Page 3947 - Week 11 - Thursday, 26 September 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the only reason they have a car is so that they can take their pet to the vet. That is not a very good solution. We have a public transport system, and pets—accompanied by their owners, of course—should be able to use it. The government should look at this obvious gap and have consistency across all public transport.
There is also a possibility of establishing a searchable register of individuals who have been banned from pet ownership. This would have to be done with appropriate privacy safeguards, but I believe that it has been done abroad and is being used by pet shelters, animal rescue groups, animal welfare inspectors, police and breeders to ensure that people who have been banned from being pet owners are not inadvertently given a pet by an animal rescue organisation. That does not serve anybody’s purpose.
There is also a need for an updated code of practice for pounds and shelters to reflect current welfare standards. The code currently in place is from 1995. I believe that updating that might be the responsibility of the animal welfare advisory committee, but I am sure this is something where government leadership could be positive.
The scrutiny committee raised some concerns about the number of strict liability offences included in the new regime and some points which needed clarification. The government has addressed the clarification issues, I understand, largely through its amendments. But the Greens are still concerned about the issue of strict liability. That is the only area where we have any significant concerns about this bill.
We are hopeful, but at this stage we are still cautious, that the bill has found the right balance between the ability to stop egregious abuse of animals and the important principle of innocent until proven guilty.
We wish to make the situation clear in relation to someone who is sick for a day, meaning that they cannot walk their dog that day. We have been assured by the government that that is not by itself what they are intending to prosecute as a strict liability offence. I note the considerable discretion for rangers and DAS officials in terms of whether any prosecution is done. We have been assured, hopefully correctly, that the government will only use the strict liability offences to stop egregious abuse of animals.
Through the accompanying packages, we see that the government is putting effort into education and information sharing. That is the most important avenue to social change. We need to be aware that fines are not the deterrent that some people like to imagine. As I mentioned before, it is important that, for the worst cases of animal abuse, the legislation sets up a system where a person can be banned from owning a pet again. While this is an unusual punishment, in many cases, it would be a vastly more effective mechanism to prevent animal abuse in the worst cases.
Because this bill considerably expands the range of strict liability offences and thus potential penalties, I will be moving an amendment to have an established review of the legislation three years after commencement. While this can look at things more broadly, the reason I feel that this is necessary is to ensure that the strict liability offences have been proportionate to the issues that they are addressing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video