Page 943 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The maximum penalty for possession of a prohibited item is increased from five penalty units to 20 penalty units, or $3,000. The maximum penalty for a person who uses a prohibited item on or in relation to an animal will remain at 100 penalty units, or $15,000, imprisonment for one year, or both. The government’s objective in amending the spurs offences is not just to increase the penalty but also to more effectively capture and prosecute offences involving these devices.
I referred also to concerns about inspectors being threatened and assaulted on the job. I am sure all members will agree that our laws must also protect the people who devote themselves to the protection of animals and the prevention of cruelty. To assist in the important work they do, this bill also updates the powers of inspectors and authorised officers so they can do their job effectively and safely in the interests of all involved: owners, animals, our authorised officers, and anyone else who may be present.
The updated powers will allow an inspector or authorised officer to require a person to take reasonable steps to comply with the requirements made of them by an inspector or authorised officer, give their name and address in circumstances where an inspector or authorised officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence against the act, or may be able to assist in the investigation of an offence against the act. These powers are consistent with the powers already exercised by officers authorised under other regulatory laws in the territory. They will be exercised in limited and specific circumstances within the existing framework for intervention and enforcement.
The bill also responds to concerns that some owners are indirectly but increasingly shifting the costs of their animal’s care and treatment to the territory. These costs are ultimately borne by the community. As I noted last October, the RSPCA had asked the government to consider solutions to help manage the costs of caring for and treating seized animals. Caring for and treating animals seized under the Animal Welfare Act can be a resource-intensive and costly undertaking. The government’s approach to this issue maintains policy consistency with the Domestic Animals Act 2000, which provides that an owner of an animal seized under the animal nuisance provisions is responsible for any costs or expenses incurred by the territory for seizing or impounding the animal.
The bill will allow a court to make an order in relation to the payment to the territory of expenses incurred in the care of animals. This new provision contemplates the services that are provided by the RSPCA on behalf of the territory. The approach we have taken is consistent with animal welfare legislation in New South Wales and the Northern Territory. I hope these amendments will reiterate the importance of responsible animal ownership and deter owners from neglect.
I have talked already about amendments that will facilitate the identification, investigation and prosecution of animal welfare offences. Further components of this framework are amendments that will allow the court to play a greater role in the prevention of cruelty to animals. The current act allows the court to impose an order on conviction which effectively bans a person from having an animal if the court
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video