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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3278 ..

Clause 42.

MS TUCKER (12.27): I seek leave to move my amendments Nos 6 and 7 together as they relate to the same clause.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: I move:

Clause 42 defines areas where dogs are automatically prohibited from being taken, such as the grounds of childcare centres and schools unless permission is obtained, and playing fields where sport is being conducted. Dogs are also prohibited from being taken within 10 metres of children's play equipment if there are children playing on it.

It appears that this section has been included in the bill to protect children from being bitten by dogs in situations where dogs might get excited or scared by the unpredictable actions of groups of children around them, and this seems quite reasonable. However the section goes on to ban dogs from within 10 metres of any public fireplace or barbecue and any swimming area around Canberra's lakes. The concern has been raised with me that this is too restrictive and would prevent owners taking their dogs on a picnic or to the lake.

If public safety is the main issue here then taking a dog to a barbecue or swimming area should not be a problem if there is no-one else about that could be disturbed by the dog's presence. It could be argued that there may also be a public health issue because dogs might urinate or defecate in these areas, but if this were the case why are dogs allowed in other places like playing fields and playgrounds when people are not around? Besides, this bill now introduces a requirement for dog owners to pick up and dispose of their dogs' faeces, so the public health risk from this source is diminished anyway.

The bill needs to be consistent about where dogs are prohibited from being taken. Therefore, I have put up these amendments to prohibit dogs from barbecue and swimming areas only while other people are using these facilities.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (12.29): The government will oppose both amendments Nos 6 and 7. The dilemma is that you could say, "Okay, I am having a barbecue, there is nobody at the barbecue so I will bring my dog." What happens if somebody turns up five minutes later and objects? It makes the enforcement of this very difficult for the officers.

As Ms Tucker rightly pointed out, this also goes to a question of public health issues. Certainly we will attempt to get owners to clean up faeces after their dog has made the deposit. But the removal of urine at public places may well nigh be impossible. The same

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