Page 133 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
One of the major complaints when I presented and we debated this bill last year was that we had not done enough consultation. In fact the Greens have spent a lot of time in community consultation on this. I began meeting with stakeholders early in 2010. At the end of 2010 I released an exposure draft of the legislation in the Assembly for community consultation. I received around 40 submissions during the consultation process. The version of the bill I presented last year was amended to reflect the submissions and other feedback that I received. The version today is essentially the same as the version last year, minus the work on banning sow stalls. It also creates a strict liability offence for the mandatory reporting of animal cruelty.
One of the reasons I am re-presenting this bill, why I am persisting with this bill, is that the majority of the feedback I received on it was very positive from both the community and experts who work in animal welfare. The RSPCA said, “The legislation proposes a comprehensive approach to animal abandonment problems, covering issues such as breeding, selling, desexing, microchipping and advertising.” They went on to say that “in a lot of ways it mirrors the RSPCA’s ideal policy on the breeding, sale and licensing of companion animals”.
Other supportive submissions have come from Dogs ACT and the Animal Sanctuary Rescue and Foster Group, as well as groups outside the ACT such as the Animal Welfare League of Queensland, the National Desexing Network, Hunter Animal Watch, and Dogs Homes of Tasmania, which is that state’s largest dog welfare organisation. Support for the bill has also come from a number of major NGOs that work on animal welfare and protection, such as Animals Australia and Voiceless, who have said that this bill, if passed, would constitute much needed reform in the area of animal protection in the ACT.
Since the bill was debated last year I have continued to receive a steady stream of supportive emails and phone calls on the subject. I will acknowledge that there has been some opposition to the bill from the pet industry but, importantly, not all the pet industry. There are parts of the industry who do take animal welfare seriously, who are already acting consistently with the bill and who are supportive of the ideas of the bill.
One issue with the legislation which has been suggested, particularly by some representatives of the pet store industry, is the possibility that, if the bill was passed and the sale of cats and dogs from pet stores was regulated, pet stores would be destroyed. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this will happen. A number of pet stores in the ACT already operate successfully just selling pet products and accessories. One is PETstock in Fyshwick and Belconnen, but there are other stores in Phillip and Belconnen. I am sorry; I probably should not mention a commercial name, but I just wanted to say that we were not talking about imaginary stores; they exist. It is the fastest growing franchise of its kind in the country and it does not sell animals anywhere in Australia. I think that might be slightly wrong; I think it might sell some goldfish, but it certainly does not sell cats and dogs. The argument that businesses would be destroyed if pet shops were not able to sell kittens and puppies is wrong, and these stores are proof of that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video