The Newman Government has passed changes which will allow courts to impose heavier penalties on animal cruelty offenders.

An amendment to the Animal Care and Protection Act (ACPA) increased penalties for animal cruelty offences from a maximum of $110,000 or two years imprisonment to $220,000 or three years imprisonment.

“The relatively low penalties applied to animal cruelty offenders by the courts have been the subject of public criticism for several years,” Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry John McVeigh said.

“The RSPCA, in particular, has been lobbying for increased penalties to apply to offenders under both the ACPA and criminal code.

“These changes acknowledge that acts of cruelty to animals are abhorrent and that the community expects much tougher penalties to be given to perpetrators of these acts.

“The Newman Government is serious about stopping animal cruelty and this sends a clear message to the community and courts that severe penalties should apply to both punish and deter this terrible behaviour.”

Mr McVeigh said other red-tape reduction changes passed through the Agriculture and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 included a streamlining of the processes for making dangerous dog destruction orders and the reversal of statewide mandatory cat registration.

“The Newman Government has taken decisive action to cut through the red tape associated with dangerous dog destruction,” he said.

“These amendments balance the rights of owners, as they preserve the right for people to appeal decisions, but most importantly they provide for such matters to be handled quickly and efficiently.

“All too frequently we see reports about vicious dog attacks that leave people, often children and other vulnerable people, or other animals injured.  

“What is less well known is that there can be very long delays between when a dog is seized and when the local government can destroy it. The delays occur while the owner appeals the declaration of the dog and the destruction order.

“Dog owners will still be able to appeal the decisions before a dog is destroyed, but the various decisions and appeals will be able to occur concurrently so the whole process is shortened by half the time.”