Page 880 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and care. Many people I know who have cats have very responsible attitudes and look after their cats very well. I also know that many people have just the opposite attitude. The cats that go through my own backyard and use our sandpit as their toilet are a nuisance in a health sense and in many other senses, in particular the environmental sense in terms of the wildlife in our area - using "wildlife" in terms of the definition in the animal welfare legislation.
I turn now, Madam Speaker, to the notion of circuses. I will take, first of all, the point made by Mr Lamont when he finished his speech. He said something along the lines that anybody who says that there has been no consultation on this matter is simply a clown, and that is an appropriate concept, in fact, since we are talking about circuses. I have been in this Assembly when it was described on many occasions as a circus, particularly with reference to the debate on fluoride. Perhaps part of the reason for that was to do with not the issues themselves but rather how they were handled. Many would argue that there had been quite a bit of consultation and information provided on the fluoride issue.
The point to be made really is that the report on animal welfare in the ACT that Mr Lamont referred to - he was kind enough to provide me with a copy some time ago - has been out as a policy. I do note that Mr Wood, in tabling the Animal Welfare Bill 1992, was prepared to allow it to sit on the table from one sitting to another so that people knew exactly what the Government's intention was. That is a policy that sets out general government guidelines; but when you prepare a Bill which establishes exactly what the Government is intending to do it is appropriate that there be a period of consultation on that Bill. This is an issue that Mr Stevenson, I know, has raised in the Assembly again and again over the last two or three years. Only a matter of a couple of days ago Mr Lamont announced publicly that there would be an amendment to this Bill.
Mr Lamont: Eight days ago.
MR MOORE: Mr Lamont interjects that it was eight days ago, and that may be correct. He announced publicly that there was going to be an amendment to the Bill that would ban circus animals from the ACT. It seems to me that the amendment to the legislation that Mr Lamont is talking about has now been tabled in the Assembly and is now available for public comment as of today. Therefore, it is appropriate that a similar period to the period that Mr Wood provided for the Animal Welfare Bill be provided. Because we are not sitting in three weeks' time, it is appropriate that the time for that amendment - - -
Mr Wood: Every time amendments are moved?
MR MOORE: Not every time there is an amendment; when there is a significant amendment. I think this is a significant amendment.
Mr Lamont: It is consistent with the policy document.
MR MOORE: It is consistent with the policy document and it is a significant amendment. The people of Canberra are now aware that there is an intention to change something that many people in Canberra are quite interested in. It seems to me, therefore, that we can do ourselves no harm by adjourning this debate and bringing it on in six weeks' time. We can learn from the experience of the fluoride debate that we can do ourselves a great deal of harm by rushing it through; therefore, it seems to me that it ought to be adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .