ParanoidRodent: This is one of those rare private member's bills that will go through with barely any debate or issues.  Usually, opposition bills are symbolic gestures that have no hope of passing but once in a while, a non-partisan one that just makes sense becomes law.

The Senate might tweak the wording to avoid any potentially overly broad interpretation (e.g. no one should be prosecuted because their dog humped their leg), but as the article mentions, it was widely understood that any act of sexual touching of an animal (without an obvious non-gratification reason like a farmer collecting (ahem) genetic material or a vet doing him job) was illegal.  The loophole was a side effect of law writers assuming that they had been clear enough and archaic precedents from English common law that used to treat PIV as the only real form of sexual assault.

The creep's lawyer did their job well in finding the loophole and now Parliament is going to close it.  I do wonder if some older convictions might get challenged though.

sno man: Jimmy's getting angry: Is this really our most pressing issue?

Closing a recently discovered loophole that allowed a step-dad to doge one of his sexual abuse charges with a teen? Yea, zero need to fix that at all.

sno man: punkwrestler: sno man: Jimmy's getting angry: Is this really our most pressing issue?

Closing a recently discovered loophole that allowed a step-dad to doge one of his sexual abuse charges with a teen? Yea, zero need to fix that at all.

He escaped one charge, not all of them. Wouldn't it be better to drop this whole issue rather than write in an overly bad broad law?

What if the animal consents?

What if the animal initiates? Dolphins are rape-y horndogs.