Page 1571 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 19 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
While I have indicated support for the Minister's seminar and the ongoing deliberative process, I also firmly believe that these amendments which I have proposed are important in that they address the particular issue of dogs which have attacked people and other animals - an issue about which the community has expressed its deep concern. Mr Westende raised a number of matters and questions about the amendments in the Assembly last week in his in-principle speech. He also presented me with a copy of his draft Bill concerning the Dog Control Act yesterday, and I will be looking forward to discussing the issues with him when it is appropriate to do so.
Mr Westende has said to me that he is surprised that the Bill has been scheduled for debate today, as he believed that debate would be adjourned until the Minister's working party had finalised its deliberations. This had never been my intention, Madam Speaker. I believe that this issue of attacking dogs is one that we need to address for the benefit of the community. Indeed, the commencement clause of my Dog Control (Amendment) Bill was specifically dated 1 July 1993 to impress upon the Assembly the urgency of taking some action on this issue. This amendment Bill seeks to address major concerns expressed to me about attacking dogs and, while I support the Minister's broader initiatives, I believe that it still needs to be passed today.
I want to reply specifically to some of Mr Westende's questions which he raised last week in the Assembly. In respect of the provision about the courts in most instances being required to order the destruction of a dog, Mr Westende asked, "Does the court still make a decision on the basis of the evidence?". The answer would be yes. It will be up to the court in every case to look into an issue of where a dog has attacked a person or another animal, and the decision would be based on the evidence which is presented. I forwarded my amendment Bill to the Chief Magistrate and he has assured me that he is happy with the provisions as they stand. Mr Westende also referred to the word "keeper", which, as he rightly says, is not defined in the Dog Control Act. Neither is the word "owner". I checked this yesterday. I am assured by parliamentary counsel that that is no problem in terms of the interpretation of this Act or, indeed, the amendment Bill.
He also raised a question about my amendment in clause 8(e) which requires that the Territory foot the bill where owners of dogs are not convicted of an offence. That, Madam Speaker, is the situation which currently exists. In fact, my amendment Bill will require convicted owners of dogs to pay the costs of keeping their dogs in the pound. The situation for every other dog is that the Territory bears the cost of keeping those dogs at the present time. In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like once again to thank members for their contributions to this debate, and I indicate that I will be supporting the Minister's amendment to clause 8(e) of the Bill when he presents it.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .