Page 5236 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 29 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Proposed new clauses 4A and 4B.
MS FITZHARRIS (Yerrabi—Minister for Health and Wellbeing, Minister for Transport and City Services and Minister for Higher Education, Training and Research) (12.29): I move amendment No 3 circulated in my name which inserts new clauses 4A and 4B [see schedule 1 at page 5326].
Amendment agreed to.
Proposed new clauses 4A and 4B agreed to.
Clause 5.
MS FITZHARRIS (Yerrabi—Minister for Health and Wellbeing, Minister for Transport and City Services and Minister for Higher Education, Training and Research) (12.29): I move amendment No 4 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 5326].
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (12.29): What the government is proposing here is to give the government discretion to waive an application fee for a licence to keep a dangerous dog under certain circumstances. The clause as in our bill introduces an increased application fee for a dangerous dog licence. The licence fee will either be up to 10 times the application fee for the registration of the dog or $750, whichever is higher. The licence fee is justified by the significant public cost of responding to dangerous dog attacks or monitoring dangerous dogs. It is not unreasonable that the extra expense of monitoring these dogs and responding to incidents is passed on to owners or is captured through fees.
The Canberra Liberals have seen discretionary powers exploited in the past, and they, in effect, dilute the intention of legislation. The opposition believes that it is important that minimum requirements are clearly prescribed in legislation such as this, to avoid the problems we have had with discretion in the past. Again, putting more discretion in this legislation, we think, is very problematic.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (12.31): I want to talk about the $750 registration annual renewal fee that I think was originally proposed. I support the change to penalty units; it just makes more sense. The fee is a considerable increase, but we have to consider the cost to the community to manage dangerous dogs. I have raised the question of cost recovery with both the government and the Canberra Liberals. I think it is fair to say that nobody seems to know how much it costs the territory to manage a dangerous dog. The proposed amendments to this bill will certainly increase the cost, but I think it is appropriate that the broader community are not subsidising an individual person’s choice to keep a dangerous dog.
I do appreciate that the proposed larger registration fee is not likely to be a significant proportion of the overall costs of keeping a dangerous dog, considering that fencing, cages and training will be required. I understand from Mr Coe’s office that the increased fee was not intended to apply to guard dogs, and I understand that the government’s amendment makes that clear.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video