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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3340 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

appeal against decisions not to act on a complaint also puts more pressure on the registrar to adequately investigate complaints rather than dismissing them too easily.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (5.32): The government will oppose the amendment. The clause sets out the list of decisions of the registrar that are reviewable by the AAT. The amendment proposed adds a decision to refuse to issue a nuisance notice under clause 111. We think the amendment should be opposed, because it allows persons dissatisfied with the outcome of their nuisance complaint to pursue neighbourhood disputes through the AAT. These complaints frequently arise in the course of neighbourhood disputes, and officers deal with them all the time.

The bill provides for the independent umpire, the registrar, to make the decision about whether or not the complaint about the nuisance animal is fair. If the registrar decides there is no basis for the complaint, he or she is required to provide information about how they can resolve the dispute by mediation. The amendment gives parties a very litigious option. We are trying to go the mediation route. We do not want this legislation being used as another tool in neighbourhood disputes. The government will oppose the amendment.

MR CORBELL (5.33): The Labor Party will not support this amendment either. Again, as the minister has said, disputes about animals are very common in our community. I am not convinced that allowing appeals to the AAT will ultimately resolve this issue. In fact, it will only potentially prolong neighbourhood disputes that can be better resolved in other ways.

The bill sets out other ways for complaints, about dogs particularly, to be addressed, and I would prefer to see those mechanisms utilised. However, if it does become apparent, following the commencement of this bill as an act, that there is a need for this sort of mechanism, the Labor Party would be happy to reconsider it. At this stage we are not convinced that it is required.

MS TUCKER (5.34): I did not hear either member address the fact that in the reverse situation there is an appeal right. The person against whom a nuisance notice is issued can appeal against the notice. That seems an unfair entitlement. If people are worried about neighbourhood disputes, this is one of the mechanisms by which such disputes can be resolved. If one party has greater rights to appeal than others, then that does not seem a very consistent approach.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 118 agreed to.

Clauses 119 to 121, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 122.

MS TUCKER (5.35): I move:

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