Page 1610 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a person driving down the road in the country when an animal, a kangaroo, hops out. It is hit by the car and is clearly injured. Perhaps it is mobile; perhaps it is not mobile. You are perhaps miles and miles from anywhere. The opportunities for taking reasonable steps, including veterinary treatment, are extremely limited - not entirely impossible, but certainly limited. In those circumstances, to set a high standard of help that should be offered by the person who might have accidentally injured this animal is, I think, unreasonable, particularly when we are talking about a year's imprisonment. Accordingly, Madam Speaker, I move the amendment which has been circulated in my name.
MADAM SPEAKER: I am sorry, Mr Humphries; we will have to proceed slightly differently. I will give you your opportunity to do that in a moment.
MR HUMPHRIES: I will do that later. I speak in favour, then, of Mr Westende's amendment to reduce that penalty provision by half. It is unreasonable to expect such a high standard, I maintain, Madam Speaker. We are talking about a lot of money and a high level of imprisonment to be imposed on a person in those circumstances.
We are not talking about where a person deliberately injures an animal. Clearly, that would be covered by clause 7. Here we have a person who almost invariably will have accidentally injured an animal, and they will be expected to do something about it. I cannot conceive of a circumstance where a person should go to gaol for a year when they have accidentally injured an animal and they do not take steps to have the animal cared for. It is certainly reprehensible, it certainly deserves some sort of penalty; but a year in gaol for the most extreme case, I just cannot conceive. I have asked the Minister to posit an extreme case where he thinks someone should go to gaol for a year because they have injured - - -
Mr Lamont: That is the role of the judiciary.
MR HUMPHRIES: No, Mr Lamont is wrong here. It is up to the legislature to set appropriate penalties. We have to say when we think it would be appropriate to send someone to gaol for a year because they have failed to care for an accidentally injured animal. I want to know what the circumstances would be. Say I hit a herd of cows as I am driving down the road - - -
Mr Lamont: A recidivist, a repeat offender under this Act, who may have a horse in his own paddock with a broken leg, and time and time again refuses to get it treatment.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, I think Mr Lamont has cited a case of cruelty under clause 7 and it would be covered by that provision. We are talking about an accidental case of injury. That clearly is what clause 10 is all about. Tell me how you warrant the maximum penalty and tell me how you justify a year in gaol. I certainly cannot see it with the present wording of the Bill.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Humphries asked whether he could move an amendment and I said that I would explain. Because your amendment refers to a matter that is before Mr Westende's, we would like to proceed with Mr Westende's and then come back to you. You will have to seek leave and then we will deal with your amendment.
MR HUMPHRIES: Okay.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .