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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3276 ..

Clauses 34 to 39, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 40.

MS TUCKER (12.21): I move amendment No 4 circulated in my name:

I will speak to this amendment and my amendment No 5 together because they relate to each other. Clause 40 is about dog exercise areas and clause 41 is about areas where dogs are prohibited. However, each clause has a different approach to the establishment of these areas. For exercise areas, the minister makes a declaration that is disallowable. However, for prohibited areas, the minister merely has to put up signs around the area. It would be preferable that there was a consistent approach to the establishment of these areas-that is, for the area to be declared by disallowable instrument and for signs to be erected.

My amendment in respect of exercise areas therefore requires the minister to erect signs around the area in addition to the current requirement to declare the area. Conversely, my amendment in respect of prohibited areas in clause 41 requires the minister to declare the area as well as to erect signs.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (12.22): Mr Speaker, I will speak to Ms Tucker's amendments Nos 4 and 5. Clause 40 calls for the erection of signs to prove that the area is an off lead area. There are 1,156 such areas. Assuming that at a minimum you would have two or three signs at each of those areas and that, on our assessment, some areas would need eight or more signs, you are talking somewhere in the vicinity of 2,500 to 3,000 signs as a minimum. Those signs cost approximately $200 each so you are talking close to half a million dollars for signage.

The other angle is that you are talking about another 3,000-odd signs that add to further visual pollution in the ACT. So on one hand we want to do something to define these areas but on the other hand we would be adding to the visual pollution and detracting from the bush capital aspect of Canberra.

This information is freely available. It is available from Domestic Animal Services, it is at public libraries and government shopfronts, and it is my intention that we get it up on the Net. I ask the Assembly whether this half a million dollars would be better spent on domestic animal issues rather than signage. There are far greater things we could do with that amount of money in this regard than putting up additional signs.

The government will also oppose Ms Tucker's amendment No 5. This amendment seeks to change the system for setting the areas in which dogs are prohibited. Sometimes we do that on a short-term basis. For instance, a function might be held in the Stromlo Forest and we will prohibit dogs from entering the area. A disallowable instrument may come to the Assembly and dogs will be prohibited for a certain period, which might be just for a weekend. The current system works reasonably well. I just wonder whether the

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