Page 5237 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 29 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new clauses 5A to 5H.
MS FITZHARRIS (Yerrabi—Minister for Health, Minister for Transport and City Services and Minister for Higher Education, Training and Research) (12.33): I move amendment No 5 circulated in my name, which inserts new clauses 5A to 5H [see schedule 1 at page 5326]. Madam Speaker, to clarify, this clause sets out grounds when the registrar must refuse to approve an application for a dangerous dog licence and also when the registrar may refuse an application. The registrar has discretion where the registrar reasonably believes there is an unacceptable risk to the safety of the public or other animals or if the applicant has failed or is unable to exercise responsible dog management, care or control.
It is important to note that, in a number of these instances, where there are new sections inserted by the government’s amendments in particular, it has often been the case that there has been no power, so inserting a power for the registrar where they may act on something is indeed strengthening what is already there. I think the opposition is interpreting that entirely as providing discretion; it is in fact giving that power in the first place. These clauses go to that point.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (12.34): It is important to note that the registrar already has very broad powers to deal with just about all of this anyway. But to have a situation, as outlined in this amendment, where the registrar may refuse to approve the issue of a licence if the registrar reasonably believes there would be an unacceptable risk to the safety of the public or other animals if the licence was issued or the applicant has failed or is unable to exercise responsible dog management, care or control—why would you say “may”? I just do not understand why in some circumstances you would allow the issue of a licence where there would be an unacceptable risk to the safety of the public or other animals if the licence was issued. Why is that not “must”? I would welcome the minister responding to explain why, in 5B, that is not “must”?
MS FITZHARRIS (Yerrabi—Minister for Health, Minister for Transport and City Services and Minister for Higher Education, Training and Research) (12.35): I do not believe there is any difference in intent. What currently exists is no power to do this. What the legislation is doing is empowering the registrar by giving them the power, through the use of the term “may”. So it is now empowering what was not previously there. As I said earlier, if every instance in this bill where “may” becomes “must”, which I think is what the opposition is saying—
Mr Coe: No, we are not saying that.
MS FITZHARRIS: In most instances, and this is where we have disagreement, including on things previously debated. We have proposed strengthening under 3G, where we have introduced new powers that were not in the opposition’s bill which say “may”. They oppose them because they want them to say “must”. We have gone from
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video