Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3334 ..

Clause 70 agreed to.

Clause 71.

MS TUCKER (5.17): I move:

This clause is about the power of the registrar to return impounded dogs to their owners and raises an important issue for animal liberationists. They are very concerned about the potential for innocent dogs to be held hostage and possibly be killed just because the owner may not have sufficient funds at hand to pay a fine or fee to release the dog. This clause has been improved from the exposure draft, in that the registrar now has the power to remit any fee if satisfied that not to do so would cause the keeper financial hardship.

However, I think there is a drafting problem here in that subclause (4) implies that the registrar can remit a fee only after it is paid, which seems a bit odd, because the person is getting this remission only because they are in financial hardship and cannot pay the fee. It would seem better not to charge the person the fee in the first place. I have therefore put up this amendment to change the word "paid" to "payable", which would allow a person not to pay the fee up front but merely have it as a debt which the registrar can then cancel.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (5.18): The government will oppose the amendment on the grounds of bad English. Fees that have been paid are remitted. We expect the registrar to exercise the powers on compassionate grounds. It is not the intention to destroy a dog simply because somebody cannot pay a fee. The amendment that I will move will establish that the registrar must comply with any guidelines under the section. The guidelines will be disallowable instruments, so the Assembly will have oversight on how this is put into place.

MR CORBELL (5.19): The Labor Party will be supporting this amendment. It does seem reasonable to allow the registrar, on the grounds of economic hardship, not only to remit any fees that have been paid but also to remit any debt that might be outstanding. That would appear a reasonable approach and would cover situations such as that Mr Rugendyke raised earlier in the debate about the impact the legislation may have on low-income earners or people on fixed incomes.

It is important to recognise that an animal can have considerable social benefits as well as health benefits for its owner. To remove this somewhat arbitrary division which, from the words of the bill, it appears would apply would be valuable in recognising the economic hardship that some people may face in otherwise dealing with this provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .