Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - I will be relatively brief in relation to this matter but I certainly support the bill. There are a couple of issues that I want to refer to and one will be identification. This is not referred to in the bill. I will just need to expand on that a little in my second reading contribution, Mr President.

I have had contact with the RSPCA, and the member for Rowallan has covered it quite well. I am not sure if he mentioned that they expressed to me their disappointment that there are no minimum penalties set in the bill for serious charges of cruelty. They state very clearly their wish for set minimum penalties in those areas.

As the member for Rowallan mentioned, despite increased penalties in the bill the RSPCA say that nationally ours are still very low compared to other States. We are almost at the bottom end of the scale, they say, and they would have liked to have seen us at least in the middle with regard to penalty. They say that the penalty reflects how serious these issues are considered to be and how important it is to look after and maintain animals in the right way. It impacts on people if they see that the penalty is very high. In New South Wales, for instance, the law provides for a 10-year jail sentence for aggravated cruelty to animals, and very clearly identifies to the people how serious that offence is. They were a bit concerned that we did not go that way in this State. Nevertheless, the penalties have increased and that is important.

The member for Rosevears referred to the amendments in this bill that will pick up the corporates and the executives and those other people that will now be held responsible for animal welfare. It is absolutely right that there were employees, people working for a corporation or a syndicate of people, being held responsible for things that in fact they were not and could not be in many instances. It is certainly good to see that matter now being covered.

Minimum standards of care is an interesting one. I was just talking to the member for Montgomery and have been talking to some people from my area who have asked what defines cruelty to an animal. They have said that cruelty to an animal could well be too much pampering of it and they referred to some dogs that are continually powdered and bathed and all of these things. They ask if that is really the life of a dog. It is not a dog's life because we all know that a dog loves to get out there and roll in the muck and everything else that they can get into. So what is cruelty? Could over-pampering be cruelty in these circumstances? I just pose the question. Some people asked that.

Mr Parkinson - It depends on whether or not they smile when they are getting it.

Mr DEAN - The other one that I briefly referred to this morning is that the definition of abandoned seems to be tidied up within this bill. That is good because if we look at the number of feral cats and feral dogs that we currently have out there, very clearly many animals are simply being abandoned. Perhaps, once again, it may be because the penalties might not have been high enough. So things may well change in that regard. There is an inordinate number of cats, for instance, found roaming around without owners and they are really causing a lot of problems within the community. Unfortunately a lot of people, rather than take them to the RSPCA to dispose of them, as they ought, find it much easier to simply take them out and dump them outside somebody's house. It is a problem. It is a real issue and it is good to at least see it being tidied in this bill. We ought to be able to charge people more readily and easily under that amendment.

The position in relation to the requirement to have a vet present at rodeos I think is a very obvious one and has been needed for a long time. There has been a lot of discussion on this and it was emphasised very clearly to us when we all viewed the media clips and saw that bull at a rodeo dragging its hindquarters around. I think some members in this Chamber would still remember that. It occurred about 12 months or so ago, I think it was. It was absolutely horrific viewing to see that on television. I think just that one episode brought home to everybody what can happen at rodeos, and unless there is somebody capable of humanely acting there and then the pain and suffering can be extended.

Mr Hall - Mind you, that can happen in an ordinary farm situation as well. Animals will slip in the yard and I have seen exactly the same thing happen. It inadvertently happens.

Mr DEAN - Absolutely. I have seen it happen on farms where animals have been penned up and they will jump into a fence or what have you. But I think in a rodeo it is probably more likely. It is probably not fair to say that, but there is the opportunity for it to happen and to have a vet present would appease a lot of people. I think that is a very good move under this bill to include that.

The other matter I wanted to mention was raised by the TFGA in relation to the carrying of identification, Mr President. This is a very important issue, in my view. In this day and age, unfortunately, people no longer trust another person. There is a lot of distrust in people. That is brought about by many situations. Let me refer to a couple of them that I am aware of. In the paper this week there were advertisements for witnesses in relation to a person travelling in the Launceston region flashing their lights and trying to pull up innocent people it would seem. Suspicion was raised as a result of that. People were put in fear and it is now a police investigation. Then we had the one in the Northern Territory which really brought it home to many people and people will never forget it. That was the Falconio case where a vehicle was pulled up and it ended in murder.

There are lots of other examples I can give, Mr President, and I just want to give another example of why I believe it is necessary that these officers carry identification. I would like some undertaking from the Leader in relation to this. I give the example of my brother and his wife recently. They were travelling on an isolated country road at 10 o'clock at night and they suddenly found a vehicle behind them with blue flashing lights in the grille, not on the roof. They had never experienced that before in their life. They refused to stop because they were absolutely petrified. They continued to drive at the right speed. They never once exceeded the speed limit. They drove for about 50 kilometres to 60 kilometres with this vehicle behind flashing its lights. When it reached Rocherlea there was a police road block in place and they said, 'Hallelujah, lovely, we've now got the police', only to find of course that it had been the police in an unmarked car that had been following them.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - They had never experienced that before and were absolutely petrified to think that that could be happening on an isolated, lonely road. The position related to this story is that they could well get a call out at 10 o'clock at night - these officers are expected to work and be on call all hours, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, I would think - to go to an isolated farming property, where you have a female on her own confronted by a person saying that they are an authorised officer under this act: 'I want your name, I want your address, I want your personal details and I want entry to buildings on your property'. It would be highly unlikely, I would think, in many instances that they would get access under those circumstances. And could you blame them? No, you could not.

Mr Wilkinson - Unless they have a warrant.

Mr DEAN - As I said, unless they have a warrant or some real means of identification, Mr President. Many of these people, I suspect, would be in an unmarked vehicle. If they had a well marked vehicle it would not be a problem, as that gives an indication that perhaps they are who they say they are. But it is no longer acceptable for people to walk up to somebody at that hour of the night and simply say, 'I am so and so. I'm the law. I've got the rights', et cetera, without properly identifying themselves. It is not acceptable any longer.

Mr President, I think it would be highly unlikely if a person was charged with refusing to give their name and address in that situation or refusing to allow admittance to their sheds, buildings or what have you. They would never be convicted in a court of law. I would be very surprised if they were ever convicted. So why not let us fix this now?

Police officers are required to carry identification other than their uniforms. Even in uniform and in a marked police car, a police officer is required to identify themselves by means of documentation, by means of the warrant that they carry -

Mr Parkinson - Where is that requirement spelt out?

Mr DEAN - That would be in the Police Standing Orders, not at law but in Police Standing Orders. It was there and I suspect it is still there. It is covered for police in those situations and that is when they are in uniform. There is a real need for it today. Had we been talking about 15 years ago or 20 years ago perhaps you might say no. People were more trusting and I think probably more likely to accept a person on their say-so. But no longer is that the case. If I did not know a person, no way would I allow them on my property or provide them with my name and details.

There are so many examples that we can give to show that is no longer acceptable under any circumstances. Identification can be carried in a wallet, it can be carried in a car and if somebody gets called out it is not unreasonable that they should carry identification on them. It is just not acceptable. I would ask for some undertaking from the Leader to ensure that that is incorporated into the rewrite or review of the regulations which I understand is going to take place very shortly. I think it has 12 months to go.

I would be satisfied if I could get that undertaking, Mr President. I think the TFGA's position is right. They have looked at this very closely and I can understand their concern.

The other one I want to mention in conclusion, Mr President, is the time limit. I can probably cover this more in the Committee stage. Suffice to say that I think it is good that in this bill the time limit for prosecution has been extended. I think that is reasonable in all of the circumstances and I will probably go into that a little further in the Committee stage.