Page 1643 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Wood: It is because you do not understand it. It is as simple as that.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Wood said that I do not understand the legislation. Three times in this Assembly I have gone into detailed discussion with people who have drafted legislation. I can give the exact details of the Bills, if you wish. On each of those occasions, we found, after persistence, sometimes for half an hour with five different members of the department, that the particular points that I had been maintaining were relevant, and that unintended consequences were relevant. It is the unintended consequences. It takes a long time for some people to see some other viewpoint that they did not intend. It is not their intention. I am not saying that it is deliberate, for a second; but there are unintended consequences.
The only decent explanation we have had from members opposite is that these matters will be corrected by a code of practice. The codes of practice are absolutely excellent ideas. However, you create an offence, you say that someone is breaking the law, and then you say that you are going to develop codes of practice because you understand that some things that would be an offence in one industry may be allowed in another, like horse riding, like confinement in pet shops, and so on. You bring in the law and make offences before you have the codes of practice and you say that there are some exempt situations within different industries, like egg production, trotting, greyhounds, horseracing, pet shops and others. I have statements here from different people within some of these industries who say that they have concerns.
Mr Berry: How many?
MR STEVENSON: I have one from Colin Bates, the representative of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council and a pet store retailer. I will not read the statement; I do not have the time. The racing industry - not just Mr Colquhoun, but Mark Owens as well - is very concerned.
Mr Wood: Two.
MR STEVENSON: Okay; include egg production. How many? I did not hear a word. We stopped at two. We got to one; he mentioned two; and that is three. We have had the National Aquarium concerned. How many is that? Four. Granted, I have not yet got all the rest. I have other statements in the files. There was not time to prepare it all. Nevertheless, we definitely have four people. The Bill should go before a select committee. We are not saying, "Do not do it". No-one has said that. Just give some time; otherwise this should be called not the Animal Welfare Bill but the Animal Farewell Bill.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.50): Madam Speaker, I realise that this debate really is about securing Mr Moore's support. The Government is locked into a position and obviously the Opposition is as well. It is a question of persuading Mr Moore that there is a good case for making this reference to a select committee. Mr Moore prides himself on being a man of logic, I think, and I have an argument which I believe is logical. I hope he will listen to it and think about it very carefully.
This is one of the most unusual pieces of legislation the Assembly has ever considered. The reason that it is most unusual is basically due to one clause, clause 20. That clause does something which I have not seen happen anywhere else in legislation that has come before this Assembly. It allows a person to plead
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .