sumosmum Posted July 29, 2010 Author Share Posted July 29, 2010 (edited) My volume won't go up high enough. I heard a lot of "eyes" and not many "nays"..What happened? Did it just pass? ETA: Most if not all of the amendments proposed by Sue Pennicuik seem to be being rejected. Arguing the 48 hours destruction rights - Sue's putting up a good argument for that one. They're ringing the bells on this one!! Yep, she is doing her best. Good on her. I feel like writing her a thank you letter for trying with this! ETA :crossfingers: Edited July 29, 2010 by sumosmum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 (edited) This 24 - 48 hour thing they are talking about now. I so hope it gets scrapped. Very dangerous law this could turn out to be. ETA They are divided on it. The audio is off, they must be counting! They've rung the bells, which calls all the MLC's in from their little rooms where they might be sleeping, working, whatever. They make a vote and then the count. Edited July 29, 2010 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted July 29, 2010 Author Share Posted July 29, 2010 (edited) Saying prayers here. ETA Bloody hell! So disappointed. Edited July 29, 2010 by sumosmum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 (edited) The vote is with the "nays". The amendment is lost. This part of the Bill (48 hours death sentence if deemed by the council person) is in. Eyes - 3 Nays - 33 Edited July 29, 2010 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 Just seems to be a standard "no" to every amendment that has been suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 Victoria has become a virulently anti-dog state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anniek Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 So that's it then. Bugger. Wish I had had the details of the proposed amendments in front of me so I could follow it better, but I just checkd DOL in passing and saw the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted July 29, 2010 Author Share Posted July 29, 2010 It is going back for the third reading on 10 August 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 (edited) Victoria has become a virulently anti-dog state. You're absolutely right. And there's no listening to reason by the politicians who bring in these laws. But don't quit on this - As Sumosmum said - 3rd reading is on 10th August. Gather all your letters that you sent to the MLA's (Lower House) and include them as attachments to an email and send that email to every single Member of the MLC (Upper House) before 10th August. Will it make a difference? Whatever. But we need to keep trying so that we know we have. And remember - there are a lot of dog-owners who live in Victoria. When it's all said and done, speak with your feet in November. Edited July 29, 2010 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tybrax Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 And, who is going to run the courses that the owners are made to attend? No mention of who will be doing that? KCC will grab that with both arms, I think. ETA: Kaye's not going into the details of such important matters such as the Council having power to destroy on the spot and what conditions Council have to meet, because of the time of the night. Great one Kaye. Yet you thought the most important part to spend most time on was the (by comparison to death of the dog) the more benign topic of the fines. Right. Kaye didn't wont to go into details at all. Pretty poor excuse Kaye!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Kaye didn't wont to go into details at all. Pretty poor excuse Kaye!! A VERY poor show, that's for sure. It would be like someone asking a question of me as a behaviourist and me supposedly answering by saying "I don't want to go into details" and even worse, expecting the other person to accept this as sufficient. How pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted July 30, 2010 Author Share Posted July 30, 2010 Kaye didn't wont to go into details at all. Pretty poor excuse Kaye!! A VERY poor show, that's for sure. It would be like someone asking a question of me as a behaviourist and me supposedly answering by saying "I don't want to go into details" and even worse, expecting the other person to accept this as sufficient. How pathetic. Agree Erny, and considering the importance of the points she didn't want to go in to, I think it was just a big snow job. Disgraceful. The draft copies of the hansards are up on the site for anyone who missed it or wants to catch anything they may have missed. I will post the links at the end of this post. I noticed that the German Shepherd Club stated something to the effect that they were worried that a lot of dog owners in Victoria were not even aware of this Bill and the proposed new laws that will effect them. This is one of the things that has really annoyed me. They were saying that if a person is not a member of any sort of dog club or organisation, they would not know about this. I think if more people had been aware, there would have been more protest about it. More questioning. I think, not sure, but there would probably be more dog owners who are not members of organisations than are??? So, by stating that they have consulted stakholders, they actually haven't in my opinion. Here is the link to the draft Hansard transcripts. Hansard transcripts I have just been having a read of the speeches. A few things that I missed last night, and it has just made me really sad that they have had so little respect for dogs lives. Only thing that was good about it was that Ms Sue Pennicuik as least tried to enlighten them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natsu chan Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Where do I find the email addresses for those people does anyone know? I've been on the Vic governments website but I couldn't find them. Probably they're some where obvious and I'm just blind but some help would be greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted July 30, 2010 Author Share Posted July 30, 2010 Where do I find the email addresses for those people does anyone know? I've been on the Vic governments website but I couldn't find them. Probably they're some where obvious and I'm just blind but some help would be greatly appreciated. NC, here is a link. You can change the criteria of your search down the bottom of the page. Upper House Members Emails Let me know if the link doesn't work for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted August 10, 2010 Author Share Posted August 10, 2010 Parliament is sitting this week, starting today, and the Bill is listed as no. 3 in the Orders of the Day under todays date. I don't know when it will be on, but will try to post if I hear anything happening. Link to Notice Papers You can click on today's date which will bring up the Notice Paper for today. The Orders of the day are on page 5 of the windows version of the document. This is the link to listen to the Legislative Council live. Parliament Live Broadcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 (edited) Sumosmum - you have been brilliant at keeping your finger on the pulse for what is happening/about to happen and I commend you for your continued interest in this. I confess to have not been as active in the Upper House movement as I was for the Lower House campaign - only for the fact that I fell so far behind in all of my work that it has tumbled in on top of me and I've needed to catch up. I'm still doing so, as we speak. And I feel guilty for that, although I can only do so much and as I made clear to everyone from the start, it was not my intention to be the mainstay character in this plight, but did want everyone to know what was happening and let them know what they could do to help themselves and their dogs for the future. I'm hoping that everyone here on DOL who expressed interest and support, didn't need me to keep the thread "hot" before they'd send their letters to the Upper House. And I hope te Upper House treat this with the seriousness it deserves and not as some unimportant joke. I also hope they don't buy the bit that Labor keeps shoving at people, where they say "these laws won't affect responsible dog owners". They can. And becha, they will. But by then, it will be too late. It will be law and those who said it couldn't happen will remain under their rocks whilst other people try to help pick up the pieces of the chaos they've created. Am I being melodramatic? IMO, no. Look back to the Judy Gard fiasco. VicDogs said way back (about the law that permitted Judy and her dogs to suffer the unnecessary wrath of the RSPCA) that "it would never happen". I don't think they were around to help Judy out when she faced the RSPCA crew, the RSPCA's TV crew, the seizure of 12 of her healthy and well-cared for dogs, and the affect of the stress of all that (which cannot be erased). In fact, their silence was deafening. Edited August 10, 2010 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted August 13, 2010 Author Share Posted August 13, 2010 (edited) This is a link to the Proof Version of debate from yesterday, 12 August 2010 on the Bill. It appears that Sue Pennicuick (The Greens) had another shot at amending the part about killing a stray dog within the 24-48hour time(under certain circumstances), and again was unsuccessful.........in answering her, Pakula stated that in these circumstances the dog had already committed an act of attacking prior to this time. He got that totally wrong. She was not talking about a dog that was already declared dangerous, she was talking about any dog. You would think that he would at least know the facts in a Bill that his own party had put forward. Sue Pennicuick did correct him on that matter, but I doubt it even sunk in. They just were not prepared to listen at all. She also tried to have the part about the scientific use of pound animals removed from the Bill. Again unsuccessful. During her speech she suggested better regulation on the supply side, in terms of puppy farms, and point of sale. I am pleased that she at least tried to get the point across. It is all in the link below. I am glad she tried to have a few things changed in this Bill. I am so sorry that she didn't succeed. It seems to me that the rest of them in Parliament are just hell bent on killing more dogs. That seems to be their answer to the problems. That is how I am seeing it at the moment anyway. So, we will have the new laws and I suppose we will just have to deal with them. Expect a rise in the registration fees next year. I feel this will be the first a lot of the public will know about the new Laws. Most people I have spoken to who are not members of DOL, have no idea that this law has been going through Parliament, apart from the fact they have no idea of how serious the changes are, and how they and their pets may be effected. On a personal note, for the first time ever, I have now decided to change my vote and the Greens have won me over this time. At least they tried. I don't agree with all of their beliefs, but on this matter, they have won me over. I had sent a lot of letters to the MPs and I only received answers or acknowledgments from the Greens, Nationals and the Libs. Nothing at all in writing from the Labour Party. I had spoken to some of the Labour MPs in person as well, but got nothing in writing from them! Seems they were going to push this through no matter what was said or done. Hansard (Proof Version) DAA 2010 Upper House 12/08/10 Edited for spelling Edited August 13, 2010 by sumosmum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmwvic Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 I have been informed that the Act received Royal assent yesterday. Commences on September 1. Link to Act http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/W...ILE/10-044a.pdf Reinforced how useless politicians are. Give Councils more power. They have got to joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted August 18, 2010 Author Share Posted August 18, 2010 No, they aren't joking unfortunately. :D Thanks for the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now