Page 1614 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
remedy might come into vogue; but, in other cases, when would it not be appropriate to take the animal to a vet? You have an animal that has been injured. It may be bleeding; it may have a slightly crushed shell, as is the case with turtles that I see. So, once again, I think it reasonable to make a distinction between domestic animals and wild animals.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment (by Mr Humphries, by leave) negatived:
Page 7, subclause (1), line 8, omit "injures an animal", substitute "injures a domestic animal".
Clause agreed to.
Clause 11
Amendment (by Mr Westende) proposed:
Page 7, subclause (1), line 24, omit "$10,000 or imprisonment for 1 year, or both", substitute "$5,000 or imprisonment for 6 months, or both".
MR HUMPHRIES (5.52): Madam Speaker, I refer here to the comments - - -
Mr Stevenson: Now is the time.
MR HUMPHRIES: Now is the time, yes. Madam Speaker, I ask members to consider very carefully the implications of subclause 11(2) and the penalty imposed here. We are talking about $10,000 and/or a year's imprisonment basically for carelessness. I suggest that if you compare this with acts of carelessness in other legislation you do not find that level of culpability so heavily penalised anywhere else. I would ask the Attorney, as the chief law officer of the Territory, to point out any equivalent provision, if he knows of it, where an act of carelessness results in such a high level of penalty.
Obviously, if you are in charge of a nuclear power station and you let the place melt down and thousands of people are killed, there is a pretty high level of culpability and you would want a pretty heavy penalty. But where, through carelessness, an animal is let out and it kills somebody, you are talking about a pretty rare case of someone having an animal that dangerous.
Mr De Domenico: A bull-terrier.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr De Domenico cites a very good case. Someone has a dog and the dog is let out, and the dog, as sometimes unfortunately is the case, kills somebody. The person did not deliberately let the dog out; the person was careless, had not locked the gate properly, had not put the latch on properly, had not checked the fence lately to see that there was not a gap that the dog could squeeze through. We are talking here about an horrendous level of penalty resulting from that. I think, Madam Speaker, that again we are being overzealous. I agree that someone who lets an animal out by carelessness ought to be punished; but not by a year in gaol, even in the worst case.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .