Page 3438 - Week 11 - Thursday, 15 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
To conclude, it is also important that the government continue to provide support to people on Centrelink payments or people providing evidence that they are on very low incomes, to assist them to cover the cost of a desexing operation because the cost can be a real barrier to some people, to sole parents, for instance, and, paradoxically, they may be the people who can benefit most from having a dog in the family. As I said in my first speech, it is good for children to grow up with pets where those pets are responsibly cared for. Also, as I know from my own experience, it takes the intensity out of a single-parent, one-child relationship to have a dog in the house. Believe it or not, it is easier than having another child.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella—Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11.50): I will speak to both of Dr Foskey’s amendments.
The Greens’ amendment to section 74 (4) (b) of the bill would remove the exemption that desexing should not be compulsory for dogs and cats older than seven years, that have not been desexed since the act commenced in 2001. The ACT’s compulsory desexing laws, the first to be legislated in Australia, have been in place for seven years. Consequently, all dogs and cats less than seven years of age have been required to be desexed by law, unless they have been kept for breeding purposes, since that time. Owners of dogs and cats kept for breeding purposes must apply for a sexually entire animal permit under the act.
This exemption observes the broadly accepted principle that laws introduced should not be retrospective in their effect. This provision was not present in the existing act but it has been introduced at this time because the government supports the application of the principle. This exemption also supports the principle that compulsory desexing law should first apply and be enforced for younger animals in peak breeding condition. The government also recognises that compulsory desexing of older animals causes high levels of stress and is detrimental to their health and wellbeing. For these very good reasons the government will not be supporting the first amendment moved by Dr Foskey.
The Greens’ amendment No 3 is to proposed section 74 (5) (b) of the bill. This section is an acknowledgement by the government that it is legitimate to keep a dog or cat for sale, including retail sale. The government is confident that it has the support of the local and Australian retail pet industry in this respect. The government is also acknowledging that keeping a dog or cat for the purpose of sale may constitute a defence against prosecution in the section. Observing this principle recognises that while such an animal is so kept it is not at large and so does not pose an uncontrolled breeding risk. This is in keeping with the government’s intention and resolve to encourage good relations with the retail pet industry and to work with the industry to encourage responsible dog and cat ownership.
The government has already adopted this intention by including the provision worked out through consultation with the retail pet industry to amend the bill to allow undesexed cats and dogs to be sold, provided the name and address of the buyer is notified to the registrar of Domestic Animal Services. This amendment will assist rangers to make new dog and cat owners aware of their responsibilities under the act
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .