• Mark Pearson makes formal complaint to the NSW Police regarding criminal activities in the Greyhound industry

    After a number of weeks of reading the Greyhound Racing NSW documents that were delivered to NSW Parliament under a Legislative Council Order for Papers, today I gave notice of a motion advising that I have sent a written complaint to the NSW Police about evidence of animal cruelty, illegal drug possession and administration to animals, race-fixing and money laundering. This is about more than “just a few bad apples’, this is about a systemic problem with criminality occurring throughout the whole of NSW wherever greyhound racing is taking place. l will be speaking more about this in my adjournment speech in parliament this afternoon.

    What is truly shocking is that the Labor Party, Nationals, Liberals, Christian Democrats and Shooters, Fishers & Farmers are wilfully ignoring the ugly truth of this vile industry- that the dogs are harmed, exploited and discarded with no thought about their welfare. But when the layer of animal cruelty is peeled away, we find criminal networks, substance abuse, race fixing and illegal gambling.

    It is undoubtedly clear that the animals are just like chips in a poker game, no more no less. They are a means to an end. But we will not stop in our fight for animals and in doing so we are exposing criminal underbellies that no civilised society should accept.

    NOTICE OF MOTION

    1. That this House notes that on 16 November 2016, The Hon Mark Pearson sent a letter to the NSW Police Force lodging a complaint about suspected serious criminal activities, including cruelty to animals, possession and administration of illegal substances including drugging greyhounds as well as the broader abuse of drugs within the greyhound racing industry, race-fixing and money-laundering in the greyhound racing industry.
    2. That this House notes that the complaint relates to information obtained from examination of non-privileged documents delivered to the Legislative Council on 12 October 2016 in response to the Order for Papers-Greyhound Welfare and Further Order as well as independent research resulting from reading those materials, which amongst other matters, discloses multiple instances of allegations of wrongdoing recorded and investigated Greyhound Racing NSW Inspectors.
    3. That the House encourages all members of parliament to view the privileged documents and the general public to view the non-privileged documents delivered to the Legislative Council in response to the Order for Papers-Greyhound Welfare and Further Order to see for themselves that the greyhound racing industry is riddled with criminality and animal cruelty and is beyond reform or redemption.
    4. That the House entreats the government to refrain from introducing a Bill to repeal the Greyhound Racing Prohibition Act 2016 pending the outcome of a police investigation into The Hon Mark Pearson’s complaint.

    _v1k9391-1

  • Mark Pearson opposes and condemns the Crown Land Management Bill 2016 in his second reading speech

     

    The Animal Justice Party opposes the Crown Land Management Bill 2016. It attempts to strike down the sense of home and belonging that Australians have for this country. Home is not only the home they own or rent but almost half of the land in New South Wales that belongs to them. It belongs to the people of New South Wales. This bill will destroy the principle that Crown land belongs to the people of New South Wales. A previous member spoke of a child who wrote to the Queen and the Governor-General concerning the St Albans common illustrating the community connection with the land. Indigenous people feel the connection to land, life, being, culture and heritage.

    The Government and Minister are acting ultra vires, outside the power vested in the Minister and Government by the people of New South Wales. Crown land includes native wildlife corridors and stock routes that supply water and an abundance of nutrition for animals. Presently, the community can leave home and visit protected and sacred places within the ownership of the State. The Animal Justice Party admits that there are problems with the administration and protection of Crown land but this bill does not address that to ensure that Crown land is nourished and enriched. The bill does not reflect the principle that Crown land fosters a sense of heritage and connection. This bill will cause Crown land to become vulnerable to the whim and indiscretion of a manager that may or may not be appointed by the Minister for local government or by a council. There will be a lack of accountability.

    This bill goes against the very spirit of what this House should be doing to protect that sense of heritage and connection between the people of New South Wales, their sense of ownership, and their willingness and desire to ensure that their land is not vulnerable to the financial and other sinister interests that will emerge if this bill is passed without even one, two or three amendments. For all these reasons, and because of this fundamental principle, the Animal Justice Party refuses to support and condemns the bill.

  • 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.

Page 5 of 16« First...34567...10...Last »