Page 435 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
discussion paper entitled “Proposed Amendments to the Animal Welfare Act 1992.” As members would know, the bill amends the Animal Welfare Act 1992 and establishes new offence provisions to address current animal welfare issues. The bill will ensure that people other than veterinary surgeons are prohibited from performing therapeutic procedures. This includes docking a dog’s tail or removing a dog’s dewclaws. The bill prohibits a veterinary surgeon performing surgery on animals where the sole purpose of that surgery is to alter the animal’s appearance.
As a person who has long been a lover of dogs in particular—until recently I have always had a domestic dog as part of my family—I am obviously in favour of this bill. In fact, my last long-term dog was a Doberman boxer. When we initially purchased this animal from the RSPCA and took her to the vet, my vet made it very clear that he was not going to dock this dog’s tail, which was quite long. I made it very clear in return that I did not require him to dock the dog’s tail for any purpose at all. I could not see any purpose why we should alter the dog’s appearance.
The removal of a dog’s dewclaws by a person other than a veterinary surgeon has been reduced from 10 days after the day the dog is born to four days after the dog is born. The aim of this is to ensure that after this period the procedure must be performed by a veterinary surgeon under anaesthetic and with analgesic pain relief. Again I have experience in that area as my dog needed to have its dewclaws removed, but that was done by the vet under these circumstances.
The bill makes it absolutely clear that animals should not be left alone in vehicles and in conditions that are likely to be detrimental to their health, that is, in a car on a hot day or, for instance, in a car on a hot day in full sun with no windows undone and no water provided. We hear much about the danger of leaving a child in these circumstances as he or she could suffer dire consequences. We are aware of children who have died as a result, but we do not seem to hear much about leaving animals in this distressing and dangerous situation.
The bill updates requirements for research, teaching and breeding licences, and authorisations. For example, the bill clarifies the administrative processes and procedures involved in applying for a licence or authorisation, and it provides clear examples of the types of conditions that can be placed on the licence or authorisation. I think members would agree that those are all important considerations. We have already heard from those opposite that they are supportive of this legislation.
Finally, the bill ensures that there is compliance with the code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes and it reflects the concern raised by the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee by recognising animal welfare issues and addressing those concerns—again a feature of the bill that I am sure is welcomed by all members. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.39): Mr Speaker the Greens welcome these amendments to the Animal Welfare Act. They contain a number of improvements, which could seem minor to some but actually could make large differences to many animals’ lives. I thank Mr Hargreaves’s office for arranging a briefing with officers from territory and municipal services, as the full and frank discussion we had assured
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .