Page 1616 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is quite clear that we are talking about only domestic animals because they specifically exclude the release of domestic cats. Why did they not exclude all the other sorts of domestic animals that are not likely to do any harm to people, if that is what they really mean? I have a King Charles Cavalier. If I let my King Charles Cavalier out, am I going to be fined $10,000 and sent to gaol for a year? It is less offensive than a cat in many cases. At least it is not going to go out there and kill all the small wildlife, which is what escaped cats do.
Madam Speaker, I am afraid that we have got to the point that I was talking about earlier today, where these people over here have totally closed their minds to logic. They are not interested in hearing what anybody has to say. They are not interested in listening to somebody put forward a perfectly normal case, a perfectly normal incident that can occur under this Bill, and the sort of fine that they are imposing. They have closed their minds. Mr Connolly sits over there shaking his head. He just made it quite clear that he has closed his mind. Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I do not understand the attitude of the people - - -
Mr Lamont: That is right. You do not understand, Mr Kaine.
MR KAINE: I said that I do not understand your attitude. I understand quite well what you are trying to do. I think that you are foolish and I think that you are going to get an enormous backlash from everybody out there who has a dog or a cat, of any kind, when they discover what you are imposing on them with this Bill. You think you have had a reaction to circuses. Wait until the rest of this stuff hits the streets. I simply do not understand why you are closing your minds to any logical argument whatsoever.
Mr Connolly: If you are going to peddle that sort of nonsense in the community they will be falling around laughing.
MR KAINE: It is absolutely beyond me - and I do understand, Mr Connolly.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (5.59): Madam Speaker, the range of penalties that courts impose is wide. Magistrates and judges are not bad at assessing the offence, looking at the penalties that have been written into legislation, and judging accordingly. Let me give a more likely example of what is meant by this. Under codes of practice there will be at the university or CSIRO the potential for animals to carry viruses or infectious diseases that makes it absolutely essential that they be most securely contained. They could have a very serious impact. If such an animal were negligently allowed to be released, then a magistrate might look at the upper level of the penalty. That is the sort of thing we are talking about.
MR HUMPHRIES (6.01): Madam Speaker, I have to respond to something Mr Connolly said. We do not seem to be able to win over here, whichever way we go. We were criticised before because we took very small cases and cited the maximum penalty which they might attract; for example, someone who beats a horse as they are going down the straight. We are told that that is not the sort of case where you get the one year in gaol or the $10,000 fine. You said that we should be looking at more serious cases where someone severely ill-treats an animal, beats it mercilessly for half an hour or something. Now that we cite maximum cases we are still criticised. The fact is, Madam Speaker, that the Government is having it both ways.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .