Page 5270 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 29 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There are a range of amendments. These are again outlined in the explanatory statement, but I draw attention to proposed new clause 16G. Destroying dogs for public safety concerns is an important preventive measure which has not currently been in legislation in the ACT. This clause gives the registrar the power to decide to destroy a dog if there is an unacceptable risk to the safety of the public or other animals and the dog cannot reasonably be rehoused, retrained or otherwise rehabilitated so that the dog is no longer an unacceptable risk to the safety of the public or other animals. The registrar must notify the dog’s keeper in writing and the dog’s keeper has seven days to apply for a review of the decision.
This is considered to be a new class of responding to a situation where there are clearly exceptional circumstances in relation to a dog’s behaviour that may not have been a specific dog attack. This is a very significant preventive measure in the government’s amendments.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (4.12): The government amendments tighten up the conditions under which a person commits an offence of breeding dogs or cats without a licence. These amendments extend to potentially limiting the number of litters that an individual animal may breed. They allow for the cancellation of a breeding licence on animal welfare grounds and they limit the duration of a breeding licence to two years rather than the existing unlimited period. As people would know, the ACT Greens have had a long history of working to improve the conditions of breeding animals, and I welcome these additional measures.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (4.13): We have issues with proposed new clause 16K and also 16O. Once again we have explicit reference to “unacceptable risk”, yet somehow they could be acceptable, even though they are deemed unacceptable. The same applies to 16O.
You would think the registrar “must” cancel a breeding licence if there were an unacceptable risk to the safety of the public, yet, no; not according to 16O. They “may” cancel it. I do not know what the term “unacceptable risk” actually means in this context, because that is actually acceptable if it is “may”. I just do not understand why it is not bumped up into (1)(a) and why it remains in (1)(b) in 16O.
I might also speak to proposed new clause 16Z. This is similar, regarding changing “must” to “may”. Under Labor’s amendment, the registrar could feasibly ignore or refuse to investigate a significant number of complaints. The government have committed to having additional rangers, so there is no reason why they should investigate fewer complaints than they currently do. It is an example of some of the issues that we have had with the legislation as a whole.
Amendment agreed to.
Proposed new clauses 16A to 16ZS agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video