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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 4 August 2004) . . Page.. 3466 ..

There are very good reasons for not including in animal welfare legislation a specific provision for the referral of people to the Mental Health Tribunal when there is a general and overarching capacity for any person appearing before a court to be referred to the Mental Health Tribunal. I have a genuine concern that this amendment will raise the spectre that anybody who commits an act of cruelty to an animal must by definition have a mental dysfunction. This provision essentially scapegoats people with mental dysfunction. It suggests that if you commit an act of cruelty against an animal, you must, by definition, be mentally ill.

Ms Dundas: No, it does not.

MR STANHOPE: Yes it does. The only specific legislation in which it is felt necessary to provide a reference to the Mental Health Tribunal for a specific crime is to be this legislation. We do not feel it necessary in relation to other offences. We do not feel it necessary to say, “If you have committed murder or if you have been charged with murder, you must be referred to the Mental Health Tribunal.” We allow the magistrate that discretion. What we are doing here, as a legislature, is saying, “If you have committed an act of cruelty against an animal, by definition you must have a mental issue.”

Ms Tucker: No, “may”.

MR STANHOPE: Well, yes. There is a fine distinction, and I will support Ms Tucker’s amendment, but this issue causes me genuine concern. As I am advised, this will probably be the only piece of legislation, in relation to animal cruelty, in which this legislature has felt it necessary to say, “We must assume that the person has a mental dysfunction and must be referred to the Mental Health Tribunal.”

We do not do it with people charged with murder. We do not do it for people charged with rape. We do not assume that someone who rapes a woman must be suffering a mental dysfunction and therefore must be referred to the Mental Health Tribunal. It is almost like saying, “We can excuse that behaviour. We can excuse rape, because they have a mental dysfunction. We can excuse animal cruelty—look, they have a mental dysfunction and people with mental dysfunction do things like that. That is what people with mental dysfunction do. They commit acts of cruelty against animals.”

I oppose the suggestion that we need a specific reference in this legislation that anyone who commits an act of cruelty against an animal must be referred to the Mental Health Tribunal, because it is obvious, as everybody knows, that you can only be cruel to animals if you have an issue. The proposal of the Democrats should be rejected. We are prepared to accept the amendment proposed by the Greens because of the discretion involved. I think it is unnecessary, but we will support it.

MS DUNDAS (5.46): I thank Ms Tucker for moving this amendment. In light of the debate today, it is an amendment I am happy to support to allow at least some discretion. I point out, again, the provision relates specifically to offences involving violence, not just offences involving neglect. It is targeted at people who specifically act cruelly and commit a violent offence towards an animal. We have had extensive debate today about

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