Page 1696 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
"Hang on a bit; this is going to cause us a great mischief". But even then, with the debate that ensued, the Minister - who is not here to listen to this - said, "Well, she'll be right because we will have a code of conduct". He might have a code of conduct; but, if he does, it will be only one of the inconsequential ones that flow from "any other matter related to animal welfare".
Yet they are very prescriptive about such fairly small things as aerial shooting of animals. How much of that do we do in the ACT? We have racing here several days a week, but once in a while somebody shoots animals from the air. Aerial shooting of animals is listed as one about which we will have a code of practice, but racing is not. So, Madam Speaker, I submit that it is yet another case of the Government not having thought it through. They have not thought through the consequences and, once again, despite the gag that has been put on us, the Opposition is moving to fill the gap. We are not getting this from the Government. Even after the debate, it has not dawned on them that there is a potential major problem. Madam Speaker, I submit that, as we have continued to say, this Bill is a mass of holes; it is a mass of flaws, and here is another one. I am surprised that the Minister allowed me to finish my speech.
MR MOORE (4.57): Madam Speaker, I think Mr Kaine has raised an interesting point here. The issue that he raises, I am sure, is covered under paragraph 21(u), "any other matter related to animal welfare". But, considering that the Government has taken care to set out a series of them, the point that the Leader of the Opposition raises about animal welfare in the racing industry is appropriate. I wonder whether it should have been "the horseracing industry". But "the racing industry", considering that it is about animals, should be clear enough; and it could include greyhounds and therefore is quite appropriate. I indicate now, Madam Speaker, that I will be supporting the amendment, which I think is sensible.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.58): Madam Speaker, I think there are two points to be made about this. The first is that it indicates to the Opposition and others that we do not consider that the racing industry has any particular problem or concern about this - so little that it has not been listed here. That is the first point. We do not anticipate that the racing industry will have any difficulties. The other point is that this is well and truly covered by item (u).
Mr Stevenson: They all are.
MR WOOD: Yes, indeed; no problem. It is a fairly routine way of doing it. Mr Kaine's amendment does not add any strength to what is there, nor does it take anything away from it; so we will not oppose it. But it does not really do anything of great significance to that clause; it does not change anything.
MR STEVENSON (4.59): The Minister said that it is covered by item (u) in clause 21. Indeed it is. But the truth is that all of them, from (a) through to (t), are covered by the words "any other matter related to animal welfare". So, I find a lack of acknowledgment of valid points. If you are going to be prescriptive of areas that are suggested for codes of practice with a dozen-plus listings - - -
Mr Berry: Nobody is ruled out.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .