Page 1356 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Animal Welfare
MR STEVENSON: My question is to Bill Wood, the Minister for animal farewell. Is there a law in the ACT which makes it an offence to cause unreasonable pain to an animal?
MR WOOD: Mr Stevenson knows that we have the Animal Welfare Act, and we have general provisions, more widely, requiring that people will not cause unnecessary pain to animals. Mr Stevenson might care further to debate the issue of unnecessary pain and the processes that are long in place for dealing with matters such as horseracing. Mr Stevenson has been out on the stumps saying that horseracing is illegal when, in fact, it is not. He can say it as often as he likes, but it does not change the fact of the matter; horseracing is quite legal. If it is considered by a government officer or by any other person that the way a horse was whipped or ridden constituted unnecessary cruelty, rather different to or in excess of the codes of practice established in the racing industry around Australia, then there would be recourse to action to have that determined. Subsequently the court would determine whether there was an unnecessarily cruel act to an animal, in this case a horse. It is quite clear that horseracing in the ACT remains legal. Mrs Carnell is not acting illegally by getting a racehorse and at some time in the future successfully racing it. The Leader of the Opposition can be quite comfortable that she is doing the right thing, legally, in her enterprise.
MR STEVENSON: I ask a supplementary question. As there is no code of practice in the ACT for horseracing, and as it is also acknowledged by the ACT Racing Club that some of the practices involved in training and racing horses, such as whipping, cause pain, has the Minister taken any action to see that the law is complied with, or does he have any intention of seeing that the Animal Welfare Act is amended to correct the situation?
MR WOOD: There is no amendment to the Animal Welfare Act necessary. I think I have explained the situation. The absence of a code of practice - it is not far from being produced - does not render any part of the Act illegal. It does not change the situation. The general provisions relating to cruelty to animals are maintained. They are still there. Those general provisions, as I have said - I need to repeat it, obviously - still apply. There is no purpose in taking any action. The racing industry uses the code of practice established around the country for racing. That obviously will be a fairly significant part of the current consideration as we determine our own code of practice under the animal welfare legislation.
Ms Follett: Madam Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .