Page 1044 - Week 04 - Thursday, 18 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that is before the Assembly has obviously gone down the same path. Organisations such as the RSPCA, which plays an important and essential role in the community in all matters relating to the welfare of animals, must be given at least the respect of having the opportunity to contribute to the formulation of legislation that will in some way impinge on their activities.
With regard to the Dog Control (Amendment) Bill 1992, we do not have any objection to it. It would appear to be reasonable and will regulate the keeping of dogs, with tighter controls. This can only benefit the community and the welfare of dogs. It will impose greater responsibility on dog owners. Unlike the Animal Welfare Bill, at least we know what we are getting with this Bill. It is very specific; it leaves little uncertainty about what it means. We strongly suggest that the Government take a good look at its consultation processes or run the risk of losing even more contact with the community it purports to serve. I indicate that we will support the Bill.
MR STEVENSON (4.14): The Dog Control (Amendment) Bill has been introduced because of concerns that the previous Bill placed unfair restrictions on dog owners. I was most concerned, as usual, when the Bill was introduced a couple of days ago and the suggestion was that it was going to be debated this week. I looked at it and decided that there were advantageous clauses in the Bill that should be handled.
Mr Lamont: Which Bill, Dennis?
MR STEVENSON: The Dog Control (Amendment) Bill. I think it continually highlights the fairly frequent debate we have in the Assembly as to why Bills should or should not be pushed through in a hurry. We always require that the public do their homework in time in making various reports to government and so on. Perhaps we could set an example ourselves by giving the public more notice, rather than hitting deadlines on some of these things, so that they have to be debated in a hurry to meet a deadline. It tends to come up fairly frequently in this Assembly.
Certainly, there are useful points in the Bill. However, it may well be that there are other people in the community that could suggest amendments even to this Bill. Unfortunately, they simply will not have time to do that if the Bill is passed today, and that is the difficulty. Let us do our utmost in future to allow more, rather than less, time on any Bill and let us try not to hit deadlines so that Bills have to be forced through in a hurry.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.16): Madam Speaker, I think perhaps Mr Stevenson and my colleague Mr Westende have been a little mild in their comments about this question of time and notice. Their points are very well made, but I would go further than they do and ask whether it is even appropriate for the Assembly to consider these Bills.
Mr Wood: Listen to me, then, when I speak.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Wood might convince us otherwise. I hope he does, because I am extremely unhappy, as Mr Wood would well know, about going down this path of putting legislation before the Assembly for such short periods and expecting us to pass it into law. I know that you are going to say, "It is a simple piece of legislation. It is only about four pages, or whatever. That is not very much. We can pass laws like that. It does not really matter". I remind the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .