Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2018 Week 3 Hansard (22 March) . .
(1) In relation to an article in The Canberra Times dated 14 January 2018 that noted that Domestic Animal Service (DAS) Rangers will be operating in pairs moving forward, what is the current number of DAS Rangers on staff.
(2) How many more DAS Rangers will be hired as a result of the commitment made by the Minister relating to the dangerous dogs reform in November 2017.
(3) What analysis has the Directorate done on whether the increase in staff will be offset by the decision to have the Rangers operate in pairs.
(4) Why will DAS Rangers now operate in pairs.
(5) Will this result in an overall improvement in responsiveness and service quality, and an increase in enforcement actions, being the stated goals of the increase in the number of DAS Rangers.
Ms Fitzharris: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
(1) Currently there are eight Rangers.
(2) Eight additional Ranger positions are in the process of being recruited.
(3) The requirement for Rangers to operate in pairs when required for safety reasons has been in place for approximately two years. The increased Ranger staffing levels will have a positive impact on operational capacity and capability.
(4) The decision to have Rangers attend these incidents in pairs is primarily operational safety. Dog attack incidents, by their very nature, can be dangerous and unpredictable. When attending dog attacks, DAS Rangers are required to restrain, contain, and if necessary seize potentially aggressive and dangerous dogs. The potential risks associated with managing a dangerous dog are significantly reduced if Rangers operate in pairs.
(Question No 908)
Ms Le Couteur asked the Chief Minister, upon notice, on 16 February 2018:
(1) In relation to the City Renewal Authority (CRA) naming competition for a new park in West Basin in 2017, in which only one of the four choices put to a public vote was a woman, why did the CRA choose those names for the competition.
(2) Why was there not gender balance in the selection.
(3) What other names were considered that were not put to the public vote.
(4) Why were there no Indigenous people or names on the list.
Next page . .
Previous page. . . .
Speeches . . . .
Contents . . . .
Sittings . . . .