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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 4 August 2004) . . Page.. 3464 ..

perpetrated by some members in our community. In that sense we will be focusing on those committing violent acts, people who are deliberately going out of their way to harm animals, not negligent acts of cruelty against animals. We are trying to make sure that the problems that have led them to the state where they believe that animals are fit to be harmed are addressed. That is why I move this amendment this afternoon.

MS TUCKER (5.35): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name which amends proposed new clause 20A [see schedule 5 at page 3472].

I support Ms Dundas’s amendment as we have spoken to the RSPCA about this legislation. It has agreed that this is the greater priority, the higher priority. It is important. I understand it is possible that people can be referred to counselling anyway, but it is useful in this bill to make this option more specific because of the evidence that supports a relationship between cruelty to animals and later cruelty to human beings. Cruelty to animals by people who are mentally distressed can obviously be linked to later behaviour.

I am amending Ms Dundas’s amendment because she has said that there must be referral to counselling. I am saying “may be”, because of what I have already said in my original presentation. I am not comfortable with saying “must”. So Mr Stefaniak does not feel wounded, I can tell him I was listening. I have been struck down by the flu today and I am light sensitive. I am closing my eyes when I can but I can assure him I was not asleep. I was listening to what he said.

I am really pleased to see he is so passionate on these issues. I look forward to him assisting us stopping intensive farming, because obviously that is also horrendously cruel. We can work together on that one. Mr Stefaniak did go on at some length about the industrial manslaughter legislation, which we supported after a committee inquiry. It was basically to capture fragmented employment arrangements that exist now, and the industrial manslaughter offence was to show recognition of the fact that we need to be able to capture responsibility. Mr Stefaniak is very well aware of that.

We were not introducing some new penalty; there was already an offence of manslaughter. Industrial manslaughter was particularly about fragmented employment relationships, corporations, and so on. The Greens are prepared to say that manslaughter is a serious crime. It needs to be clear that, if someone is guilty of manslaughter, they can be found guilty of that and not be able to avoid it through various corporate arrangements. I do not see that as relevant.

Mr Stefaniak knows very well that we have opposed from the beginning of our time in the Assembly his tendency to want to up the penalties on everything because he thinks that makes a difference. The Greens have consistently said we appreciate where Mr Stefaniak is coming from but we think he is wrong. We need to be able to work with cause and the social and complex factors around crime. Industrial manslaughter is more about capturing particular relationships in the corporate sector with their workers.

I have probably said everything I need to. I am happy to support Ms Dundas’s amendment but with my amendment to it.

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