Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 4 August 2004) . . Page.. 3454 ..

a longstanding commitment against cruelty to animals. I support the intent of the bill, which is in keeping with that commitment. I expect that we have all heard of cases of severe and malicious violence towards animals and many people would agree that a maximum term of imprisonment of one year does not give magistrates enough scope to set an appropriate sentence for these crimes.

However, I flag at the outset that I am not perfectly happy with the legislation as put forward by Mr Stefaniak. I have two amendments that go some way to addressing my concerns. The first amendment is to ensure that the penalties for negligence causing harm to an animal do not exceed the penalties for negligence causing grievous bodily harm to a person. I think that the community can generally accept that, although criminal neglect of an animal is certainly serious, cruel neglect of a human being is even more serious. So I would not be comfortable supporting legislation that carried a maximum sentence for neglect of an animal that was three years longer than the same crime against a human.

It should also be noted that this is not a mandatory sentencing bill. It gives magistrates and judges greater discretion in setting penalties, as opposed to imposing a mandatory sentence. There are almost always mitigating circumstances that need to be considered in sentencing, and the maximum penalties may well never be used. However, the option will be there if this bill passes into law.

The second amendment that I will be moving goes to the question of why people commit crimes of violence against animals. The causes of violence against animals are of particular importance because animal cruelty and human abuse are not mutually exclusive. Many people who abuse animals also abuse the children or adults close to them. Adolescent cruelty to animals is considered so seriously in the United States that the American Psychiatric Association recognises it as a symptom of a conduct disorder. Most people who commit seriously violent crimes against humans began by initially hurting animals and early intervention gives us the opportunity to reduce the risk of future violence against humans.

One by one, each state in the United States has moved towards treating cruelty to animals as the marker of a psychological problem that needs to be treated. California was the first state to enact a law that required psychological assessment of people charged with violence against animals. Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida and Indiana have all quickly followed that lead. New Jersey, Illinois, Maine, Texas and Nevada have made it mandatory for juvenile animal cruelty offenders to receive psychological counselling. Another 14 states of the United States have followed with laws that require the psychological assessment or counselling of all animal cruelty offenders or of all juvenile offenders.

I am not yet aware of any jurisdiction in Australia that has followed this lead, but I think we could rightly be proud if we were the first. Treating violent offences in this way is an attempt to tackle the cause of crime instead of simply the symptoms. I believe that it is likely that someone who lacks empathy with the animal they are hurting is likely, in some way, to be disturbed. Intervention has a chance of reducing the chance of future acts of violence. I repeat the word “violence” as I am not proposing that this psychological assessment be considered in cases of neglect.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .