Page 1047 - Week 04 - Thursday, 18 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
we do it - to negotiate with the peak bodies, where there are peak bodies. That is what we did with the Canberra Kennel Association, and we agreed with them the Bill that came in last year, which we are now amending. Their president came to me and we discussed certain things, as a final stage of negotiation, I suppose. On some matters I agreed; on a couple I said no. For whatever reason, some members of the Canberra Kennel Association were not in tune with that debate. Whether that was the fault of the executive or whether it was their fault for not keeping up with things, I do not know; but at that late stage some members felt that they had not been informed. That arose, I think, substantially from a time in January or February, during the election campaign, when I went to a meeting called by the Kennel Association to talk about matters ahead of the election and to talk about the implementation of the legislation.
The legislation was given at least a six-month period to be implemented. Indeed, that is one of the causes for a very minor amendment today from the floor. We had six months to put this into operation. A whole range of matters were to come about by way of regulation - fees, exercise areas, and so on - so we set a six-month period before the Act was to be implemented. A couple of people who came to the meeting, it would appear, had not been quite aware of this. I do not think it is our fault; it may be the executive's fault, or their fault.
Mr Humphries: What about the RSPCA?
MR WOOD: I will come to that. So they were concerned about some things. We continued our negotiations on the development of those regulations. We took on board a great deal of what they said as we framed those regulations. Indeed, on fees and charges, for example, they ground us down to lower fees than we had initially expected. That will emerge shortly, as I announce fees and charges. We listened to them. Part of the concern of a few members came out and the two main amendments that I am bringing forward today were required to satisfy them. I thought it was a reasonable thing to do. I do not think it was a result of our lack of negotiation or consultation, because we, as you would understand, dealt with the executive. I think that is fair. I will say for the third time today that whether they did not report well enough to their members or whether their members were not tuned in to the debate, I do not know; and it does not matter. But it did emerge and I think that is understandable. I do not think it is because of anything we did, particularly, that this late debate came about.
They convinced me that if a structure in a backyard were "legal" today, if it had been approved - if, indeed, it needed to be approved - it should be legal after the Act comes into effect; that the more stringent requirements, the two- and nine-metre rule, as we say, should not require the destruction of existing facilities - I do not think that would happen in very many cases - and the construction of new ones. So I do not think it is our fault, and for that reason I agreed that we would bring these up today. The six-month period runs out on 24 June, not 25 June. That is the reason we have to do this today. I acknowledge that it has come through fairly quickly; but, if anything, it is as a result not of lack of consultation but of continuing consultation. I think that is what it is.
I cannot really answer, at the moment, your question about the RSPCA. In fact, I did not hear Mr Westende read out the letter he had, because I was engaged in conversation on another matter behind me; but I have sent my officers to try to withdraw from the bureaucracy a letter - - -
Debate interrupted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .