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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 4 August 2004) . . Page.. 3455 ..

Reducing the incidence of violence against animals will protect future generations. Children who witness violence are more likely to become perpetrators of violence. A 1995 study in the US found 32 per cent of victims of domestic violence alleged that one or more of their children have hurt or killed a pet. An earlier study in 1983 had similar findings. So a cycle of violence and victimisation was created and was seen to be becoming entrenched. So it is important that those who respond to family violence understand the connection between animal cruelty and human violence.

There is concern that sending a violent offender for psychological assessment may be assuming that they have a mental illness. This is not an argument that I support. The assessment may or may not find evidence of mental disorder. Courts are currently at liberty to order such assessments, but in practice they rarely do. My amendment will seek to make this a routine occurrence. We are trying to address the underlying causes of crime, as opposed to just the punishment side of crime.

I hope in the in-detail stage my amendments are successful, but I am interested in hearing other members’ contributions to this debate and to have a discussion about how members will see this bill working and whether it is one that they think they can support.

MS TUCKER (4.54): This bill significantly increases the maximum penalties under the Animal Welfare Act. Most of these increases are five times the penalties available now. Mr Stefaniak’s bill raises an important issue. It is not okay to abuse, harm or neglect animals. The Greens are committed to improving the conditions for domestic animals and farm animals. I have raised in the Assembly before the issue of treatment of intensively farmed animals and much more has to be done to improve the conditions for intensively farmed animals like chickens and pigs.

In the battery cage system, hens live in cages of four to five birds, with each bird having an area of less than an A4 page in which to live out its wretched life. The hens’ lives are totally geared around the production of eggs and they are unable to undertake normal hen behaviour such as scratching the ground, preening, stretching, nesting or perching. Often their feathers get rubbed off and their feet get deformed from being surrounded by wire mesh. Their beaks have to be trimmed soon after birth to stop them from pecking other birds in the cramped conditions.

In Australia there are 300,000 breeding sows in pig farms or piggeries. Intensive pig-farming sows are seen as production units, not animals needing space, comfort, a warm soft place to lie and ample food. Almost 200,000 breeding sows in Australia are confined in metal and concrete stalls smaller than a child’s cot. The sow cannot walk, turn around, or even lie down in comfort.

These sorts of issues should be considered as part of the discussion on animal welfare. However, the Greens are concerned about the inference that Mr Stefaniak is making in his bill that increasing penalties is an effective deterrent to the crime. I think that that link is tenuous at best. The bill also does not increase all the penalties under the act. For instance, is there a need to increase the penalties relating to rodeos?

I am aware that this has been an issue for the RSPCA and animal welfare. For all offences, getting the penalties right is important, but, as I have said, simply making the

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