Page 1602 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE: I am addressing my question to this Minister, not that one. If he cannot explain what reasonable excuse one could have for committing an act of cruelty on an animal, can he explain to me why the words are in this particular clause?
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (5.00): Madam Speaker, I am happy to provide the answer to that. I am sure it is one that has come up often as legislation is drafted and discussed. That provision is there as a way of providing sympathy or providing an argument in court or to other people regarding the treatment of an animal. In other circumstances, in other legislation, it provides a reasonable protection to a person, because there may be circumstances that were not entirely within that person's control. This is really a quite common statement. You have seen it many times before. That is the reason for it.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (5.01): Madam Speaker, as well as referring to Mr Humphries's tiger, a good example would be Mr De Domenico's mythical dog racing out to attack the mythical postman. Should the mythical postman take a boot at the dog to protect himself, that of course would be "reasonable excuse".
MR WESTENDE (5.02): Madam Speaker, as Mr Kaine has already said, before we vote on this Bill let us give some real thought to why we moved this amendment. Mr Colquhoun, from the racing fraternity, is quite explicit when he says:
The Bill as drafted will repeal the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1989 ("the Act") and will replace the Act.
If it was necessary in the Act of 1989 to define cruelty, why is it not now necessary to define cruelty or at least to have a code of practice in place before we pass this Bill? This Bill did not have such urgency that some of those things could not have been decided before. The Government is placing the cart before the horse. As Mr Colquhoun has said, this Bill will replace the Act and replace the definition of cruelty without a new definition being in place.
MADAM SPEAKER: The question is: That Mr Westende's amendments be agreed to.
Mr Westende: Madam Speaker, is it in order for the two amendments to be voted on separately?
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Westende is seeking advice on whether we can vote on each of the two amendments separately. He can move that the question be divided. If it then becomes the Assembly's wish, we will vote on them separately.
Motion (by Mr Westende) agreed to:
That the question be divided.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .