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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3274 ..

Clause 21 empowers the registrar to impose conditions on multiple dog licence holders. I think all members of the Assembly would be aware of instances where more than one dog next door can be a pain. The provision is amended to ensure that the registrar is not limited by the matters contained in subclause (2) when he is deciding whether or not to impose conditions on a multiple dog licence holder.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (12.16): I move amendment No 7 circulated in my name:

Clause 22 allows for a dangerous dog to be declared by the registrar. The provision has been amended to ensure that the registrar is not limited in the matters that are contained in subclause (3) in deciding whether to declare a dog dangerous.

Amendment agreed to.

MS TUCKER (12.17): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name:

This amendment fixes up what I hope is an error in the drafting. As the bill is currently drafted, where a dog is declared dangerous after it has been impounded the registrar must give the keeper of the dog a notice stating that the dog may be destroyed after seven days if the keeper does not apply for a dangerous dog licence. However, in clauses 68 and 69 of the bill the registrar is able to either destroy or sell a dangerous dog.

To be consistent, this clause should also say that a dog may be sold as an alternative to being destroyed, assuming that the buyer is willing to take on a dangerous dog. Of course, if no-one steps forward to buy the dog then the registrar has no choice but to destroy the dog. But it should be made clear that the option of sale does exist.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (12.18): The government agrees with the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

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