1 / 47

PERFORMING ANIMALS PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL (B9-2015)

PERFORMING ANIMALS PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL (B9-2015). Responses by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries to inputs from the Public Hearings. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES 26 MAY 2015. Acronyms Background

bose
Download Presentation

PERFORMING ANIMALS PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL (B9-2015)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PERFORMING ANIMALS PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL (B9-2015) Responses by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries to inputs from the Public Hearings PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES 26 MAY 2015

  2. Acronyms Background Stakeholder inputs on general Animal Welfare matters Specific oral comments/ concerns pertaining to the Bill Specific written comments/ concerns pertaining to the Bill General comments/ concerns pertaining to the practical operational issues covered on the regulations Conclusions PRESENTATION OUTLINE

  3. ACRONYMS

  4. In April 2015, the Portfolio Committee (PC) on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries issued a call for general public to submit written inputs/comments on the Performing Animals Protection Amendment Bill. In addition to written inputs, on 12th of May 2015, oral presentations were heard by the PC as part of public hearings on the Bill. The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) has been afforded the opportunity to consider the inputs and provide responses/ feedback. BACKGROUND

  5. In analysing the inputs, the Department broadly categorised the feedback from stakeholders into five (5) areas of focus: Stakeholder inputs on general Animal Welfare (AW); Stakeholder oral comments/ concerns raised; Stakeholder written comments/ concerns raised Specific issues on the Bill; and Stakeholder comments/ concerns on matters covered in the regulations. BACKGROUND

  6. In general: A number of issues raised by the stakeholders had been raised during DAFF’s consultative process. Stakeholders also confirmed to the PC that the inputs raised during DAFF’s consultative process were indeed considered, but to varying degrees of satisfaction of the stakeholders. In considering the final version of the Bill, DAFF considered all inputs on sometimes conflicting and competing views – a final version of the Bill is considered to be balanced and incisive. BACKGROUND

  7. There were comments and inputs which were not specific to the current PAPA Bill, but were rather on general animal welfare matters. In particular, stakeholders expressed discontent that the Department has not taken this opportunity to completely repeal PAPA & provide an “overhauled, comprehensive, holistic and modern Animal Welfare Bill” that is responsive to new developments and encapsulates Animal Welfare and modern science. STAKEHOLDER INPUTS ON GENERAL ANIMAL WELFARE MATTERS

  8. In a nutshell: Stakeholders felt that PAPA was just too old and outdated, and stakeholders were of the view that it was unwise for the Department to spend this valuable time purely fixing a portion on the Act that is holistically defective – stakeholders were of the view that the entire Act required a complete rework and that DAFF has missed an opportunity. In this regard, a number of specific issues considered outdated were raised that could have been corrected and included in the Bill. STAKEHOLDER INPUTS ON GENERAL ANIMAL WELFARE MATTERS

  9. Such general inputs included the following broad issues:- The unclear rationale behind exclusion of certain groups of animals such as reptiles or animals excluded in terms of section 9 of the principal Act; The poorly defined purpose/ long title of the Act; and The total failure of government to play a leading role in implementing and enforcing AW and leaving this function with NGOs. STAKEHOLDER INPUTS ON GENERAL ANIMAL WELFARE MATTERS

  10. In principle – DAFF concurs with the stakeholders in that PAPA is a very old Act and that it requires a complete re-work to holistically provide for a new legislative framework. In fact, DAFF is further of the view that even the Animal Protection Act is outdated, fragmented and difficult to manage in the current regulatory framework and shall be repealed with the goal to replace both legislations with a modern and consolidated new act. STAKEHOLDER INPUTS ON GENERAL ANIMAL WELFARE MATTERS

  11. In pursuit of the aforementioned goal, DAFF has taken strides to commence a process to holistically address all issues pertaining to AW. The Department is of the view that all issues raised in the general AW matters will be addressed in the Draft South African Animal Welfare Strategic Framework which will be published for public comments. STAKEHOLDER INPUTS ON GENERAL ANIMAL WELFARE MATTERS

  12. In summary: the Department has not considered all AW matters in the current Amendment Bill, and DAFF has rather opted to address such matters in the next phase of the DAFF regulatory review. The rationale for was based on the following:- Limited time to deal with provisions deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court; The need for empirical research to base decisions on evidence-based scientific considerations - DAFF will have to commission certain scientific studies. Limited resources that are currently available in government to research and implement the envisaged new holistic Act; and The need to align PAPA to other similar Acts currently under DAFF. STAKEHOLDER INPUTS ON GENERAL ANIMAL WELFARE MATTERS

  13. The Department indicated that initially three options and their implications were explored: Option 1: Considering the technical amendments to the existing PAPA focusing only on sections 2 and 3; or Option 2: Considering a total repeal of the aforementioned Act, and a replacement with new Animal Welfare Act; or Option 3: Considering a total repeal APA and PAPA and consolidating them into one Animal Welfare Act. A total repeal of all animal welfare related Acts would require substantive period of time, therefore the only practical route was Option 1 which only considered technical amendments focusing on sections 2 and 3. The advantage of this option lies in its remedying the Constitutional Judgement quicker than the other options. The implementation of Option 1 was adopted as it would assist the Parliament to comply with the Constitutional Court Judgement within the timeframes prescribed by the courts. ‘TO RECALL…………..’

  14. The purpose of the Bill Stakeholders felt that the purpose of the Bill should be amended and shall be made explicit to recognise that it is designed to protect the welfare of performing animals and dogs used for safeguarding (submitted by SAIFAC) and… Purpose of the Bill should be to provide for a procedure for the application for a license to exhibit, train or use an “animal” for safeguarding (submitted by BAT). SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  15. The purpose of the Bill - DAFF’s response: DAFF is of the view that the comments are valid in principle – and that these shall be incorporated into a future goal. However, the current purpose of the Bill before the PC appear to be correct in as far as “to insert certain provisions”. DAFF is not of the view that the current Bill is designed to provide holistic protection of the welfare of performing animals and dogs used for safeguarding or confined to only provision of “a procedure for the application for a license to exhibit, train or use an “animal” for safeguarding.” SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  16. DAFF’S PROPOSED POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS/ AMENDMENTS

  17. The purpose of the Bill - DAFF’s proposal: DAFF is proposing that the revised purpose of the Bill could satisfy the inputs from the stakeholders if these minor amendments could be factored into the Bill. DAFF will accept any proposed alternative wording “on the purpose of the Bill” as this is unlikely to impact on the content of the Bill or practical operational logistics to administer. SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  18. Clause 3 (Section 3B) Stakeholders raised three main concerns pertaining to Section 3B broadly as follows: The use of Animal Scientist in issuance of licenses ; The exclusion of “animal rights” experts/ activists in the process of issuing of licenses; and The definition of an Animal Scientist (Section 4). SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  19. Clause 3 (Section 3B) – use of Animal Scientists Stakeholders raised concerns on prescript that the National Licensing Officer (NLO) must be either a Veterinarian or Animal Scientist (SAVA, SAIFAC, University of Pretoria). There appears to be a great objection on the use of Animal Scientists. The objection appears to be “questioning the training/ competencies/ authority/ ethical obligations of the Animal Scientists on matters of Animal Welfare. DAFF has also noted “contrary views” from other stakeholders (EMS Foundation). SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  20. Clause 3 (Section 3B) – use of Animal Scientists: DAFF is of the view that the concerns over the use of Animal Scientists could be based on “professional protectionism” which is in favour of the Veterinary Profession. DAFF is of the view that training of Animal Scientists is as inclusive in animal welfare matters as the training of veterinarians. If members of the veterinary profession were the only competent professionals to deal with Animal Welfare Matters, then many members of the AW organisations would not be rendering AW work. SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  21. Clause 3 (Section 3B) – use of Animal Scientists DAFF is of the view that “ethical obligations” of Animal Scientists towards animals is as unquestionable. DAFF noted that in general, there is no specific/ training/ course or module that leads to a qualification of “Animal Welfare Professional” Concepts of Animal Welfare are entrenched in all trainings/ degrees/ qualification involving the handling of animals. SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  22. Clause 3 (Section 3B) – use of Animal Scientists DAFF is therefore of the view that objections to the use of Animal Scientists is not justified. In fact, the DAFF is of the view that there could be areas where Animal Scientists could be more knowledgeable, more experienced and better suited to pronounce on welfare of certain species when compared to the veterinary professionals. DAFF proposes the retention Section 3B in as far as the use of Animal Scientists in issuing of PAPA licenses. SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  23. Clause 3 (Section 3B)– Inclusion of the Animal Welfare Organisations (AWO) in issuance of PAPA licences Some stakeholders expressed the views that: “the licensing process cannot depend on one or two executive officers who have no knowledge or experience in the field of animal welfare and animal rights, therefore the latter should be involved in the issuing of licenses” (submitted by BAT) Regrettably, DAFF holds a totally different view. SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  24. Firstly: DAFF is of the view that members described in section 3B have knowledge, expertise and/or experience in the field of animal welfare and animal rights. There is absolutely no evidence/ justification/ rationale for a contrary view. Secondly: DAFF views the proposal to include welfare/animal rights activists in the issuing of license as “unconstitutional”. DAFF wishes to inform the Parliament that the Northern Gauteng High Court had specifically rejected the plea by the NSPCA to be involved in the issuing of PAPA licenses when the matter was first brought before Judge Legodi in 2012. The founding rationale was that this is a function of the Executive. SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  25. In the Judgement, it was specifically ruled that NSPCA is not part of the Executive and therefore cannot be part of issuing of PAPA licenses. Therefore by implication, DAFF strongly advises against any attempt to include any Animal Welfare Organisations in the formal issuing of PAPA license in a manner that is compulsory as this is viewed as unconstitutional. Sadly, the submission by NSPCA appears to propose similar inclusions of AW organisation in the process of issuing licenses – DAFF similarly advises against these proposals. SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  26. DAFF is also of the view that with over 235 animal welfare organisations, there will never be a satisfactory justification in selecting one or two animal welfare group/s into being part of issuing licenses. Issuance of PAPA license will be informed by scientific principles and sound animal welfare considerations. DAFF advocates the view that Animal Welfare Organisations shall not be included in the process of issuing of PAPA licenses in any manner that is compulsory. SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  27. DAFF consulted extensively with Office of State Law Advisors (OSLA) in order to derive an acceptable text that could satisfy Animal Welfare Organisation in providing the “possibility of giving them role”. As such, DAFF is of the view that Animal Welfare organisations are better suited for possible consultation as provided for in terms of Section 3C(1)(i) wherein NLO may “request from any person or organisation, subject to the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000, (Act No. 2 of 2000) any information that may be required to enable the National Licensing Officer to consider an application for a licence.” SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  28. Clause 3 (Section 3D) – Appointment of experts Some stakeholders expressed caution on the lack of the definition of an expert – or qualifications of whom such experts might be? DAFF’s understanding is that some industry stakeholders are worried that such experts may be members of animal welfare organisation and may have malicious agenda. SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  29. Clause 3 (Section 3D) – Appointment of experts DAFF wishes to clarify to Honourable Members that such experts will have to comply with Section 3B, i.e. must be An Animal Scientist; or A Veterinarian. Such experts will also become “part of the executive” once appointed in terms of the provisions of Section 3D. These experts will therefore not be representatives of Animal Welfare organisations. SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  30. Clause 3 [Section 3E(1)]– Delegation of powers and functions A concern has been raised that the current version of Bill before Parliament appears to give impression that the delegation of powers and functions will be limited to persons appointed in terms of section 3D; However, in practice – such delegations will not be limited to such persons. SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  31. Clause 3 [Section 3E(1)]– Delegation of powers and functions DAFF proposes that Honourable Members consider the re-wording and factor the amendment of additional groups other than in Section 3D. DAFF proposes insertion of “an officer” in section 3E. The proposed re-wording was initially captured in the Draft Amendment Bill that was published in April 2014. The proposed re-wording allows the delegation to other existing officers appointed in terms of Public Service Act. SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  32. DAFF’s proposed possible improvements/ amendments

  33. Clause 3 [Section 3F(1)(a)] The wording on this section has been questioned since it makes reference to the ‘purpose of the Act’ of which such purpose has already been declared unclear by stakeholders. In view of this, DAFF proposes to the Honourable Members to re-word this section so as to eliminate any ambiguity related to challenges with the understanding of the purpose of the Act. This is purely consequential to the discussion on the “purpose” of the Bill that has been discussed in previous slides. SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  34. DAFF’s proposed possible improvements/ amendments

  35. Clause 3 [Section 3H(1)(a) & 3H(1)(b)] A concern has been raised over the use of the term “any animal” as being “too wide”. DAFF proposes to re-word this section to remove the reference to the word “any” . DAFF further proposes that a specific definition of “an animal” to be included in the current amendment even if this may be perceived as “superfluous” as the definition is already in the APA Definition of an animal is elaborated in clause 4 hereunder. SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  36. DAFF’s proposed possible improvements/ amendments

  37. Clause 4 – [Section 11 (a)] - Definition of the Animal Scientist Stakeholders indicated that the definition of Animal Scientist is not properly represented in the Bill in as far as it relates to Natural Scientists Professions Act, 2003 (Act No. 27 of 2003) – submitted by SAIFAC. DAFF accepts that the is no specific terms pertaining to “Animal Scientist” per se in the Natural Scientists Professions Act. The intent of the use of the term “Animal Scientist” in the PAPA Bill is intended to specify the Natural Scientists registered in the field of Animal Science in terms of the Natural Scientists Professions Act. In view of the ambiguity: DAFF proposes that the Honourable Members could consider amending the definition of Animal Scientist in the current Bill in order to provide more clarity and to address the concerns of the stakeholders. SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  38. DAFF’s proposed possible improvements/ amendments

  39. Clause 4 – [Section 11] - Definition of an Animal Stakeholders have raised a direct concern that a definition of an animal shall be clearly explained. DAFF remains of the view that definition of an animal was not affected by the Constitutional Court – as such it had not been considered for amendments. However, DAFF proposes that the Honourable Members may consider adding the definition of an animal in the current Bill, but purely for ease of reference. However, such definition shall remain consistent with section 1 of APA. It shall also be noted that reptiles are excluded as contemplated in section 9 of existing PAPA. SPECIFIC ORAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

  40. DAFF’s proposed possible improvements/ amendments

  41. How will the Minister designate the NLO, by way of notice in the Gazette or in any other way? DAFF Response: Designation will be in writing and will be published on the DAFF website It is unclear whether the Draft Performing Animals Regulations will replace the current Regulations or not? DAFF Response: The repeal of section 2 & 3 in the current Amendment Bill implies that the regulations issued in terms of such sections are automatically repealed unless otherwise expressly specified. This will require new regulations. Draft regulations contemplated in the current Amendment Bill have been published on the 2nd of April 2015. COMMENTS/ CONCERNS RELATED TO ITEMS COVERED IN THE REGULATIONS

  42. The Bill should indicate the amount of time that the NLO has to make a decision on an application. DAFF Response : This will clearly defined in the regulations which indicates 30 days. Issuing of licenses should be centralised with the National Licensing Officer and not delegated down (Submitted by NSPCA). DAFF Response: The coordination for of PAPA licenses will be at DAFF, however all the delegated officers will issue licenses on behalf of the NLO in their respective provinces and will send monthly reports to the NLO for monitoring and auditing purposes. COMMENTS/ CONCERNS RELATED TO ITEMS COVERED IN THE REGULATIONS

  43. National South African Police Service (SAPS) Clearance should be a requirement in the processing of a license. DAFF Response: Stakeholders have indicated that this request from the SAPS records might take up until 3 months before issued, which will result in a significant delay on the issuing of the license. A license should only be valid in the district where the application took place. DAFF Response: This is considered operationally impractical as it translates to that every time animals move to a different district [in terms of circuses, guard dogs or film industry], a new license will have to be obtained]. COMMENTS/ CONCERNS RELATED TO ITEMS COVERED IN THE REGULATIONS

  44. Guard dogs should be totally exempted from PAPA licenses as this is already regulated by the Private Security Industry Regulating Authority (submitted by SA Dog Academy). DAFF Response: Guard dogs were never excluded in the principal act therefore the question of exclusion in the revised Bill does not arise. Publishing all license issued on the government gazette DAFF Response The costs of publishing one page in the government gazette are significant (costing up to R1000 ) and therefore DAFF proposes for a DAFF maintained database of licences. This database will periodically be issued for perusal by stakeholders. COMMENTS/ CONCERNS RELATED TO ITEMS COVERED IN THE REGULATIONS

  45. Licensing of movement (movement permit) of guard dogs is impractical as thousands of security dogs are moved on a daily basis, how will this be achieved without compromising the security of the public or public assets? DAFF Response: This matter that is under consideration by the Technical Team – DAFF conducted workshop with stakeholders on the 4th of May 2015 focused specifically on regulations. This submission is a realistic logistical and operational concern. COMMENTS/ CONCERNS RELATED TO ITEMS COVERED IN THE REGULATIONS

  46. The Department has looked at all matters raised by the public and the presentation has focused and covered all main key concerns/ inputs. Matters not specifically covered in this presentation are considered to be either generic in nature / or are implied in other responses. DAFF hopes that stakeholder concerns captured by DAFF are consistent with those captured by the Portfolio Committee and that responses provided by DAFF will assist the Portfolio Committee. CONCLUSION

  47. Thank you

More Related