Page 1024 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 2 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
was only one of three jurisdictions where the number of cruelty complaints increased over the last five years. As indicated earlier, in 2001-02 there were 601 cruelty complaints. In 2004-05 the number of complaints had risen to 746. The number of prosecutions in 2000-01, though, was 13, with a slight decrease to nine in 2004-2005.
What that tells me, Mr Speaker, is that people are reporting cruelty to animals to authorities, the authorities are doing something about it but the prosecutions are lagging behind significantly. So in my view we need to do two things. Firstly, we need to jack up the penalties and, secondly, we need to make sure that the evidence available to the court is sufficiently robust to effect a prosecution. It is pointless having a stiff penalty for an offence and then finding that the burden of proof, for example, is such that we cannot prosecute anyway. I will just go back to the numbers. In 2001-02 there were 601 cruelty complaints and 13 prosecutions. There is something wrong there. I do not know what it is yet but let me assure the house that we will be finding out what is going on.
This clearly indicates that appropriate offence provisions such as the proposed offence provision for this legislation need to be in place to reflect the seriousness of the conduct. The proposed offence provision will also assist the relevant authorities in dealing with animal cruelty issues, as it will guide authorities in determining what appropriate course of action should be undertaken if there is reasonable belief that a person has committed an act of cruelty on an animal.
The bill reflects concerns raised by the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee by recognising and distinguishing reckless and negligent conduct that causes serious harm or death to an animal as a serious offence. Conviction for an offence of causing serious harm or death to an animal demonstrates a more overt recognition of its seriousness and is an effective mechanism for addressing acts of cruelty.
On the issue of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, I want to pick up on something raised by Dr Foskey. She said that the consultation process is flawed because the person from the RSPCA was bound by confidentiality and could not report back to the RSPCA. Let me address that. Firstly, when we have these advisory committees we do not appoint delegates, we appoint representatives. There is a distinction. Delegates do as they are told by their sending organisation. Representatives will represent a view. We are in fact buying their wisdom on this committee; we are not buying the collective viewpoint of a lobby group. In fact, in my view that pays more respect to the person who is on this committee and recognises their worth, experience, knowledge and education far beyond the connection that they have with just one organisation.
This bill also provides for a more strategic approach to regulating a person’s reckless or negligent behaviour that causes serious harm to or death of an animal. It distinguishes between “cruelty” and “aggravated cruelty”. “Cruelty”, for the purposes of the bill, relies on the natural meaning of that term. “Aggravated cruelty” extends to deliberately committing an act of cruelty upon the animal in a way that results in the death, deformity or serious disablement of the animal or the animal being so severely injured, diseased or in such a physical condition that it is cruel to keep it alive.
I want to echo the sentiments of the shadow Attorney-General in respect of the low-life behaviour of people who perpetrate cruelty on animals. One wonders whether the term “animal” is being applied to the right being. I suspect not. Mr Speaker, let me give a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .