Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 3 March 2004) . . Page.. 691 ..

There were different views within the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee as to whether curfews would significantly reduce the risk, given the numerous targets, of depredation at any time of the night or day. The Flora and Fauna Committee endorsed the principle that it is inappropriate to have free-roaming cats in, or adjacent to, nature conservation areas. I believe that the options paper is a fair and balanced look at the issues and potential solutions, and I think the Flora and Fauna Committee’s assessment of the options paper is a good summation. The government has been giving serious consideration to the paper, and we have been seeking to study the proposals in order to provide appropriate advice.

A range of views on the subject has been expressed in the debate. (Extension of time granted.) Environment ACT has acknowledged to me that there is a lack of specific scientific certainty about the activities of cats and about which of these options would be most appropriate. The precautionary principle suggests that we should not ignore what we know is likely to be occurring. We know in our hearts that it is definitely occurring; it is simply that we do not have the definitive and scientific advice we might like. The studies required to produce that definitive advice would be expensive and long term. They could not possibly be achieved before the land scheduled for sale is sold.

There is a strong likelihood that domestic cats would impact on the native fauna of the nature reserve as a result of suburban development and the urban-reserve interface. There is no doubt that the precautionary principle is a valid justification for taking action with regard to Forde and Bonner.

We acknowledge that cats provide significant companionship to some people within our community. We should not deny that, and we need to have some regard for the value of cats for some people. That is one of the reasons the government is not inclined to support a full ban on cats in these suburbs, acknowledging that it is nevertheless a difficult issue. We need to be mindful of the benefits that pets provide, and it is appropriate that we look at some of the other options, acknowledging that the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee do not support a cat ban and that the RSPCA have also advised that they do not support a cat ban, although they would certainly support the restraining of cats.

Cat curfews were one of the other options. The value of a cat curfew is problematic, in that one does not know what time of day a domestic cat is more likely to take native fauna. Do they take more animals during the day than in the night? This is evidence we do not have. Another of the options was building a cat-proof fence around the nature reserve. It is an option of high visibility and questionable value. The fence would almost certainly have to be electrified; there are significant costs and there are public safety implications. It is an option that will require close investigation.

The government thinks that there are significant advantages in having a containment policy. It affords a good level of protection not only to the native fauna in the area but also to the cats themselves. The position was put to the government, by both the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and the RSPCA, that the cats themselves would be advantaged as a result of being contained. It is found that they live much longer, and their quality of life is not impeded. If the pet’s life is preserved, that will benefit the quality of the life of their owners through companionship. Accordingly, the government’s amendment would require all cats owned by residents in the new suburbs

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .