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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 4 August 2004) . . Page.. 3460 ..

this Assembly. Reckless conduct is obviously very bad, but I wonder what that new offence is going to do. Is it going to have a much bigger penalty? I suggest that cruelty to animals—administering poison, electrical devices, working an animal to death basically, things which are knowingly, wantonly cruel—is deserving of much higher penalties than something that is reckless. Look between sections 18 and 27of the Crimes Act to see the difference between reckless offences and offences where someone deliberately goes out to do something. I do not think that is going to be a panacea at all, but we will wait and see.

So I am quite disappointed with the attitude of the government and Ms Tucker. I would have appreciated Ms Tucker’s office letting me know a little bit earlier. We might have been able to improve the situation, although I doubt it. However, I suppose something might be salvaged with the amendment the RSPCA wants and which may offer some assistance. Certainly this is something the opposition will be bringing back. I am going to keep a watching eye on this as long as I remain in this Assembly.

I have prosecuted a few of these offences. I know what the magistrates have been saying. I know that only one person has gone to jail in the ACT for three years for atrocious cruelty to animals. I know that person had extensive form for assaulting humans as well.

I remind members that courts rarely, if ever, use the top of the range penalty. But if we gave courts a more significant fine to apply and a greater range of jail terms for the worst crimes, maybe a more realistic penalty would be used, as the court itself has said on numerous occasions. Maybe that would also act as a deterrent. Higher penalties for ideologically sound crimes like industrial manslaughter are quite valid, but apparently not for this.

So it is with some disappointment that I hear the views of certain members in this place. The creatures that are going to miss out here are fundamentally defenceless animals. Not increasing the fines will send a very strong message to some people who might not think two bob about being cruel to animals, knowing that they are only going to get a $300 fine. Yesterday, when Simon Tadd and I were discussing some of the more recent cruelty incidents that he had had reported to him and which he was taking up with the authorities, he was bemoaning the fact that they will only result in about a $300 fine. You are not deterring anyone by knocking this out, ladies and gentlemen. I just want you to know that, but I thank the couple of members who have the sense to see the benefit of this.

Question put:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

The Assembly voted—

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