Page 1609 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WESTENDE (5.28): Madam Speaker, the reasons that Mr Stevenson has enunciated are why we moved this amendment. We have said to the Government before that we want a bipartisan approach. We want this Act to be interpretable. With all due respect, Madam Speaker, the ones to benefit from this Bill as it stands would not be the animals; they would be only the lawyers. They could argue all day, to and fro, about undue distress.
What is so difficult about the Government accepting this amendment, which just seeks the elimination of a few words to make it clearer? It does not make it more difficult. It does not make it more uninterpretable. It makes it, in fact, more interpretable. It makes for simpler English. Not everybody was born in this country. I was not, and I would find it much easier to interpret this Bill if those words were taken out. I can look up the words "undue distress" in a dictionary too; but that does not necessarily eliminate my ideas as to what it means, or how it will stand up in a court of law. After all, we are talking about an Act. The Act supposedly is being introduced so that we can either fine or not fine people for causing distress to an animal, or injury or pain. At least "injury or pain" is defined. Madam Speaker, I thought we were doing the Government a favour by moving to take out these words and making it easier to interpret when the Act becomes law.
Amendments negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10
Amendment (by Mr Westende) proposed:
Page 7, subclause (1), penalty, line 12, omit "$10,000 or imprisonment for 1 year, or both", substitute "$5,000 or imprisonment for 6 months, or both".
MR HUMPHRIES (5.31): Madam Speaker, again there is a concern here about the size of this penalty. I might indicate, Madam Speaker, that because of what I think is intended by this Bill - it not being quite what it is meant to be - I will be moving an amendment very shortly, as soon as the photocopying is finished, to modify clause 10 so as to refer to a person who injures a domestic animal rather than an animal simpliciter.
Madam Speaker, I think the penalty in those circumstances in either case should certainly be reduced. If we are talking in the present circumstances about injuring an animal, there are a whole range of circumstances where that could occur. If you are driving down the street, as is most often the case, I suspect, in a car, and you injure a cat or a dog on the street, I think it is reasonable, as this clause provides, for legislation to require you to take the trouble to look after that animal. Someone's injured animal would certainly be deserving of some human compassion, and that, I think, should be enforced by legislation. I would support that as far as it goes.
I also believe, Madam Speaker, that a different standard ought to apply to animals which are not domestic animals, not animals that are under the control of human beings - and this often occurs - and that are hit by cars, for example, on country roads. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, to consider the circumstances of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .