Page 5266 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 29 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS FITZHARRIS (Yerrabi—Minister for Health and Wellbeing, Minister for Transport and City Services and Minister for Higher Education, Training and Research) (4.00): I note that this appears to be the subject of the differences between the government and the opposition. But I point out to the opposition that in their own legislation the dog must be destroyed, except in certain instances. So there is discretion within the opposition’s original bill. I read from the opposition’s bill:
… the registrar may decide not to destroy the dog under subsection (3) if satisfied—
(a) the person or animal provoked the dog; or
(b) the person or animal was attacked because the dog came to the aid of a person or animal the dog could be expected to protect; or
(c) if the attack was on premises occupied by the keeper of the dog—the person was on the premises without lawful excuse.
The opposition’s bill has instances where the dog must not be destroyed. What the government’s amendments have sought to do is mirror that, clarify the legislation, but also provide, underpinning all of this, the fundamental test of public safety, which the opposition’s original bill did not have. Indeed, the fundamental test of public safety is in around 30 clauses in our amendments. If the opposition is going to say that this must be the case in every circumstance, that is not what was originally proposed in their bill. I wanted to put that on the record and make that clear. We share a common intent here. There is some level of minor discretion but only in exceptional circumstances in the opposition’s bill and in the government amendments. Where we think the government’s amendments further strengthen this clause is to have an underpinning public safety test, which the opposition’s original bill did not have.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new clauses 9A to 9F.
MS FITZHARRIS (Yerrabi—Minister for Health and Wellbeing, Minister for Transport and City Services and Minister for Higher Education, Training and Research) (4.02): I move amendment No 11 circulated in my name, which inserts new clauses 9A to 9F [see schedule 1 at page 5334].
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (4.03): We have some concerns about proposed new clause 9B, with regard to discretionary powers, and also about proposed new clause 9E, which relates to sections 56(f) and (g). This is with regard to the removal of seizure powers in the amendment. Whilst section 56(f) is somewhat replicated under proposed clause 9F by a reference to control orders, the power to seize dogs under section 70(4), if conditions are breached after a seized dog is returned to an owner, is no longer clear. The Canberra Liberals think that seizure powers should extend to section 134, where a person refuses to provide details to an authorised person. We think that there are issues with this particular clause.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video