Page 1649 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, promote, take part in, or be present at a match ...
Does this mean that you cannot advertise, for instance, a match for which a permit has been given? It is because of that wording in the clauses that I have moved my amendment that the penalties be reduced by half and the term of imprisonment be reduced by half.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (12.09): Madam Speaker, the Government opposes the amendments.
MR HUMPHRIES (12.09): Madam Speaker, I do not know whether this is a futile exercise or not, but I again ask people to consider the implications of some of these provisions. For example, some aspects of clause 17 are not covered by the codes of practice pursuant to clause 21. So we are looking at an offence created here simpliciter, which will not be mitigated by any code of practice. Under clause 17, a person who is present at a match in which an animal is released from captivity for various purposes is guilty of an offence punishable by a penalty of $10,000 or one year's imprisonment.
I ask Mr Connolly to exercise his fertile imagination and describe to me a situation of such seriousness that a person who is present at one of those matches should be liable to the maximum penalty referred to there. I might accept an argument that a person who actually conducts a cockfight, or even promotes it, should in some circumstances be liable for imprisonment for a year. If I worked very hard I could probably reach that point. But how could a person who is present at a match, who has no involvement in organising it, promoting it or whatever, who is just standing there watching this match going on, conceivably be liable for a year's imprisonment? Do we really think that is an appropriate penalty in those circumstances? I do not think we do.
Mr Moore used an interesting argument yesterday. He said that he was prepared to vote to reduce the penalty for a person who releases an animal from custody by negligence - a different category from a person who deliberately releases an animal from custody. That was a very sensible comment. It was not accepted by Ms Szuty on that occasion; nonetheless, it was a very sensible comment. I am asking the Assembly now whether it really sees a person being present at a cockfight as being of the same level of seriousness as a person organising it and promoting it?
Mr Berry: Yes.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Berry says yes, he does.
Mr Connolly: We take a serious view of the whole business. We want to stamp it out.
MR HUMPHRIES: Stamp it out by getting the organisers and promoters. Sending people who are present at those matches to gaol for a year is a rather excessive way of stamping it out, do you not think? You are really going too far.
Mr Connolly: It is a maximum penalty.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .