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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3329 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

There is not anything in the bill to say you can kill the dog if it has blood dripping from its face. Even if it did say that, it would not necessarily mean that that dog had killed the animal. There is an issue of management of dogs being free. That is certainly a concern. As I said, I know that first hand from having lived in the country. It is clear that assumptions are being made and a right which is not justified is being given.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 53 agreed to.

Clauses 54 to 56, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 57.

MS TUCKER (5.07): I move:

This clause is about the circumstances in which an authorised officer may seize a dangerous dog. A dog can be seized if there is no dangerous dog licence in force for the dog or if a dangerous dog licence has been cancelled. An authorised officer can also seize a dog if the keeper of the dog has contravened a condition of a dangerous dog licence and, having regard to the safety of the public, they believe the seizure is justified.

This last point seems quite weak compared to the other circumstances in which a dog can be seized merely because of some administrative problem of a dog licence not being in place. I would have thought the conditions would be placed on a dangerous dog licence only to protect public safety. If the conditions were broken, then this would logically create a threat to public safety. It therefore seems a bit superfluous for the authorising officer to have to assess whether the contravention of a condition of the dangerous dog licence is sufficient to warrant the seizure of the dog.

My amendment removes this requirement so that if the conditions of a dangerous dog licence are contravened then the dog can be immediately seized.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (5.08): The government will oppose the amendment, because it will widen the seizure powers. We believe the seizure powers are intended to be discretionary in every event. If there is no risk to public safety, you do not want to inhibit officers by saying, "The licence has been breached. Therefore you must take the dog away." Widening the powers in this way is not acceptable. Seizure should be discretionary. You should trust the officers on the spot to ascertain what the full circumstances are.

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