Page 2387 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 30 July 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
time. There was significant support for the bill in general, including recognising the sentience of animals, increasing penalties and improving enforcement powers. Of course, that followed the very significant consultation we undertook on the animal welfare and management strategy where people called for stronger animal welfare laws and greater protections.
A consultation report in relation to the consultation processes we undertook has been published and is available on the website, so it is simply not true to suggest that there has been no consultation on this bill. There has been quite a lot of consultation, and the results are available through the summaries that have been provided.
The government will not be supporting this motion given the extensive amount of consultation that has been undertaken on the bill, including the exposure draft process. We are very happy to provide briefings in relation to bills in good faith. Unfortunately, on this occasion the opposition chose to take a stance on the bill before it had even been introduced to the Assembly. I offered to respond to any questions Ms Lawder wanted to provide in writing, and I did so within a reasonable time frame before the bill being debated today.
We do not think this reference is necessary. These laws are new. They are novel in the context of the Australian jurisdiction but certainly not in relation to other jurisdictions throughout the world. These laws were developed with significant consultation with the community and reflect the Canberra community’s values. They should be debated today given the significant consultation that was undertaken and the amount of time that has elapsed in between that should have enabled the Canberra Liberals to consult with the community themselves.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (11.53): First off I will say that we basically support this legislation, so from that point of view we do not see the need to send it to committee. But I was shocked and disturbed to hear the minister’s statements about consultation and briefings to the opposition. That is incredibly poor form. All I can say positively to the opposition is: you are not alone. I also have considerable problems getting briefings from the government. For the minister to say, “I have done other consultation, therefore I will not give you a briefing,” or “The opposition has a view on something, therefore I will not consult with them,” is not good enough.
I keep hoping we will be a consultative-type Assembly and will all try to work together for the good of the Canberra community. I am very disappointed at the minister’s statements. Unfortunately, I cannot see that referring this bill to a committee will change the minister’s views.
MR PARTON (Brindabella) (11.54): I have major concerns with the bill but even more worrying than the bill itself is Mr Steel’s complete disdain for the citizens of Canberra in refusing to provide any briefings to members of this chamber on this bill. I am pleased that Ms Le Couteur agrees with that position but I am disappointed and dismayed that that has not led—despite the ideological position of the Greens on these matters, and I fully understand that—to the Greens supporting the referral of this bill to a committee.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video