Page 441 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
else to refer an issue to them. I thought they could tell us what we need to know well in advance. What is the point in having a high-powered bunch of experts if we do not make use of them?
Under this bill, veterinary procedures have been reassessed. Some practices that were tolerated in the past will not be tolerated in the future. The number of procedures able to be carried out by non-veterinarians will be severely limited. Veterinary surgeons will also be prohibited from giving advice to a third party—a non-veterinary surgeon—on how to perform a so-called “therapeutic” procedure. For example, vets will no longer be able to give advice on how dock a dog’s tail.
Another surgical procedure by non-professionals that will be banned is the removal of a dog’s dewclaws. Previously this had been permitted in respect of a breeder or owner where the puppy is up to 10 days old. In future, if a dog is five or more days old, only a professional vet can perform the operation under anaesthetic and with analgesic pain relief after the five-day period.
Other jurisdictions such as New South Wales have similar requirements. Dr Foskey made the point very well that we forget that operation pain is only the first part of the pain. There is the recovery phase. Even if an operation is justified, we need to understand that that operation will result in the immediate pain disappearing but then the recovery pain will continue for some time. I think it is well worth underscoring that point that was made by Dr Foskey and I appreciate her raising that issue. Even qualified veterinary surgeons will be prohibited from performing medical procedures on animals where the sole purpose of that procedure is to alter an animal’s appearance.
Mr Deputy Speaker, from time to time there are press reports from interstate that various forms of animal fighting still take place for the amusement of human beings and as a method of gambling. This practice has been outlawed for many years but there have been gaps in the legislation. One of those gaps is now closed. A person who owns premises where an offence takes place in relation to baiting or animal fighting commits an offence under the bill. The offence will apply regardless of whether a person who owns the premises was aware of what was occurring on the premises. This is the strict liability that Mr Pratt was talking about, and I appreciate the government’s support for strict liability in this instance. There is no excuse for not knowing you have got cockfighting going on in your backyard.
This bill will ensure that an animal “can” be used to train another animal. Currently many sporting bodies and farmers use trained animals to show their new animals what is required. An example of this is cattle dogs training new cattle dogs in the business of rounding up cattle. The bill updates requirements for licences, identification certificates, permits and research authorisations. This will ensure that administrative and operational processes are up to date.
Amendments to the regulation will prohibit certain types of traps. One of these traps is glue traps for mice and rats, where animals become stuck to a board and there is potential for continued suffering if the trap is not attended to and the animal is not killed. This is the very reason why we outlawed rabbit traps all those years ago. It is also proposed to remove “electric fight-back lure” from schedule 1 of the regulation that lists allowable electrical devices for use with animals. Fight-back lures are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .