Whelan steps up the attack over plan for EI levy

Paul Whelan is armed with an intimate knowledge of the political system and is intent on asking questions. Racehorse owners had better listen up. Anyone with a horse, any hay-muncher at all, had better tune in, for the former NSW police minister has grave concerns.
Whelan, now breeding thoroughbreds in the Hunter Valley, is worried about the Federal Government's plan to slug horse owners for the equine influenza bill. The cost for the eradication program is tipped to pass $100 million. The Federal Government believes those with horses should be made to pay.
Whelan described the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill as outlandish and asked if it was discriminatory.
"God forbid, what happens if foot-and-mouth disease arrives in this country, does every cattle producer have to pay for the Government's failure?" Whelan asked.
Another concern about the proposed legislation, which has been read in parliament for a second time, was that everyone in Australia owning a horse could be paying up.
"The proposed legislation is manifestly unfair, that the Commonwealth should be seeking reimbursement for an apparent ... negligence which they caused," Whelan said. "To make the people pay for the Commonwealth's mistakes is unjust."
The former Labor minister is also worried about the Federal Government's EI vision. It wants to stop the vaccination program. As it stands, EI vaccinations are regulated by the Federal Government. No one can use the product unless authorised by those in power.
"This is a clear issue," Whelan warned. "Vaccinate or perish. If we don't continue vaccinating and wait for the next EI outbreak to come, it'll wipe everyone out."
Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'Landys is already on record as saying it will be a black day if the vaccination program is stopped.
"We will be back where we started," V'Landys said. "Without vaccination we would not be back racing."
As for the Government's plan to bill horse owners, V'Landys described it as ludicrous. Last week he told The Form: "The best analogy I can make in regard to this legislation is a third person drives your car, smashes it, and expects you to pay to get it repaired."
V'Landys was instrumental in brokering a deal with the former minister for primary industries, Peter McGauran, in regard to no charge being applied to those with horses, certainly not until former High Court judge Ian Callinan has completed a Federal Government-instituted inquiry into the EI outbreak. The inquiry continues and it has emerged in recent weeks dogs were shedding the virus at the Government's Easter Creek Quarantine Centre. Dogs arriving from overseas were kennelled close to the 50-odd imported thoroughbred stallions. Owners of dogs were able to come and go as they liked. The quarantine protocols were laughable.
Whelan has had enough. His call to action has nothing to do with him being a committee member of Thoroughbred Breeders NSW. Whelan knows the impending Government action to recoup money is ill-advised and a misjudgment of grand proportions.
Whelan fired off a letter, forwarded to The Form, to the Federal Government's Primary Industries Minister, Tony Burke, and asked "if this is to be sent elsewhere within the Ministry would you kindly advise me". He asked the following questions: 1) What does the Minister mean by the words "It would not be retrospective"? 2) The purpose of the bill is to seek refund for the Commonwealth on monies it has expended, including monies to the states and state organisations such as Racing NSW following the outbreak of EI in some limited parts of Australia. As not all states/ territories have been affected is this not discriminatory? 3) Will the levy cover all costs including costs of the CHAPS scheme and administration costs? Are recreational horse owners to pay for the thoroughbred industry? 4) Will he advise the total costs to the Commonwealth to date of the EI outbreak? 5) Is the levy for the reimbursement of the costs of the recent past outbreak of EI? 6) The Australian Horse Council, by press release dated 27/02/08, OPPOSED the horse industry levy. When did the Australian Horse Industry council make their submission supporting the statutory levy as stated by the Minister in his second reading speech? 7) Why is the bill necessary before Callinan has made his recommendations on culpability? 8) Will the bill as proposed prevent those in the horse industry from proceeding against other parties, including the Commonwealth? 9) Would the Minister consider amending the Callinan Terms of Reference to ascertain liability so as to prevent multiple court actions against the Commonwealth and others?
Whelan may well have struck a nerve. On Thursday, Burke released a statement saying: "I have no intention of introducing a levy before receiving the final Callinan Inquiry report. I am committed to discussing any future action on levies with the industry and have ensured this is required under the legislation."
Whelan wants answers.