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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2017 Week 11 Hansard (Tuesday, 19 September 2017) . . Page.. 3883 ..

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 12.32 to 2.30 pm.

Questions without notice

Government—ex gratia payments

MR COE: I have a question for the Treasurer. The Financial Management Act 1996 states that when act of grace declarations are made, “The notes must indicate in relation to each payment under this section the amount and grounds for the payment.” Published reports of act of grace payments reveal there are inconsistencies between reports in different years. Treasurer, have all act of grace payments included a non-disclosure clause?

MR BARR: That is a good question. I will need to take that on notice.

MR COE: I appreciate the compliment. Treasurer, will you release information on the grounds for each act of grace payment you have authorised as Treasurer, as is required by the Financial Management Act?

MR BARR: I have no problem with that, Madam Speaker.

MS LEE: Treasurer, has each act of grace payment that you have authorised as Treasurer been fully reported, as is required by the Financial Management Act?

MR BARR: I believe so but, given this line of questioning, I will ask officials to check the record.

Animals—dangerous dogs

MR MILLIGAN: My question is to the Minister for Transport and City Services. On Monday the Canberra Times reported yet another vicious dog attack. The dead body of Daisy, the beloved pet Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, was being attacked by five dogs in its backyard. The dogs were seized by officers of the directorate but the dogs have now been returned to the owners. Minister, why were these dogs returned to the neighbourhood and were all five dogs owned by the same person?

MS FITZHARRIS: I thank Mr Milligan for the question. Indeed, all members of the community, upon reading about this attack, would have been distraught. Can I say firstly that I believe it is the case that they were all owned by the same owner but I will double-check that and report back to the Assembly if that is not the case. I certainly regret that TCCS did not advise the neighbour that these dogs were being returned. That was a serious oversight and TCCS have apologised to the neighbour who lost her dog in July.

Certainly the decision to return the dogs was made after the registrar also made a decision to declare the three adult dogs dangerous dogs. The owners subsequently

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