Hansard Search

12 March 1991 - Current

 
PRIMARY INDUSTRIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014
Page 2820
20 August 2014
ASSEMBLY 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