Page 301 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
officers will still wear an identifying badge, which is a number. If legal action was pursued, the officer prosecuting would eventually need to appear in court and disclose their identity and the details of the offence. In fact, these details would have probably been revealed even earlier. What the amendment will do is eliminate one of the most obvious avenues for harassment of domestic animal officers: the advertising of their name on their uniform while they are undertaking their job.
I agree with the Chief Minister’s comments in his tabling speech, that it is distressing and unsettling that measures such as this are necessary. I hope this amendment goes some way to help protect public servants doing their job.
The second amendment made by the bill specifically concerns victims of dog attacks who wish to seek compensation. The amendment allows the Domestic Animals Registrar to reveal the details of a dog owner to someone who has suffered an attack from the dog. This may be necessary in cases where the owner of the dog which has caused injury refuses to reveal their details to the victim. This will facilitate the compensation process. It prevents recalcitrant owners from stymieing compensation by refusing to reveal their details.
The only issue causing some unease to the Greens was the way this amendment could impact on privacy. I was very pleased to learn that the department took the advice of the federal Privacy Commissioner in drafting this bill and that it is consistent with the information privacy principles under the Privacy Act. On a broader level, the amendment satisfies the general principle that, if a wrong has been committed, a citizen has the right to know the identity of the perpetrator.
I am satisfied that the legislation will allow vexatious claims for personal information to be weeded out. A dog owner’s personal information will only be revealed if the registrar is satisfied that the attack has occurred and it involves the person who is requesting the information on their pet or property. This disclosure will only occur once the person requesting the information has filled in a statutory declaration about the details of the attack.
I also note that, consistent with information privacy principles, there will be a change in the dog registration form to draw owners’ attention to the fact that their information can be disclosed in certain circumstances. This satisfies the important principle of telling people at the time that their personal information is collected why it is being collected and to whom it can be disclosed.
I should note that, in considering the bill, as well as speaking to the Domestic Animals Registrar, I spoke to a number of relevant stakeholders, including the Privacy Commission, the Law Society and the RSPCA. The changes in this bill are quite straightforward. They should facilitate the work of the Domestic Animals Registrar and better effect the objects of the Domestic Animals Act. We are satisfied they have been drafted properly and will be implemented judiciously.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (11.54): I rise to support this bill. There are two things, one I will speak quite seriously about in a minute. But I speak from some experience, having been chomped upon by a very large Alsatian who decided that he liked the look of my hand and used it for lunch.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video