Page 1023 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 2 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In regard to consultation on the bill, there seems to be confusion as to whether consultation through the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee—which I might add is confidential—actually constitutes consultation with stakeholders. I do not think so. Given the lead time for this bill and the fact that it has been debated for a number of years now, it is ludicrous that there are still constituent groups that do not feel as though they have been properly consulted.
Perhaps there is an issue with the varying concepts of consultation. For instance, while the RSPCA’s president sits on the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and is able to represent the RSPCA’s views in that committee, some of those discussions have been confidential and so cannot be shared with anyone else at the RSPCA. There have been three meetings of the AWAC recently, although no meeting was held for nine months prior to that. So while the RSPCA has had input through its seat at that table, it has not had any real opportunity to fully explore the suggested amendments. The RSPCA is not aware of any direct consultation that has taken place with it—for instance, through its director—at least since July 2005. So I think the issue of consultation that the Greens often tend to raise in this house is certainly applicable to this legislation.
There are a number of other issues in regard to animal welfare which need further review. Perhaps they could be dealt with this year in conjunction with the review of the Domestic Animals Act, as there is a large crossover. Constituents have notified us of issues such as pet shop regulations and the conditions under which animals for sale are kept. Our attention has also been drawn to the sale of some small animals as live food for other animals. Issues such as this can slip through the cruelty provisions and are currently unregulated. There are also issues with reptile ownership regulations and licensing, as permits for ownership are not required for all reptiles, thus the purchasing of live rats for reptile food cannot be regulated.
Some of the provisions for animal cruelty inspectors are not clear enough and there is uncertainty as to whether there needs to be written permission for inspectors to go into properties. There are also issues around the sharing of information between the police and the RSPCA regarding criminal histories and simple things like fingerprinting. These are issues that were discussed by the New South Wales animal cruelty task force and I am sure they are of relevance to the ACT. These are issues which go beyond the current amendments, which, of course, I endorse. I hope to see further action by the government this year following the review of the Domestic Animals Act.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella—Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Housing and Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11.48), in reply: I thank members for their support of the bill. This bill is a government response to Mr Stefaniak’s unsuccessful Animal Legislation (Penalties) Amendment Bill 2004. The government holds the view that simply attempting to increase the maximum penalties available to a magistrate when sentencing a person guilty of a cruelty offence does not fully address animal cruelty issues and nor does it equate to harsher penalties being handed down by magistrates.
The bill amends the Animal Welfare Act 1992. It establishes stand-alone legislation that significantly strengthens the need to fully address animal cruelty issues. Recent statistics compiled by the RSPCA indicate that, as Mr Stefaniak quite rightly pointed out, the ACT
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .