Lunch with the Chief Health Officer of Victoria, Part 1
About a fortnight ago, I received a call from Dr Brett Sutton, the Chief Health Officer for the state of Victoria, who asked whether I and others that I’m talking to about the legislative changes to the Public Health and Welfare Regulations would like to meet up with him.
Four days later, Simon Mulvany, Barry Roberts (Barrythebeeman) and myself met with Brett at the Merricks General Store for a spot of lunch and a wide-ranging conversation about recent events on the Mornington Peninsula, and where he, as Chief Health Officer, sees us heading in a warming world that will possibly need to move quickly to control outbreaks of disease.
I went into this meeting wanting to discuss four checks and balances that I saw as vital inclusions to the legislative changes:
a). An in-depth environmental and health impact study undertaken each time the authorities propose the broad scale spraying of our homes
b). A meaningful community consultation to take place once that impact study is completed
c). The legislative changes must be based on an “opt in” system whenever the authorities wish to propose a broad scale spraying program – meaning that residents must be consulted well before the proposed spraying and actively choose to participate, by signing a form, to “opt in” to have their personal properties sprayed.
This is particularly important for the elderly, the vulnerable and the immune compromised of our communities…
d). Plenty of warning must be given to residents of an area if spraying is to go ahead so that those with health problems can make plans to leave the area and so limit their contact with these chemicals to an absolute minimum.
Firstly, it should be noted, that very early in our discussion Brett stressed that for him spraying large chunks of the community was a final option, one that he would use only when an outbreak of something needed to be reined in rapidly. He also pointed out that the proposed spraying of the Mornington Peninsula this year was from a research collaboration and was not on his direction or related to a State government program. It was and remains entirely separate from the proposed updates to the Public Health and Wellbeing regulations which have been worked on for almost two years.
Moreover, he said that the Chief Health Officer powers regarding vector-borne disease (mosquito or otherwise) only apply where there is a material risk to public health, meaning that the community would need to be at risk of serious harm. He said that this is not the case with Buruli, and that he hasn’t considered the use of CHO powers to control it, not least because we don’t even know for sure that mosquito control would make a difference.
As far as an environmental and health impact study being undertaken each time the authorities proposed a broad scale spraying of our homes, Brett said that this would not happen, but that any emergency intervention would nonetheless necessitate community consultation. Brett believes that all the required checks and balances are written into the Public Health and Wellbeing Act of 2008 under the guise of 4 principles: evidence based decision-making, accountability, proportionality, collaboration.
(I find it unacceptable that our homes can be sprayed without an environmental and health impact assessment being undertaken, and my reasoning will be outlined in Part 2 of this update in a couple of days time…)
We moved from here onto the spraying of French, Dawn and Goyarra streets in Rye on March 19 this year. Brett said that this had nothing to do with him, it was not a health order but a research activity, an experiment that was handled very badly.
Simon asked Brett whether he thought a formal apology to the residents of those streets was a good idea. Brett personally felt that it was a good idea, and said that he would give the matter some consideration and discuss it with the research collaboration.
Barry, who is both a beekeeper and pest controller, pointed out to Brett that the spraying of Bifenthrin every 6 weeks over a period of 7 months as proposed in the Buruli experiment was total overkill as Bifenthrin lasts for 12 months, and Brett, who is not an expert on pesticides, accepted Barry’s perspective.
As far as an “opt in” system was concerned, Brett said that he doubted this could become legislated because if a crisis arose that demanded urgent action, he needed to have the capacity for a rapid-fire response. The Public Health and Wellbeing Act has principles of ‘collaboration’ and ‘accountability’ built in, so even in an emergency response, there must be due consideration for working closely with community and individuals; and public access to reliable information to understand public health issues.
It was hard to argue with a need for urgent action, however we all agreed that some mechanism that looks after the elderly, the vulnerable and the immune compromised in our communities must be put in place. Possibly an opt in or opt out mechanism could be written into the legislation for them. Certainly they would need the time to be evacuated were a broad scale spraying program be required.
I also had some other legislative changes that I wished to explore with Brett, as part of a less toxic, more thoughtful and pre-planned approach to the possible rise of mosquito-borne disease due to a warming planet. These were:
a). Mosquito traps to be installed in every home.
b). One microbat box (minimum) to be installed on every property in rural Victoria and the leafier suburbs of largish towns and major cities.
c). Council job creation (partly subsidized by the government) to pay people to go around checking peoples’ homes and gardens to make sure that mosquitoes are not able to breed.
Brett said that it would be difficult to pass legislation forcing people to install mosquito traps or microbat boxes in their homes, however he did acknowledge that these could be part of a DHHS education campaign run across the state to update people about the possible problems we might face due to mosquitoes in a warming world, and teach them about the various options that are available to keep mosquito numbers down. His thoughts were that every community should be free to work with local councils and shires to establish the best approaches to routine mosquito control. This is helpful for control of mosquitoes as a nuisance, but also reduces the risk of exotic mosquitoes becoming established.
We talked a little about the research collaboration, in particular their overzealous approach to the Buruli experiment and the way they had been quite dismissive of personal health concerns when it came to the planned spraying in October of the Mornington Peninsula.
Brett said that in terms of public engagement the DHHS is looking to do better overall, especially in the area of accountability, and that a DHHS-run education campaign about mosquitoes had the potential to be very effective.
As for the third point about job creation, we touched on it, but found ourselves running short of time to do the idea any justice.
There were plenty of other topics covered in the conversation. Both Simon and Barry discussed with Brett the vital role of beekeepers and the need for beekeepers to be given plenty of warning should spraying be needed for any reason. Brett agreed that this was critical.
Barry brought up his fears of the carnage that could result from a mass rodent baiting episode, should the Chief Health Officer see the need to pursue this course, and explored the notion of large pest control companies being brought in to do the work of pest control for the government in ways that give little thought to the environment, and may at times be unnecessarily overreaching. Brett felt that such actions would be rarely required as a public health measure, and that the principle of ‘proportionality’ is important here; that all controls need to be proportionate to the actual health risk, taking account of environmental effects and possible adverse effects of control measures as well.