Page 1340 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, the amendments put forward by Ms Szuty, in our opinion, do not address the total problem and do not give a clear signal to the dog owners to get their act together. In fact, in some instances Ms Szuty's Bill raises some questions that we think should be answered. We believe that, if we can all work together constructively on Ms Szuty's amendments, other changes we might come up with and the changes of the working party, it will be a good Bill.
I specifically draw Ms Szuty's attention to the wording in clause 6. The change of wording proposed there is purely semantic. Whether the court thinks fit or whether it decides that there are extenuating circumstances, it still means that the court has to make a decision based on the evidence. Either way, it will not make the decision lightly. In fact the courts have been quite hesitant in determining that a dog should be destroyed. So in this sense I do not think that the amendment offered in clause 6 will change the situation.
There is also a problem with clause 8. This clause refers to the term "former keeper". There is a real problem because the word "keeper" is not defined. I believe that the intention is clear, but I think the Bill should make clear who the current keeper of an impounded dog will be. Will it be the pound or will it be the owner? Madam Speaker, the term "former keeper" also needs defining. The current Act does not define a keeper of a dog. Is it the person who feeds it, is it the person who owns it or is it a person who is looking after it, whether temporarily or permanently?
Madam Speaker, I also have some difficulty with the principle in paragraph 8(e) of the Territory footing the bill for a dog that has been impounded but not found guilty. This could mean that someone who has a gripe with a neighbour over a yapping dog, for instance, could file a complaint that the dog has threatened to attack or in fact did attack and could have the dog impounded under section 31 of the Act for up to 30 days. It would be a means of temporary relief. At the end of the period of impounding the Territory would have to pick up the bill for looking after the dog. Madam Speaker, I believe that Ms Szuty could have gone further with her amendment in this regard and placed some responsibility on those filing the complaint as well.
However, Madam Speaker, as I said, in general the Liberal Party agrees with Ms Szuty's intention. Whilst we think that in some instances the provisions of the Bill do not go far enough, I hope that with consultation between her and us, plus the Minister and the working party, we can come up with a good Bill and not waste the time of this house debating something that may very well be amended in the next fortnight or the next week or so. For that reason I am quite prepared to submit my proposed amendment to the Minister so that it can be investigated by the working party and then debated, if at all, concurrently with whatever the Minister and Ms Szuty are proposing. In that way we might finish up with a coordinated Bill, which in my opinion would be much better.
I congratulate Ms Szuty on agreeing to allow the Minister to defer this Bill for the time being. In due time Ms Szuty's ideas can be incorporated and we certainly will support them.
Debate (on motion by Mr Berry) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .