Page 2147 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 22 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think that Ms Gallagher said that increasing the penalties will not affect the magistrates, but it will. They have actually said that they would like them to be increased. They are well able to utilise an increase in terms of finding an appropriate penalty for the offence and, if they are asking for an increase, surely that is something that the government should take into account. There seem to be some problems between the attorney’s office and the Magistrates Court. I do not know whether that has anything to do with it or whether it is simply due to the fact that the government cannot accept this bill because it is a good idea by the opposition and has to knock it back and maybe work out something itself later. If that is the case, which I suspect is probably true, I think that is rather pathetic.
If members opposite bring up a good law, we will back it. When we were in government and they brought up a few good laws, we backed them. Mr Speaker brought up a good law in 1996 in terms of some industrial relations matter, I think, and we supported it. It has worked very effectively since. It was his idea and we had no drama with saying that it was a good law. It seems to me that you are opposing this bill for the sake of opposing. These amendments have been on the agenda for about 15 months. They have been amended down to accommodate the government’s comments, which have not been terribly accurate, in an attempt to get these changes through. Unfortunately, you are not even prepared to accept that. My amendments now equate to the maximum penalty for a common assault.
This bill is in line very much with what New South Wales and Queensland have done. The penalties around Australia for cruelty to animals have not been terribly robust over the years. There have been improvements in some states recently. New South Wales and Queensland now have penalties of two years and, I think, in some instances even three years. This bill brings us much more into line with our colleagues across the border. Those penalties were increased by Labor governments. What is the problem with this one?
I will now read out two documents in support of this piece of very sensible legislation. Firstly, I will read a letter to Mrs Burke, a colleague of mine, from Sue Gage, president of the RSPCA—someone signed it for her—earlier this year. It reads:
Dear Mrs Burke
I am writing to urge you to support the Animal Legislation (Penalties) Amendment Bill 2005 that was presented to the Assembly on 16 February 2005 by Mr Bill Stefaniak. The bill calls for much stronger penalties for people who are convicted of cruelty to animals.
Members of the RSPCA (ACT) Council have followed the debate on a similar bill presented by Mr Stefaniak in 2004. Council considers the 2005 version addresses the points of disagreement that led to the defeat of the bill in the Assembly last year.
Council is concerned the penalties currently imposed on people found guilty of acts of cruelty to animals do not match the gravity of the offences. Often a person convicted of cruelty to animals is penalised by a community service order or a small bond, punishments similar to those awarded for minor misdemeanours.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .