Page 1088 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 5 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
officers can do their job. Their purpose is to ensure the safety of an animal, the authorised officer and any other person present and to ensure the officer can perform their functions effectively.
The power to require a person’s full name and address is consistent with the Public Unleased Land Act 2013 and the Domestic Animals Act 2000 and can only be exercised if an inspector or authorised officer believes on reasonable grounds that a 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 under the act.
The amendments will authorise an inspector or authorised officer to direct a person to produce evidence of these details only if the inspector or authorised officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person has given false or misleading personal details. The requirement for belief on reasonable grounds limits the use of the power to those situations where an inspector or authorised officer determines it is just inappropriate in all the circumstances.
I have already briefly referred to amendments that will allow the court to play a greater role in the prevention of cruelty to animals. Section 101 of the current act allows the court to impose an order at the time of conviction which effectively bans a person from having an animal if the court believes that person is likely to commit further offences against that animal or any other animal.
A new provision will allow the court to make a temporary order at the start of proceedings if the court believes that the order is necessary to prevent the person from engaging in conduct in relation to an animal that would require the seizure of that animal or a further proceeding to be started. These provisions will allow the court to make effective and appropriate orders to stop patterns of animal neglect and cruelty. Importantly, these interventions will be at the discretion of the court in circumstances where the court considers such an order necessary and appropriate.
A minor technical amendment corrects an error in the operation of this section so that the court’s authority to make an order under section 101(3) does not arbitrarily depend on an order being made under subsection (2). I have already introduced amendments that respond to an increasing and a feasible trend where owners whose animals are seized under the animal protection powers are indirectly shifting the costs of their animals’ treatment and care to the territory. The amendment acknowledges that the RSPCA had asked government for help to manage the costs of caring for and treating seized animals.
The bill will allow the court, where the court considers it appropriate, to make an order on conviction that a person must pay the territory for expenses incurred in the care of an animal. Costs awarded to the territory will help to defray the government’s funding arrangements with the RSPCA. The amended provisions are consistent with section 114(6) of 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 Animal Welfare Amendment Bill will ensure the act operates effectively to promote and protect the welfare, safety and health of animals in the territory. It sends
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video