Page 1568 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 19 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We in the Liberal Party are quite happy to wait and see what the Minister comes up with through the processes of his working party. We are quite happy to stall with our proposed amendments, and we will provide those as our input to the working party itself.
We cannot see any value in politicising the matter of amendments to the Dog Control Act, particularly when the Government has been indicating its intention to deal firmly with the matter and to approach it in a bipartisan way. It is mainly for this reason that we would have preferred Ms Szuty to have held off for the time being. However, it was mentioned last week also that we feel that there are some errors in Ms Szuty's Bill that raise further questions, such as the definition of "former keeper" when not even "keeper" is defined in the Dog Control Act. We felt that the matter of the Territory picking up the tab for a dog found to be innocent of a charge left open the possibility of people making frivolous charges simply to get a dog out of the way for a few weeks. However, we may find that these kinds of matters will be brought forward when the Act is further amended in due course. Madam Speaker, we will support Ms Szuty's Bill, but with the reservations that we have outlined.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (10.35): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a further speech on this Bill.
Leave granted.
MR WOOD: I note what Mr De Domenico has said. It is certainly the case that there is no doubt that the Assembly as a whole is keen to discuss this in a bipartisan, tripartisan or multipartisan way. I hope that there has been no confusion about this. I said in my discussions with Mr Westende, who is very interested in the subject, that I would be quite happy for it all to be delayed until we could look at the consolidated effort, as it were. I have also made the point, Mr De Domenico, that this is a private members Bill and that the timing of it is up to Ms Szuty. I indicated my view. Ms Szuty has said that she prefers to take it through now, and I think that says it all. These amendments, I think, are sound. I do not think they will inhibit, impinge unnecessarily on or restrict future discussions. I do emphasise the point that it is private members business and it is in Ms Szuty's hands as to how she sees it should be run.
MR STEVENSON (10.37): Many people in Australia believe that the country is going to the dogs. If this Bill goes through, the saying, "It's a dog's life" could take on a whole new meaning.
Mr De Domenico: I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
MR STEVENSON: I certainly agree with what Mr De Domenico mentioned before. I think that is by far the better approach to take. However, there is something else that I think is highly relevant and that nobody else has mentioned. Ms Szuty said in her speech:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .