Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Prosecutions) Bill 2007

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.32 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. These amendments are sensible and necessary. They bring important reform in the areas of prosecutions made under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and associated regulations. The Hon. Don Harwin spoke about offences being investigated by charitable organisations. The Government is on record that charitable organisations such as the Animal Welfare League and the RSPCA have a proud history and record of protecting animal welfare in New South Wales. The RSPCA dates back to the 1870s in this State. With this long history the public has a clear understanding and recognition of the job they do in enforcing animal welfare laws. Importantly, the public holds these organisations in very high regard.

For those reasons the Government believes it is entirely appropriate that they continue their enforcement role which, in New South Wales, is adequately resourced. It is important to note that in the last financial year the New South Wales Government provided $420,000 to the RSPCA. It is important to note also that under this scheme police are regarded as an enforcement agency. To assist the RSPCA, further expertise is legally provided through the Department of Primary Industries and the rural lands protection boards. The charitable agencies can also request further assistance and expertise as they may require, such as veterinary or wildlife advice.

In relation to the issues raised by Mr Ian Cohen, there are many examples in legislation in New South Wales and other jurisdictions in Australia where the right to bring a private prosecution is denied. This legislation does not completely deny it; this legislation is different in that it does not attempt to deny the right of a private individual to bring a prosecution under the Act. However, it means that such a prosecution proposal must undergo a review to ensure it has some reasonable chance of standing before the court. There have been some claims and counterclaims during debate about whether or not certain cases have been successful. It is my advice that in the last six years there have been no successful private prosecutions in this State under this Act.

The prosecution will be subject to a review, which will ensure that there is a better chance of it standing up in court. This includes presenting admissible evidence and an understanding of what constitutes an offence under the Act. Significantly, the review also means that where action may already be underway, for instance by the RSPCA, duplication can be avoided. The issue is not about whether there is evidence that a private prosecution has previously caused a biosecurity breach; it is about responsible management of biosecurity risks. If the recent equine influenza outbreak has taught us anything, it is that prevention is better than cure.

Private prosecutions have the real potential to pose a biosecurity risk because private individuals do not have the authority to obtain evidence without consent, neither do private individuals necessarily have the requisite training, understanding and experience in investigations, part of which is how to manage biosecurity risks. This is especially the case if groups of people are involved in the trespass. There is a further potential biosecurity risk. A trespass may not be detected immediately, especially if no animal welfare issues are found by trespassers. Time is the crucial factor in preventing disease transmission, whether within a property or outside a property. Unnoticed trespass could create the right circumstances for widespread biosecurity risk.

Mr Ian Cohen referred also to the politicisation of the decision-making process. I put on record the following. The processes to which the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Minister are subject both provide for transparent review. In particular, the Minister is directly accountable to Parliament and to the electorate for his actions. The Minister and the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries will carefully consider any application to bring a third party prosecution in light of the available evidence and the objects of the Act. Further, they have the knowledge to include in their considerations any other regulatory activity on the issue, for example, by the RSPCA or the New South Wales Animal Welfare League. As well, they will take into account regulatory activity under such Acts as the Animal Research Act and the Exhibited Animals Act.

The Hon. Don Harwin: This reply is longer than the two speakers who spoke in the second reading debate.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I hope that the honourable member is very pleased that I am providing such a detailed response to the issues raised. The Department of Primary Industries has a unit dedicated to animal welfare that can provide the Minister with objective, expert advice on prosecutions proposed under the Act. Further, it has a litigation unit. While it does not undertake prosecutions under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, it can provide objective legal advice to the Minister. Importantly, the organisations with authority to prosecute also have a hierarchy of other animal welfare interventions before they need to bring a prosecution. These interventions often bring about a behaviour change in the owner or care of the animal without having to resort to prosecutions. Neither the Director of Public Prosecutions nor individuals attempting to bring a prosecution have these means at their disposal. I thank all members for their contributions and commend the bill to the House.