Page 870 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This raises two main concerns. First, who will be the inspectors? The RSPCA thought that they would be, but the Bill does not say so. We do know, however, that the police can be inspectors, and this will therefore give them powers they do not have at present. It is therefore quite conceivable for the police to use this power to enter a premise under false pretences in order to seek a conviction on another matter. This is not at all desirable and, furthermore, the police would have no experience at all to deal with an animal welfare problem anyway.
The second concern with inspectors is their right to enter a premise without a warrant. No circumstance can warrant this type of practice, whether or not the inspector thinks a particular case is serious, urgent or whatever. This is a massive invasion of privacy and it must not be permitted. There are also potential dangers for inspectors in adopting such a practice. There would be no way of knowing what response this type of behaviour might engage; but one could not rule out a violent response, particularly if the person had treated his animals in a violent manner. If a case were considered to be one requiring urgent attention, then the inspector would have to organise a warrant. In fact, it would be better practice in these extreme cases if the police were to accompany an inspector on a mission of this nature, but we cannot have inspectors with powers that enable them to enter premises without a warrant. We are not a police state yet.
The Liberal Party believes that the penalties for offences are far too high - an absolute overkill. Actions of people against people do not attract such a vehement penalty. Animal cruelty against people and other animals does not attract anywhere near the same kind of penalty. If a dog, for instance, attacks a flock of sheep and mauls them, the owner would only be charged a maximum fine of $1,000, according to the Dog Act of 1975. This penalty would also apply to a dog attacking a human. It would probably be fair to say that the Dog Act is too lenient and the Animal Welfare Bill too extreme the other way. We do not have a figure in mind, but somewhere around half that suggested would seem more appropriate.
The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is also a concern. Even if the recommended composition of the committee were as suggested in the October 1990 policy statement, and I have it here, there would be some concerns that this group actually represented all concerned groups and people involved with animals. Once again, the concern would be to ensure that such a committee remained level-headed and did not permit extremist views to gain control. We would like the Government to reveal the composition of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee before this Bill is debated in detail.
The Minister indicated in his introductory speech on this Bill that the policy statement was developed with help from a diverse group; but it is not clear who represented the interests of, say, Parkwood Eggs, the Mugga Lane Zoo and circuses. It is to the interests of the various activities that involve animals that I now wish to turn my attention. It is an outrageous act by Mr David Lamont to attempt to amend the Bill in order to ban certain exotic animals from circuses. It is outrageous for the following reasons. Firstly, it was not the action recommended in the October 1990 policy statement. The circus operators were quite happy with the provisions of the Bill as they stand. They are quite used to being regulated, as each State and local council has inspectorial regulations relating to circus operations. We are talking here of some 900 government authorities watching their every move, apart from organisations such as the RSPCA.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .