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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2017 Week 14 Hansard (Wednesday, 29 November 2017) . . Page.. 5235 ..

I believe that the bill as we have put it forward is reasonable. It is reasonable that dogs who have inflicted injury to a person such as bites that require stitches are recognised as dangerous. It is reasonable that a dog who inflicts serious injury on other animals is dangerous. If a dog is injuring people or seriously injures animals, it is dangerous. This is necessary. I believe that the bill as submitted should be supported.

MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (12.23): The bill introduces a requirement for the registrar to designate a dog as dangerous if the dog has attacked and caused injury to a person or serious injury to an animal. While I appreciate the difficult balancing act the legislation must perform in not being too general or too specific, I have concerns, as this amendment does not land quite where it wants to.

I am talking here specifically about the Liberal amendment to the bill, just to reduce the level of current confusion. I am concerned that the Liberals’ bill is problematic. In particular, I am not sure that a dog that causes serious injury to a wild rabbit on a farm represents the equivalent community danger to a dog who hunts and kills livestock on the same farm. Conversely, a dog who kills a rat or a mouse may not really be a dangerous dog.

I support that the government is amending this section to increase the discretion for the registrar in the designation of a dangerous dog. I do support this. I think we possibly could have made some more amendments to separate more a guard dog and a dangerous dog; they are both potentially dangerous, but the guard dog is, hopefully, well trained.

I note the comments of the opposition a while ago that the Greens should have made more amendments and that they have problems with resources. I point out that there are 11 members of the Liberal Party and two Greens.

Question put:

That the amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 13

Noes 10

Mr Barr

Ms Orr

Mr Coe

Mr Milligan

Ms Burch

Mr Pettersson

Mrs Dunne

Mr Parton

Ms Cheyne

Mr Ramsay

Mr Hanson

Mr Wall

Ms Cody

Mr Rattenbury

Mrs Jones

Ms Fitzharris

Mr Steel

Mrs Kikkert

Mr Gentleman

Ms Stephen-Smith

Ms Lawder

Ms Le Couteur

Ms Lee

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

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