Page 3298 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This amendment provides an additional exemption to the requirement for a dog to wear its registration tag in a public place under section 15(2) of the act. The existing act provides that a dog is exempt from wearing its registration tag in a public place on the advice of a veterinary surgeon given for the health or the welfare of the dog.
Submissions were received from the ACT Canine Association requesting that an exemption be granted to dogs allowing them not to wear their registration tags in cases where they are competing in shows or dog sports conducted on public land. Advice received indicated that the most efficient way to grant such exemptions would be to allow the registrar to approve them in writing either on a longstanding basis or for individual special cases.
This amendment grants the registrar the power to grant such exemptions in circumstances approved on application in writing. As required, the necessary procedure for application and processing applications and reviewing and appealing decisions can be provided by subsequent amendment to the Domestic Animals Regulations 2001.
Referring to Dr Foskey’s amendment, which she has graciously circulated, as I have indicated earlier, limiting it to the Canine Owners Association limits it to only one organisation. I remember going to the Companion Dog Club and a few other dog clubs around the place, and I think it is reasonable that we have an overarching process for those folks to apply to. That is why we are not supporting that amendment.
With respect to Dr Foskey’s amendment proposed that it does not apply if the occupier of the premises consents to a dog not wearing its registration tag or another tag showing its registration number, we are a little concerned about this, because what can happen here is two possible things amongst many. One is that all the bona fides will be intact. I will take my dog, for example, to Dr Foskey’s house and perhaps ask her whether she would mind bathing the dog while I go and do the shopping. So she does so and takes the collar off. That is fine at this stage, because there is either direct or implied consent that that will happen, and that would satisfy the issue that Dr Foskey has. I have got no problem with that. But what happens if that dog escapes because there was inadequate security in that particular premises?
Mrs Dunne: Your dog has bolted.
MR HARGREAVES: Yes, your dog has bolted, and that is not the first time we have said anything about dog bolters. What happens also, I ask, if those premises are on the edge of a nature park? Dr Foskey talked about the damage that cats did in Mulligan’s Flat, and I agree with her, reluctantly, because I have got three cats. My cat does not understand that—I have asked him, and he still does not understand it!
The point, of course, is that I have not seen a cat pull down a fully grown kangaroo in my life, but I have seen a dog do it. We have to understand that if the dogs are shot and they have got tags on them, we can hold an owner responsible. But if a dog visits a premises which does not have the right security and it is on the edge of a nature park, for example, down Banks and Condor way, it can go down to the Lanyon Homestead area and take sheep out—Mr Pratt has been particularly critical of us in the past for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .