Hansard debates
Search Hansard
Search help
|
|
|||||||
PRIMARY INDUSTRIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
20 August 2014
Statement of Compatibility
WALSH
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
PRIMARY INDUSTRIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014 Statement of compatibility Mr WALSH (Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) tabled following statement in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006: In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the charter act), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 (the bill). In my opinion, the bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the charter act. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview The bill amends the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (the act) to enhance the regulatory scheme for domestic animal businesses, including dog and cat breeders and pet shops, in order to ensure standards of animal welfare by those businesses. The bill also makes various minor amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986, Veterinary Practice Act 1997, Livestock Disease Control Act 1994 and the Plant Biosecurity Act 2010. Human rights protected by the charter act that are relevant to the bill Right to privacy Section 13(a) of the charter act provides that all persons have the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. Clause 15 of the bill inserts a new section 63AB into the act, which requires the proprietor of a pet shop to keep and maintain, in respect of each dog or cat that is offered for sale by the shop, details of the name and address of the person from whom the shop obtained the animal, and any other prescribed information. In my view, this clause is unlikely to interfere with the right to privacy. The information is limited to a person's name and address. The proprietor will obtain the information from the person selling an animal and will then keep that information in his or her pet shop, and will not publish the information. The person providing the information most likely will consent to doing so. However, even if the provision of such information does interfere with privacy, any such interference will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The information must be obtained and kept by proprietors of pet shops in order to properly regulate the sale of animals to pet shops and to ensure adherence with animal welfare standards. Pursuant to section 74 of the act, an authorised officer may only access the register if it is both reasonable and necessary to investigate a breach of, or monitor compliance with, the regulatory scheme. Accordingly, in my view, this clause does not limit the right to privacy. Right to property Section 20 of the charter act provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. Clause 12 of the bill amends the definition of 'domestic animal business' in section 3 of the act to include an enterprise which carries out the breeding of dogs or cats to sell, whose proprietor is a member of an applicable organisation, with between three to nine fertile female dogs or fertile female cats of which more than two of those fertile animals are not registered with that organisation. Enterprises which fall within this extended definition will be required to register the premises on which a domestic animal business is conducted under part 4 of the act, and the failure to do so may result in the seizure of a dog or cat by an authorised officer under s 82A of the act. However, because any deprivation of property occasioned by seizure under s 82A will only occur as a consequence of a person choosing to engage in the breeding of dogs or cats to sell, electing not to register more than two of their fertile female dogs or fertile female cats with an applicable organisation, and failing to register the premises on which the business is conducted, I consider that it will be in accordance with the law. Right not to be tried or punished more than once and retrospective criminal laws Section 26 of the charter act provides that a person must not be tried or punished more than once for an offence in respect of which he or she has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with law. Section 27(2) of the charter act provides that a penalty must not be imposed on any person for a criminal offence that is
Page 2821
greater than the penalty that applied to the offence when it was committed. Clause 14 of the bill amends s 54 of the act to provide that a council must not register, or renew the registration, of premises for a breeding domestic animal business if the applicant or holder of the registration, proprietor of that business, or person conducting that business has been found guilty of a specified offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 within the 10-year period preceding the application for registration or renewal. Neither section 26 nor section 27 of the charter act precludes the imposition of civil sanctions imposed for a preventative or protective purpose. Because the prohibition is limited to the regulation of breeding domestic animal businesses, and is intended to ensure standards of animal welfare and manage the risk of further animal cruelty offences, I consider it does not engage either section 26 or 27(2) of the charter act. Peter Walsh, MLA Minister for Agriculture and Food Security