Page 434 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (11.30): I support the government’s Animal Welfare Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. The opposition is entirely satisfied with the government’s intentions and motives for this amendment bill. The purpose of this bill is to make amendments to the Animal Welfare Act 1992, herein known as the act, and to take into account some of the changes recommended by the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, or AWAC, in its October 2002 public discussion paper entitled “Proposed Amendments to the Animal Welfare Act 1992”.
The bill updates animal welfare offence provisions to address current animal welfare issues. For example, referring to one of its many provisions, the bill will prohibit a veterinary surgeon from performing a medical procedure on an animal where the sole purpose of that surgery is to alter the animal’s appearance, or cosmetic surgery. I think this bill, which focuses on animal welfare, addresses quite sensible issues. Those are priority issues. The opposition is satisfied that in addressing the priority area of the welfare of animals this bill does not impede any sensible activities that are currently acceptable in the ACT in relation to the management or the ownership of domestic animals.
The government’s bill deals with the management of domestic animals in respect of travelling circuses, zoos and visiting zoos. As I said earlier, it deals also with cosmetic surgery and will ensure that cosmetic surgery and other forms of unnecessary surgery do not occur. The bill deals also with the management of animals for experimentation purposes but I am pleased that that does not necessarily impede existing practices relating to animal experimentation. The bill certainly tightens up all the procedures governing the issues I have just listed and, to that extent, the opposition is satisfied.
The bill also tightens up procedures governing licensing, authorisation and permits and does not seem to introduce any dramatically different types of law. The bill simply tightens up all the existing provisions governing the management of domestic animals. Referring to the government’s desire to introduce strict liability offences, the opposition notes that those provisions were scrutinised by the scrutiny committee which was quite happy with the government’s intentions. To that end the opposition supports those elements in the new bill. The opposition thinks that those recommendations are appropriate and it welcomes them.
On a related issue, I would like to see the government putting as much effort as it has into the animal welfare legislation into addressing other areas of domestic animal management, such as laws governing the management and ownership of dangerous dogs. We think that these priority areas must be examined and upgraded and we would be pleased if the government put some effort into those areas. As a parting gesture, we would also be extremely pleased if the government put as much effort into dealing with the party animals around Lake Burley Griffin over the weekend. These sensible laws governing the welfare of domestic animals, which are welcome, tighten procedures where they need to be tightened—an issue about which we are pleased. The opposition supports the bill and will continue to monitor other procedures as they develop.
MS PORTER (Ginninderra) (11.35): I support the bill which is the government’s response to the October 2002 Animal Welfare Advisory Committee’s public
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .