Page 1592 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(o) he/she, being the keeper of an animal, abandons the animal; or
(p) he/she docks, or causes to be docked, the tail of a horse in such a manner so as to leave less than thirteen joints in the tail.
Madam Speaker, we have said many a time that in this Bill there are so many anomalies, so many discrepancies and such a lack of definition as to what constitutes cruelty that we believe that it would be best to specify what cruelty is. Basically, we have taken what the old Act specified as cruelty and superimposed it in this amendment. That is about all I have to say, Madam Speaker.
MR STEVENSON (4.27): I have a question of Mr Lamont, or somebody in the Government, to do with clause 7, which states:
A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, commit an act of cruelty on an animal.
Cruelty is not defined in the Bill. However, the definition of cruelty in dictionaries can relate to pain and suffering, and being heartless to some degree. Could Mr Lamont explain whether or not the use of a whip on a horse in racing could denote cruelty in some people's minds?
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.28): The Government opposes these amendments. The penalty that we have proposed here is the maximum penalty, of course, and careful consideration was given to it. It is expected to be a reasonable penalty. We do not determine lightly what penalties should be. So I think it should hold. I hope that Mr Westende, when he sees the way the votes will go, will not proceed with every amendment that he has indicated with respect to penalty; otherwise we will be involved in quite a few amendments that are simply going to be lost.
As for his other amendment, I simply reiterate what we said last night - that this only creates loopholes. If you become so specific, the courts will make their judgment on what is specific. If something is left out, or if there is confusion or a doubt as between paragraphs, a clever solicitor has his client off the hook. It is not the way to go. I think the Liberals in debate yesterday agreed that simplicity is the way to go. I am sorry, therefore, to see today that they still pursue this course. We will strongly oppose this amendment.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms Follett: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.
Question resolved in the negative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .