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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3326 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The Greens therefore cannot support this part of the bill. We believe that encouraging dogs to attack other animals, even if they are only feral animals, is unethical and dangerous, because dogs will not be able to distinguish between classes of animal. I have therefore put up an amendment to delete this exclusion.

MR CORBELL (4.52): The Labor Party will not be supporting this amendment. I have discussed this amendment with a person from Ms Tucker's office. However, I am not convinced of the need for this amendment. Indeed, it could be argued that, if the amendment was successful, it would result in removing a provision which would mean the bill would then not have any clauses relating to animals attacking other animals or people. I do not think that is an acceptable outcome.

That aside, this bill does need to take some account of the practices which responsible rural leaseholders undertake in relation to managing their leases and animals on their leases. I take Ms Tucker's point about a definition of vermin. However, I would hope that this clause and this amendment would be dealt with in a reasonable way.

It is important to emphasise that the clause as it currently stands means that the onus is on the defendant to demonstrate that they reasonably believed the animal to be vermin when the dog attacked it. That places considerable onus on the person who is charged to demonstrate that what occurred was reasonable, and that it was not simply some exercise in inhumane sport, which I know is a concern.

I am not convinced of the need to omit this subclause. We do need to take account of the practices of rural lessees which are accepted practices in relation to management of rural leases. We cannot support the amendment.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (4.55): The government will also oppose the amendment, along the same lines as outlined by Mr Corbell. The Animal Welfare Act has a provision against cruelty. Anyone caught acting cruelly with a dog will be prosecuted.

Question put:

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