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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 4 August 2004) . . Page.. 3457 ..

third-highest jail term for welfare offences against animals. In all offences that have been identified in this bill to be increased, the ACT already has higher maximum penalties than New South Wales.

This bill also proposes increases in the maximum penalties for uncommenced provisions under the Animal Welfare Act. There is no sound reason for increasing the maximum penalty for an uncommenced provision. Giving magistrates access to a higher penalty level for an offence does not mean that magistrates will automatically increase all fines imposed on a person convicted of an offence. Fines imposed in recent times are generally well below the maximum available irrespective of the level of offence.

The government supports the concept of wanting cruel and abhorrent acts of violence perpetrated against animals to be appropriately punished. However, randomly increasing the maximum penalty levels for some of the offences listed under these acts does not mean that magistrates will automatically increase the penalties imposed upon conviction by a multiple of five. Some direction needs to be provided to magistrates to allow an assessment of the intent behind a person’s actions of a cruel act against an animal to be able to be judged as a more serious offence.

To show that the government is sympathetic to what Mr Stefaniak is attempting to achieve, I propose to move amendments to the principal acts that will improve the concept behind Mr Stefaniak’s bill by introducing new offence provisions in the near future. After discussion with and submission from key animal welfare stakeholders as well as government agencies, the government agrees in principle that some cases of animal cruelty warrant a more structured and harsher offence penalty. As such, I do propose, as I say, in the near future a new offence provision where a person’s reckless conduct causes serious harm or death to an animal to be included in the Animal Welfare Act.

The penalty would appropriately reflect the seriousness of the person’s conduct. This proposed amendment to the Animal Welfare Act will act as a guide for magistrates in sentencing offenders. Elements of the Animal Welfare Act have been reviewed by the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, which advises me about animal welfare matters. The government is reviewing its recommendations and will address the penalties provisions of the act as part of the review.

In relation to the proposals by the Democrats, essentially that offenders who have been convicted of deliberate cruelty to animals should be subject to mandatory psychiatric assessment, I point out that there already exists a pathway for the courts to refer persons of concern for mental health assessment and treatment if it is required. ACT Health court liaison officers are available. Where members of the judiciary have significant concerns for a person appearing before them, they can refer the person to the Mental Health Tribunal. The Mental Health Tribunal can make assessment orders and subsequently advise the referring courts as to the best mental health options for finalising the person’s matters.

This provision allows the issues raised in the amendment to be adequately addressed should the matter be of concern to the courts. Mental dysfunction of any kind is a serious matter for individuals, their families and the broader community. The government has an important role in providing for diagnosis and treatment, and legislation provides for this.

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