Page 1569 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 19 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Under the proposed amendment, inspectors can enter premises if they believe that the keeper of a dog is in breach of any section of the Act.
She underlined "any section of the Act". I do not believe that people agree with that. I think we well understand that there is no private property in the ACT; it is all leasehold under the Crown. But if it were private, and perhaps this relates to leasehold land anyway, people have a right to privacy.
I fully agree with and encourage an amendment that allows the immediate apprehension of a dog when that dog is known to have caused a vicious attack. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. There are many cases where the authorities, if they are around at the time, do not have the power to enter any premises, so that is a good thing. To be able to enter premises under any section of the Act is bizarre legislation that, yet again, removes our rights. People in their properties, in their homes, have a right to be protected from unwarranted intrusion. The authorities should be able to do so immediately after the event, by all means. If there are other issues, they should be proceeded with by warrant. As I have said, it just goes on and on; people's rights are infringed by politicians who decide that they know best and that they know how to handle things. That is one of the reasons why I agree with Mr De Domenico's suggestion that it would be far better to look at the issue overall and to come up with the most workable situation from all members of this Assembly.
There is no doubt that Canberrans - we have surveyed this - are very concerned about the situation of dogs in the ACT. I fully agree with that. I have asked question after question in this house and I have spoken on the matter previously, suggesting that something should be done, and there has been action taken. But the idea that inspectors can enter premises if they believe that the keeper of a dog is in breach of any section of the Act is unwarranted. I also note Ms Szuty's statement about convicted dogs. Perhaps it is the owner of the dog that is convicted and not the dog.
MR MOORE (10.40): Madam Speaker, I rise to support this Bill. It is particularly interesting for me because my family recently procured a dog. It has just about reached the six-month stage and is about due for registration. I think it is really important to understand that these amendments are not seen to be anti-dog or anti-dog owners in any way. I think they are to be welcomed by people who are sensible and responsible dog owners, and I think that is really important.
The issue raised by Mr Wood in terms of timing is important; but Ms Szuty is quite correct in proceeding with the Bill at this point, because it does improve the situation as it is now and my understanding is that it does not undermine in any way further discussion or further development. The whole subject of not only dogs but companion animals is one that I think this Assembly will be dealing with over the next few years. The notion of responsible ownership, no matter what the animal is, particularly in a city but also in the rural areas, is one that we are going to have to deal with in this Assembly. Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I support these very sensible amendments to assist people in general, and also to assist sensible, rational, responsible dog owners.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .