Page 5263 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 29 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
no longer dangerous dog. I would like to see a rehabilitation path off the dangerous dog list included.
I welcome the government amendment introducing section 53D, revocation of control orders. This could provide an additional incentive order for owners to adhere to control orders, to take training responsibilities seriously and to look forward to the light at the end of the tunnel, which is in part, of course, not paying $750 for dangerous dog registration renewal every 12 months. I think that a road back could really help owners to work with their dogs to no longer be dangerous.
Ordered that the question be divided.
Clause 8 and proposed new clauses 8A to 8D agreed to.
Proposed new clause 8E agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9.
MS FITZHARRIS (Yerrabi—Minister for Health and Wellbeing, Minister for Transport and City Services and Minister for Higher Education, Training and Research) (3.50): I move amendment No 1 on the pink sheet circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 5350]. These additional amendments which the government has put forward today are in response to some clarification that I understand the opposition requested in discussions with the government. The new amendments in amendment No 1 are around the definition under section 53A(4) and (5), where words have been inserted that the registrar may make guidelines about how the registrar investigates complaints, and that those guidelines will be a notifiable instrument.
In addition, under 53B, there is a new amendment to section (3), which states:
However, subsection (2) does not apply if, and only if, the registrar is reasonably satisfied the dog is not likely to be a danger to the public or another animal.
That is clarifying the previous amendments by the government. In general, Madam Speaker, these clauses create a number of new sections resulting in new responses to classes of dog attacks, with appropriate powers to act by the registrar, and also introduce a control order. This clause enables a person to make a written complaint about an attack by a dog, or a harassing, aggressive or menacing dog, and gives the registrar the power to investigate the complaint. The registrar must investigate a complaint about an attack that has caused the death of, or serious injury to, a person.
The clause relating to a class 1 attack requires the registrar to take action if reasonably satisfied, by a complaint or otherwise, that a dog attacked and caused the death or serious injury of a person, or the death of an animal. In this case, the registrar must destroy the dog, unless the dog is not likely to be a danger to the public or another animal and certain considerations have been taken into account. If the registrar decides not to destroy the dog under this section, the registrar can declare the dog a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video