Page 875 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! We have a minor point of confusion here. To follow the standing order appropriately, Mr De Domenico, we should have done that at the end of the speech, exactly so that this process does not happen.
Mr Kaine: We do not mind if he finishes reading from it, although it is contrary to standing orders to do so.
MADAM SPEAKER: It is contrary to standing orders. If you are willing to table it - - -
MR LAMONT: I have watched you people do it so often I thought it was the rule of law.
Mr Kaine: No, we just have comprehensive notes.
MR LAMONT: So, the comprehensive notes which I am now going to quote from, Madam Speaker - - -
Ms Follett: Our standing orders do not rule that out. Other parliaments' do; ours do not.
Mr Kaine: We follow their rules when our standing orders are silent.
MADAM SPEAKER: Could we proceed with the speech, please?
MR LAMONT: I address the question of penalties - the one which was raised by Mr Westende. For his information - this obviously is enlightening to him and his colleagues - offences committed under the Animal Welfare Bill are essentially by a person who mistreats defenceless animals, often calculatedly and premeditatedly. Offences under the Dog Control Act, which he tried to draw some corollary with, are typically unpremeditated and instinctive. The level of penalty has been determined by the Law Office, and is consistent with other relevant ACT legislation. Any anomalies will be addressed by the parity of penalties initiative being adopted by the ACT Government. He should have been aware of that.
He then went on about the appointment of inspectors, once again trying to raise hysteria about what powers inspectors would have. The Government is aware of potential problems associated with overzealous inspectors, and not just in this area. Each inspector appointed by the authority will be required to undergo formal training in both the interpretation of the legislation and the appropriate conduct of their duties. That is a reasonable proposition. The authority is responsible for the appointment and regulation of inspectors. I understand that it is anticipated that the inspectors will initially be the government vets and the RSPCA inspector, who have proven capabilities in the field of animal welfare inspections. If the powers of an inspector are misused, the appointment of an inspector may be revoked. Authorisation as an inspector is unlikely to be conferred upon anyone holding extremist views.
I turn now to powers of entry without a warrant. Whether or not the police, because they are included in this legislation, should be appropriately authorised as inspectors was questioned. Madam Speaker, what is being proposed as a power of entry is a standard power of entry embodied in several other pieces of regulating legislation in the Territory. It is impossible to predict the circumstances in which it may be needed, but its use will be limited to the most
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .