TOKEN CONSULTATION? THE EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED — BUT WHERE WAS IT CONSIDERED?

We want to update everyone who has supported our petition opposing the proposed NSW prohibition on prong collars.

K9 Sports Illawarra engaged directly with the NSW Government and provided evidence challenging the basis for the proposed prohibition. This included research specifically examining prong collars, as well as concerns about the relevance and reliability of studies involving different equipment or broadly grouped “aversive” training methods.

We also ask where is the direct, relevant Australian research evidence and national/NSW injury data demonstrating harm specifically caused by prong collars?

We are sharing the correspondence

We have now received correspondence from Minister Tanya Moriarty stating that stakeholder views and evidence received “genuine consideration”.

We believe supporters should be able to see the Government's response and judge for themselves. We are therefore sharing the most recent reply received and our response with this update.

Thousands of prong collars are actually in use in the community. 

However, the response does not explain:

·       Where is the Australian evidence demonstrating a measurable pattern of injury or welfare harm arising from those thousands of collars, and where harm has been reported, what evidence establishes whether it resulted from the equipment itself, the manner in which it was used, or misuse?

·       What evidence demonstrates that prong collars cause unacceptable harm when appropriately fitted and competently used, rather than assuming that the potential for misuse establishes that the equipment itself should be prohibited?

·       How was the evidence submitted by K9 Sports Illawarra assessed and weighed, particularly where research specifically examining prong collars produced findings inconsistent with the case for prohibition?

·       Why studies specifically examining prong collars that produced findings inconsistent with the case for prohibition were not given greater weight;  

·       Why has international research involving different equipment or broadly defined “aversive” methods been treated as relevant evidence for a prohibition specifically targeting prong collars?

·       How were differences in study methodology, training practices and regulatory environments considered before international findings were applied to NSW?

·       Why is a blanket prohibition considered proportionate when competency-based regulation and existing animal welfare enforcement mechanisms are available?

Being consulted is not the same as being heard.

If evidence is invited but contrary evidence is not meaningfully addressed, and stakeholders are given no explanation of how it influenced the decision-making process, legitimate questions arise about whether the consultation was meaningful or merely token consultation.

We believe supporters should be able to see the Government's response and judge for themselves. We are therefore sharing the relevant correspondence with this update, including our recent response this week.

We need your help — contact your local NSW State MP. If you already have, please share your local state MPs response with us.

Please write to your local NSW State Member of Parliament and ask them to oppose the proposed prohibition until genuine consultation has occurred and the available evidence has been properly and transparently considered.

Ask your MP to call on the Government to demonstrate:

• the direct and relevant evidence supporting a prohibition specifically on prong collars;
• the Australian evidence and injury data demonstrating the claimed harm;
• how contrary evidence submitted during consultation was assessed and weighed;
• whether competent use has been distinguished from misuse; and
• why evidence-based regulation has been rejected in favour of a blanket prohibition

This not a request for MPs to accept our position without scrutiny. It is a request that legislation with significant consequences should not proceed until the evidence has been properly examined and those directly affected have been genuinely heard.

Please share with us what response you receive including if you receive no response at all.

We want to understand what information is being provided by MPs to constituents and whether the concerns raised are being meaningfully considered.

Consultation should influence decision-making. Otherwise, it is consultation in name only.

Thank you for continuing to stand with us.

K9 Sports Illawarra

K9sportsillawarra@gmail.com