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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3339 ..

MR CORBELL (5.30): I assume that is a yes from the minister; that that is the sort of circumstance that this clause is meant to address.

Mr Smyth: Yes.

MR CORBELL: The minister acknowledges that. On the grounds that that is the sort of circumstance which this clause is meant to address, the Labor Party is prepared to support the provisions of the bill and not Ms Tucker's amendment. We do not want a requirement for further formal communication to ensure that an animal which has been cited for destruction is destroyed when a police officer is on the scene and knows that the animal is behaving in a dangerous way and needs to be destroyed.

Clause 115 agreed to.

Clause 116.

MS TUCKER (5.31): I move:

This clause states that if an officer is required to kill a vicious animal that cannot be seized then the officer must consider the safety of members of the public. My amendment merely adds that the safety of other animals should also be considered.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (5.31): The government will support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 117 agreed to.

Clause 118.

MS TUCKER (5.32): I move:

This amendment inserts an additional decision that can be reviewed by the AAT: a decision by the registrar not to issue an animal nuisance notice after a complaint is made. This seems only fair, given that in the reverse situation a person against whom a nuisance notice is issued can appeal against the notice. Giving complainants the right to

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