Page 1572 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 19 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Detail Stage
Clauses 1 to 6, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 7
MR STEVENSON (10.50): Once again I rise on the particular point of the amendment being all empowering. I think it is worth while noting that the ACT is not like Sydney, where, if you have a dog, if you need it, or if you feel that you need it to look after the security of the property, you can build fences to ensure that the dog cannot get out.
Mr Berry: You can here, too.
MR STEVENSON: Not in the same way as in Sydney. You do not have people coming onto your property under the authority of dozens of Acts like this one which allow officers to come in for various things, in many cases unwarranted. Some are absolutely valid, of course, like the police. But in many cases it is unwarranted. There is little personal privacy in people's homes these days. Look at the point about companion animals. I think most of us would support companion animals, although it is probably worth while noting that some people do not. It is the principle of some extreme thinkers in the Animal Liberation movement to ban companion animals totally. They would require that no-one have a companion animal. The difficulty with the Bill is its all encompassing nature. I agree with the thrust of it; but I do not agree with destroying people's inalienable rights, as it does. I will vote against it for that principle.
MS SZUTY (10.52): It is interesting that Mr Stevenson mentioned the Animal Liberation organisation, because they were in fact one of the groups who responded to my amendment Bill and indicated that they supported it. I think that that is very interesting.
Mr Stevenson: I mentioned it about companion animals. Keep it in context.
MS SZUTY: I did neglect to address Mr Stevenson's concerns in his speech at the in-principle stage and - - -
Mr Berry: This is like the big fib about people having the right to bear arms, Dennis.
Mr Stevenson: Your nose will grow longer; watch it. Your glasses will fall off.
MADAM SPEAKER: Could we have some order, please! Ms Szuty has the floor.
MS SZUTY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Basically my amendment extends the provisions of the Act. We extend the provision of section 18A whereby inspectors at the moment can seize dogs only if they believe that an owner has breached the Act by keeping more than the number of dogs that he or she is allowed to have on the premises, being three. It seemed to me an anomaly that inspectors could inspect properties on this basis, where more than three dogs are suspected to be on the premises, and not be able to seize dangerous animals which have attacked people in the community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .