Page 942 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Madam Deputy Speaker, when these cases were prosecuted, the construction of the offence required the territory to demonstrate that the owner’s neglect had caused the animal pain. This issue of construction was the source of recent comment by Justice Burns, His Honour noting in his judgement:
It will immediately be observed that section 8(2) of the Act does not criminalise all forms of neglect of an animal, but only those that cause the animal pain.
This issue has two consequences. First, neglect becomes harder to prosecute, because it is not against the law to neglect your pets; it is only a problem if they feel pain as a consequence of neglect. Second, the community starts to think that neglect is not such a big deal.
To fix this problem, this bill provides that a person in charge of an animal has a duty to care for the animal. A person in charge of an animal commits an offence if the person fails to take reasonable steps to provide the animal with appropriate food and water, shelter or accommodation, opportunity to display behaviour that is normal for the animal, or treatment for illness, disease or injury; or if the person abandons the animal.
The construction of the duty to care, and the clear list of offences that constitute a failure of the duty, responds to situations like the ones I have just described. Through these amendments, the territory’s animal welfare legislation will send a clear statement about responsible ownership of animals. The provisions impose no onerous requirements. Like us, animals require food and water. Like us, they need shelter from Canberra’s hot summers and a place to keep warm during our cold winters.
The opportunity to display behaviour that is normal for the animal aims to capture tethering of animals, like the example I have already given of the dog that was given just 20 centimetres of movement in any direction. The requirement to take reasonable steps to provide appropriate treatment for illness, disease or injury also responds to cases like the ones I have mentioned today. These amendments are as practical as they are simple to follow.
Sometimes, unfortunately, people do not get proper treatment for their pets because they might fear a costly vet bill. I know the RSPCA see this as a problem, and they are only too happy to help people facing financial hardship with very manageable payment plans if that is necessary.
The bill also makes changes to more clearly and objectively identify cruelty and facilitate the prosecution of acts of cruelty. These key changes respond to the representations of our stakeholders and reflect the territory’s ability to develop sensible and progressive reforms.
Amendments to the prohibition on spurs will more clearly and effectively capture cockfighting spurs and similar devices that are attached to an animal that lets the animal cause injury to another animal. Amendments will require any person who possesses these items to demonstrate that they are kept only for display or as part of a collection that is not intended for use on, or in relation to, an animal.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video