Page 1573 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 19 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE (10.53): In rising to speak to Mr Stevenson's point, Madam Speaker, I can understand some concern for people's privacy. But, of course, that privacy concern is always balanced against the need to protect the community and to take a socially responsible attitude. I should assure Mr Stevenson that we are not talking about sniffer dogs, so he does not have to be concerned in that respect.
Mr Berry: Or Customs officers.
MR MOORE: Or Customs officers. Under Mr Stevenson's system they might be the ones needing protection. What we are dealing with in this case clearly is dogs which have caused a nuisance and which, unfortunately, have irresponsible owners. Responsible owners do not train their dogs in this sort of way. It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that the issue of fences is entirely irrelevant. Yes, in Sydney they do have front fences; but in the ACT you can have fences right up to an appropriate spot in your yard, and dogs and other animals can be contained. That is what we are dealing with, and we are dealing with the right of an officer, under quite extreme circumstances, to be able to deal with a situation they were not able to deal with. The community has been quite concerned about a number of dog attacks, and quite rightly so. Ms Szuty has now taken action to provide an appropriate power for an appropriate officer to be able to deal with that. That is why we should support this clause.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (10.55): Madam Speaker, it is correct that in legislation, and in practice, we are careful not to intrude on anybody's privacy, on anybody's property, without proper cause. Let me assure Mr Stevenson that the Act specifies the circumstances in which an inspector may enter premises. If an inspector were to abuse that, then that person could be in trouble. So it is quite specific. There is no willy-nilly running around entering property. I repeat that these provisions were placed in there with caution and are exercised with caution.
I want to embarrass, Mr Moore. As a legislator in this Assembly, he would be - and I know that he is - an honest, upright and law-abiding citizen. With that in mind, if he could borrow Ms Szuty's copy of the Act, I refer him to paragraph 19(2)(b) on page 10 of the Act. He will see there a provision relating to the registration of dogs. It is not six months, Mr Moore; it is three months.
Mr Moore: I am lucky my dog is only three months old.
Mr Kaine: Send the inspectors out today.
MR WOOD: Mr Kaine suggests that I send inspectors out today. There is, of course, a degree of acceptance that people will register their dogs; sometimes they are not exactly on time at three months. Mr Moore, we will attend to your needs very quickly when you front up.
I would also comment on what Ms Szuty said about the availability of the dog control unit. The office of the unit is open from 8.30 am to 4.30 pm. However, dog patrol officers are on duty from 6.00 am to 6.00 pm in winter and 6.00 am to 8.00 pm in summer. They are out there on patrol. They are rostered to do so. Out of hours, they are available on the call-out system. So, in effect, there is a dog patrol officer always available. It could be the case, of course, if a number of calls come in at the same time, that they cannot always instantly attend, but they are out there with a wide service that operates 24 hours a day.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .