – and was not raised as a key issue of importance by veterinarians responding to the Committee’s survey. Nor is there great variability in survey response between the performance of the four main Victorian providers in their ‘charging of the lowest price or willingness to match the lowest price’.

7.23 The Committee was told that Gribbles Veterinary Pathology has a very competitive pricing policy made possible by high-test volumes (economies of scale) and adoption of automation where feasible.70

7.24 An alternative view was given to the Committee. One private laboratory with low overheads and low prices claims to have forced larger laboratories to reduce their prices. Their submission also raised a concern that cost undercutting by larger laboratories could be used as a ‘predatory pricing’ mechanism to overcome opposition and considered that the Government was in danger of exposing itself to a monopolistic situation when too few providers remained.71

7.25 In particular, general costs do not appear to be a problem for companion animal services – where sentimental value overrode pure cost issues. In contrast, the Committee found that livestock-industry users are much more cost sensitive, with many witnesses particularly referring to costs of services being a limiting factor for non-subsidised production animal tests. Properly conducted post-mortem examinations on farm animals were viewed as being uneconomic by most respondents.

7.26 A few respondents commented on the ‘all-or-nothing’ nature of the present contractual arrangements for services required by government in Victoria. There was the perception that small laboratories were being unreasonably excluded, that Victoria was in danger of becoming captured by a monopoly,72 and that many regional employment opportunities had been exported to the city.


PAGE 41

Finding 7.7

Quality of service is more import than lowest cost, but cost effectiveness is nonetheless important for producers and veterinarians requiring testing of production animal livestock and also important, where tests are subject to subsidy, for the Government.

NUMBER OF LABORATORY ACCESSIONS

7.27 Over half of the non-metropolitan veterinary practices surveyed by the Committee conducted in-house pathology testing, carrying out on average 30 tests in-house each month. The majority of such testing is conducted by the larger practices. Extrapolated to all non-metropolitan practices in Victoria, an estimated 5,263 tests are being carried out each month. The most frequently (at least weekly) conducted in-house tests are:

a) haematology – 38 per cent (1,311 tests); b) biochemical/endocrinology – 38 per cent (1,393 tests); c) cytology – 36 per cent (922 tests); and d) parasitology – 34 per cent (798 tests).73

7.28 The Committee’s survey also investigated the reasons for the use of in-house pathology testing and found that the primary reason for conducting in-house testing was to ensure fast turnaround of test results – the reason given by 86 per cent of responding veterinary practices.74

7.29 Veterinary practices servicing livestock industries were less likely to carry out in-house testing than practices servicing pet and companion animals and wildlife sectors.

7.30 With respect to external testing, the Committee found that some 9,452 pathology tests were being conducted on behalf of the surveyed practices each month. The greatest proportion of external tests conducted per month is for haematology services and biochemistry:

a) haematology – 21 per cent (1,966 tests); b) biochemical/endocrinology – 19 per cent (1,801 tests); and c) bacteriology/mycology – 14 per cent (1,363 tests).75

7.31 Current usage of external providers for pathology testing outweighs in-house services almost two to one, with, on average, each veterinarian sending 34 submissions to an external provider each month.76

7.32 The Committee also obtained statistically valid data on the predicted use of laboratory services through its survey of veterinarians – veterinary practices that undertook in-house testing or used external laboratories to conduct pathology testing were asked to estimate whether they will conduct each specific test more frequently, less frequently or the same amount in the future.


PAGE 42

7.33 The number of pathology tests conducted in-house and by external laboratories each month is estimated to increase by some 18 per cent. Most of this growth is from increases in demand for haematology testing, with an estimated increase of 17 per cent or 5,512 tests. The greatest percentage increase of demand for a particular test is for histopathology testing, where the demand is estimated to increase by 28 per cent.

7.34 Predicted increases for services are greater for external testing services than in-house services, although demand for both is predicted to increase.77 Total demand for external pathology testing is estimated to increase by 22 per cent,78 with total demand for in-house services estimated to increase by 10 per cent.79

7.35 A summary of the main areas of future demand for laboratory services is provided in Tables 7.3 and 7.4.

Table 7.3: Pathology Tests with Largest Predicted Increase in Demand – Using External Provider

Pathology Service Practices Predicting Increased Use

Practices Predicting Decreased Use

Histopathology 31 % 1 %

Serology 31 % 2 %

Bacteriology 31 % 3 %

Biochemistry/endochrinology 28 % 6 %


Table 7.4: Pathology Tests with Largest Predicted Increase in Demand – For In-house Testing

Pathology Service Practices Predicting Increased Use

Practices Predicting Decreased Use

Biochemistry/endochrinology 18 % 8 %

Haematology 17 % 2 %

Cytology 14 % 1 %

Parasitology 11 % 1 %


Finding 7.8

Demand for pathology testing is expected to increase – for certain tests by more than 30 per cent. Existing service providers may be unable to cope with such increased demand using existing resources.


PAGE 43

AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY OF DIAGNOSTIC TESTS

Development 7.36 The development of new and specialised tests is costly and time consuming. As a consequence, most new and specialised tests have been developed by government or government–industry partnerships. Such tests are then adopted by private service providers. Three examples of such development are:

a) the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (CSL) ‘Paracheck’ kit for bovine Johne’s disease – developed by scientists of the former Department of Agriculture at the Veterinary Research Institute, Parkville (which was subsequently licensed to CSL for production and marketing);

b) the ovine Johne’s disease pooled faecal culture technique for sheep – developed by New South Wales Agriculture scientists at the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute; and

c) a Johne’s disease ELISA blood test for use in deer – being developed by scientists at the Victorian Institute for Animal Science .

7.37 Once developed, such tests are generally made available for use by both public and private sector pathology laboratories.

7.38 Private providers of veterinary pathology services usually do not see it as their primary role to develop new tests.80 They may, however, “take new diagnostic tests and technologies and develop them for a commercial context”.81 The Committee was also told that new and emerging sectors may obtain access to tests developed by private laboratories if existing tests can be modified at low cost.

7.39 At least one private pathology laboratory plans to develop a new diagnostic test in its own right. The Committee learnt of the development of a PCR test for detection of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis (the Johne’s disease bacterium) in faeces by Gippsland Veterinary Pathology Services.82 It is not known whether such tests would necessarily be made generally available.

Finding 7.9

There is only limited development of new diagnostic tests occurring – despite the increased efficiency and development of much of the veterinary pathology sector depending on such research. The development of new diagnostic tests is currently undertaken in an ad hoc manner, with no specific agency or sector appearing to have a clear responsibility.

Quality 7.40 The Committee was made aware of the poor quality of some of the diagnostic tests used. This has led to incorrect results being, on occasions, released. For example, when Gribbles Veterinary Pathology was using the CSL Paracheck kit


PAGE 44

for bovine Johne’s disease, it released numerous false positive ELISA results: “Periodically, the kit has produced a large number of false positive results due to the diluent not absorbing out antibody to non-specific mycobacteria. The problem created a great deal of negative feeling towards the bovine Johne’s disease eradication program…”.83

7.41 The Committee questions why, given that quality systems were in place, “large numbers” of false positive results were released. Knowledge of the results from previous rounds of testing on any particular farm would have been on the laboratory’s database and it is not clear to the Committee why such data did not alert the laboratory to a problem with the test.

Finding 7.10

It is of concern that the quality-assurance systems of test developers, manufacturers and user laboratories do not pick up imperfect tests and test results before large number of errors are presented to veterinarians and producers.

POST-MORTEM SERVICES

7.42 The issue of post mortems was the most consistently raised item by witnesses to the inquiry.84 The consensus view among respondents was that fewer post mortems are being conducted under current arrangements than occurred five to ten years ago.85

7.43 A variety of views emerged as reasons for the reduction in the number of post mortems conducted. These included:

a) a lack of specialist veterinarians available to undertake post mortems, particularly in regional Victoria;

b) the time-consuming nature of performing post mortems, particularly those on adult cattle, pigs or horses – post mortems cannot be delayed and interfere with other procedures, and practitioners have to drive to the site of the post mortem, or the carcase has to be transported to the practitioner;

c) handling of adult cattle, pigs and horses is difficult – requiring lifting equipment that may not be available for in-situ post mortems;

d) disposal of dismembered carcases, particularly those of adult cattle, pigs or horses, may be difficult – burial requires earth-moving equipment and there may be problems with high water tables; burning requires good-quality firewood and takes approximately 24 hours for adult cattle, pigs or horses, requires lifting equipment and must be attended intermittently until completely burned out, and is banned during total fire ban periods;

e) a lack of confidence and specialised expertise on the part of general field veterinarians; and

f) costs – especially since the closure of the former regional veterinary laboratories, which offered a subsidised (or free) service.


PAGE 45

7.44 The Committee was told that factors leading to the high cost of post-mortems include:

a) transport of the animal to the post -mortem site; b) professional time and travel costs of the veterinarian travelling to the post-

mortem site; c) professional time conducting the post mortem, completing paperwork,

interpreting results and communicating results with recommendations (usually by phone) to the client;

d) hiring lifting and/or earth-moving equipment; e) quality hardwood (for burning carcases); f) disposable equipment such as gloves, masks, disinfectant, formaldehyde

solution or the laundering of protective clothing; g) packaging materials for samples; h) courier fees, if not prepaid by the diagnostic laboratory; and i) laboratory fees.

7.45 The Committee was told that the low number of post mortems being conducted was compromising the ability of field veterinarians to diagnose disease in particular animals as well as reduce opportunities for enhancing their practical diagnostic skills. The limited number of post mortems being undertaken was also considered by many to be greatly limiting the ability to develop surveillance for animal diseases in Victoria – an issue further considered by the Committee in the next section of this report.

Finding 7.11

The number of post mortems being undertaken is significantly lower than in the past. This appears to be reducing the ability of field veterinarians to make firm diagnoses of the cause of sickness in, and death of, livestock.


PAGE 46


PAGE 47

CHAPTER 8 ADEQUACY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF DISEASE SURVEILLANCE • Disease Surveillance Processes • Active Surveillance • Passive Surveillance • Collection of Data and Dissemination of Disease Trends

DISEASE SURVEILLANCE PROCESSES

8.1 Disease surveillance is the process of gathering, collating and distributing information on the prevalence (or absence) of known diseases, usually within a defined area. Surveillance also aims at early recognition of new diseases. Surveillance information is frequently required by trading partners, who must be satisfied that certain conditions, for example bovine spongiform encephalopathy (‘mad cow disease’) and scrapie in sheep, do not exist in Australia.

8.2 Surveillance may be ‘active’, where the presence or absence of disease is demonstrated in a proactive, planned manner, for example by surveying a statistically determined number of individuals in the population. ‘Passive’ surveillance is the process whereby the presence or absence of disease is investigated in a more random manner.

8.3 Surveillance data is required for a variety of purposes: a) to detect and determine the prevalence and distribution of, and to respond

to, exotic, emergency or zoonotic (affecting humans and animals) diseases; b) to detect and determine the prevalence and distribution of, and to respond

to, notifiable or other endemic diseases; c) to certify to trading partners the absence of specified diseases from farms,

regions, states or the nation.

8.4 While an array of professional and non-professional personnel are involved in the gathering and dissemination of surveillance data, specialist veterinary epidemiologists may be engaged to work with veterinary pathologists in the study of epidemics and outbreaks of disease affecting animals.

8.5 Survey data from the Committee’s survey of veterinarians showed that two in five (42 per cent) non-metropolitan veterinarians believed that there were areas of pathology expertise lacking. Disease surveillance was of particular concern to veterinarians in the livestock sector, especially those in the cattle, sheep, pork and goat/alpaca/deer sectors.86


PAGE 48

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE

8.6 Active surveillance is the scientifically planned collection of disease-related information from a defined animal species, class and age. Active surveillance is conducted on materials mostly sourced from clinically normal animals, but may also involve the targeted survey of affected, sick or dead animals.

8.7 Active surveillance is particularly useful for acquiring assurance that particular diseases do not occur on a farm or in the region, state or nation. To certify absence of disease requires a planned approach whereby defined numbers of animals are surveyed for the absence of disease. Without testing the whole population, it is not possible to prove absolutely that a disease does not exist in that population.

8.8 It is, however, possible to specify the level of confidence that a disease does not exist in a population. For example, a survey can specify with 95 per cent confidence that a disease does not occur in 2 per cent or more of a population, or with 99.9 per cent confidence does not occur in 0.1 per cent of a population. The higher the level of confidence required, the greater the number of animals that must be included in the surveillance survey.

8.9 Examples of active surveillance presently conducted in Victoria include: a) the National Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Surveillance

Program (NTSESP); b) the Ovine Johne’s Disease (OJD) Abattoir Survey; and c) the national arbovirus monitoring program (NAMP).

8.10 The primary purpose of the National Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Surveillance Program is to support access to export markets. It involves maintaining a surveillance system for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) that is consistent with the International Animal Health Code and assures all countries which import cattle and sheep commodities that Australia remains free of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and scrapie. Each year, this requires the nation-wide detailed examination of several hundred cattle and sheep with signs of neurological disease that could be mistaken for a TSE.

8.11 The OJD Abattoir Survey is one of the methods used to obtain the information required for defining sheep movement restriction zones within Australia. The survey involves the examination of intestines of sheep at abattoirs. Any intestine with changes (lesions) suggestive of OJD is sampled and sent off to a laboratory for histological (microscopic) examination. It is possible to screen tens of thousands of sheep in this way and to build up a picture of OJD prevalence on which zoning decisions can be based.

8.12 The National Arbovirus Monitoring Program monitors livestock for exposure to arthropod (insect) borne viruses including akabane, bluetongue and


PAGE 49

bovine ephemeral fever. These viruses are significant pathogens for livestock, are common in tropical northern Australia and extend variably southwards, depending on season and rainfall. Sentinel herds are bled intermittently each season to map the extent of southward spread of the viruses. Insect vectors are also trapped to monitor their distribution.87 The information is useful both for trade/certification and for disease preparedness. The information has spin-offs for human health. Human arbovirus infections, for example Ross River and Barmah Forest virus, can be expected to increase in prevalence when animal arbovirus infections are detected. The Committee visited the laboratory supporting this program, which is based at the Attwood campus of the Victorian Institute of Animal Science.

8.13 Other examples of active surveillance programs include the Australian Milk Residue Analysis Survey (monitors various antimicrobials, metals, insecticides) and the National Residue Survey (monitors animals/animal products for anthelmintics, antimicrobials, metals, insecticides and growth promotants).

8.14 One major advantage of active surveillance is that it can be relied upon. If the decision is made to fund and conduct a program, scientifically sound results will be acquired year after year. A major disadvantage is that it only provides information on the particular diseases being targeted.

8.15 Active surveillance is increasingly sought by trading partners and active surveillance programs are likely to become more frequent in the future.

Finding 8.1

Active surveillance appears to be working well for those diseases where programs exist.

Finding 8.2

There is increasing demand for additional active surveillance programs by trading partners.

PASSIVE SURVEILLANCE

8.16 Passive surveillance is the ad hoc collection of information relating to disease diagnosis, prevalence and distribution. Passive surveillance is a by-product of routine veterinary and analytical diagnostic services. Passive surveillance is generally (but not always) conducted on materials from clinically affected, sick or dead animals.

8.17 Examples of diseases tracked by passive surveillance include: a) salmonella bacteria – these are important causes of enteritis and other

conditions of humans and animals and are a cause of human food poisoning. Human and animal isolates of Salmonella species cultured in laboratories


PAGE 50

from around Australia are forwarded to the Microbiological Diagnostic Unit (MDU) at the University of Melbourne for the typing of all isolates;

b) bovine brucellosis – while this disease has been eradicated from Australia, a passive surveillance and reporting system is maintained through abortion investigations and miscellaneous testing of blood samples;

c) zoonoses – these are diseases of animals transmittable to humans – diagnoses of zoonotic disease are collated by the National Diseases Surveillance System.

8.18 Another example of passive surveillance is the National Granuloma Submission Program, which screens abattoir materials for bovine tuberculosis.

8.19 An important element of such surveillance is the publishing of results for the use of veterinarians and others involved in animal health. For example, the results of the passive surveillance of Salmonella bacteria, the bovine brucellosis surveillance and reporting system and surveillance of zoonoses are all published in tables included in the Animal Health Surveillance Quarterly published by Animal Health Australia.

8.20 Passive surveillance has the advantage of providing a general picture of the health of animals within a given area – covering all causes of disease. As diseased animals are targeted, it is very effective in identifying general trends. It is also relatively cheap, as most of the information gathered is gleaned from diagnostic submissions that are being undertaken for other reasons – and paid for by the user. The survey project need only cover the cost of the collection, aggregation and publication of the information.

8.21 Passive surveillance has the disadvantage of being subject to influences that can alter the number of sample submissions and the species from which samples are collected. The classic example was when full fee-for-service was introduced for veterinary pathology services and the number of diagnostic submissions from farm animals fell as a consequence.

8.22 The surveillance work undertaken by the former regional veterinary laboratories was mostly of a passive nature. Private veterinarians and farmers presented bodies or materials from dead or ill animals and the presence or absence of disease was established on these materials.

Finding 8.3

Passive surveillance remains important for early detection of disease and thus disease responses, but the amount of surveillance resources applied has been significantly reduced.


PAGE 51

Finding 8.4

Mechanisms for effective and timely communication of notifiable and non-notifiable diseases and local production-limiting conditions of livestock to private veterinarians and producers are deficient.

COLLECTION OF DATA AND DISSEMINATION OF DISEASE TRENDS

Data Collection 8.23 Surveillance data is mostly required for ‘public good’ purposes and thus has been considered largely the responsibility of government. In Victoria, the responsibility to collect, collate and distribute surveillance data on animal health lies with the animal health group of the Department of Primary Industries.

8.24 The information comes from many sources, including farmers, private and government veterinarians, knackeries, and abattoirs and private and government laboratories.

Differences Between Notifiable and Non-notifiable Tests 8.25 Diseases notifiable in Victoria are listed in the Livestock Disease Control Regulations 1995. Notifiable diseases are divided into ‘Part A’, which includes 12 diseases and ‘Part B’, which lists 32 diseases. Part A listed diseases must be notified within 12 hours of diagnosis or suspicion and Part B listed diseases must be notified within seven days of diagnosis or suspicion. Suspicion or knowledge of an exotic disease must be notified to an inspector “by the quickest means of communication available”.

8.26 The responsibility for notification may pass from one individual to another. For example, if a farmer sees what he/she considers to be a notifiable disease and the farmer calls a veterinarian, who takes samples and sends them to a laboratory, the obligation to notify transfers from the farmer to the veterinarian and then on to the laboratory. Notification occurs when the laboratory informs an authorised stock inspector.

8.27 The responsibility for reporting results for veterinary pathology tests is that of the veterinarian who collected the samples. The veterinarian is in the best position to understand the results and to use them to formulate treatments or disease control strategies for the animals involved.

8.28 An exception to the above is where samples for ‘packaged tests’ are taken, such as those for measuring the number of worm eggs in the dung of animals. These are collected by the farmer and submitted direct to the laboratory. In this case laboratories frequently report both to the farmer and the farmer’s nominated


PAGE 52

veterinarian. Such reports are written in a manner that will be understood by producers.

8.29 There is no obligation on a person to report non-exotic, non-notifiable disease.

Post Mortems 8.30 While in the past the Government conducted post mortems free of charge on farm animals, since the mid-1980s fees have been charged to recover part of the costs. Since November 1994, and under the present contract with Gribbles Veterinary Pathology, post mortems are charged on a fee-for-service basis – unless the post mortem or testing is being undertaken to exclude an emergency or exotic disease.

8.31 Given the high cost of post mortems, significantly fewer are being undertaken. Most respondents to this Inquiry were concerned that fewer post mortems were being conducted under the present arrangements than under the earlier, region-based arrangements, and most felt that this increased the risk of late identification of exotic disease or a new disease.

8.32 In contrast, the Victorian Government submission questioned the value of post mortems as conducted under the previous system – on the basis that it considered that most carcases came from farms closer to the laboratories, and that even when post-mortem services were free or subsidised, only a small fraction of animals dying in Victoria ended up being examined.88 The Committee notes that over half of Victoria’s non-metropolitan veterinarians made use of the facilities of the former regional veterinary laboratories.

8.33 Relying on private enterprise to supply enough post mortems for disease surveillance needs appears to be a situation of ‘market failure’.

8.34 Respondents thought that this compromised disease surveillance and reduced their ability as practitioners to confirm or exclude suspected diseases or to recognise new diseases.89 A large number of factors are involved in the reduction of post-mortem numbers, but most can be related back to closure of the regional government services, loss of expert staff and the charging of full costs.

8.35 Some respondents also considered a shortage of rural private veterinarians an issue. However, the University of Melbourne submission presented data showing an increase in the number of registered veterinarians in Victoria with rural post codes from 313 in 1981 to 651 in 2001.90

Finding 8.5

New approaches to expand data collection for non-notifiable diseases and production limiting conditions are required.


PAGE 53

Custodianship of Data 8.36 District offices of the former Department of Natural Resources and Environment hold laboratory reports from animals that were on a property within the district at the time the samples were collected. Laboratory reports are held in property or disease files. Materials within these files are not released to third parties without written approval of the owner of the animals concerned. However, reports are released within the Department’s animal health group. The Senior Veterinary Officer for the region, the Manager Animal Health Operations and the Chief Veterinary Officer may all get copies of laboratory reports, but in turn will not release reports to third parties without written approval of the owner of the animals concerned.

8.37 With the majority of diagnostic testing now being undertaken in private laboratories, data previously available to the animal health group is no longer available. Moreover, such information cannot be released under the current provisions of the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994, which prohibits the release of information except in limited circumstances.

8.38 Moreover, as private laboratories are obliged only to report to government when notifiable diseases are diagnosed, a major source of data previously used for disease surveillance is now unavailable to the government animal health group. Data from post-mortem sources is also diminished, other than from post mortems for emergency diseases, which are still provided free.

8.39 Data available for disease surveillance is now mostly sourced from active programs where they exist or for notifiable diseases. Some have raised whether it is the responsibility of government to provide information on production-type issues – that is, non-notifiable diseases.91

Dissemination of Disease Trends 8.40 The current system obliges laboratories to report on notifiable diseases and the Animal Health Surveillance Quarterly Report, published by Animal Health Australia since 1996, reports on this data.

8.41 The information is aggregated by what is now the Department of Primary Industries on a quarterly basis and is forwarded for inclusion in the National Animal Health Information System (NAHIS) managed by Animal Health Australia. The information is summarised in narrative and tabular format for inclusion in the Animal Health Surveillance Quarterly Report, which is published and also made available on the Animal Health Australia website. Copies of the quarterly are mailed to private veterinary practices and a variety of industry groups and individuals in Victoria.92

8.42 The Quarterly Report was not considered of equal value to the regular newsletters put out by the former Victorian regional veterinary laboratories.


PAGE 54

Reasons were that the quarterly was less detailed and less current than the former newsletters.

8.43 Information on, for example, warnings that signs of mineral or vitamin deficiency had been seen frequently at a particular time of year, or that pastures in a certain area had a high risk of being contaminated by toxic fungi, are no longer provided.

8.44 The quarterly cannot provide detailed local information and there is a lag between disease occurrence and publication.

8.45 The Department of Primary Industries’ Animal Health Group does not publish timely and detailed local and regional aggregated data or its analysis of trends, even where it has access to diagnostic test results – as supplied by the holder of the government contract.

8.46 Ninety-three per cent of surveyed veterinarians considered obtaining information on local animal health issues to be important.93 Ninety-one per cent considered information about specimen collection techniques to be important.94 Both the then Department of Natural Resources and Environment (33 per cent not at all satisfied) and private laboratories (41 per cent not at all satisfied) were rated poorly as “channels used to disseminate information about local animal health issues”.95

Finding 8.6

The needs of regional veterinarians and producers for up-to-date information and local expertise on notifiable and non-notifiable diseases are currently being poorly met. It is unlikely that market forces alone will address this shortcoming.


PAGE 55

CHAPTER 9 ADEQUACY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS • Capability of Facilities • Level of Expertise • Responses to Recent Victorian Outbreaks • Lessons from Overseas Jurisdictions

CAPABILITY OF FACILITIES

9.1 The Australian Animal Health Laboratory (AAHL) in Geelong is Australia’s national laboratory for diagnosis of and research into exotic diseases. The Committee had the opportunity to visit the laboratory and learnt that it was opened in 1995 at a cost of $150 million and has an annual budget of $20 million. The laboratory is world class in terms of biocontainment (Biosecurity Level 4 is achievable) and in its ability to investigate all significant exotic animal diseases. Diagnostic techniques include both traditional and ‘state-of-the-art’ molecular techniques. It may not, however, have the capability to undertake bulk testing of the huge numbers of samples that could be required in a major outbreak of exotic infectious disease, such as the 2001 British outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The Committee was told that assistance in undertaking such testing would be sought from state-based facilities.

9.2 At a state level, Department of Primary Industries’ Victorian Institute of Animal Science (VIAS) has the ability to upgrade to Biosecurity Level 2. The institute has previously demonstrated its ability to diagnose exotic diseases such as avian influenza and Newcastle disease, most recently in the 2002 Meredith outbreak of Newcastle disease.

9.3 No other Victorian veterinary pathology laboratory has a significant level of biocontainment, although the regional veterinary laboratory at Bendigo conducted some testing for avian influenza in past outbreaks. However, since the regional veterinary laboratories ceased operation in 1996, access to these post-mortem rooms is restricted. Nonetheless, the Committee understands that they could be used during an emergency animal disease response – such as for the packaging and dispatch of samples. Large private laboratories with sophisticated automated equipment could also be brought into play.

9.4 In the British foot and mouth disease outbreak, over 3 million sera were tested in 10 months, with a peak of 200,000 tests per week.96 If a similar outbreak occurred in Victoria, the acting Director of the Australian Animal Health Laboratory (AAHL) is of the opinion that “Australia is grossly under prepared to handle the diagnostic requirements”.97 The Committee understands that a wide range of electronic and automation measures would be required to upgrade the


PAGE 56

public sector laboratories within Victoria to be in a position to perform the volume of tests that would be required with such a major outbreak, and if private laboratories were to be brought into play, they would require, in particular, an increased level of biosecurity containment.

Finding 9.1

The Committee is concerned that current pathology services in Australia are under prepared for dealing with the large number of tests that would arise in the event of a major or multiple outbreak of exotic disease. The Victorian Institute of Animal Science has the capability to assist the national laboratory in the diagnosis of exotic disease. In the event of a major outbreak, the current equipment and/or level of biocontainment available at the institute and in the larger private pathology laboratories is unlikely to be adequate.

LEVEL OF EXPERTISE

9.5 In relation to exotic disease, Victoria is reliant on a small core of experienced pathologists and laboratory specialists at the national facility at Geelong (the Australian Animal Health Laboratory)HL), the Victorian Institute of Animal Science, the University of Melbourne and the private laboratories.

9.6 However, as was noted in the previous section of this report on disease investigation services, many witnesses to the Inquiry were concerned that veterinary pathologists were an ageing group with inadequate succession planning and few people in training: “the discipline of veterinary pathology is close to extinction in Australia”;98 “50.4% of general pathologists and 71.9% of specialist pathologists are over 50 years of age”.99

9.7 The Committee was told by a number of witnesses that the level of training of field veterinarians in exotic disease diagnosis is low and few training exercises are carried out. The Committee also found that the level of knowledge about the role of field veterinarians in emergency disease response plans was also low. This is despite several state exercises having being held in the past, such as the national training exercise, ‘Operation Minotaur’, that was held in September 2002. It involved multiple government agencies and industries in all states and territories in a simulated foot and mouth disease epidemic involving three states.

9.8 Currently, limited support can be accessed at the Victorian Institute of Animal Science at Attwood and, if an exotic disease is suspected in an aquaculture enterprise, the Australian Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong will investigate. In the past the government sector employed specialist fish pathologists,100 but these public sector laboratories no longer exist. The Committee was told that the then Department of Natural Resources and Environment intended to appoint a fish health veterinarian.101


PAGE 57

Finding 9.2

The diagnosis of exotic diseases is reliant on the expertise of a small group of centralised personnel. In the event of a major outbreak there is no pool of appropriately trained veterinarians, veterinary pathologists or laboratory scientists to immediately call on. The level of expertise in exotic diseases affecting less common animals such as fish is very low.

RESPONSES TO RECENT VICTORIAN OUTBREAKS

Newcastle Disease 9.9 In May 2002, the virulent Newcastle disease virus (NDV) was detected on a large Victorian commercial layer farm near Meredith, 75 km west of Melbourne, where approximately 250,000 birds were held in nine sheds. Changes in egg-shell quality alerted staff to a problem, which led to a diagnosis of the virus by the Australian Animal Health Laboratory.

9.10 The farm was quarantined, with declaration of a surrounding restricted area with a diameter of about 3 km and a control area of about 10 km. Movement restrictions applied within these areas. Australia’s trading partners and the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) were informed102 and the international export of poultry and poultry products was suspended. The Committee was informed that there were delays in informing local producers and veterinarians of the outbreak as a result of poor records of contact numbers.

9.11 Using the agreed protocols of Australia’s new cost-sharing arrangements for the first time, the decision was made to ‘stamp out’ the infection. Ultimately all birds on the farm were humanely killed and buried and the premises were cleaned (a major task) and disinfected. Fortunately the disease did not spread to other farms. Sentinel chickens were placed in the depopulated premises and subjected to blood tests. When blood tests remained negative and the chickens remained healthy, the farm was cleared for re-stocking. The Committee was told that Australia will be able to meet international requirements for country-freedom from Newcastle disease by late November 2002.

Anthrax 9.12 In April 2002, anthrax was confirmed as the cause of death in two cattle on two separate properties in the Tatura–Shepparton area. Both properties had a history of anthrax in the major 1997 outbreak. Carcases were incinerated at the death site, ashes were buried on site and the area and equipment used was disinfected. Herd mates were vaccinated and subjected to a 42-day quarantine period. More than 12,000 cattle on all farms where anthrax had occurred in 1997 were also vaccinated by contracted private veterinarians. A number of sudden deaths in cattle on farms in the area were also investigated, with negative results. No further cases of anthrax have been diagnosed at the time of writing.


PAGE 58

Finding 9.3

Victoria was able, in conjunction with the national laboratory, to respond to small outbreaks of exotic livestock diseases in the past – with the diverting of staff and resources. Existing resources and personnel would be unable to cope with multiple outbreaks or a major outbreak.

LESSONS FROM OVERSEAS JURISDICTIONS

9.13 Representatives of the Committee had the opportunity to meet with Dr John Anderson, the Director of the World Reference Laboratory for Foot and Mouth Disease at the Pirbright Laboratory in the United Kingdom during his visit to Australia in April 2002. The Pirbright Laboratory is the key laboratory for exotic disease diagnosis in the United Kingdom and played a vital role in the response to the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak. The laboratory was not prepared for the huge quantity of testing that was required – it had to gear up to high-volume testing and train scientists in the necessary diagnostic standards and procedures. Fortunately it had a massive amount of the relevant diagnostic reagents in stock to enable large quantities of serological testing.

9.14 While the Pirbright Laboratory is the world reference laboratory for foot and mouth disease, it was initially able to handle only 400 tests per week. This rose to 200,000 tests per week with redeployment of 60 scientists and testing at an additional four government laboratories, which were “not ideally suited to the level of biocontainment required”.103

9.15 The 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease was the subject of three independent inquiries announced by the British Government in August 2001.104 The ‘Lessons to be Learned Inquiry’ attracted 576 written submissions, met over 200 representatives of national and local organisations and interviewed over 100 persons. The report, containing 81 recommendations, was released in July 2002.

9.16 ‘How history has a habit of repeating itself’ was one theme in the report. Issues raised in the ‘Northumberland Report’ of 1968 drew similar conclusions to the ‘Lessons to be Learned Inquiry’ report “about the need for preparation, the rapid deployment of resources, and the central importance of speed, above all speed-to-slaughter of infected animals”. The report mentioned the need for accurate disease intelligence “no one in command understood in sufficient detail what was happening on the ground during these early days”.105

9.17 Some recommendations from the ‘Lessons to be Learned Inquiry’ relevant to Victoria include:

a) laboratory services – “the resources and research programs of the Pirbright Laboratory [the central state laboratory] should be fully integrated into the national strategy for animal disease control and budget provisions made accordingly”;


PAGE 59

b) veterinary matters – the inquiry recommended that the conditions and roles of Local Veterinary Inspectors (equivalent to Department of Primary Industries’ District Veterinary Officers) should be reappraised and that the Government should develop opportunities for increased use of veterinary ‘paramedics’ (non-professionals); and

c) training – the inquiry recommended additional training measures for veterinary practitioners and local veterinary inspectors, for animal owners, for those in the food and livestock industries, and for those managing disease control.

9.18 In comparison to the United Kingdom, the Committee understands that Australia has very detailed and frequently updated national exotic disease control plans (Ausvetplan). Victoria also has a system of ‘para-vets’ already in place, with the Department of Primary Industries employing well-qualified Animal Health Officers (with science degrees) to assist veterinarians in the conduct of government animal health programs.

9.19 The Committee learnt that government contact listings were not always up to date and computer systems between the Government and the major pathology service providers were incompatible.

Finding 9.4

Integration of pathology laboratories into emergency disease planning, ongoing training of producers, field vets, pathologists and laboratory scientists, and the ability to rapidly upgrade laboratory facilities are all required if emergency disease responses within Victoria are to be successful.


PAGE 60


PAGE 61

CHAPTER 10 POSSIBLE FUTURE ARRANGEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • Effectiveness of the Current Service Delivery Model • Possible Additional Forms of Service Provision • Recommended Arrangements for the Provision of Veterinary

Pathology Services

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CURRENT SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL

10.1 The current model for the provision of veterinary pathology services in Victoria is one of a government–private enterprise mix. The state and federal governments provide services for the diagnosis of exotic and some notifiable diseases, with associated specialist research and analytical services. The Federal Government’s Australian Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong, the Victorian Institute of Animal Science at Attwood and the State Chemistry Laboratory at Werribee provide these services. Routine diagnostic services required by the Victorian Government as part of animal health programs have been provided by private laboratories under contract – currently the contract is held by Gribbles Veterinary Pathology based at Clayton (since November 1996).

10.2 A number of other metropolitan and regional laboratories provide services to the non-government sector. A few provide a wide range of services, for example, IDEXX-VPS (Mount Waverley and elsewhere), Gippsland Veterinary Pathology Services (Traralgon) and the School of Veterinary Science, University of Melbourne (Werribee). Other private laboratories provide a narrow range of tests where they have established a ‘niche’ market. Examples of such laboratories are Para-Tech Veterinary Services (Willaura), Regional Laboratory Services (Benalla), Para-Site Diagnostic Services (Benalla) and Skilbeck Scientific Laboratory Services (Bairnsdale).

Strengths of Current Service Provision System 10.3 While fragmented, the current system provides a level of competition for non-government services both in country and metropolitan areas.

10.4 For required government laboratory-based pathology services, the arrangement of outsourcing supply to a single provider appears to be successful. From the government perspective, it is considerably easier to manage its requirements through a contract with a single rather than with multiple providers.106 A single provider with greater test throughput also provides the opportunity for economies of scale and for lower prices to be delivered to government.107


PAGE 62

Key Pathology Service Issues Not Currently Well Provided For 10.5 A number of witnesses made comparisons between the current level of service provision and that provided during the period when the Government operated regional veterinary laboratories. The Committee’s survey of veterinarians provides a more representative view of the non-metropolitan veterinarians. The survey results show that nearly three-quarters (73 per cent) of veterinarians who had used the services of the former government laboratories108 consider that some or all of these services are either no longer provided or are poorly provided by current arrangements. Nearly four in ten (38 per cent) of all non-metropolitan veterinarians consider that some (or all) services have declined. Concerns were particularly expressed by veterinarians serving the livestock sector and heavy users of external diagnostic services.109

10.6 The services perceived to be most adversely affected by the closure of the government laboratories included:

a) post-mortem services (41 per cent); b) lack of access to specialist staff (25 per cent); c) loss of low-cost or free services (15 per cent); and d) loss of localised knowledge, research and development and education

programs.110 Many veterinarians serving the livestock industries considered that turnaround times had increased.

10.7 Written, verbal and survey evidence received by the Committee on the shortcomings of Victoria’s present system for the provision of veterinary pathology services have been outlined in previous sections of this report. Many of these shortcomings relate to a small number of related issues:

a) lack of accessible expertise; b) poor or inaccessible surveillance information; c) poor access to affordable post-mortems; and d) limited competition between providers of government contract pathology

services.

Finding 10.1

The current service model appears to be working reasonably well for the delivery of routine and specialist laboratory-based diagnostic services; however, a number of services required by the livestock industry are not well provided. Improvements are required – to increase the level of accessible expertise, to improve the collection of surveillance information and its dissemination, to make post mortems more affordable and to retain competition for the supply of government needs.


PAGE 63

POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL FORMS OF SERVICE PROVISION

10.8 The Committee has developed six different forms of service provision that could be used separately and/or in combination to address the shortfalls identified in the current service model. These are:

a) species-based specialist diagnostic and research units; b) outsourced management of state veterinary laboratory services; c) region-based animal health surveillance and investigation services; d) a centre of excellence; e) region-based animal health service units; and f) amended government contract.

10.9 Each of these approaches is outlined below.

Species-based Specialist Diagnostic and Research Units 10.10 This approach envisages the development of groups dedicated to the diagnosis of diseases of, and research into, specific livestock species or production systems.

10.11 Examples of this approach already in existence include: a) the group specialising in aquaculture at the Animal Health Laboratory,

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment at Launceston, Tasmania; and

b) the Pig Health and Research Unit of the Department of Primary Industries, at Bendigo.

The Pig Health and Research Unit at Bendigo 10.12 This unit has been in existence under different names for approximately 20 years. It is based at the former regional veterinary laboratory facility in Bendigo.111. Before privatisation, the activities of this group were integrated into the activities of Bendigo Regional Veterinary Laboratory. After Centaur International assumed responsibility for diagnostic services in 1994, the Pig Health and Research Unit retained its identity and activities under the Regional Services Division of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (and now Department of Primary Industries).

10.13 The service employs one veterinarian (a former regional veterinary laboratorypathologist), five research scientists (three of whom are senior scientists) and six technicians. These people have the use of the postmortem room, three laboratories, offices, wash-up facilities and the autoclave area of the former regional veterinary laboratory.

10.14 The unit is funded 20–30 per cent by the Victorian Government, 20–25 per cent by Auspork (the industry research body) and 45–60 per cent by other ‘soft’ funds such as short-term project work and fee-for-service work.


PAGE 64

10.15 Clients of the Pig Health and Research Unit include pig producers and pig consultants (nationally), industry bodies such as the Victorian Farmers’ Federation, Auspork and pharmaceutical companies. Government bodies such as the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI), the Department of Primary Industries in Queensland and the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute within New South Wales Agriculture are also clients of the group. Collaborative arrangements exist with universities such as Murdoch (Western Australia), the universities of Tasmania and Queensland and the University of Melbourne.

10.16 The unit is the national serotyping laboratory for E. coli, an important bacterial pathogen of pigs and other animals. It conducts microbiology of enteric and respiratory pathogens of pigs and selective, comprehensive post mortems. An important pig health monitoring scheme is conducted on approximately 15,000 carcases of pigs killed at five Victorian abattoirs. This scheme is an important surveillance tool for the pig (and other) livestock industries.

10.17 Research projects of the unit include developing polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for enteric and respiratory diseases of pigs, industry work on pig pathogens, monitoring air quality and collaborative work with pharmaceutical companies such as Fort Dodge, Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and Intervet.

10.18 The service is based in the centre of Victoria’s pig industry and considers the interpretation of laboratory results for pig producers, consultants and private veterinarians as part of its role. The group is commercially focused and meets users’ needs with some level of government assistance.

Possible Additional Units 10.19 Similar units could be developed along the lines of the Bendigo-based Pig Health and Research Unit. For example, a specialist unit for the dairy cattle industry could be developed near the Dairy Research Institute at Ellinbank,112 for beef cattle and meat sheep at Rutherglen and a wool-sheep specialist unit could be developed at the Pastoral Research Institute at Hamilton.

10.20 Indicative start-up resources for a single equivalent group are given in Table 10.1.

Finding 10.2

The Pig Health and Research Unit at Bendigo is a good example of what can be achieved through collaboration between government and industry.


PAGE 65

Table 10.1: Indicative Running Costs for a Species-based Specialist Diagnostic and Research Unit Item Indicative

Per Annum Cost ($)

Comment

Professional staff 400,000 Two veterinary pathologists, two scientists plus on-costs

Technical staff 126,000 Two laboratory technicians plus on-costs Administrative staff 54,000 One administrative officer plus on-costs Operating funds 200,000 Includes lease of premises and all equipment

and use of regional post-mortem facilities where required

Total indicative costs for one unit

780,000

Outsourced Management of State Veterinary Laboratory Services 10.21 In 1994, the Victorian Government outsourced most veterinary diagnostic services to the private company Centaur International. Centaur employed most of the staff of the former regional government laboratories and provided services from government-owned premises for two years. After this time, the Victorian Government contract was awarded to Gribbles Veterinary Pathology in Clayton. Gribbles works from its own premises, using its own equipment. The Government retained the cental government laboratory at the Victorian Institute of Animal Science within the public sector.

10.22 In 1997, Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (PIRSA) outsourced the management of the government VETLAB laboratory to the private company Veterinary Pathology Services, presently IDEXX-VPS.113 Some details of this arrangement, which is still in place, are given below.

The South Australian VETLAB Laboratory 10.23 IDEXX-VPS is solely responsible for the provision of veterinary pathology services to the South Australian Government. Services are managed by this private operator from the former VETLAB facility. Since taking over the service, the laboratory has become NATA accredited. IDEXX-VPS maintains equipment to meet quality standards. The laboratory undertakes work for all animal species from all states.

10.24 The laboratory competes with state laboratories for the provision of some tests, for example, export serology. IDEXX-VPS plays an active role in South Australian disease surveillance programs. The Committee understands that this arrangement has led to enhanced communications with co-located government staff.

10.25 IDEXX-VPS is part of a major organisation, with 20 veterinary pathologists nation-wide. Most have specialist qualifications and overseas experience. The Adelaide laboratory is not limited to working with production animals; this appears


PAGE 66

to result in greater efficiency of use of equipment and infrastructure. IDEXX-VPS leases the government buildings and is paid for providing services. Details of these arrangements are set out in a commercial in confidence contract.

10.26 The South Australian Government has a contract manager to supervise arrangements and interactions with the laboratory.

Possible Application to Victoria 10.27 In the Victorian context, the South Australian model would mean that the veterinary pathology functions within Victorian Institute of Animal Science (VIAS-Attwood) would be outsourced to private enterprise. The other functions of the institute would remain – although the separation of functions may be difficult and be detrimental to existing synergies between such different functions. Given that the laboratories are already under high-level accreditation, gains from bringing in outside expertise are likely to be less useful than in South Australia.

10.28 The cost of outsourcing the management of diagnostic and pathology services at VIAS-Attwood is difficult to estimate, although the present budget for the veterinary diagnostic group at Attwood is approximately $1.75 million per annum. These funds are sourced from both diagnostic revenues and the state government. Equivalent contracts between VPS-IDEXX and the South Australian Department of Primary Industries and Resources, and between the then Department of Natural Resources and Environment and Gribbles, are commercial in confidence.

Finding 10.3

The benefits of the laboratory services currently operated by the Victorian Institute of Animal Science being outsourced are unlikely to exceed the costs.

Region-based Animal Health Surveillance and Investigation Services 10.29 In this model, surveillance systems are based in regional areas. This system exists in part in all states and the Northern Territory which have government district animal health staff. The system is most developed in Queensland.114

Queensland’s Animal and Plant Health Service 10.30 Queensland’s Animal and Plant Health Service, located within the Queensland Department of Primary Industries, runs an animal health surveillance system with specialist staff in addition to district animal health staff. The system has been in place for more than a decade.

10.31 Five veterinarians with epidemiological training are based in five geographical regions of Queensland. These officers lead the disease monitoring and surveillance project for their regions. A state project leader based in Brisbane co-ordinates them. The officers interact with departmental district veterinary officers, animal health officers, private veterinarians, producers and industry bodies.


PAGE 67

10.32 The group leads national disease surveillance programs such as the TSE and arbovirus projects in their regions and conducts state and local disease surveillance. The group performs and oversees field investigations into suspected exotic or emergency animal diseases, new and emerging diseases and occurrences of unexplained deaths or major production losses. Written criteria are used to determine which cases will be investigated. Full post mortems are conducted, mostly in the field but also at regional veterinary laboratories. The service is fully funded by the Queensland Government, with some financial input from the Commonwealth Government for national surveillance programs.

Possible Application to Victoria 10.33 In the Victorian context, experienced officers with epidemiological and/or veterinary pathology training could be based in the South-West, North-West, North-East, and Gippsland regions and lead surveillance activities in each region.115 They would be led by the central state epidemiologist116 and interact with the region’s senior veterinary officer, district veterinary officers, animal health officers, private veterinarians, consultants, producers and industry bodies.

10.34 The duties of the regionally based pathologists/epidemiologists could include the following tasks:

a) consult and discuss cases directly with private veterinarians and producers; b) investigate outbreaks of suspected exotic disease and unexplained mortalities; c) conduct post mortems at the most suitable site or make arrangements for

others to undertake required post mortems; d) create means of informing private veterinarians, farmers and others of local

diseases and conditions, for example by regular newsletters, email and press releases; and

e) collect, collate and disseminate disease statistics for their region.

10.35 The officers would be housed at existing departmental regional offices. They would require a dedicated vehicle and trailer capable of carrying adult cattle. Laboratory tests for regionally collected materials could be included as part of the government contract for laboratory tests. Funds to employ and equip these officers could be provided by government and/or industry. The industry contribution could be sourced from the Cattle, Pig and Sheep and Goat Compensation funds. Indicative costs for the provision of this service are given in Table 10.2.

Table 10.2: Indicative Running Costs for Region-based Animal Health Surveillance and Investigation Service – Assuming Four Regions Item Indicative Per

Annum Cost ($) Comment

Professional staff 448,000 Four experienced veterinary pathologists/epidemiologists

Operating funds 100,000 Total funds 548,000


PAGE 68

10.36 This approach may also be well suited to the use of mobile laboratory and/or post-mortem facilities.

Finding 10.4

The employment of region-based disease surveillance officers has the capacity to provide accessible expertise, targeted post mortems and low-cost surveillance.

Centre of Excellence 10.37 Centres of excellence are associations of people and organisations bringing together a wide range of specialist knowledge and experience.

10.38 A written submission from the University of Melbourne proposed the formation of a State Veterinary Pathology Centre of Excellence.117 It was envisaged that this would be formed by linking the Department of Primary Industries’ Veterinary Pathology Section at the Victorian Institute of Animal Science with the University of Melbourne’s Veterinary School pathology section.

10.39 According to the submission, the centre would provide a critical mass of pathologists for diagnosis, training and research and development. The research and development component could be focused on developing new tests for which commercial backing is not available. Private veterinarians could be re-trained as “practitioner/field pathologists and be employed to conduct post mortems in the field. Digital technology could be employed to relay images of lesions seen in the field to the central experts. Electronic systems would be used to gather and disseminate surveillance and other information”.

10.40 This approach would be well suited to making use of technological methods, such as live video connections from post mortems by field veterinarians to experienced veterinary pathologists.

10.41 Given that the University of Melbourne has three veterinary pathologists and VIAS-Attwood has two full time, obtaining the ‘critical mass’ referred to in the submission is most likely to require additional staff – particularly if hands-on training and training materials are to be provided to all of the state’s field veterinarians.

10.42 The proposal would have to be agreeable to both parties and funding commitments would be needed to ensure its success. As a minimum, funds would be required to appoint four trainee pathologists at approximately $75,000 per annum each (includes salary on-costs and $5,000 operating costs).


PAGE 69

Finding 10.5

The creation of a centre of excellence, using existing government and university resources supplemented by additional staff would be an efficient way of addressing issues relating to succession planning and the training of new pathologists.

Region-based Animal Health Service Units 10.43 The concept for such units is similar to that of the Species-based Specialist Diagnostic and Research Units model discussed above – but rather than each such unit specialising in one farm animal species, they would provide health investigatory services and research and development in the mix of livestock production systems most prevalent in their region. They would also lead surveillance and epidemiology services for their region, would be involved with others (such as Melbourne University and VIAS centre of excellence previously suggested) in provision of training. All high-volume and routine tests could continue at the Government’s contracted laboratory.

10.44 This approach would enable users to have access to a more balanced range of services in their region and field investigations would be undertaken closer to each unit. The need for each unit to cover multiple species may reduce the likelihood of specialist expertise to develop.

10.45 Units could be set up in each of the former Department of Natural Resources and Environment’s country regions, with the Port Phillip Region served by the existing VIAS-Attwood service. Costs would be similar to those for a Species-based Specialist Diagnostic and Research Unit as outlined in Table 10.2. That is, around $780,000 for each of four units. Each unit would manage a post-mortem facility.

Finding 10.6

The creation of Region-based Animal Health Service Units would respond to concerns about the loss of access to regional expertise, lack of research and development for less-commercial tests, accessible and affordable post-mortem services and local disease surveillance and information dissemination. Such advantages, however, would involve high start-up and ongoing costs.

Amended Government Contract 10.46 Amendments to the current government contract could be made to address some of the identified current shortcomings. For example, the tender for the contract could provide for the supply of some and not necessarily all of the required diagnostic tests. Such disaggregation may assist additional service


PAGE 70

providers to compete for the contract and thus may lead to some cheaper services, reduction of the possibility of monopoly and enhanced regional participation in delivery.

10.47 The contract could specify an increased level of detail required in interpretive reports and incorporate specified higher levels of direct access to qualified veterinary pathologists for discussion of results. Weekend access to couriers and pathologists could also be specified.

10.48 The contractor could be required to put out monthly electronic and/or posted summaries of local/regional disease statistics on notifiable and non-notifiable diseases, production-limiting conditions and dangerous pasture conditions – and provide the information required for government to release, if required, ‘Special Warnings’.

Finding 10.7

Amendments to the current government contract could create a significantly enhanced service, but at a cost. Disaggregation of the contract and/or use of multiple providers may lead to social benefits and new employment opportunities being created in regional and rural areas.

Overview 10.49 The particular roles of these six additional forms of service provision are summarised in Table 10.3.

Table 10.3: Summary of Key Roles of Possible Additional Forms of Service Provision

Model Accessible Expertise

Accessible Surveillance Information

Accessible & Affordable Post Mortems

Competition Between Providers

Species-based Specialist Diagnostic & Research Units

Yes Yes Yes No

Outsourced Management of State Veterinary Laboratory Services

No No No Yes

Region-based Animal Health Surveillance and Investigation Services

Yes Yes Yes No

Centre of Excellence Yes No No No

Region-based Animal Health Service Units

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Amended government contract

Yes Yes No Yes


PAGE 71

RECOMMENDED ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE FUTURE PROVISION OF VETERINARY PATHOLOGY SERVICES

10.50 Having considered all of the evidence provided to it and the implications of the possible additional forms of service provision outlined above, the Committee has concluded that its preferred arrangements for the provision of veterinary services management are a combination of existing arrangements and elements of some of the possible additional forms of service provision. More particularly, the Committee proposes that:

a) the outsourcing of routine veterinary pathology laboratory diagnostic tests for government requirements and for the needs of the individual producers be maintained, but in modified form;

b) the public sector, in particular through the existing Victorian Institute of Animal Science, continue to provide specialist and complex veterinary pathology services;

c) veterinary pathologist positions, together with support facilities, be created in regional Victoria, working with a co-ordinating epidemiologist; and

d) a centre of excellence be created to foster research and training in veterinary pathology techniques.

10.51 An outline of the Committee’s proposal for new epidemiologist and regional veterinary pathologist positions is provided in Figure 10.1 and an outline of the Committee’s proposal for a Victorian Veterinary Pathology Centre of Excellence is provided in Figure 10.2.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1

That the current service delivery model of the use of private service providers to supply government and livestock sector needs for routine laboratory pathology tests should be continued and that the public sector should continue to provide specialist and complex veterinary pathology services.

Recommendation 2

That the contract for the delivery of government pathology services be amended to provide for one or more contractors to supply some or all of the required services with:

a) an increased level of detail in interpretive reports; b) improved levels of direct access to qualified veterinary pathologists; c) weekend access to couriers; and d) the preparation of monthly summaries of disease statistics.


PAGE 72


PAGE 73


PAGE 74

Recommendation 3

That a network of veterinary pathologists be established within the Department of Primary Industries regional structure, reporting to a co-ordinating epidemiologist along the lines outlined in Figure 10.1, to:

a) consult and discuss cases directly with private veterinarians and producers; b) investigate outbreaks of suspected exotic disease and unexplained

mortalities; c) conduct post mortems at the most suitable site or make arrangements for

others to undertake required post mortems; d) create means of informing private veterinarians, farmers and others of local

diseases and conditions, for example by regular newsletters, email and press releases; and

e) collect, collate and disseminate disease statistics for their region.

And that, to this end, an advisory panel (comprising representatives of the Department of Primary Industries, Victorian Farmers’ Federation and the Australian Veterinarians Association) be established to report on the best manner of implementation, including the provision of access to post-mortem facilities.

Recommendation 4

That a centre of excellence along the lines outlined in Figure 10.2 be established to bring together people and organisations with specialist knowledge and experience in veterinary pathology to undertake diagnosis, training (of specialist veterinary pathologists as well as field veterinarians), research and development of veterinary pathology techniques and procedures.

And that, to this end, an advisory panel (comprising representatives of the University of Melbourne, the Victorian Institute of Animal Science and the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists) be established to report on the best manner of implementing this recommendation.


PAGE 75

APPENDIX 1 REFERENCES AND ENDNOTES

1 Parliamentary Committees Act 1968, s. 4EA. 2 Animal Health Australia (2001), Animal Health in Australia 2000, Canberra, Australia. 3 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002a), Animal Health, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Internet site, http//www.nre.vic.gov.au, 1 March 2002. 4 An exotic animal disease is defined as a disease affecting animals that does not normally occur in Australia (also called a foreign animal disease). Endemic animal diseases do occur in Australia. 5 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002b), Inquiry into Veterinary Pathology Services: Background Paper, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. 6 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002b), Inquiry into Veterinary Pathology Services: Background Paper, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. 7 Victorian Labor Party (1999), Victorian Labour Party, Election 1999: Policy Documents, archived by Parliament of Victoria Library, Internet site http//www.vic.alp.org.au, 20 October 1999. 8 Cheville, N.F. (1988), Introduction to Veterinary Pathology, Iowa State University, Ames. 9 Cheville, N.F. (1988), Introduction to Veterinary Pathology, Iowa State University, Ames. 10 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002b), Inquiry into Veterinary Pathology Services: Background Paper, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. 11 Or membership of the American Board of Veterinary Pathologists. 12 Livestock Diseases Control Act 1994, s. 166. 13 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002b), Inquiry into Veterinary Pathology Services: Background Paper, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. 14 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 37. 15 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 37. 16 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 37. 17 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 19. 18 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 19. 20 Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute (2002), Cattle, NSW Department of Agriculture, Internet site: http//www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/2448, 15 March 2002. 21 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 72. 22 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, pp. 16-17. 23 Caple, I. (2002), University of Melbourne, Written Submission, and Condron, R. (2002), VIAS Attwood, personal communication, 7 October 2002. 24 Riffkin, G. (2002), ex RVL Hamilton Director, personal communication, 7 October 2002. 25 Badman, R. (2002), ex RVL Bendigo Senior Veterinary Pathologist, personal communication, 7 October 2002. 26 Lancaster, M. (2002), ex RVL Benalla Veterinary Pathologist, personal communication, 7 October 2002. 27 Button, K. (2002), ex RVL Bairnsdale Senior Veterinary Pathologist, personal communication, 7 October 2002. 28 Button, K. (2002), ex RVL Bairnsdale Senior Veterinary Pathologist, personal communication, 7 October 2002. 29 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 59. 30 Makin, M. (2002), President Victorian Division, Australian Veterinary Association, Minutes of Evidence, 17 June 2002, pp. 85-86. 31 Animal Health Australia website (2002) http://www.aahc.com.au/eadp/funding.htm. 32 Animal Health Australia website (2002) http://www.aahc.com.au/eadp/funding.htm. 33 Makin, M. (2002), President Victorian Division, Australian Veterinary Association, Minutes of Evidence, 17 June 2002, p. 86. 34 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 71.


PAGE 76

35 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 71. 36 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002), Written Submission, 14 June 2002, p. 3. 37 Condron, R. (2002), Laboratory Inspection Report, 25 March 2002, p. 6. 38 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002), Written Submission, 14 June 2002, p. 3. 39 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002), Written Submission, 14 June 2002, p. 1. 40 Makin, M. (2002), President Victorian Division, Australian Veterinary Association, Minutes of Evidence, 17 June 2002, p. 85. 41 The Office International des Epizooties (OIE) was established in 1924. It operates under an international agreement to which, as at May 2002, there are 162 member countries. 42 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002b), Inquiry into Veterinary Pathology Services: Background Paper, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. 43 Hyde, K (ed.), (1998), The New Rural Industries – A Handbook for Farmers and Investors, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. 44 Makin, M. (2002), President Victorian Division, Australian Veterinary Association, Minutes of Evidence, 17 June 2002, p. 86. 45 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 63. 46 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 101. 47 Animal Health Surveillance Quarterly Report (2002), Animal Health Australia website (http://www.aahc.com.au/surveillance/ntsesp/index.htm) 48 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 90. 49 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, pp. 90, 92. 50 ‘Sixty units’ of approved continuing education are required for annual renewal of registration under Guideline No. 9 – Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria (2002), website http://www.vetboard.vic.gov.au/index.asp. 51 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002a), Animal Health, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Internet site, http//www.nre.vic.gov.au, 1 March 2002. 52 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002b), Inquiry into Veterinary Pathology Services: Background Paper, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. 53 Bracks, S. (2002), Premier Serves Up the Best of Victoria to Our Largest Food Export Market, Media Release, 8 August 2002. 54 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (1998), Victorian Aquaculture Strategy, Aquaculture Development, Fisheries Victoria, Department of Natural Resources and Environment. 55 As described in Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002), The Blue Revolution, www.nre.vic.gov.au. 56 The Committee’s survey - TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee – was undertaken in June 2002 and surveyed all non-metropolitan veterinarians (691 veterinarians), of which 273 completed questionnaires were returned, making a response rate of 40 per cent. 57 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 60. 58 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, pp. 60-61. 59 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, pp. 62-66. 60 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, pp. 62-63. 61 Slocombe, J. (2002), Gribbles Group Veterinary Director, Minutes of Evidence, 17 June 2002, p. 63. 62 Darmody, W. and Browning, J., Gippsland Veterinary Pathology Service, Minutes of Evidence, 17 June 2002, p. 32 and Browning, J. personal communication, September 2002. 63 Moushall, J.W. (2002), IDEXX-VPS National Operations Manager, personal communication, 16 October 2002. 64 Prowse, S. (2002), Acting Director, Australian Animal Health Laboratory, Written Submission, 5 June 2002, p. 5. 65 Miller, R. (2002), documents tabled at Bendigo Public Hearing, 2 May 2002 and R Miller, Australian Veterinary Journal, No 8, August 2001, p. 523. 66 Miller, R (2002), documents tabled at Bendigo Public Hearing, 2 May 2002 and R Miller, Australian Veterinary Journal, No 8, August 2001, p. 523.


PAGE 77

67 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 64. 68 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 63. 69 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 65. 70 Slocombe, J. (2002), Gribbles Group Veterinary Director, Minutes of Evidence, 17 June 2002, p. 59. 71 Confidential Written Submission, 3 July 2002, p. 2. 72 Confidential Written Submission, 3 July 2002, p. 2. 73 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 32. 74 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 35. 75 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 44. 76 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 58. 77 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 49. 78TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 50. 79 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 31. 80 Miller, R. (2002), Chief Pathologist, IDEXX-VPS Laboratories, Written Submission, 21 May 2002, p. 1. 81 Slocombe, J. (2002), Gribbles Group Veterinary Director, Written Submission, 22 May 2002, p. 3. 82 Darmody, B., Ralston, M., Browning, J. (2002), Written Submission, 12 June 2002, p. 3. 83 Slocombe, J. (2002), Gribbles Group Veterinary Director, Minutes of Evidence, 17 June 2002, p. 63. 84 Over half of the written submissions received by the Committee and over half of the witnesses heard at public hearing raised the issue of post mortems. 85 Wilkie, J. (2002), Minutes of Evidence, 2 May 2002, p. 14 and Makin, M. (2002), President Victorian Division, Australian Veterinary Association, Minutes of Evidence, 17 June 2002, p. 86. 86 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 90. 87 Animal Health Surveillance Quarterly Report, (2002), Animal Health Australia, vol. 7: issue 2, April-June 2002, pp. 6-7. 88 Galvin, J. (2002), Manager Animal Health Operations, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Minutes of Evidence, 17 June 2002, p. 77. 89 Wilkie, J. (2002) Minutes of Evidence, 2 May 2002, p. 14 and Makin, M. (2002), President Victorian Division, Australian Veterinary Association, Minutes of Evidence, 17 June 2002, p. 86. 90 Caple, I. (2002), Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Melbourne, Written Submission, p. 5. 91 Galvin, J. (2002), Manager Animal Health Operations, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Minutes of Evidence, 17 June 2002, p. 80. 92 Jubb, T. (2002), Department of Natural Resources and Environment, personal communication, 16 October 2002. 93 Although, as detailed in Table 7.1, only 30 per cent considered this factor ‘very important’ when choosing an external provider of pathology services. 94 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 92. 95 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 91. 96 Anderson, J. (2002), personal communication during inspection of the Australian Animal Health Laboratory, Geelong, 10 April 2002. 97 Prowse, S. (2002), Acting Director, Australian Animal Health Laboratory, Geelong, Written Submission, 5 June 2002. 98 Prowse, S. (2002), Acting Director, Australian Animal Health Laboratory, Geelong, Written Submission, 5 June 2002. 99 Miller, R (2002), documents tabled at Bendigo Public Hearing, 2 May 2002 and R Miller, Australian Veterinary Journal, No 8, August 2001, p. 523. 100 In 1984-1985, two specialist fish veterinary pathologists were employed at the Regional Veterinary Laboratory, Benalla. 101 Galvin, J. (2002), Manager Animal Health Operations, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Minutes of Evidence, 17 June 2002, p. 79.


PAGE 78

102 The OIE being the key intergovernmental organisation setting internationally accepted standards of animal health and disease reporting. 103 Anderson, J. (2002), personal communication during inspection of the Australian Animal Health Laboratory, Geelong, 10 April 2002. 104 The other reports were those of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food; and the Royal Society Report into Infectious Disease of Livestock. 105 Anderson, I. (2002), in Foot and Mouth Disease 2001: Lessons to be Learned Inquiry Report, website: www.fmd-lessonslearned.org.uk, p. 6. 106 Galvin, J. (2002), Manager Animal Health Operations, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Minutes of Evidence, 17 June 2002, p. 77. 107 Slocombe, J. (2002), Gribbles Group Veterinary Director, Minutes of Evidence, 17 June 2002, p. 63. 108 Fifty-two per cent of non-metropolitan veterinarians in Victoria have used one of the former government laboratories. 109 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, pp. 94-99. 110 TQA Research Pty Ltd (2002), Survey into Veterinary Pathology Services: Market Research Report Prepared for the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, p. 97. 111 Driessen, S. (2002), Manager, Pig Health and Research Unit, Bendigo, personal communication, 21 October 2002. 112 Species-specific diagnostic and research units could not be set up on the main campuses of Ellinbank, Rutherglen or PRI because they run herds and flocks which could be endangered by introduction of diseased animals or specimens onto their main premises. 113 Moushall, J. (2002), National Operations Manager, IDEXX-VPS, personal communication, 16 October 2002. 114 Pitt, D. (2002), Veterinary Epidemiologist, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Townsville, personal communication, 22 October 2002. 115 Department of Natural Resources and Environment’s Northern Irrigation region could be serviced from the North-West and North-East regions. 116 The Committee notes that an epidemiologist is in the process of being appointed in the Chief Veterinary Officer’s Unit. 117 Caple, I.W., Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Melbourne, Written Submission, 22 May 2002.

APPENDIX II LIST OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

PAGE 79


The list includes all written submissions received by the Committee, including those tabled at Public Hearings. Copies of submissions are available, on request, from the Committee.

Three listings are provided – the first in numerical order, the second and third are in alphabetical order, respectively by name and organisation.

LIST A – NUMERICAL ORDER

Sub No. Name Organisation

V/001 Paul J Barber RSPCA

V/002 Geoff Hogg Microbiological Diagnostic Unit, The University of Melbourne

V/003 Dr David E Leslie Victorian Infectious Disease Reference Laboratory (VIRDL)

V/004 Dr Richard Miller Individual

V/005 Karen Batt Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) – Victorian Branch

V/006 Dr David S Beggs Warrnambool Veterinary Clinic

V/007 Dr Peter Holz Wildlife Disease Association, Healesville Sanctuary

V/008 Ruth E Reuter Australian Society for Veterinary Pathology

V/009 David H Pritchard Individual

V/010 Dr David Colson Allansford and Wollaston Veterinary Clinic

V/011 Mrs M Jones Feline Control Council (Victoria) Inc.

V/012 David J Stobo Greyhound Racing Victoria

V/013 Doug Pemberton Individual

V/014 Jonathan Wilcken Australasian Regional Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria

V/015 Dr Richard Miller IDEXX-Veterinary Pathology Services

V/016 Dr Judith Slocombe Gribbles Veterinary Pathology

V/017 Dr Matthew Makin Australian Veterinary Association – Victorian Division

V/018 Prof Ivan Caple School of Veterinary Science, The University of Melbourne

V/019 Mr Michael Boyd State Chemistry Laboratory, Department of Natural Resources and Environment

V/020 Prof Ron Slocombe Individual

V/021 Robert Barton Main Street Veterinary Clinic

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 2001 INQUIRY INTO FISHERIES MANAGEMENT: FIRST REPORT

PAGE 80

Sub No. Name Organisation

V/022 Dr Patricia Holyoake Bunge Meat Industries Ltd

V/023 William J Ballantyne Individual

V/024 John D Humphrey Individual

V/025 Bill Bray Victorian Farmers Federation - Pastoral Group

V/026 Dr Stephen Prowse CSIRO - Australian Animal Health Laboratory

V/027 Peter Walsh Victorian Farmers Federation

V/028 Bill Darmody Mike Ralston Jeff Browning

Gippsland Veterinary Pathology Service

V/029 Brenan Wotherspoon Victorian Farmers Federation - Pig Group

V/030 Dr David Hucker Para-Tech Veterinary Services (Victoria)

V/031 Bruce Kefford Department of Natural Resources and Environment

V/032 Noel Skilbeck Skilbeck Scientific Laboratory Services

V/033 Dr Jamie McNeil Korumburra-Kooweerup Veterinary Clinics

V/034 Geoff Neumann Animal Health Australia

V/035 Mr Don Lawson Australian Johne's Alliance

V/036 Dr Andrew Dunn Moe Veterinary Centre

V/037 Dr Jakob Malmo Maffra Veterinary Centre

LIST B – WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY NAME

Name Submission Number

William J Ballantyne V/023

Paul J Barber V/001

Robert Barton V/021

Karen Batt V/005

Dr David S Beggs V/006

Mr Michael Boyd V/019

Bill Bray V/025

Jeff Browning V/028

Prof Ivan Caple V/018

Dr David Colson V/010

Bill Darmody V/028

Dr Andrew Dunn V/036

Geoff Hogg V/002

Dr Patricia Holyoake V/022


PAGE 81

Name Submission Number

Dr Peter Holz V/007

Dr David Hucker V/030

John D Humphrey V/024

Mrs M Jones V/011

Bruce Kefford V/031

Mr Don Lawson V/035

Dr David E Leslie V/003

Dr Matthew Makin V/017

Dr Jakob Malmo V/037

Dr Jamie McNeil V/033

Dr Richard Miller V/004

Dr Richard Miller V/015

Mr Geoff Neumann V/034

Doug Pemberton V/013

David H Pritchard V/009

Dr Stephen Prowse V/026

Mike Ralston V/028

Ruth E Reuter V/008

Noel Skilbeck V/032

Dr Judith Slocombe V/016

Prof Ron Slocombe V/020

David J Stobo V/012

Peter Walsh V/027

Jonathan Wilcken V/014

Brenan Wotherspoon V/029

LIST C – WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY ORGANISATION

Organisation Submission Number

Allansford and Wollaston Veterinary Clinic V/010

Animal Health Australia V/034

Australasian Regional Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria

V/014

Australian Johne's Alliance V/035

Australian Society for Veterinary Pathology V/008

Australian Veterinary Association – Victorian Division V/017


PAGE 82

Organisation Submission Number

Bunge Meat Industries V/022

Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) – Victorian Branch V/005

CSIRO - Australian Animal Health Laboratory V/026

Department of Natural Resources and Environment V/031

Feline Control Council (Victoria) Inc. V/011

Gippsland Veterinary Pathology Service V/028

Greyhound Racing Victoria V/012

Gribbles Veterinary Pathology V/016

Healesville Sanctuary V/007

IDEXX-Veterinary Pathology Services V/015

Korumburra-Kooweerup Veterinary Clinics V/033

Maffra Veterinary Centre V/037

Main Street Veterinary Clinic V/021

Microbiological Diagnostic Unit, The University of Melbourne V/002

Moe Veterinary Centre V/036

Para-Tech Veterinary Services (Victoria) V/030

RSPCA V/001

School of Veterinary Science, The University of Melbourne V/018

Skilbeck Scientific Laboratory Services V/032

State Chemistry Laboratory, Department of Natural Resources and Environment

V/019

Victorian Farmers Federation V/027

Victorian Federation of Farmers - Pastoral Group V/025

Victorian Federation of Farmers - Pig Group V/029

Victorian Infectious Disease Reference Laboratory (VIRDL) V/003

Warrnambool Veterinary Clinic V/006

Wildlife Disease Association V/007

APPENDIX III LIST OF INSPECTIONS AND INFORMAL BRIEFINGS

PAGE 83

APPENDIX III LIST OF INSPECTIONS AND INFORMAL BRIEFINGS

No. Date Location Organisation/Issue Representative

MELBOURNE

1 25/03/02 Werribee Victorian Institute of Animal Science

Dr Catherine Ainsworth, Head, Veterinary Investigations Dr Robin Condron, Principal Scientist, Animal Health

2 25/03/02 Clayton Gribbles Pathology Pty Ltd Dr Judith Slocombe, Veterinary Director Dr Gus Braniff, Marketing Manager

3 10/04/02 Melbourne Pirbright Laboratory, UK Dr John Anderson, Director of the World Reference Laboratory for Foot & Mouth Disease

CENTRAL VICTORIA

4 30/04/02 Benalla Regional Laboratory Services

Dr D Paynter

5 30/04/02 Benalla Para-Site Diagnostics Tricia Veale, Fiona McKenzie

6 30/04/02 Benalla Department of Natural Resouces and Environment

Dr George Miller, District Veterinary Officer

7 01/05/02 Shepparton Shepparton Veterinary Clinic

Dr Angus Cunninghame, Dr Geoff Withers

8 01/05/02 Tatura Ballantyne’s Dairy Farm William J. Ballantyne

9 02/05/02 Bendigo Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Dick Hazeldene

10 02/05/02 Bendigo Bunge Meat Industries Dr Patricia Hollyoak, Company Veterinarian; Andrew Peake, General Manager Evelyn Keelelaar, Farm Manager

WERRIBEE/GEELONG

11 21/05/02 Werribee University of Melbourne – School of Veterinary Science

Prof I. W. Caple, Dean Prof Ron Slocombe, Head, Veterinary Pathology


PAGE 84

No. Date Location Organisation/Issue Representative

12 21/05/02 Geelong Australian Animal Health Laboratories

Dr Stephen Prowse, Acting Director; Dr Peter Daniels, Diagnostic Testing Dr Marion Andrew, Animal Disease Diagnostics Ms Emma Holmes, Central Monitoring Systems

TRARALGON

13 03/07/02 Traralgon Gippsland Veterinary Pathology Service

Dr J. Browning

APPENDIX IV LIST OF WITNESSES

PAGE 85


The list includes all witnesses that gave evidence at a Public Hearing.

Three listings are provided – the first in numerical order, the second and third are in alphabetical order, respectively by name and organisation.

LIST A – CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

Organisation Name Position

MELBOURNE – 4 MARCH 2002 Department of Natural Resources and Environment

Hon Keith Hamilton Minister for Agriculture

Department of Natural Resources and Environment

Dr J. Galvin Manager, Animal Health Operations

BENDIGO – 2 MAY 2002 Individual Dr R. I. Miller Veterinary Pathologist Individual Dr J. S. Wilkie Veterinary Pathologist Regional Laboratory Services Dr D. Paynter Owner Benalla Veterinary Clinic Dr B. McIntyre Proprietor MELBOURNE – 17 JUNE 2002 Gippsland Veterinary Pathology Service

Dr W. Darmody Veterinarian


Dr J. Browning Manager, Veterinary Operations

Victorian Farmers Federation Mr C. Manners General Manager Victorian Farmers Federation Mr S. Price Senior Policy Analyst Victorian Farmers Federation Mr L. Napolitano Poultry Farmer Community and Public Sector Union

Mr R. Boness Industrial Officer


Dr R. Badman District Veterinary Officer

University of Melbourne Professor I. W. Caple Dean, School of Veterinary Science

Australian Johne’s Alliance Mr D. Lawson Director Gribbles Group Dr J. Slocombe

Veterinary Director

Gribbles Veterinary Pathology Dr G. Braniff Marketing Manager Idexx Laboratories Pty Ltd Dr R.I. Miller Chief Pathologist Department of Natural Resources and Environment

Dr B. Kefford Executive Director, Agriculture



Australian Veterinary Assoc. Dr M. Makin President, Victorian Division


PAGE 86

TRARALGON – 3 JULY 2002 Korumburra Veterinary Clinic, Australian Veterinary Association - South Gippsland Branch, and Australian Association of Cattle Veterinarians

Dr J. McNeil Veterinarian and Dairy Chairperson

Moe Veterinary Centre Dr A. Dunn Veterinarian and practice owner Main Street Veterinary Clinic, Bairnsdale

Dr R. Barton Veterinarian and practice partner

Maffra Veterinary Centre and University of Melbourne Rural Veterinary Unit

Dr. J. Malmo Veterinarian

CONTENTS – WITNESSES BY NAME

Name Affiliation Dr R. Badman Department of Natural Resources and Environment Dr R. Barton Main Street Veterinary Clinic, Bairnsdale Mr R. Boness Community and Public Sector Union Dr G. Braniff Gribbles Veterinary Pathology Dr J. Browning Gippsland Veterinary Pathology Service Professor I. W. Caple University of Melbourne Dr W. Darmody Gippsland Veterinary Pathology Service Dr A. Dunn Moe Veterinary Centre Dr J. Galvin Department of Natural Resources and Environment Dr J. Galvin Department of Natural Resources and Environment Hon Keith Hamilton Minister for Agriculture Dr B. Kefford Department of Natural Resources and Environment Mr D. Lawson Australian Johne’s Alliance Dr M. Makin Australian Veterinary Association Dr. J. Malmo Maffra Veterinary Centre and University of Melbourne Rural

Veterinary Unit Mr C. Manners Victorian Farmers Federation Dr B. McIntyre

Benalla Veterinary Clinic

Dr J. McNeil Korumburra Veterinary Clinic, Australian Veterinary Association - South Gippsland Branch, and Australian Association of Cattle Veterinarians

Dr R. I. Miller Individual Dr R.I. Miller Idexx Laboratories Pty Ltd Mr L. Napolitano Victorian Farmers Federation Dr D. Paynter Regional Laboratory Services Mr S. Price Victorian Farmers Federation


PAGE 87

Name Affiliation Dr J. Slocombe Gribbles Group Dr J. S. Wilkie Individual

CONTENTS - WITNESSES BY ORGANISATION

Organisation Name Position Australian Association of Cattle Veterinarians


Australian Johne’s Alliance Mr D. Lawson Director Australian Veterinary Association Dr M. Makin President, Victorian Division Australian Veterinary Association - South Gippsland Branch


Benalla Veterinary Clinic Dr B. McIntyre Prprietor Community and Public Sector Union

Mr R. Boness Industrial Officer


Hon Keith Hamilton Minister for Agriculture


Dr R. Badman District Veterinary Officer

Department of Natural Resources and Environment.



Dr B. Kefford Executive Director, Agriculture




Dr W. Darmody Veterinarian


Dr J. Browning Manager, Veterinary Operations

Gribbles Group Dr J. Slocombe

Veterinary Director

Gribbles Veterinary Pathology Dr G. Braniff Marketing Manager Idexx Laboratories Pty Ltd Dr R.I. Miller Chief Pathologist Individual Dr R. I. Miller Veterinary Pathologist Individual Dr J. S. Wilkie Veterinary Pathologist Korumburra Veterinary Clinic Dr J. McNeil Veterinarian and Dairy

Chairperson Maffra Veterinary Centre Dr. J. Malmo Veterinarian Main Street Veterinary Clinic, Bairnsdale

Dr R. Barton Veterinarian and practice partner

Moe Veterinary Centre Dr A. Dunn Veterinarian and practice owner Regional Laboratory Services Dr D. Paynter Owner University of Melbourne Professor I. W.

Caple Dean, School of Veterinary Science


PAGE 88

Organisation Name Position University of Melbourne Rural Veterinary Unit

Dr. J. Malmo Veterinarian

Victorian Farmers Federation Mr C. Manners General Manager Victorian Farmers Federation Mr S. Price Senior Policy Analyst Victorian Farmers Federation Mr L. Napolitano Poultry Farmer