Page 1574 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 19 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE (10.58): Madam Speaker, Mr Wood, having drawn my attention to my misreading of the Act on a previous occasion - you know how it is when we have however many Acts it is to pursue - will be pleased to know that I have discussed the matter with one of his officers in the last minute and a half. He has been kind enough to assure me that he will send me a form so that we can take care of this matter as soon as possible. Having had this matter drawn to my attention, I can act as quickly as possible to rectify the situation.
MR DE DOMENICO (10.59): Madam Speaker, whilst we are in question mode - this is something that I am not concerned about, but other people might be - I heard someone say that one can have only three dogs at any one time in the backyard, or something. If that is true, I would ask the Minister this question: What happens if your bitch has puppies and there are more than three dogs? Is that catered for? As you are probably aware, Mr Minister, apparently you need a breeder's licence. What happens if some young dog jumps the fence and does something naughty to your pedigree bitch? I do not think you need a breeder's licence. Perhaps you might look at the Animal Welfare Act, or whatever.
MS SZUTY (11.00): For Mr De Domenico's benefit, on my subsequent rereading of the Act at present, it is okay as long as the dog has not attained the age of three months.
MR STEVENSON (11.00): Words of assurance by the Minister suggesting that people's privacy is being protected are nice to hear, but the Bill clearly increases the powers of inspectors under section 18H to enter premises to investigate any - once again that is underlined - alleged breaches of the Act. That is the concern. Once upon a time members of the Liberal Party of Australia would have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent such laws being introduced - and a good thing too. Unfortunately, it is not all that uncommon these days.
Mr De Domenico: That is not true. We have not gone to the dogs, Mr Stevenson. It is not true.
MR STEVENSON: I have not said that you have gone to the dogs, but if you would go back to the original policies and start fighting for what the Liberal Party believed in, with a pre-eminence on individual rights, I think we would all do a lot better. It is unfortunate that often I am the only one who stands up in this Assembly for the principles. I grant that not everybody might know that these things are being done. Indeed, why I will vote against the Bill may not even be reported in the media. Someone might say that people are tremendously concerned about dogs in the ACT and Stevenson voted against it.
Mr Moore: Yep.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Moore says, "Yep". That is a misrepresentation. It is typical of what Mr Moore gets up to when he misrepresents things. I would not doubt that he would be one of the people who would suggest just that. What we need to do, as members of parliament, above all else, is protect the rights of individuals. By all means let us have a balanced debate on dogs. Let us introduce legislation that will not cause a problem. Let us introduce legislation that gives fair powers to inspectors. As I said, certainly they should have the opportunity to go onto property immediately and handle vicious dogs.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .