Page 1575 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 19 May 1993

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

There is no doubt whatsoever about that. The people of Canberra are very concerned about many matters related to dog control, but to pass an amendment that includes the right of inspectors to enter premises - not only the premises of the dog owner, but any premises; yours, behind your fence, Michael, or any others - - -

Mr Berry: They can come in as long as they kick the lawn-mower over while they are there.

MR STEVENSON: Mr Berry says, "They can come in as long as they kick the lawn-mower over". He might want to get out and mow a few of those places that people have said are not being mowed as often since self-government came in. Why does he not run along the road pushing a mower in front of him and make use of the exercise? As I said, I consider it a very important point that we not take away people's right to privacy. It is true that we should do something about the problem of dogs in the ACT. It is long past the time when we should take that action. But to give a carte blanche right for inspectors to enter private property, under any action on the Bill, is not okay.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8

MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.04): Madam Speaker, I move:

Page 2, paragraph (e), lines 26 and 27, omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraph:

"(e) by omitting paragraphs (3)(a) and (b) and substituting the following paragraphs:

'(a) before the expiration of 28 days after the day on which the dog was seized, the Registrar believes on reasonable grounds that the Director of Public Prosecutions will not institute proceedings for an offence against section 25;

(b) at the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (a) proceedings for such an offence have not been instituted; or

I believe that Ms Szuty will agree with it. This is done for two reasons. One is that the subclause relating to the cost of impounding the dog being borne by the Territory is unnecessary. If we are stuck with the dog, we are stuck with the costs. Secondly, the major import of this amendment is that it will enable the pound, or whoever takes the dog in, to release the dog as soon as it becomes clear, as specified here, that the dog is not going to be destroyed and is able to be returned to its owner. It was likely, the way it was drafted before, that the dog had to be kept for a full 28 days. We have just tidied that up.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .