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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3327 ..

The Assembly voted-

Ayes, 1    	Noes, 14

Ms Tucker  	Mr Berry
		Ms Carnell
		Mr Corbell
		Mr Cornwell
		Mr Hargreaves
		Mr Hird
		Mr Kaine
		Mr Moore
		Mr Osborne
		Mr Quinlan
		Mr Rugendyke
		Mr Smyth
		Mr Stanhope
		Mr Stefaniak

Amendment negatived.

Clause 51 agreed to.

Clause 52 agreed to.

Clause 53.

MS TUCKER (4.59): I move:

This clause is about the circumstances in which any person may legally kill a dog. There are three situations in which this can occur. The first two relate to a person killing a dog to stop an attack on themselves or another person or animal. I do not think anyone would want to allow people to take the law into their own hands and kill other people's dogs for some minor misdemeanour. But we accept that in this circumstance a person would be justified in killing a dog in self-defence.

However, we have problems with the third situation, where a person can kill a dog that is found in a field where there is an animal that has just been killed or attacked. This is really allowing a person to take the law into their own hands.

At 5.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

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