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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3338 ..

MS TUCKER (5.26): I move:

The wording of this clause is a bit peculiar. It says that a police officer or veterinary surgeon who reasonably believes that the registrar has asked for the destruction of an animal may destroy the animal. I think that a request to kill an animal should be made very clear by the registrar and not be left to the discretion of the police officer or vet. There must be no doubt about whether an animal has to be killed or not, because there is no way that a dog killed in error can be brought back to life. My amendment states that killing an animal must clearly be at the registrar's request.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (5.27): The government will oppose this amendment. The clause empowers vets and police officers to put down animals that the registrar has decided should be put down. The current drafting allows the vet or the police officer to do so when they believe on reasonable grounds that the registrar has requested that the animal be put down. The amendment arguably requires the registrar requesting the police officer to destroy the dog. This will add substantially to administrative costs, since the registrar will need to ensure that the request is made to the vet and/or the police on duty on the day the work is to be done. We do not believe that that is an efficient way to carry out this work.

But even on Ms Tucker's drafting, the vet or the police officer will only be able to form a view about whether the registrar has requested the destruction of the dog based on reasonable belief. This is true even if the request is made in person after the registrar has produced identification and his or her notice of appointment. We believe the way we have worded the bill is adequate, and it should not be changed.

MR CORBELL (5.28): I would be interested to hear the minister's description of a situation where this clause would be used. The provision, as the minister explains it, allows for circumstances where an animal may be destroyed by a police officer or veterinary surgeon who reasonably believes that the registrar has asked for the destruction of the animal. Does the minister envisage that this clause would be used in situations where, say, an animal had been cited for destruction by the registrar, a police officer receives a complaint that an animal has attacked another animal or person, traps or otherwise finds the animal, believes it to be the animal the registrar has requested be destroyed and acts on that belief without further formal communications?

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (5.29): The registrar will be accountable, and he or she will have only limited powers to destroy a dog. Each exercise of the power will need justification, and it will be possible only with proper documentation. Even a non-public servant deputy registrar exercising power for the registrar will be accountable in that way as well. We believe the way we have set the process out enables it to be carried out in an appropriate manner. We believe the way Ms Tucker would set it out would make it onerous for the registrar to give the authority to either the police officer or the vet.

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