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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 4 August 2004) . . Page.. 3459 ..

Five years is the maximum penalty for assault occasioning actual bodily harm on a human, which is basically punching someone in the head and breaking their nose or splitting their lip. That is assault occasioning actual bodily harm. That is the maximum penalty I am proposing for even the most wanton cruelty to poor, dumb, defenceless, helpless animals—animals that, in many instances, look up to the humans who are supposedly there to help them and look after them—who are often brutally and viciously treated by people who deserve to face a reasonable penalty for their acts. According to a lot of work done by the RSPCA and other groups, these people are very likely, if they start off torturing animals, to go on to be sadistic and vicious to human beings as well.

This is why I am quite happy with Ms Dundas’s amendment. The RSPCA has indicated that the LA should consider an amendment to help safeguard our human population from violence as well. It refers to a number of learned scientific studies conducted to verify a link between animal cruelty and violence against humans that I am sure Ms Dundas will refer to when she is moving that amendment.

The studies go on to say, whilst investigations have revealed that almost all mass murderers first abused animals: Martin Bryant—remember him—kitten mutilation; Columbine High School murderers—remember them—killing many pets in sadistic ways. It is more common statistically that perpetrators of cruelty to animals will go on to commit domestic violence. A big issue, I am sure, to Mr Stanhope and Ms Tucker is sexual crimes against women and children, and general bullying and violent antisocial behaviour. To help address this link and provide an alternative way forward the RSPCA suggested what Ms Dundas is proposing.

I remember Ms Gallagher speaking before the Legal Affairs Committee about industrial manslaughter and saying, “The penalty needs to be high.” A high penalty is a deterrent. She said it. The Chief Minister has used that. Ms Tucker—who is pretending to be sound asleep now—has even accepted that the penalty for industrial manslaughter needs to be high as a deterrent. Why is it good enough for industrial manslaughter and not good enough to have a much more reasonable penalty, which magistrates have asked for over 20 years, for some of the most vicious crimes imaginable to defenceless, helpless animals?

I find the arguments for not going ahead with this spurious in the extreme. For the government it is a case of: “Oops, good idea, we should have done it,” and it wants to put its name to something. I suspect that is very much behind it. I put this bill forward as a fairly simple piece of legislation that I expected all members of the Assembly to back. I am really quite annoyed and disgusted that that has not been the case.

I thank Ms Dundas for her support. She had one problem with one particular section, and I am happy to concede that one. I do not necessarily share her concerns but I think it is a fair point. I understand Mrs Cross is supporting this as well and I thank her for that. I expected that this would have been common sense, but it is not. One cannot expect any common sense in this place, even on something as simple as this.

So the government wants to do its own thing. If nothing else, this has probably shamed it into doing something. However, I am a little concerned to hear that the Chief Minister is going to introduce a new offence, reckless conduct. He probably will not have time in

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