Page 1046 - Week 04 - Thursday, 18 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
proper exposure to legislation. That is fair enough. But there are extremely few excuses for not giving those affected by the legislative changes a chance to look at that legislation in its drafting stages or in its policy formulation stage.
We have already heard today from Mr Westende clear evidence of a body as important in this question as the RSPCA having insufficient input into what is going on in both the animal welfare legislation and the amendments to the Dog Control Act. That is regrettable. We take it on ourselves, as members of the Opposition, to ensure that there is adequate consultation with the community when legislation comes in, on the assumption that the Government might have missed something. I am very surprised to discover in the case of legislation dealing with animal welfare or dog control that a body as important as the RSPCA does not consider itself fully consulted. I look forward to the Minister's comments on why the RSPCA is unhappy about this matter.
I have also had a letter from one constituent - I think the Minister has also heard from the same constituent - who is concerned about access for him and his dog to areas surrounding rivers. As a person who has also taken his dog down to the river occasionally, particularly in summer when it is hot, I think the Minister needs to address that question.
Mr Lamont: Which part of the Murrumbidgee River?
MR HUMPHRIES: I cannot recall, Mr Lamont. That is a concern of dog lovers like me, and I hope that the Minister is taking it on board. A matter such as dog control legislation is one that causes a lot of community concern. It does change quite dramatically the way in which some people use and handle their dogs, and it requires a process of public education to make sure that the laws are not breached through ignorance. If that is going to occur, there must be proper ventilation of the issues over as extensive a period as possible, and I must say that I am not convinced that this has happened in this case.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.23), in reply: Madam Speaker, let me assure Mr Humphries and others that we are not seeking to circumvent the Assembly or treating the Assembly in a condescending way, or whatever the word he used was, by putting this Bill through this week. It is moving through rapidly, let me acknowledge. Let me tell you the story about this. It is, in fact, as a result of consultation that we are bringing this Bill to the Assembly. It is a Bill to amend a recently established Act.
I was not going to be very explicit because of sensitivities that some people in clubs may feel. The Bill was introduced last year after extensive consultation. I want again to commend the people in the department who undertook that consultation. Nobody complained about lack of consultation - nor could they; nor would they want to - when I introduced that Bill in November or December last year. Part of our consultation was with the Canberra Kennel Association - a very fine, hardworking body in this town and predominantly a voluntary body, although they maintain at least one full-time officer because they have the task of ensuring the registration of pedigree animals.
We consulted extensively with the Canberra Kennel Association and its executive. There were numbers of meetings between my officers and the Canberra Kennel Association executive. We did not go out to every member of the association, nor could we or should we. It is a proper function of government - you have done it;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .