From Horsetalk.co.nz (dated 10 September 2010)

The man charged with reviewing the rollout of biosecurity changes following Australia's 2007 outbreak of equine flu says he is cautiously optimistic agreement can be reached on a levy plan for the horse industry.

Unless the horse industry can unify behind a plan to put in place a levy system, the federal government is unlikely to mount a response to future disease incursions.

All other major livestock industries are signatories to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, in which the federal government agrees to mount a response to imported diseases, provided it can levy industry members to recover the cost.

Professor Peter Shergold, in his fifth and final report on the rollout of a tougher biosecurity regime, said the execution of the administrative response to the Callinan Inquiry has been undertaken rigorously.

"I have a growing if cautious optimism that most sectors of the horse industry now recognise the urgency of reaching agreement on the mechanisms for an equitable and practical levy, although there is as yet no consensus on the basis on which it should be imposed," he said.

He said that, late in June, he had discussions in Canberra with Dr Kevin Doyle, national veterinary director of the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) and his colleague Bruce Twentyman. Immediately following our meeting Dr Doyle provided me with a range of written material.

"In my previous report I expressed my concern that it will not be possible for the Commonwealth Government to fund an effective national response to a new outbreak of equine influenza (EI) in the absence of an emergency response agreement with the horse industry.

"Without the Commonwealth being able to access funding, underpinned by an agreed levy mechanism, a future response to an outbreak of EI is almost certainly going to be far less intensive than in 2007.

"... the horse industry is still not a signatory to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement (EADRA). Consequently, no levy can be called upon to fund a speedy and vigorous response to EI.

"In these circumstances I judged it entirely appropriate for governments to consider whether vaccinations for EI in the absence of disease should be disallowed, voluntary or mandatory.

"In my discussions with the AVA, it is apparent that the organisation and its special interest group, Equine Veterinarians Australia (EVA), remain adamantly opposed to vaccination against EI in the absence of the disease.

"According to AVA's President, Dr Mark Lawrie, it 'would forever change the way the Australian horse industry operates'.

"A vaccination regime, in his view, is not only unjustified scientifically but is not supported by the majority of Australian horse owners.

"The AVA's national veterinary director, Dr Kevin Doyle, argues that the effect of vaccination in a sector of the horse industry would be to mask sub-clinical infection. This would delay an effective response, making eradication difficult or impossible.

"Consequently, EI is more likely to become endemic.

"He suggests that the costs of a vaccination programme are significantly greater than anticipated insofar as vaccination would need to be accompanied by an intensive surveillance program to sample and test regularly for the presence of circulating EI virus and immunity levels.

"The AVA also believes it is likely that New Zealand would respond to vaccination by introducing a more restrictive quarantine system, requiring the testing of horses before import into New Zealand.

"Given that New Zealand is a major international destination for Australian horses, an Australian vaccination regime has the potential to disrupt current arrangements.

"According to the [company] New Zealand Bloodstock, partial vaccination 'will warrant the current protocols invalid and the previous protocols enforced by New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry during the 2007 EI outbreak will once again be imposed upon the horse owners, breeders and trainers of Australia and New Zealand'.

"Finally, there is concern about the precedent impact of a vaccination programme. The AVA notes that there is no vaccination permitted in any other domestic animal population in the absence of disease ... On the basis of accumulated evidence and practical experience the AVA remains 'very much against any ongoing EI vaccination' although it strongly supports having supplies of a suitable vaccine available to be used on an emergency basis if there were to be another EI outbreak.

"In contrast, the Thoroughbred Breeders Association continues to argue for a voluntary EI vaccination programme. Clearly, views remain sharply divided at the industry and political level.

"Nevertheless, there is growing recognition across all sections of the horse industry that, in the absence of explicit funding arrangements, the arguments in favour of a voluntary and partial vaccination program are more persuasive. It is now generally accepted that without a cost sharing agreement the Commonwealth will not provide substantive government assistance for a future outbreak of EI.

"There is a strong sense that the absence of a levy is framing the lines of debate.

"I remain hopeful that the widening support for a levy will be recognised by the Senate inquiry into biosecurity and quarantine arrangements, being conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport that at the time of this report is expected to report in November 2010.

"In my view it is vital for the horse industry to become a signatory to EADRA and allow a fair sharing of the costs of responding to disease incursions. If not, it is highly unlikely that it will be possible to wage another eradication campaign if there is a future outbreak of EI in Australia (or, indeed, of other emergency diseases such as African Horse Sickness or some zoonoses that would adversely impact on the industry)."

The Primary Industries Ministerial Council at its meeting in April 2010 explicitly drew the relationship between a levy and vaccination.

"In the absence of any funding agreement", said its communique, "Ministers agreed that there would be no nationally cost shared response to any exotic horse disease incursion and steps would be put in place to enable voluntary vaccination of horses ... as a disease impact mitigation strategy". A final decision has been deferred until December 1 this year.

"I hope that by that time there will be broad industry support for timely progression of the necessary funding legislation."

The reality, he said, is that an outbreak of EI is only one of hundreds of biosecurity threats to Australia and by no means the most potentially damaging to our national interests.

"Public funding, as always, is necessarily finite," he said.