Page 3299 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
not policing this properly, where you get packs of three dogs going and taking sheep out—and we cannot prosecute the owner unless there is a tag on it.
So what we are saying here is that this actually relates to a third-party premises. If, for example, I go over to Mrs Dunne’s place and leave a dog, she is responsible for that dog. That is fine, because there is an arrangement between the two of us. But if the dog goes to a third place, we have no way of policing this; we have no way of finding the owner and saying, “We can prosecute you,” particularly if it is Mrs Dunne’s place. We do not know where that dog could escape to if it goes to Mrs Dunne’s place, no idea.
The issue, of course, for us, again, is that we do appreciate what Dr Foskey is proposing here, but we think that there are other issues at play here. This actually allows an escape for those people who are irresponsible dog owners. That is the only reason why we are opposing this particular amendment. I am happy, in fact, to vote this one down today and then, in the passage of time, over the next six or 12 months or so, whatever you like, if people show us evidence that this actually is not occurring or we have reason to believe that that is the case, we could, for example, talk about another amendment to the bill, sponsored by the Greens, if, in fact, they are absolutely determined to do that. I am not closing the door, but, at the moment, we are not convinced it will work. So, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, with that, I commend the government’s amendment to clause 9.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.36): It is really very heartening that the minister and his office and the various members of Domestic Animal Services have taken on our concerns and, in fact, our amendments are very similar. I am not in a position to put my amendment anymore, but I want to just indicate why it is that I believe the government’s part (b) to amendment 1 is definitely better than my part (b), because it broadens it out, replacing my “participating in an event organised by the ACT Canine Association Inc”—which was put in there because the canine association indicated that was their concern—with the broader “in circumstances approved, in writing, by the registrar”. I am quite sure the ACT Canine Association is capable of writing to the registrar and seeking approval. I would like to still argue that there are good reasons for retaining subsection (7) (a) and also subsection (8), and the minister has indicated that he will consider that perhaps down the track a little.
The first set of my amendments, and the government’s amendments, of course, deal with tag offences, and they are amendments to section 15 of the act. The proposal to replace subsection (7) and add a new subsection (8) is designed to ensure that the bill accurately reflects what really happens out there in the community and recognises reasonable behaviour. The effect of subsection (1) is that it is an offence for a dog not to be wearing a tag, even though it is on private property and the owner may well be behaving entirely reasonably. For example, Mr Hargreaves just came to my house with his dog; it was not a silky terrier, that particular dog. But if he came and asked me to give the dog a bath, which I would be unlikely to accept, under the legislation as it exists, unamended, I would be committing an offence. Even though I was bathing it in pure herbal, organic and other succulents, I would still be committing an offence. As this is a strict liability offence, I would have no defence as I have not made a mistake of fact; I have just done the minister a favour of bathing his dog and trying to convince him of the superiority of non-chemical products.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .