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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 4 August 2004) . . Page.. 3467 ..

the causes of crime. We have had extensive debate about the impacts of crime and connections between criminal activities.

Mr Stanhope has made some interesting points in relation to other offences and why we need them specifically. I note that only yesterday the Chief Minister tabled an exposure draft on sentencing reform. Possibly we will have this debate in the future, looking at counselling and psychological assessments and how we can use the information gained from such to end the violence and cycle of crime that exist in our community.

It is necessary to have this specifically in animal welfare legislation, because this is the debate we are having today, about whether or not our current law is adequate to deal with those people who commit negligent or violent acts against animals. The argument has been put forward that it is not adequate, that reviews are in place. I think everybody agreed that, whilst we are not necessarily looking to up the penalties, we recognise that this is a serious situation and that more work needs to be done. This becomes part of that.

I completely dismiss the claims made by Mr Stanhope that we are making the link that if you commit an act of violence against an animal you are mentally ill. We are asking for an assessment to be made and for the court to consider this as part of its sentencing. We are not making the determination before the assessment is made. That is an important distinction that the Chief Minister has missed. He has labelled everybody who might go through an assessment as mentally ill, without necessarily looking at the outcome of the assessment.

We are just looking at ways to break the cycle of crime. We recognise that locking people away does not automatically break the cycle of crime and more work has to be done by the entire community, particularly by our courts, in how they look at sentencing and how they support members of the community to end acts of criminal activity. I am disappointed that Mr Stanhope cannot recognise that.

Ms Tucker’s amendment agreed to.

Proposed new clause 20A, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 21 and 22, by leave, taken together.

MS TUCKER (5.51): I oppose these clauses.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (5.51): The government will oppose these clauses.

Clauses 21 and 22 negatived.

Title.

MS TUCKER (5.51): I need to move an amendment because of what has happened with these amendments. Therefore, I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 6 at page 3473].

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