Page 1022 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 2 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Greens are concerned about the inference that increasing penalties works as an effective deterrent. I think the link is tenuous at best. If we are really serious about preventing cruelty to animals and genuinely want to reduce recidivism amongst those convicted of such crimes, we need to address the cause of the behaviour, particularly when there have been deliberate acts of cruelty above and beyond the crime of neglect. This includes attention to the circumstances in which acts of cruelty are committed, which often include the presence of mental health issues, drug and alcohol misuse, and other complex problems.
I mentioned last year that I have personal experience of seeing animal neglect in a situation where the offender was experiencing a complex range of personal problems, resulting in unintended harm to children and the person themselves, as well as the animal concerned. The close relationship between harm to animals and harm to humans, highlighted in this example, is not uncommon. There is a growing body of evidence that indicates that many people who commit acts of violence against humans, including domestic violence and/or general bullying and violent antisocial behaviours, have a history of being cruel to animals. Cruelty to animals can signal an underlying problem with violence and/or a psychiatric disorder, and often leads to violence against people. I feel that the court could make better use of existing provisions for ordering psychological assessments when this is warranted.
We also believe that appropriate penalties for cruelty to animals go beyond fines and jail terms. Magistrates should be encouraged to look at the detail of individual circumstances, which may include a psychological assessment when appropriate. Furthermore, magistrates should have discretion to impose a range of penalties beyond fines and jail terms—for example, restrictions on owning animals with provisions for monitoring and enforcing this; rehabilitative options such as counselling, anger management and anti-violence programs; and appropriate community services orders.
When animal cruelty penalties have been debated in the Assembly in the past the government has indicated that there is a need to provide direction to magistrates and perhaps investigate the link between cruelty to animals and violent behaviour towards humans. This has been missed again this time. This is certainly an issue where fines should not be seen as a means of government revenue raising. Penalties in conjunction with other measures should be put in place to stop repeat offences and offenders.
The bill also does not increase all the penalties under the act—for instance, penalties relating to rodeos and trapping. I wonder whether this is an oversight and a sign that further work needs to be done, or an omission which can be justified. I look forward to the minister’s explanation as the situation is still unclear despite inquiries from my office.
I call on the government to undertake a public and consultative review of animal welfare legislation. Such a review should engage the community in establishing agreed standards relating to and looking more broadly at the mechanisms for identifying and responding to suspected incidences of animal cruelty. I believe there is sufficient community interest to have a robust public discussion, with the potential to substantially tighten both the legislation and responses to instances of cruelty.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .