• Notice of Motion-Racing NSW Horse welfare fund

    RACING NSW HORSE WELFARE FUND

    (1) That this House congratulates Racing NSW for its decision to establish a Horse Welfare Fund which will be financed predominantly from a 1 per cent levy on all racing prize money paid in New South Wales.

    (2) That this House commends Racing NSW’s commitment that all New South Wales thoroughbred horses will be appropriately cared for outside of their racing careers and that this includes ex-racehorses as well as those thoroughbred horses that have never made it to the race track.

    (3) That this House notes that Racing NSW will provide resources for the care, retraining and eventual rehoming of all New South Wales thoroughbred horses by:

    (a) appointing a dedicated team of staff to manage the program, including a Horse Welfare Veterinarian;

    (b) establishing partnerships with riding schools, pony clubs, local agricultural societies and other equestrian organisations to promote the rehoming of thoroughbred horses;

    (c) expanding the current Thoroughbred Rehabilitation Program with additional re-trainers to vastly increase the capacity for new horses; and

    (d) raising awareness for thoroughbred welfare and undertaking training days for their new owners.

    Motion agreed to.

  • Notice of Motion congratulating Virgin Australia

    REHOMING OF COMPANION ANIMALS

    (1) That this House congratulates Virgin Australia and Jetpets on entering into a partnership with companion animal rescue charities, Australian Working Dogs Rescue, RSPCA and Pet Rescue to:

    (a) provide free transport for companion animal adoptions and rehoming throughout Australia; and

    (b) assist in the relocation of surrendered greyhounds requiring rehoming as a consequence of the Greyhound Racing Prohibition Act 2016.

    (2) That this House notes that every successful rehoming of a companion animal removes a dog or cat from death row in council pounds and RSPCA shelters.

    Motion agreed to.

  • Question without Notice-Yabby traps drowning Native wildlife

    YABBY TRAPS

    It seems the Minister believes the suffering of native Australian Water Rats is somewhat amusing. Has Niall Blair not understand we stand for ALL animals, not just the ones the wider public deem cute and unique?

    Other states have state wide bans on these specific yabby traps as they indiscriminately trap and drown other air breathing animals. However, here in NSW these traps are only prohibited where the Platypus is found, does a water rat or a turtle not suffer the same as the platypus? What about the suffering of the Yabby?

    I asked the question and not only did the Minister seem to laugh at my interest in the suffering of other animals but he did not even come close to answering the question. So much so, that, when I attempt to ask a supplementary question The President ruled it out of order.

    QUESTION

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. As prescribed by the Fisheries Management Regulations, opera house style yabby traps are banned from use in public waters east of the Newell Highway, where platypuses are found. The ban was implemented in response to the number of animals being drowned in these traps. It is, however, still legal to use these traps in public waters in parts of western New South Wales. New South Wales Fisheries has published advice on how to modify the traps so as to limit bycatch, yet in areas such as Menindee Australian water rats are caught and drowned in the traps.

    Will the Minister follow the example of States such as Victoria and impose a statewide ban on opera house style traps so as to protect our native animals?

    If not, why not?

    ANSWER

    The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I thank the member for his very detailed question. As I look across to the President’s gallery to see whether there is a note on such a detailed question, the response on the faces of my advisers is the reason that I find the beginning of my answer somewhat humorous. I am certainly on my own on this one. It is a serious question. If the Department of Primary Industries [DPI] Fisheries, which comprises some of the most outstanding scientific minds in this country, has determined that certain parts of the State warrant the use of so-called opera house traps and other parts of the State do not then, without having any information to hand, I say that the determination it has made is the right one.

    We have some of the best scientific advice on fish stocks and fishing methods in New South Wales estuaries. If DPI Fisheries has determined that the traps are appropriate in certain parts of the State I support the status quo. If the department provides me with further advice on this matter I will be happy to review that advice. At the moment, if there is a clear distinction and there has been a decision to allow the traps in certain areas I assume some form of assessment has occurred. That assessment would have been undertaken by the best in the business. If I receive any further advice from DPI Fisheries I will be happy to share that with the member.

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON: I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister elucidate his answer in relation to why the Department of Primary Industries does not follow other States that have a complete ban?

    The PRESIDENT: Order! The standing order is quite clear. A supplementary question must ask for elucidation of an aspect of an answer. It is not in order to ask the Minister to address a part of the question that was not answered. As I said in a previous ruling, other than the requirement that a Minister be relevant and not debate the question, a Minister is free to choose to answer as he or she wishes. I am afraid I have to rule the supplementary question out of order.

  • Adjournment Speech on Xenotransplantation

    XENOTRANSPLANTATION

    Xenotransplantation is the transplantation of living cells, tissues or organs from one species to another. There are currently xenotransplantation experiments occurring at Prince Alfred Hospital using baboons from the Wallacia breeding facility. A recent media expose described Frankenstein-like operations that transplanted organs from pigs into baboons. Millions of dollars of taxpayer‑funded research grants is used, but the hospitals are not required to provide details to the public about the nature of these experiments. Questions to the Minister have failed to yield answers.

    Human-to-human organ transplants are now routinely performed on patients with organ failure. Australia is a world leader for successful organ transplant outcomes but is twenty-second on the international list for organ donations. Public awareness is, however, improving. In 2015, 69 per cent of Australians indicated a willingness to become organ and tissue donors and there was a record 435 organ donations to 1,241 patients. The Federal and State governments have implemented a national reform program to increase donation rates. The program will implement a world’s best practice approach to organ and tissue donation for transplantation. Its aim is to increase clinical capacity and capability, and to increase community engagement and awareness in relation to organ donation.

    Unfortunately, the current rate of organ donation does not meet demand, and this has been used to justify xenotransplantation with animals. Xenotransplantation occurs predominantly with primates and pigs and is a death sentence for those animals. If xenotransplantation ever becomes a surgical practice there will be mass wastage preceded by enormous suffering for the animals. Sentient beings will be reduced to nothing more than spare parts and tens of thousands of animals will die miserable deaths in laboratory conditions.

    Xenotransplantation seriously impacts animal wellbeing. From the moment the animal is born it is unable to express natural behaviours and will suffer frustration, deprivation and stress. The sterile conditions in which the genetically engineered animals to be used for transplants will be kept poses a significant stress factor. To reduce the risk of exposure to disease sows have their pregnant wombs removed and the piglets are placed into a sterile environment. The piglet is unable to suckle from its mother, it is medicated and reared on artificial foods containing no animal products.

    Aside from the animal suffering involved in xenotransplantation, there are serious human health risks with this procedure. Possible problems with transplantation of whole organs from animals to humans include viral diseases transferred from animals, rejection of the organs by the patient’s immune system, and differences in structure and biochemistry between human and animal organs. Pigs contain endogenous retroviruses that are passed on to offspring in the DNA of normal chromosomes, and therefore cannot be eliminated. Viral sequences in host DNA can be activated to produce infectious viruses in mice, cats and gibbons that are closely related to leukaemia viruses and are a second cousin to HIV.

    The following are examples of diseases transferred from primates to humans: monkey pox is a virus originating in African monkeys causing a 10 per cent fatality rate in humans; the HIV-AIDS virus is thought to have come from the primate simian immunodeficiency virus [SIV]; seven laboratory workers died following exposure to Marburg virus through African green monkey kidneys; Ebola virus recently killed thousands of people in central Africa and has been linked to monkeys; and the herpes B virus is a common infection of macaque monkeys but in humans it can develop into a fatal neurological disease. Given the terrible animal suffering and massive wastage of sentient beings, the risks to human health and the expense involved in experimentation, would it not make more sense to save money and encourage a more compassionate outcome for all beings, by focusing our efforts and resources on community education programs to promote organ donations?

    These research materials were sourced by Dr Suzanne Pope.

  • Question Without Notice-Lannate L Insecticide

    On our recent visit to Broken Hill where I hosted a community forum, some alarming reports of animal cruelty and abuse were conveyed to myself and my staff. One of the more distressing issues was that of farmers and landholders using Lannate L insecticide, a highly dangerous schedule seven chemical, to poison wild animals, including wild dogs, foxes and wedge tail eagles. Reports of even insect eating animals such as birds and echidnas dying from consuming ants that have landed on Lannate L baited carcassess has sparked serious community concern.

    I questioned the Minister on this issue and it seems he has forgotten that he is the person responsible for animal welfare in this state. Whether an animal is native or not is irrelevant, the issue here is the unauthorised use of a highly dangerous poison on wild animals which causes immense suffering and a slow lingering death.

    Question

    My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. At my recent community forum in Broken Hill I was told that it was common practice for landholders to purchase Lannate L, a schedule 7 insecticide, known colloquially as “Magic” because if used undiluted on a carcass it will kill anything. I was told of a sheep farmer who killed 60 wedge-tailed eagles in one week.

    Will the Minister advise whether the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority has approved the use of Lannate L for wild animal control?

    If not, will the Minister direct his department to investigate this unauthorised and cruel use of a schedule 7 poison?

    wedge-tailed-eagle-animal-justice-party-mark-pearson

    Answer

    Some components of this question relate to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority [APVMA], which is a Federal body. The wedge-tailed eagle, which is a native bird, component probably falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister for the Environment. If the question also relates to other pest animals species it may be relevant to my portfolio. What chemicals can be used for agricultural purposes and not for pest management is a responsibility for the APVMA. In good faith, I will take the question on notice and provide the Hon. Mark Pearson with information that is directly relevant to my portfolio rather than taking up too much time of the House now.

Page 5 of 15« First...34567...10...Last »