Page 1684 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I had, for over a year, been injecting my dog with cortisone at the recommendation of a veterinary surgeon. The closest veterinarian to where we were living at that stage was 160 kilometres away. Perhaps that would be construed as a reasonable excuse. I am sure it would be. It is expensive to take a dog to a vet to get an injection, which is actually a very simple procedure. No doubt there are animals around that have diabetes, for example, that would be injected daily. That would be a medical procedure. I feel comfortable that that would be covered very neatly by the words "without reasonable excuse" because the action would be taken for the benefit of the animal. It is a matter that I had raised with Mr Wood.
There is also the matter of pet shops, particularly pet shops that sell antibiotics that people can administer to their pets. I remember administering antibiotics to my father-in-law's bees at one stage. Let me tell you, it takes a long time to inject 5,000 bees.
Mr De Domenico: To inject a bee with antibiotics?
MR MOORE: In fact, the procedure is a little bit different from that, but the mind does really boggle at that. I think it is worth having on the record a comment from the Minister as to what constitutes being reasonable in that sort of situation with reference to a pet shop.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.18): Madam Speaker, Mr Moore is right. Let me point out that this is an important provision. It is principally designed to prevent unauthorised, inept, unscientific experiments on animals. You would imagine that there is some scope for people who think they have some background that they may not have, or for other reasons, to deal with animals in an improper way. This is designed, as I say, to overcome that.
We might also relate some of the clauses concerning care for animals to what Mr Moore says - that there is an onus on people to care for animals. To be precise for Mr Moore, in clause 19, "medical procedure" is not intended to include the administration of non-restricted drugs. Consultation with veterinary surgeons indicates a general understanding that it is accepted and appropriate for owners of animals to administer non-prescription drugs. There is no intention to prevent owners from administering, for example, worm tablets to their pet or dosing fish with anti-fungal drops or, perhaps, dealing with bees. The Bill also allows owners to administer other drugs in accordance with the directions of a vet - for example, penicillin. It is quite proper. There is also provision, as Mr Moore says, for a reasonable excuse to be given.
MR MOORE (4.19): I know that this will be covered in the codes of practice, Madam Speaker, but I think the point is worth making. I notice that in paragraph 19(2)(b) an exemption is given for standard farming and grazing activities. One of the farming activities that are still practised in and around the ACT is that of mulesing of sheep. It is a practice that I personally find entirely and totally unacceptable, and I still consider it to be cruel. I hope it is one that will be considered very, very carefully by those people who are dealing with the codes of practice. I know that some farmers still consider it to be in the best interests of the animals; but I think mostly it is in the best interests of the farmers because they do not have to shear the tails of the sheep, which is a revolting job, granted. But the practice of mulesing, I think, is one that we really ought to see an end to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .