Page 3960 - Week 11 - Thursday, 26 September 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The amendment also clarifies that injury, pain or stress is not to be considered unnecessary just because an animal is being transported or contained in a way that is generally accepted practice in the community. So that is protecting the transporting of a horse in a float, a cat in a carrier or a dog in a crate.
This is not, I repeat, a free pass to animal cruelty. But it acknowledges that stress may occur despite the very best intentions and actions. It simply recognises that because an animal is stressed by the manner of its transport, this does not make the manner of the transport cruel. I hope for the support of the Assembly.
MR STEEL (Murrumbidgee—Minister for City Services, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Recycling and Waste Reduction, Minister for Roads and Active Travel and Minister for Transport) (11.55): In relation to Ms Lawder’s amendments to clause 18 of the bill, we believe that these amendments would cause ambiguity in interpreting the section.
The proposed subsection (a) would have a minimal impact, as veterinary or industry requirements for transporting animals would be unlikely to cause the death of or unnecessary injury or stress to an animal. In relation to the proposed subsection (b), the term “generally accepted practice in the community” is very broad and difficult to interpret or to apply.
The risk that the government sees is that as the offence is not strict liability—meaning that, as it would need to be prosecuted in a court, a court would apply this in each case based on its merits—this provision could move the question the court needs to answer away from whether the transport or containment would cause, or be likely to cause, the death of or unnecessary injury, pain or stress to an animal to what a generally accepted practice of the community is.
Not to labour this point, the act needs to be read as a whole. The mandatory codes of practice that are made under the act include, for example, a code of practice for the transport of livestock. They are made under the existing act and they will continue to be made under the act and updated. So those instruments exist. A further subsection within an offence determining what is a generally accepted practice is not necessary and would make the legislation more ambiguous and more difficult to enforce for the authorities. Therefore the government cannot support these amendments.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (11.56): The Greens will also not be supporting these amendments. We think that they potentially open the gates for things that otherwise would be prohibited in terms of the generally accepted practice in the community. I am not quite sure who determines that and whether we can be confident that all the generally accepted practices that this is envisaging would in fact be humane and would in fact be necessary.
As the minister has said, there is already sufficient opportunity for necessary transportation to be undertaken in a humane and responsible fashion. I think that the bill as it stands is adequate from this point of view.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video