Page 5262 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 29 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (3.44): With regard to 8E, where the government seeks to omit clause 9, we believe that it is reasonable that such costs should be borne by the complainant rather than by the taxpayer. If the minister could provide any clarity as to whether that is elsewhere in the legislation, that would be useful.
MADAM SPEAKER: I will let you think on that, Ms Fitzharris.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (3.45): Both the Liberals’ bill and the government’s amendments to it include fees and penalties for failing to meet stringent conditions imposed on keepers of dangerous dogs. The government amendments increase the discretion for the registrar to either not register a dog or cancel a registration in appropriate circumstances, and there are penalty units for allowing animal nuisance. However, I note that that, as I understand it, the registrar is no longer required to investigate animal nuisance complaints, which seems to run contrary to the thrust of the other amendments.
MS FITZHARRIS (Yerrabi—Minister for Health and Wellbeing, Minister for Transport and City Services and Minister for Higher Education, Training and Research) (3.45): Clause 8E removes the requirement for a complainant to pay the costs of impounding a dog if the court finds the complaint to be frivolous or vexatious.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (3.46): Sorry; I just realised that there were two bits to this. I would like to talk about the Coe-Doszpot amendments which propose various defences that allow a registrar to not destroy a dog, including that the attack injury occurred as a result of victims trespassing in an area where the dog was rightfully held. I am concerned that this trespass clause is sufficient reason not to destroy a dangerous dog. While trespassing is illegal, it should not be fatal. Members may be aware of a long history of common law regarding mantraps, which were originally intended to prevent landowners laying traps for poachers. It created over the centuries a reasonable expectation that people should not create dangerous situations for others, even on private land.
I have raised this matter with both the Coe office and the minister’s office; however, I am not quite sure that this is a point that has been adequately made. I have been told about requirements for notices at all entrances, but I am not sure how this is all enforced. I would assume that the government’s amendments to sections 50(3)(b) and (c) introduce enough discretion for the registrar to consider public safety in her determinations as a sufficient solution to this issue.
Also on this amendment 9, because it is a large amendment, this bill and the amendments are likely to increase the numbers of declared dangerous dogs and increase the cost of conditions for keeping a dangerous dog. I appreciate the valuable role that control areas can play in managing risky dogs and increasing public safety. I am not certain that the designation of dangerous dog status needs to be for the life of the dog. The control orders require owners to participate in behaviour training for dogs that have harassed and have the potential to cause injury. This training is obviously designed to improve the dog’s behaviour and potentially one day produce a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video