Page 1612 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORNWELL (5.43): Madam Speaker, could I just briefly make a few comments in support of my colleague Mr Humphries. I have a bit of a problem with it. It seems to me that if you do hit an animal in the wild, and obviously you may not be able to seek veterinary treatment, perhaps to alleviate any pain suffered by that animal you may have to put it out of its misery. Unfortunately, if the only thing you have is a tyre lever, you have a good chance - - -
Mr Berry: Liberals would always have a knife, either in their back or in their pocket.
MR CORNWELL: No, I am not joking. You have every chance of breaching paragraph 8(2)(e), which talks about killing an animal in a manner which causes unnecessary pain. I differentiate between animals in the wild and domestic animals. That is why I believe that the Assembly should support a very sensible amendment proposed by - - -
Mrs Grassby: Come on; I think you are nitpicking.
MR CORNWELL: I am sorry. This is the problem, Mrs Grassby; you people have moved something like 17 amendments to your own legislation and you say that I am picky and that we are being picky about it. This is very bad legislation. We are simply highlighting its deficiencies and attempting to correct some of the more obvious mistakes that we believe exist, this being one of them. I simply stood to support what I believe is a very sensible amendment put forward by Mr Humphries.
MR HUMPHRIES (5.44): Madam Speaker, there is clearly a difference between domestic animals and wild animals in these circumstances. Clearly, there is a responsibility which is quite different in those two circumstances. If Mr Wood is concerned about not having any steps to take care of the interests of wild animals when they are hit, I would suggest that if you support this amendment I am putting forward now we would then insert the provision about wild animals in subclause (2). There would still be a penalty for injuring a wild animal - it is $1,000 - but we would not send someone to gaol because they had accidentally injured a wild animal and had not taken care of it.
I point out, Madam Speaker, that here Mr Wood is setting a much higher standard than many Australians would comply with at this time. A lot of people who hit a bird when driving down the road, for example, will keep going. In fact, invariably they will keep going. I dare say that the Minister at some stage has hit a bird on the road and has kept going. You do not know whether it is dead or alive.
Mr Stevenson: I would stop.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Stevenson might stop. For a lizard or something you might stop; but nine people out of ten would not stop. These are wild animals; animals which occur naturally and usually in large numbers in the wild. People just do not make allowances for it. Going back and putting an injured lizard or snake or bird into the car and taking it to the local vet in a town 20 kilometres away is just not human behaviour; but here you are creating an offence, which carries a maximum penalty of one year in gaol, because they do what nine out of ten Australians otherwise would do.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .