Adams Paul: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Adams Paul: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12486] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3). It is an omnibus bill that amends a number of Acts. However in my view there are no significant changes of policy and it remains a relatively uncontroversial bill. I will therefore not take up too much of the House’s time on this matter. 
The bill first makes changes to the Dog Control Act 1996 and I will begin by noting that it was only late last year that the House amended this Act. It is therefore disappointing that here we are in April already having to tidy up a whole lot of mistakes created by our last bout of interference. It is disappointing that the Minister is unable to get his officials to produce law that will not take up the House’s time for at least a couple of years after its enactment. In this case there appears to be no other reason for the changes except that “Oops we mucked up and forgot to put these things in last time but now that we have discovered them we desperately need to do something about this.” But United Future being the party of common sense that is committed to stable government is therefore happy to help the Government out on this one. There are some worthwhile amendments and I will now take a moment to dwell on a few of them. 
Firstly the last time around we neglected to make it an offence to fail to undertake a dog education or obedience course if a person is so ordered following his or her classification as a probationary dog owner. Obviously if someone has been classified as a probationary dog owner there is a reason for it. Either an incident has occurred involving the person’s dog which may have led to harm or the owner has been shown to be neglectful in the ownership of a dog. However it was that these people came to find themselves in need of further education on dog ownership they need to be compelled to undertake such a course. To not do so would not only be a blatant flouting of the rule of law but it would also turn these rules we have into a farce. We have them for a reason: to protect the public and maintain safety as well as for the good of the dogs themselves. In any event to be ordered to brush up on one’s dogs skills and then to be allowed to ignore such an order is unacceptable and it needs to be an offence to ignore it. 
It also appears that while the fine for this offence upon summary conviction is put at the hefty figure of $3000 there is no discretion for a dog control officer to issue an instant fine of a lesser amount—a remedy that would save the courts and everyone else a lot of time I am sure. Although we will seek further clarification of this matter it is an amendment that we will be looking to add while this bill is before the select committee. I think the instant fine system just makes life a lot simpler. 
There is another amendment to the Dog Control Act that I will also comment on and it relates to the instalment of the power for the recapture of dogs that are unlawfully free. This amazes me because I am unable to comprehend why exactly this is expressed in legislation. Is there a huge problem with renegade owners unlawfully springing their offending dogs from the doggy jail? Is there an elaborate canine network of dogs working to free one another from the pound? I think not and it would seem very strange if this indeed were the case. The only other alternative that springs to mind is that the dogs are being deliberately let out prior to their intended or lawful release. In this circumstance one is bound to ask about the competence of dog pound management and those who handle the cases of impounded and dangerous dogs. Should we really have to legislate for their incompetence? My message would be simple: get it right the first time around so that Parliament can stop wasting its time on such matters. 
The bill also deals with the Local Electoral Act 2001. In particular it provides for the election of our near cousins—the local body politicians. Specifically clause 28 of this bill amends section 57B of the principal Act. At present section 57B prohibits a person from being a candidate for election in more than one ward or constituency of the same local authority at the same election and rightfully so. We cannot have some local tyrant taking over the entire council. The amendment contained in this bill clarifies that the prohibition created by section 57B does not apply to a person who is a candidate for election as a member of a ward and as mayor of the territorial authority of which that ward forms part. 
Aside from avoiding a disaster at the up and coming local body elections might I say that it is hard enough to get good people interested in running in local body elections and interested in local authorities generally. It would therefore be a massive shame if we were to have a law that effectively ditched the worthy and experienced councillors we do have—who incidentally form the bulk of the pool of candidates who run for mayor—because they decided to stretch for a higher position. What a tragedy it would be if such hard-to-come-by individuals were given the heave-ho because of a drafting error in local electoral law. We are therefore pleased to support this particular aspect of the bill. The Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) is a worthy bill amending a number of pieces of useful legislation. United Future is pleased to support it to a select committee for hearing and I commend it to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Honourable members just before I call the next member I will say that during the honourable Paul Adams’ speech a cellphone rang. It is a distraction it is not necessary during debate in the Chamber and I urge members to show restraint and good manners. It is discourteous to the House and all of those in it and is out of order. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 16/2.