Page 878 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Rural Lessees Association, Animal Liberation, pet shop owners and the government veterinarians. These well respected local and nationally recognised groups were involved in the formulation of this policy. (Extension of time granted)
A draft policy statement prepared by the working group was released for public comment in 1989. I will repeat that, Madam Speaker, because I do not believe that all of the members of the Opposition were listening. A draft policy statement prepared by the working group was released for public comment in 1989. The working group reviewed public comment and the Alliance Government released the policy statement in October 1991. Subsequently, in October 1990, the Follett Government agreed to a policy statement which, in respect of all the major issues, was identical to the 1990 statement. On any test, Madam Speaker, one could not say that there has been inadequate public consultation. Not only were all the relevant interest groups involved in the process; the general public also has had ample opportunity to comment.
Copies of the Bill were sent to the parties represented on the working party which developed the policy statement, including the RSPCA. I have in my office, although not here with me at the moment, a copy of a letter of appreciation from the RSPCA in relation to the good work associated with the preparation and presentation of this Bill, including, I might add, the preparation of the amendment that I shall move later on this evening. Many copies of the Bill were forwarded, free of charge, in response to phone calls to the animal welfare officer, and further copies were available from the Government Bookshop. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, anybody in the Opposition who suggests that this Bill has failed in relation to the requirement to go to exhaustive public consultation is indeed showing himself or herself up as being the real clown of this Assembly.
MS SZUTY (10.03): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to give my support in principle to the Bill introduced by the Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning to provide for the welfare of animals in the ACT. It has been a long time in coming; but it is a credit to the agencies and staff who brought the varying interest groups together and arrived at an outcome which has, by and large, received praise from a wide range of animal welfare lobby groups.
The substance of the Bill, in comparison to the existing Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1959, as amended, is demonstrated by the greater range of defined offences and the fact that it addresses many issues left untouched by the earlier law. Of particular concern in the community has been the care of animals used in research and teaching institutions. There has been increasing awareness of the conditions suffered by these animals in the past. It is part of the building of a humane society - which is one of the tasks of the Legislative Assembly, in my view - which gives assurances to animal welfare groups by introducing guidelines which bring people in charge of these animals under the umbrella of legislation, making them answerable to the wider community.
Another welcome initiative is the section outlining the ban on the use of animals in blood sports. It is an anathema in a civilised society that such activities as dogfights, cockfights, and the confining of animals for shooting and sport are carried on. With the assistance of this legislation, authorities now have guidelines, and the community has a direct message that such practices are not acceptable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .