Page 3297 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
across the chamber for that. We have, of course, extended the Administrative Appeals Tribunal appeal rights, which I think is reasonable, and, of course, are providing for compulsory cat desexing before three months of age.
Mr Pratt has quite recently described many of the features of the bill, and I do not propose to go into too much detail any further. We do believe that this piece of legislation shoots back responsibility to owners. We want to make it an incentive for people to enjoy the amenity of a pet. As Dr Foskey quite rightly points out, it is almost inherent in the psychological wellbeing of people to have some kind of a pet around, whether that is a budgie, whether it is a dog, whether it is a cat. Some people even have an attachment to axelotals, but I have to say that they are not on the dangerous breed either.
When we acknowledge the fact that people have these pets around, it is important that they actually treat them properly and have regard to people in the neighbourhood besides themselves, which is why we have codes of practice for keeping animals. We have spoken about the keeping of multiple cats—I have three. My wife wants four, and I said, “Go and get a licence.” So now we have got three. So, that one worked.
We have better defined the dog-prohibited areas in the bill, but it is incumbent upon us when we talk about dog-prohibited areas to publish those areas where dogs can go. I would direct people’s attention to the website and/or Canberra Connect, and we will happily tell people where that is.
Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their support. I think it shows what we can do, and I do express my appreciation to Mr Pratt and to Dr Foskey, not only for their support but also the work and the support of the people in their offices who have worked with mine to come up with a good solution. I do pay my respects to those officers.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Clauses 1 to 8, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 9.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella—Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (5.30): I leapt to my feet very quickly, and I wish to explain to Dr Foskey why that was. Our amendments actually go in synch a bit, and I wished to put my amendment first. If my amendment is passed, it does not necessarily follow that Dr Foskey’s will not. But she may choose, then, whether to proceed or not to proceed when she has heard the argument that I put forward, rather than her having to put the argument and then lose that particular amendment. So, if you wish to accuse me of being a little bit considerate—which is a bit unusual—Dr Foskey, then I plead guilty to that. I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at 3312].
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .