HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (PROTECTION FOR WORKING ANIMALS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 October 2013.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (21:53): I rise on behalf of the Liberal opposition to indicate our support for the passage of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Protection for Working Animals) Amendment Bill 2013. The bill was introduced in the wake of a tragic attack where police dog Koda was stabbed in the process of detaining an offender. The bill supports offences under the Animal Welfare Act 1985 and the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 that provide severe penalties for anyone who harms animals.

Section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act 1985 provides a maximum penalty of $50,000 or imprisonment for four years if a person ill treats an animal and this causes death or serious harm to an animal. The Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 currently has three offences that criminalise the harming of animals. Section 85 defines, inter alia, damage in relation to property to include 'to injure, wound or kill an animal'. Under section 85(3) of the act it is an offence without lawful excuse to damage another person's property, including an animal, intending to damage the property or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the conduct would damage the property.

Section 85(4) provides that it is an offence without lawful excuse to threaten or damage another's property and by section 85A it is an offence to do an act knowing that the act creates a substantial risk of serious damage to another's property. These offences are serious offences, attracting maximum sentences of imprisonment of 10 years, five to seven years and six years respectively. On 11 September 2013, the Attorney-General introduced the bill that is before us. The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, to create a new serious criminal offence of causing death or serious harm to a working animal by an intentional act, punishable by up to five years imprisonment.

In addition to any penalty that may be imposed, the bill proposes to vest the court with extensive powers to order a person found guilty of causing serious harm or death to a working animal to pay costs and compensation for the treatment, care, rehabilitation and retraining of the animal that has incurred as a result of his or her actions. The cost of training police dogs and guide dogs is unspecified but, nonetheless, we understand it is substantial.

Serious harm in the bill is defined in a similar way to serious grievous bodily harm as it applies to humans in section 23 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. However, it is defined to exclude mental or psychic harm. In terms of proportionality, both the human offences and the animal offences (if I can call them that) escalate to 25 per cent between the harm and serious harm levels; four to five years and 20 to 25 years respectively.

The definition of a working animal covers a police dog, a police horse, a guide dog and a correctional services dog. The bill proposes that other working animals could be prescribed by regulation. I understand that there are currently 25 dogs and 36 horses working for the South Australia Police. In correctional services there are usually six working dogs, but I understand there are currently three.

The opposition is aware that a number of local councils operate security canine patrols, those councils particularly being in rural areas. These patrols are authorised officers of the council, supported by canines, with the authority to enforce council by-laws. Their roles include the monitoring of city infrastructure against vandalism to counter antisocial behaviour and assist police where possible.

Given the similarities in roles between the security canine patrols and other law enforcement animals, the opposition considers that these animals should be included, and I have filed an amendment to extend the definition of a working animal to include a dog used by or on behalf of a council for the purposes of enforcing council by-laws, conducting security patrols or patrolling or guarding property in a council area.

Let me stress again, as I have already mentioned, these animals are involved in working with authorised council officers who in turn assist police where possible. These dogs are used for law enforcement purposes, and it is the opposition's view that it is logical that they be included in the definition of 'working animal' to ensure that these dogs receive the same protection as other working law enforcement animals.

While the opposition supports the Criminal Law Consolidation (Protecting Working Animals) Amendment Bill 2013, I will be moving the amendment I have foreshadowed. We appreciate that in defining 'working animals', many working animals will be excluded. To start close to home, the bill will not cover the great moth hunters of Stirling, Lily and Hodge, but we do need to draw the line somewhere.

The opposition supports the focus on law enforcement animals and considers that the exclusion of animals engaged in council by-laws is an oversight that should be corrected. The opposition is concerned that, given that the range of law enforcement animals is relatively stable, we can see no reason that the list of working animals should not be defined in the bill. The Law Society has advised that in their view:

...any expansion of the class of working animals should be by primary legislation, not regulation.

The opposition supports amending the bill to remove the power to prescribe animals by regulation. To remove this power would maintain parliamentary oversight, which we believe is appropriate in this case. The opposition supports the second reading of the bill and looks forward to consideration of the bill at the committee stage.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (21:59): I rise to advise the house that Family First supports the principles of the bill. Koda is the police dog allegedly stabbed twice in the line of duty at about 7.30am on Sunday 25 August 2013 at Elizabeth Vale. It was an attack that the editor of The Advertiser described as a coward's act, and I agree. It made national headlines, including in the Daily Telegraph, which ran the headline 'Undies-clad man stabs police dog'. Koda had allegedly tackled the man to the ground after he was seen emerging from what is said to have been a break-in.

Koda reportedly is a legend around the office at SA Police and has been responsible for multiple arrests in the months preceding the stabbing. The Advertiser profiled previously the retired police dog Sultan, put down after six years' service, after 637 jobs and tracking 95 suspects over his career.

I also note The Advertiser reported in its World News on Sunday 10 November that the Nottinghamshire police commissioner wants police dogs to get pensions, as up to $A800 for three years is needed for the retired dogs' former handlers to care for them in retirement. The government is not moving to do that. This bill has far less budget impact than that move could potentially have, but I urge the government to consider that in the police budget into forward estimates.

The day after the attack on Koda the Premier and police commissioner said they would move to increase penalties. Thankfully, Koda has made great progress since the stabbing. Animal Welfare League have now succeeded in putting first aid kits in the hands of handlers, according to SA Police News on 6 November 2013.

The government, in consultation, has expanded the scope of the bill to include a police horse and I am very, very pleased to see that. In fact, as soon as I saw that the government was coming out to protect the police dogs I thought to myself, 'You just can't protect the police dogs unless you protect the police horses.'

My mind cast right back to when I was a very young person during the Vietnam moratorium when just out here the horses of the mounted division were treated in the most disrespectful way that I have seen with any animals, where tacks were put on the road so that the tacks could hurt the hooves of the horses. I believe ammonium was also waved around to hurt the breathing passages of those horses. Nothing happened about that and here we are now, finally, all these years after that dreadful example of the treatment of any livestock, where the government has now included the police horses, and I congratulate them for that.

I also congratulate the government for putting in correctional services dogs. When I was fortunate enough to be Minister for Correctional Services there was a beautiful border collie called Duracell, which was bred as a sheep dog and was unsuccessful with sheep, which the department purchased for $50. Duracell became a magnificent deterrent for drug trafficking in the prisons. When the visitors came into the waiting room, often with the drugs on them, Duracell had been trained to detect those drugs. Duracell just sat down next to those particular visitors and then the prison officers would come and say, 'Excuse me, please, we would like to see you.' From there, firstly, they apprehended drug traffickers into the prison and, secondly, those drug traffickers and others soon got the message that that dog was going to be there on a random basis. What a tragic situation it would be if a dog like Duracell was to be severely injured as a result of just going about its work within the department. Of course, accredited guide dogs are also covered.

We accept that it is fair, given the investment, to include guide dogs, but they are somewhat outside of the original intent, and other inclusions being animals involved in law enforcement. For that reason we also move to include customs and rescue dogs. Customs dogs can be subject to risk as well, particularly when it comes to drug trafficking. The SES has rescue dogs. Let's hope and pray that we do not see a tragic situation in our state and nation like the one we are seeing in the Philippines, Vietnam and parts of China at the moment. In that type of situation, those dogs are vital in locating people trapped under wreckage, etc. I think that that sort of protection needs to be made available to those dogs as well, to be comprehensive.

I do have some amendments, which I have circulated to colleagues with the explanation of the clauses, so I will not speak to those until the committee stage. In general, I seek to expand the categories of dogs covered to include rescue dogs and customs dogs and then to close the pathway for other working animals to be included, as this is a question for parliament, not for regulations.

I agree with the Hon. Stephen Wade when he says that we should identify and specify the animals to be protected within legislation. I particularly agree with that because on too many occasions we have heard the government say, 'Trust me, I'm from the government, I'm here to help. You guys pass the legislation, and then we'll put the finishing touches to it in regulation,' and then we discover that that regulation is often bizarre and not the intent of the parliament. I would encourage and ask colleagues to designate the specific dogs and their uses within legislation.

A circus animal, for instance, could be considered a working animal, and we think the inclusion of 'other animals' is one for the parliament and not regulation. With those words, in principle, as I said at the beginning, we commend and support the government for this initiative and look forward to a positive passage of the bill with supported amendments.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (22:07): I speak this evening to oppose the second reading of this bill. I know that there are other members around this place who would also like to do the same and speak out against it, but they feel they cannot as they fear it will be an unpopular stance. So, once again, similar to the motor vehicle accidents scheme this chamber recently discussed, it is up to me to make what is possibly an unpopular but right decision.

No-one wants to see any animal hurt, whether that animal be a working animal assisting someone with some kind of disability or just a companion animal. This chamber is not here to pass well-meaning but totally unnecessary knee-jerk reaction laws, and we are not here to pass laws that amount to gratuitous government media stunts. The only thing that K-O-D-A spells out in Koda's law is a 'key operational destruction approach' by this government.

The Premier made this announcement amid much fanfare on 27 August. It sought to protect 61 police animals, 25 dogs and 36 horses. Immediately after that announcement, strident disability advocate Sam Paior suggested that disability assistance dogs be added. I want to labour the point that this addition was not the government's idea: it was the suggestion of a member of the disability community.

We have been told that this bill is a priority of the Premier to get through the parliament before we complete the sitting session. It is beyond belief that while the state government's education department lurches from one child sex abuse crisis to the next the Premier wastes everyone's time and taxpayers' money making up new laws that are already covered by existing legislation.

The fact is that the Animal Welfare Act of 1985 already provides for up to four years' imprisonment or a $50,000 fine for anyone who harms or seriously harms an animal. Why are we not using those existing laws is the underlying question that I have and a question that needs answering. If there does need to be some tweaking of the Animal Welfare Act, then we should be doing that. Creating completely different laws within a different act is not the way to manage this issue. I note that I believe the Law Society agrees with me on that point.

I was quite interested to read page 3, I think, of today's Advertiser—perhaps 'interested' is not the right word; 'filled with rage' would be a more adequate description—where the Attorney-General saw fit to accuse me of politicising the issue of child sex abuse by not supporting this bill. There are a few points I would like to make on that.

For one, I am not sure how I am politicising the issue by simply highlighting the government's already known failures on this issue. For another, if he wants to see people who are politicising this issue, maybe he needs to look a bit closer at the company he is keeping. After all, it was this government that refused to present to a committee on the issues surrounding the Debelle inquiry. Perhaps if he wants an example of politicising the issue, the Attorney-General need only look at his own gang, if you will.

I hope it goes without saying that Dignity for Disability takes seriously the issue of child safety in our schools and wishes that this government, the Premier and the relevant ministers would do the same. We wish they would be urgent on areas of law that are completely broken, or reform policies and procedures that will protect vulnerable adults and children, procedures that are not already covered by existing legislation.

Where are the urgent laws needed to protect vulnerable people with profound and multiple disabilities, for example? Where are the urgent laws to allow intermediaries in our courts? Where are the urgent laws to improve the deficiencies in our Evidence Act? Why does a new horrific story of child abuse or children put at risk emerge from the Department for Education and Child Development every week? Why are 61 police animals now a priority ahead of safeguards for several thousands of South Australian schoolchildren?

I hasten to add, of course, that Dignity for Disability has a strong and, I believe, undeniable record of advocating on animal welfare issues, including supporting the push to ban horse jumps racing, the change in definition of free-range eggs, and the list goes on. I would also hasten to add that it was in fact Dignity for Disability that pushed to stop the pet bond under the Residential Tenancies Act applying to people with disability assistance dogs, which was in fact arguably a breach of the Disability Discrimination Act. I do not think this move can make anyone question our commitment to animals; it is simply that we question whether this bill is the right way to protect them.

Police dogs, customs dogs, the dogs that are tied up without water all day long, the dogs bred for pet shops and puppy farms, and especially any dog or assistance animal that comes under attack are important to us. I would hasten to add, of course, that my personal passion for animal welfare outside this parliament is, I believe, well known, having attended and spoken at a number of rallies to support the phasing out of live exports. Of course, people are well aware, particularly those who have invited me over for dinner, of my dietary requirements in the area of animal welfare.

Dignity for Disability takes seriously the responsibility of this parliament and urges all others to do likewise. Passing a populist law to protect working dogs will offer no additional protection to those animals than that which is already afforded to them under the current Animal Welfare Act of this state. The government cannot even argue that this will act as a deterrent to people considering harming a working dog, because the law does not require the offender to know that they are committing an offence against a working dog.

Every offence, save a handful of traffic offences, has two elements that must be established to demonstrate the guilt of an accused. To express it quite simply, they are the act and the intent. One would think that if the aim of this bill is to deter those who would assault and seriously harm a working animal the fact that the animal was a working animal would form part of the intent element and it would be necessary for the accused to have known that the animal in question was in fact a working animal.

However, in some cases the bill places the animal's status as a working animal within the act element, stating that the accused's knowledge of this fact is not a relevant consideration. I am uncertain how the government proposes to deter a prospective offender from committing an act that they are unaware they are committing.

While many of these situations are ones where one would more likely than not be aware of the fact that the animal is likely to be a working animal, there is one possible situation that concerns me, to say the least. In new section 83I(4)(b)(i) the bill refers to death or serious harm that occurs related to the commission of an offence by the defendant or a person in the company of the defendant.

In the event that the offending has been carried out by a person in the company of the defendant, there is no reference to the defendant having any knowledge of their companion's offending. We leave the public unable to know whether or not their conduct in dealing with a potentially aggressive animal is lawful.

For example, if I were out in Rundle Mall with a friend and that friend were to commit a shoplifting offence (of course, I am of the understanding that none of my friends would do that but, hypothetically) and was chased down by a working animal pursuing them in order to enable officers to lay charges against that person for that offence, by virtue of the fact that I was in the company of that person, I could myself commit an offence if, for example, the dog or the animal made some move toward me that I was uncomfortable with and I attempted to distance myself from that animal in a way that could be interpreted as aggressive or violent. I potentially could be committing an offence. Where is the logic in that?

Do we expect members of the public to ask their friends if there is anything that they should be aware of before attending to the German shepherd that is gnawing at them? The removal of the defence under such circumstances is deeply concerning. It criminalises an act of what would otherwise be one of entirely reasonable self-defence where the defendant has no knowledge of an animal's status as a working animal or its reasons for attacking them or their companion.

At least under our animal welfare laws you are charged with injuring an animal without having to establish whether it fits the criteria of being a working dog. With this bill, we are adding a level of unnecessary complexity to our laws which is unlikely to see any benefit. I hasten to labour the point once again that, in my opinion, if you stab a police dog you stab a dog, if you stab a working cat you stab a cat, it is all much the same act.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Cats don't work.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I think the Hon. Ms Lensink is interjecting that, of course, cats should be seen as somewhat more important, but I don't know if I can really—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: No, they don't work.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: They don't work? Of course they do. They do all that modelling for artists, lying around in the sun. Anyway, we digress ever so slightly. I promise you I will learn not to respond to interjections, Mr Acting President.

In terms of disability assistance animals, this legislation only currently covers accredited guide dogs so, therefore, it does not include horses for people with disabilities and hearing dogs or dogs trained for people on the autism spectrum or with mental illnesses or intellectual disability. It does not include any other animal trained for special use for people with disabilities. This demonstrates that the government does not actually get the issue of disability assistance dogs, as if the residential tenancies issues had not already painted that very clearly for us. Why are guide dogs for the blind more important than a hearing dog or a dog that assists a person with an intellectual disability or on the autism spectrum?

Additionally, the Law Society submission, which I mentioned earlier, demonstrates what a waste of time this legislative change amounts to, and they stated so in no uncertain terms in their submission to the Attorney-General. It is adding complexity to laws that is simply not needed. I feel at pains to point out that I see no issue with advancing special protection to working animals as such. What I oppose is a deeply flawed bill and the dog and pony show that has surrounded it.

If one wishes to create additional penalties for harming a working animal, we have an animal welfare act that already contains provisions protecting all animals. I cannot fathom why a change of this kind would not be carried out by including an animal's status as a working animal as an additional aggravating factor that attracts an additional penalty. Naturally, we all feel for the suffering of animals—no-one more than me—whether they be companion animals, working dogs, assistance animals and so on.

I do not intend to take more of this parliament's time, apart from stating that Dignity for Disability opposes this bill and the complete diversion from good legislation and good legislative sense that it represents. At the end of the day, what this government is looking for is something that they can turn to at the end of a bad day in their education department and say, 'Well, at least we protected the nice little puppy dogs—brownie points for us.' This is a complete distraction tactic and one that I cannot, in good conscience, support.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (22:20): I rise on behalf of the Greens to address the Criminal Law Consolidation (Protection for Working Animals) Amendment Bill 2013. As members have broached, and as many in the South Australian community are aware, on 26 August this year, a German shepherd police dog, Koda, was stabbed whilst apprehending a suspect who was later charged with a series of offences including, I note, attempted aggravated robbery, four counts of theft, aggravated serious criminal trespass, aggravated assault police, property damage and, indeed, injuring an animal.

In the process, Koda suffered a serious and life-threatening injury and had to undergo emergency surgery to save his life. While there are no specific laws in our state that target offenders who intentionally harm animals used in law enforcement or assistance roles, there are of course laws for these situations and indeed, in this case, it appears that that law has been at least in part employed in terms of the 'injuring an animal' component. Indeed, I point to section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act 1985. That provides for a maximum penalty of $50,000 or up to four years' imprisonment.

Following the attack on Koda, however, the Premier and the Commissioner of Police saw fit, with some haste, to announce that the government would propose to parliament the enactment of a serious criminal offence punishable by five years' imprisonment that dealt with harming animals used for law enforcement purposes. This was later extended to include guide dogs and, as the Hon. Kelly Vincent quite rightly noted, that was not done upon reflection and consultation by government. It was done at the behest of disability advocates who pointed out that this particular law was addressing a single issue and was somewhat lacking in that broader scope.

Indeed, with the intention of providing a greater deterrent to criminals who may have been tempted to harm a working animal, and greater penalties for those who did, we did indeed have feedback from the community. I am sure that all members of parliament have had other situations raised with them of other particular types of animals that could indeed be included in this legislation, and we are already seeing those animals and situations both brought to the fore with proposed amendments and proposed possible future regulations under the government. Under this bill before us, it is also proposed that a court would additionally be able to require the perpetrator to pay for the treatment, care, rehabilitation and retraining of the affected animal.

This bill before us creates a new offence of causing death or serious harm to a working animal by an intentional act and is applicable to police dogs, police horses, guide dogs and correctional services dogs. I understand, as I said, that the government also proposes to permit other working animals to be prescribed by regulation with that maximum penalty being five years' gaol. This law would make it an offence to harass or interfere with the duties of the animal or the handler also.

The Greens note, as did the Hon. Kelly Vincent and I believe the Hon. Stephen Wade, the advice received from the Law Society on this bill before us, and echoed very strongly here today, that the existing Animal Welfare Act 1985 already offers protections for our working animals, such as police dogs and assistance dogs. When this was first announced I did agree with the Hon. Kelly Vincent's tweet, where she directed a particular direct message to the Premier, attaching the Animal Welfare Act, and asking why were not the current laws simply being applied and enforced. Indeed, if there are flaws with the Animal Welfare Act, why are we not opening up that act to both strengthen and ensure that enforcement and prosecution is possible through those particular current laws?

The Greens will not go as far as to oppose this bill outright. Certainly the protection of animals is a foundation of a compassionate society, and the welfare of animals that work for us, often putting their own lives in harm's way in the process, should be a priority that I hope all members of government would share.

Certainly I would hope that it would be done not simply for media attention and media grabs and on a single-issue basis, and this is an indication that the government will soon act to enact the 11 recommendations from the Select Committee on Dogs and Cats as Companion Animals, which reported in recent months. Certainly the recommendations of that particular committee's report would have a far greater broader impact and save many more animals' lives than we will do today with this particular bill.

I note that Koda's handler in the media coverage of this event had stated that 'in his seven years with the SA Police Dogs Operation Unit he had never before seen one of the force's 25 dogs get stabbed'. So this is a rare event, but what we do know, and what the Select Committee on Dogs and Cats as Companion Animals did find, is the horrific conditions of puppy factories or puppy mills and certainly very unpalatable treatment of companion animals in this state is a far more common occurrence than one incident in seven years.

Those are the issues that I would hope this government will now turn its mind to. However, with only a few short sitting days left before the end of the year, I am losing hope that we will see any urgent action from this government arising from that Select Committee on Dogs and Cats as Companion Animals.

However, I certainly commend the Hon. Michelle Lensink and Dr Susan Close, the member for Port Adelaide, for not only their stated commitment to me but also their assistance in co-hosting with me a recent companion animal shelter summit that we held in this place in a non-sitting week. I believe that we three at least, and I am sure the Hon. Kelly Vincent, among many others, will look forward to law reform to protect companion animals in the coming years.

Nonetheless, while we are now seeing some congratulating—and certainly it is a very publicly popular move to protect Koda—these major opportunities for improvements in companion animal welfare are going begging, and we must ensure that the welfare standards in the breeding of companion animals and in reducing the numbers of unwanted and stray animals that are being unnecessarily euthanased, is urgently addressed.

Initiatives such as compulsory vaccination, microchipping, early desexing, desexing in general, licensing and enforceable minimum standards for breeders and public awareness programs are all essential. The Greens will continue to work on these goals, and we do not believe that this should be a partisan affair, and we look forward to working with all across this particular parliament and with those in this particular area—the shelters, the rescue groups, the peak bodies, the government agencies and the local government agencies. We share some of those concerns raised by the Law Society and we will get into that during committee stage given the time of the evening, so I will not go too far into some of those specifics. We look forward to debating not only the government bill but the various amendments that have so far been filed.

If the government could respond in their second reading summary or in clause 1, at what point was the RSPCA contacted about this particular bill? What input did they have into it? Were there any identified barriers to the Animal Welfare Act that possibly would have been a different course to take for progressing on this very specific issue of Koda and Koda's law. I also suggest that there is certainly a great discussion to be had about which animals are included in these particular laws and I look forward to exploring that further in the committee stage.

With that, I share some of the cynicism of the Hon. Kelly Vincent that this issue has been used as a sideshow and a distraction; however, I do so supporting this bill in the hope that in the future when we are debating animal welfare issues in this place, as well as companion animals and working animals, that we do so in a bipartisan or cross-party way and with some real law change that will benefit the majority of animals in this state.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (22:32): By way of concluding remarks, I thank honourable members for their contributions on this bill. A question was asked in the other place in relation to the number of offences committed under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 1985 that deal with the ill treatment of animals.

I can advise that between 4 October 2008 and 31 December 2012 there were 479 charges finalised under section 13(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 1985. The subsection deals with the ill treatment of animals. There were a further 32 charges finalised under section 13(1) of the Animal Welfare Act which deals with intentionally ill treating animals to cause the death of or serious harm to an animal. Unfortunately there are no specific statistics pertaining to working animals.

I also would like to clarify that we were unable to obtain statistics in relation to offences committed against animals under the property offences provisions of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act as the statistics do not differentiate between animals and other types of property.

In relation to comments made in the media by the Hon. Kelly Vincent, the following comments are made. The Hon. Kelly Vincent's comments that this bill is an attempt to divert attention from the very important issue of child sexual abuse cases which the government takes extremely seriously. They are very offensive and they were echoed by the Hon. Tammy Franks as well in her second reading contribution. This bill is not a 'gratuitous media stunt'. It is an important and worthwhile bill which offers increased protections to working animals.

The honourable member commented that these new provisions were 'already covered by existing legislation'. I am advised that this is incorrect. Whilst the Animal Welfare Act 1985 does have provisions that address the ill treatment of animals, it does not distinguish between pets and animals used in various working roles. This bill creates a new category to cover police dogs, police horses, correctional services dogs and guides dogs, etc. and recognises their important functions and the significant costs associated with their training.

In order for these animals to be protected by the new provisions, they must have completed the relevant training courses. The costs associated with the training of these animals are significant—approximately $25,000 for a police dog, $30,000 for a guide dog and $70,000 for a police horse. These animals are exposed to an increased risk of harm due to their work and deserve the extra protection this bill will provide. Indeed, the member for Stuart in another place commented that it is pretty plain common sense that any animal working on behalf of people probably deserves a bit more protection.

Our bill increases the maximum term of imprisonment for those convicted under the new offence to five years. We have also included new provisions that allow the court to make an order that a person found guilty of an offence is required to pay compensation. The compensation may cover the veterinary costs of treating the animal, the cost of rehabilitating or retraining the animal, the cost of replacing the animal or the cost of retiring the animal, including the costs of rehousing and relocating the animal.

These new provisions will act as a deterrent and will, as a consequence, provide additional protection to working animals. It is a policy which is supported by South Australia Police, Correctional Services and Guide Dogs SA/NT. The government is disappointed that the honourable member has indicated that she will not support the bill.

The compensation provisions are specific to working animals and their functions and recognising the significant cost that is involved in training one of these animals. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire has filed amendments to the bill, and I am advised that the government is still considering its position in relation to those amendments. With those few words I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT