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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3277 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Assembly wants that level of oversight of the areas into which dogs are not allowed. The government will oppose both these amendments.

MR CORBELL (12.24): The Labor Party will not be supporting these amendments. The Labor Party agrees with the government's concern about the level of signage that would be required in relation to Ms Tucker's amendment No 4. Whilst I can appreciate Ms Tucker's desire to ensure that people fully understand what an area is designated for, I think the current system does work adequately and the maintenance of the number of signs that would be required would present more problems than would be solved.

Equally, in relation to amendment No 5, I do not know of any reason why the current system is not working well at the moment. If, however, it is proven to be not working effectively, of course I would certainly welcome the capacity for that provision to be reviewed and for possibly the act to be amended. But, at the moment, I have had no indication that the system is not working adequately, effectively and efficiently and I see no reason to legislate when clearly this is not an issue which needs to be addressed.

MS TUCKER (12.25): I understand that these amendments are not going to supported. However, I do not agree that the system is working that well at the moment. It is interesting to me that many people do not even know there are dog exercise areas; or, if they do, they do not know where they are. You obviously would not have to put up eight signs. You have taken the extreme example.

Mr Smyth: But some of them are quite long and thin and you would need to put up signs at both ends.

MS TUCKER: I think it is about raising awareness. I accept what the Assembly is saying but I do not think you would have to have all of the signs and therefore the cost that you are envisaging. If you do not want to support this proposal then at least you should be aware that there needs to be more publicity about where these areas are. You could just have one sign.

Mr Rugendyke: Hear, hear!

MS TUCKER: Mr Rugendyke agrees. You can alert the community-

Mr Rugendyke: If I knew where they were I would take my dog to them.

MS TUCKER: Mr Rugendyke does not know. If he did he would take his dog to those areas. Even though my amendments are not being supported, I think there is an issue here. There is a need for the government to put up some signage, particularly as some people with dogs are feeling quite defensive as a result of this legislation. We need to communicate more vigorously that there are areas in which dogs can run free.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 40 agreed to.

Clause 41 agreed to.

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