Page 3300 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
My amendment would have provided that so long as I have Mr Hargreaves’s consent I am permitted to take the collar and tag off whilst it is on my property. However, should that dog leave my property without a tag, I would be committing an offence under section 15 (2) the moment the dog was in a public place. It is for that reason that I think Mr Hargreaves should have really accepted my amendment because this issue is covered elsewhere in the act.
Further, it was brought to my attention that the current bill, where it is an offence if the keeper of a registered dog is in a public place with the dog and the dog is not wearing a tag that shows its registration number, does not provide any exception for dogs competing in shows or other dog sports as there is for dogs being off lead in public places for these circumstances. I am sure this is an oversight. The ACT canine association and its members would be breaking the law when they hold events. For example, an agility dog may not, under current ACTCA or canine association rules, compete with any tag affixed to its collar. This is necessary to ensure the safety of the dog while it is competing.
The introduction of the bill in its current form effectively requires agility members to break the law to compete in ACT canine association trials and will certainly mean most other dog sports and show people will breach it when they exhibit or compete with their dogs. The amendments that I put forward seek to resolve this issue by creating an exemption for ACTCA-sanctioned events. I acknowledge that the government’s amendment—that the registrar may approve in writing these types of circumstances—covers that concern, but I hope that down the line they also see the need to add my new subsection (8).
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (5.42): I will be supporting Mr Hargreaves’s amendment. I would not be supporting the Greens amendment, not because there is anything terribly, horrifically wrong with it but because I think Mr Hargreaves’s amendment covers the requirements that Dr Foskey is heading in the direction of. I would have concern, though, with Dr Foskey’s subsection (8). If Dr Foskey visits my place with her cross-breed cattle dog and I am going to give it a good wash, I remove the tag of that dog so that we can wash the dog. However, if Steve Pratt’s back fence has got holes in it and that dog escapes, the authorities have got a problem: we have got a dog on the loose, untagged, not identified. Dr Foskey and I would be watching that cross-breed ripping up Isaacs Ridge, taking out kangaroos. So that is why I think it is very important that we ensure that dogs which need to be tagged—and that includes dogs identified as dangerous—be 24 hours, seven days, tagged. So we will not be supporting that particular amendment.
I was just going to say that where the registrar has the flexibility to make decisions is perhaps a better way of managing these issues rather than identifying one or two particular associations which we know are absolutely reliable, capable organisations of running dog activities. But the registrar in this case will not have the flexibility to identify other associations which may be just as competent at managing dogs in such circumstances.
Amendment agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .