• Notice of Motion-Whipping of Horse in the Racing Industry

    Whipping of Horse in the Racing Industry

    This Motion was OBJECTED to by the Government.

    1. That this House condemns Racing NSW for permitting the practice of jockeys whipping horses for the purported purpose of increasing the horse’s performance, given that it is an offence under s4 (2) d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 for animals to be unnecessarily inflicted with pain.
    2. That this House notes the research commissioned in 2012 by the RSPCA and undertaken by Professor Paul McGreevy, Sydney University; “Whip use by jockeys in a sample of Australian Thoroughbred races – an observational study” which
      1. confirmed that repeated striking with a whip (of any type) in the same area of the body has the potential to cause localised trauma and tissue damage, and
      2. identified that the injury will increase with the force of the strike and the number of repetitions.
      3. confirmed that there is unacceptable use of the whip in thoroughbred racing and
      4. the RSPCA recommended that the whip as a performance aid be prohibited.
  • Notice of Motion-Yulin Dog Meat Fesitval

    Yulin Dog Meat Fesitval

    This Motion was OBJECTED to by the Government.

    1. That this House condemns the celebration of the Lychee and Dog Meat Festival, commonly referred to as Yulin Dog Meat Festival, which is an annual summer solstice event held in Yulin, Guangxi, China.
    2. That this House notes that the festival only commenced in 2009 and includes activities such as dogs being confined in cages, then beaten, skinned and boiled alive to produce dogmeat which is then consumed by festival goers.
    3. That this House calls upon the Chinese Government to prohibit this egregious cruelty to animals by banning the torture of dogs and consumption of dogmeat at the Yulin Festival.
    4. That this House notes that in NSW it is not unlawful for dogs and cats to be killed and consumed by humans provided the slaughtering process meets the requirements of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979
  • The Hon. Niall Blair MLC

    When will the Minister responsible for Animal Welfare understanding animal suffering?

    The Minister for Primary Industries clearly doesn’t have any concerns about the pain and suffering caused to introduced animals such as foxes and wild dogs when baited with 1080 poison. His ministerial responsibilities include the welfare of all animals, and that includes so called ‘pest’  animals. Instead of addressing the question about options for non-lethal and humane controls, Minister Blair decided to attack me for the hypocrisy of once eating fish and wearing leather and wool (not true).

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON: During question time on 5 April the Minister stated support for the widespread use of 1080 poison to kill introduced animals such as wild dogs and foxes. Given that the welfare of all animals in New South Wales is his ministerial responsibility, irrespective of the category status imposed by humans, will the Minister advise whether his department has considered humane or non-lethal alternatives to 1080 baiting?

    If not, does the Minister accept the scientific evidence that so-called “pest” species are capable of experiencing pain and suffering, and the ingestion of 1080 poison causes immense suffering to baited animals irrespective of which animals they are?

    The Hon. NIAL L BLAIR: I stand by the comments I made in relation to pest animals and 1080 poison. I know my department, along with other agencies, looks at alternatives to poisoning for some of these pest animals. For example, a good bullet in the head would be appropriate for a wild dog that attacked poor defenceless lambs or left some of the sheep they attacked with their guts hanging out and suffering. As I have said previously, 1080 is licensed for use by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. It is a Federal issue.

    The member should not think for one second that he can enter this Chamber and have me start feeling sorry for introduced species that inflict pain and suffering upon livestock and, importantly, to many native animals. Native animals, including birds, suffer attack by feral dogs, foxes and feral cats. I will not change my mind. The member is wasting parliamentary question time. The 1080 poison is registered for use. The producers and agencies must stay within the protocols of that registration. The agencies that make those decisions do not report to me. That is my answer.

    It is one thing to say that members should be concerned about animal welfare that is governed by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, it is another matter to suggest that these introduced pest animals are in the same class. They inflict damage upon the economy and environment of this State. I am not going to apologise for one second for the fact that our agencies and farmers are using 1080 to eradicate those pests. The damage they do far outweighs any other consideration. My answer stands and I will not apologise for it. As long as those responsible for the control of the pest animals adhere to the requirements and protocols attached to the products I will help producers to gain access to 1080 poison that eliminates feral animals.

    I have stood with farmers while Local Land Services handed out chicken heads injected with 1080 for use on their properties to control foxes. I will accept criticism that I am not doing enough in this space and I will go back to the agencies and say, “Let’s do more”, but I will never say in this Chamber that we should do less. I do not accept the member’s hypocritical view. We joke in this place about media reports concerning the member, but he walks in here with leather on his feet, wool in his suit and fish in his belly and attempts to impose his ideology on us. The member has been caught out as a hypocrite. The question is hypocritical. The member should stand up for our native animals. If the member spent more time on that area I might take the question seriously.

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate upon his answer as to what is the research that the department is doing into humane and non-lethal methods for “pest” control?

    The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: As I have previously stated, the department looks at other methods for control of these animals, including a bullet in the head or chest of some of the feral animals.

  • Notice of Motion-Dolphin Swim Australia

    DOLPHIN SWIM AUSTRALIA

    Accordingly, I move:

    (1) That this House commends Dolphin Swim Australia for being the first permitted wild dolphin swim in New South Wales and the first swim system of its kind worldwide.

    (2) That this House notes that Dolphin Swim Australia:

    (a) was given a permit to operate a wild dolphin swim encounter in the offshore waters of Port Stephens Great Lakes Marine Park in January 2010 and is now in its seventh season;

    (b) was subject to an independently monitored and Government-approved research program initially conducted over three years by cetacean expert, Dr Carol Scarpaci, of Victoria University, New Zealand;

    (c) conducts the operation whereby dolphins lead the way and can choose to interact or not without disruption to travelling or behavioural patterns;

    (d) utilises specific “approach patterns” to dolphins, ensuring there is no separation of the pod or disruption during feeding or resting; and

    (e) ensures dolphins are not habituated to the swimming activities.

    Motion agreed to.

  • No place for celebrating animal cruelty in Mardi Gras

    As a young man still in his teens, I joined with friends from Newcastle and became one of the group of 78ers that participated in the first Mardi Gras. It was a distressing but also a celebratory experience. I remember looking at the police as they were arresting people and putting them into paddy wagons. To one officer I said, “I think one day the police will actually march with us in this parade.” He said, “You might be bloody right, son, but you better get out of here or you will end up in that paddy wagon.” I was lucky to escape a beating and my prediction about the police was quite prescient given the oppression gays and lesbians experienced from those in authority at that time. Now, of course, it doesn’t even raise an eyebrow when the police march at Mardi Gras. It is heartening to witness such positive changes over the decades.

    For me, Mardi Gras has always been a joyful celebration of queer sexuality as well as the life-affirming message that we live and love in equal dignity and worth to everyone else in the community.

    This year’s Mardi Gras theme of ‘equality’ makes sense to me. With equal marriage continuing to be a political football and the suicide rates for LGBTQI teenagers still too high, equality remains an elusive goal. While it is wonderful that a wide range of community, corporate and government agencies sponsor floats, we should be careful of the messages that are promoted using our hard-won credibility and acceptance.

    As the sole representative of the Animal Justice Party in NSW Parliament, I am deeply concerned with Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA) being a sponsor of Mardi Gras, either of the parade, Fair Day or any other Mardi Gras event. MLA is the company behind the popular Australia Day lamb ads which aim to distract the public from thinking about the darker side of the trade. MLA is the representative body of Australia’s live export industry, arguably the cruellest animal exploitation industry permitted to exist today. Our call for equality should not be linked with the needless suffering of millions of animals. The vast majority of Australians would agree, with over 70% of Australians oppose to live export.

    live-export-cattle-australia-1

    Before I was elected to NSW Parliament I spent many years at Animal Liberation NSW, running campaigns against live export. Every aspect of this industry shows a cruel disregard for animal well-being. Animals suffer long hours transported in trucks, without food or water, often in the searing heat. They are then jammed by the thousands into live export ships where animals stand in their own excrement, often for weeks on end. The air is foetid with ammonia fumes burning the eyes and the lungs. Not all animals survive the journey and sadly, they are the lucky ones. We have all seen the horror footage of sheep packed into the boots of cars, trussed up on the back of utes or penned in the blazing heat without food or water, waiting for the slaughterman’s knife.

    live-export-sheep-australia-1

    LGBTQI equality should not be obtained through partnerships with organisations or industries that operate without a social licence. Horrific animal cruelty and abuse has been exposed in the Australian live export industry for decades, and yet the industry continues to operate with impunity and for the most part without reform. I do not want my beloved Mardi Gras to give credibility to a company that trades in animal cruelty. The MLA’s ‘lamb dance’ Mardi Gras entry makes a mockery of the suffering and death of millions of sheep on transport ships and in the bloody slaughterhouses.

    The MLA is cynically exploiting the feelgood vibe of Mardi Gras to gain community support by associating with the LGBTQI community’s brand. This will serve only to legitimise their cause and delegitimise our own. There should be no place for celebrating animal cruelty in Mardi Gras.

    mark-digital-signature-1

Page 3 of 1512345...10...Last »