Page 1611 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Cornwell: We do not object to a cognate debate on the two.
MADAM SPEAKER: If that is the wish of the Assembly. That is a good point, Mr Cornwell.
Mr Cornwell: I suggest that we do have a cognate debate.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Cornwell. There being no objection, we will allow debate on both amendments; in which case, of course, Mr Humphries will be able to speak again.
MR STEVENSON (5.37): The foreshadowed amendment is to omit "injures an animal" and substitute "injures a domestic animal". I ask the Government to indicate whether they think there is a difference between a wild animal - in other words, an animal you hit with a car on the highway - and another animal that is injured. Some people may say that there is no difference; they are both animals. More commonly, we hit wild animals, because they are not used to dealing with vehicles travelling at high speeds. It is difficult to get the correct veterinary treatment for some animals when they have been hit. Last week I was whizzing along the highway and saw a pretty large lizard in the middle of the road. I pulled the car up and reversed, being concerned about traffic coming the other way, of course. I picked up the lizard and had a look at it - it did not look too bad - and found a place where I thought it might like to be. I think the penalties may not be appropriate. I did not take it to a vet. A lot of vehicles had gone past it before I got there. I think two weeks before that it was a turtle.
To sum up, could we have an explanation as to whether there is some intended difference between wild animals that vehicles may hit, or that you might find on the roadway, and a dog or some other animal that may run into your car? With that, I think I will sit down and listen to someone else.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (5.41): A little while ago the Opposition was concerned about the words "without reasonable excuse". I think they should read this clause, and many others, with those words intact, because they provide that measure of protection that you seem to desire to people who become involved with animals. I do not agree with Mr Humphries's amendment to exclude bush animals, or whatever term you might use, because I think we want to encompass all animals under this legislation. I do not think there is any justification for separating them. I understand that motorists may hit kangaroos or other animals from time to time, but I am sure - - -
Mr Humphries: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you have ruled that when debating a particular point in the Bill we should address ourselves only to that point. I have not yet moved my amendment.
Mrs Grassby: We agreed to have a cognate debate.
MADAM SPEAKER: Had that not been the case, Mr Humphries, I would have ruled in your favour.
MR WOOD: I think that the words "reasonable excuse" are very appropriately provided in this instance.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .