Page 1588 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is all right for us to say that these things do not really matter, that we can sort them out in the wash or that somehow it is all going to resolve itself. That, I would suggest, is a course of action fraught with danger because we would be putting in place legislation that we are not really convinced will do the job, that in fact might have to be amended afterwards, and that is not a good way of proceeding. On the death knell of the Bill, when it comes forward for final resolution by the Assembly, when you, Madam Speaker, put the question that this Bill be agreed to as amended, we should all be confident that we have put in place the best piece of legislation to serve the interests of the Territory, and in this case the interests of animals in the Territory, that we possibly can. I do not have that conviction, and I do not believe that anybody in this chamber really has the basis for such a conviction.
There are concerns which we have raised and which I credit the Government with having accepted. There are amendments, as a result of those concerns, to clause 18 of the Bill, and I think clauses 81 and 83, and I thank the Government for its flexibility in considering those amendments. But I emphasise that those may not be the only amendments that need to be made to this Bill. If they are not, then we should consider whether we should be giving this Bill a little bit more thought than we have given it today. I have just had circulated another amendment from the Government.
Mr Stevenson: Hot off the press.
MR HUMPHRIES: Hot off the press. Frankly, there are problems with this Bill. I emphasise - and I make this commitment, Madam Speaker, on behalf of my party - that we are not opposed to animal welfare legislation and we will do our best to ensure, with other members of this Assembly, that there is legislation in force in this Territory by the end of this year, and hopefully well before that point. But we do not want to see, and I am sure nobody else in this chamber wants to see, potentially bad legislation. Let us get it right. This is a pretty complex piece of legislation. Let us let the best offices of the Assembly, namely, its much vaunted and, I think, highly respected committee system, have a go at this Bill and then consider whether we cannot in fact improve on its provisions.
MR STEVENSON (4.15): One of the major problems with the Animal Welfare Bill is to do with the racing industry. Though I do not believe that horses are mentioned in the Bill, obviously they come under the definition of animals. Clauses 7 and 8 refer to cruelty, although there is no definition of cruelty, and pain caused to animals. There is little doubt that sometimes in racing pain can be caused to animals. So from that point of view, if this legislation is enacted, it would mean that the racing industry is in contravention of sections of the Act. The interesting thing is that the definition of offence covers not only something that is done or omitted to be done but also something that will be done in future or that someone will have reasonable cause to believe will be done. So from the moment the Act is proclaimed it will mean that at the next race meeting offences are going to be committed, and at that time the horseracing industry, or whoever it is who commits those offences, will be liable.
I know that this is an unintended consequence; but I firmly believe that it is a consequence unless there is an exemption, and I have seen no exemption. There is an excellent section in the proposed Bill to do with codes of practice. However, the codes of practice are not listed. One would think that it would be better to have the code prior to saying that people are committing an offence. But if they develop a code it may not be an offence within their industry.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .