Page 2386 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 30 July 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The bill is complex. It has an explanatory statement of 41 pages, which is longer than most, and the bill itself is 90 pages. All of that would be bad enough and reason enough to transfer this for inquiry to a committee, but the experience of Ms Lawder in preparing for this bill shows that there is much worse to be seen.
Ms Lawder sought a briefing on this bill on 21 May and was refused. As someone who has been in this place as long as I have I cannot recall an occasion when a minister has refused to give a briefing to a member on a bill for which they have carriage. This is a matter of considerable concern for the opposition. Mr Steel’s reasoning was that noting that Ms Lawder had already taken a public position on the legislation and that this occurred before the bill was introduced, he would not be providing a briefing.
Minister Steel briefed the Canberra Times on the bill before it was introduced to parliament and the Canberra Times published a story on 14 May, two days before the bill was introduced into the Assembly. Ms Lawder was asked for comment on the content of the story and she did so in her role as the shadow minister responsible for the area of animal welfare. This was then used by Mr Steel as an excuse for not providing Ms Lawder and the opposition with a briefing on the bill. Mr Steel has two rules: one for himself and one for everyone else.
Ms Lawder then set about the task of putting together an array of written questions about the bill. As a result of not being able to be briefed, on 21 May Ms Lawder sent a set of questions to the minister on 29 May. Ms Lawder received answers to those questions only on 12 July. On the basis of the answers, on 13 July she sent a further set of questions to the minister which to date have not been answered.
For a variety of reasons—one, this is new ground; two, there has been no obvious public consultation; three, new and innovative legislation would be well served by referral to a committee for inquiry and report; and four, the arrogance and churlishness of this minister in refusing to provide a member of this place a briefing when they request it on a piece of legislation for which the minister has carriage—the opposition has taken the view that this legislation should be referred to a committee for inquiry and report. I commend the motion to the Assembly.
MR STEEL (Murrumbidgee—Minister for Community Services and Facilities, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Transport and City Services) (11.50): There has been very extensive consultation in relation to the development of this bill. Considerable community consultation was undertaken in relation to the animal welfare strategy. The bill was developed following consultation processes on the animal welfare and management strategy in 2017, the animal welfare amendment bills in the late 2018 and 2019, and feedback collected through other processes including talking to members of our community and key stakeholders such as the RSPCA ACT and the assistance animal industry.
We specifically consulted on an exposure draft of the animal welfare bill between 13 December last year and 7 February this year. Key concerns were addressed through the process, for example, removing the restriction on walking three dogs at a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video