Seems Its Not Just Mandatory Desexing

[Diva]

I understand what this is about, but to get a good understanding of the actual legislation it needs to be read alongside the current legislation... which people should do if they are going to lodge a submission.

Yes, totally agree with this. I haven't had time yet but plan to do just that.

I am not a breeder either, but there are a number of very significant terms in the bill that don't seem to be defined adequately, for example appropriate number of dogs, genetically sound, aggressive etc; a lack of standards of proof; and some ideas that just don't add up to achieve the intended final ends. Summer reading I could do without, but I have a feeling that it's too significant not to pay attention to the detail.

[*Bones*]

The Land Court consistently upholds the decision made in Marshall v Graham (1907), a King's Bench decision, that land used exclusively for the purpose of a dwelling may be used for other purposes, and has ruled on a number of occasions tht the keeping of pets is lawful use of the land, and as such, no council approval is required, nor is approval required for a hobby (ie, keeping and breeding dogs).

The Land Court has consistently upheld this opinion iin various cases.

“A Planning and Environment Court decision in Brisbane July 2001 reaffirmed this precedent burt this is not on the internet. That ruling is that domestic activities, including the keeping and breeding or domestic pets or companion animals, conducted by the residents of a dwelling house for their enjoyment or interest, are included in any purpose for which a dwelling house may lawfully be used. Unless such use is specifically excluded bvy the local authority at the time consent is given for the erection of a dwelling.

Perhaps instead of addressing this bill, breeders/fanciers/ owners of dogs should combine and ask a constitutional lawyer for an opinion. And that opinion should be broadcast publically.

Governments and local authorities know this now.

[Steve]

The Land Court consistently upholds the decision made in Marshall v Graham (1907), a King's Bench decision, that land used exclusively for the purpose of a dwelling may be used for other purposes, and has ruled on a number of occasions tht the keeping of pets is lawful use of the land, and as such, no council approval is required, nor is approval required for a hobby (ie, keeping and breeding dogs).

The Land Court has consistently upheld this opinion iin various cases.

"A Planning and Environment Court decision in Brisbane July 2001 reaffirmed this precedent burt this is not on the internet. That ruling is that domestic activities, including the keeping and breeding or domestic pets or companion animals, conducted by the residents of a dwelling house for their enjoyment or interest, are included in any purpose for which a dwelling house may lawfully be used. Unless such use is specifically excluded bvy the local authority at the time consent is given for the erection of a dwelling.

Perhaps instead of addressing this bill, breeders/fanciers/ owners of dogs should combine and ask a constitutional lawyer for an opinion. And that opinion should be broadcast publically.

Governments and local authorities know this now.

Yes !

[Steve]

Where do I find a constitutional lawyer ?

[*Bones*]

The Law Society in whichever state should know of some. Probably some in Canberra? A good firm could give an opinion on this - by research of Land Court and Planning & Environment Court decisions - and the legal use of RESIDENTIAL land.

[Souff]

The Land Court consistently upholds the decision made in Marshall v Graham (1907), a King's Bench decision, that land used exclusively for the purpose of a dwelling may be used for other purposes, and has ruled on a number of occasions tht the keeping of pets is lawful use of the land, and as such, no council approval is required, nor is approval required for a hobby (ie, keeping and breeding dogs).

The Land Court has consistently upheld this opinion iin various cases.

“A Planning and Environment Court decision in Brisbane July 2001 reaffirmed this precedent burt this is not on the internet. That ruling is that domestic activities, including the keeping and breeding or domestic pets or companion animals, conducted by the residents of a dwelling house for their enjoyment or interest, are included in any purpose for which a dwelling house may lawfully be used. Unless such use is specifically excluded bvy the local authority at the time consent is given for the erection of a dwelling.

Perhaps instead of addressing this bill, breeders/fanciers/ owners of dogs should combine and ask a constitutional lawyer for an opinion. And that opinion should be broadcast publically.

Governments and local authorities know this now.

Gold!

[mortonplace]

http://www.ags.gov.au/whotocontact/areasof...stitutional.htm

l hope this helps??

[Diva]

http://www.ags.gov.au/whotocontact/areasof...stitutional.htm

l hope this helps??

AGS only offers legal advice to government. Not private clients.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Diva

[Steve]

so is this about useage of the property when it was erected or when you purchased it / moved in?

Edited December 16, 2010 by Steve

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

so is this about useage of the property when it was erected or when you purchased it / moved in?

because of this:

The Land Court consistently upholds the decision made in Marshall v Graham (1907), a King's Bench decision, that land used exclusively for the purpose of a dwelling may be used for other purposes, and has ruled on a number of occasions tht the keeping of pets is lawful use of the land, and as such, no council approval is required, nor is approval required for a hobby (ie, keeping and breeding dogs).

i don't think it matters because it is the use of the land since a dwelling was put on it for habitation that is at the centre of the matter.

eta so because it is land for a dwelling the above takes place....if it was land for a shop or an office it wouldn't be correct

Edited December 16, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[mita]

to get a good understanding of the actual legislation it needs to be read alongside the current legislation... which people should do if they are going to lodge a submission.

A very wise suggestion.

[whippets]

Michael and Margaret Engel vs Esk Shire Council (9th September 1998)

Will make some interesting reading if you can get hold of the full decision. It refered to S.106 of the Australian constitution where the states cannot enact a law the commonwealth has no power to enact. The court ruled that the local council, in this case, had no head of power to introduce it's local law dealing with the keeping and control of dogs. This was in Queensland in 1998.

I don't know if this case has been retested since that time.

If I ever had problems with the council then a constitutional lawyer would be the one I'd be seeing.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Michael and Margaret Engel vs Esk Shire Council (9th September 1998)

Will make some interesting reading if you can get hold of the full decision. It refered to S.106 of the Australian constitution where the states cannot enact a law the commonwealth has no power to enact. The court ruled that the local council, in this case, had no head of power to introduce it's local law dealing with the keeping and control of dogs. This was in Queensland in 1998.

I don't know if this case has been retested since that time.

If I ever had problems with the council then a constitutional lawyer would be the one I'd be seeing.

is it because if they could do that how could a citizen appeal to a higher court outside their state?

Edited December 16, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[Aidan3]

Finally, some constructive discussion.

[Aidan3]

So why has anyone got a problem with Shortstep giving THE GREENS all the publicity they deserve?

No-one has got a problem with shortstep making honest criticism, kept in perspective. The extra rubbish that has been added and the attack on Mita were out of line.

Aidan, I asked what was wrong with giving the publicity ... I never suggested that Shortstep was making "honest criticism".

You asked what the problem was, I told you. The publicity is fine.

This is a fairly robust forum and you know what they say about the heat in the kitchen ..... Good Golly, all of this fuzzy hypersensitivity in the air could make one suspect that there might be an election coming up soon!

I'm not aware of any elections coming up soon, I just don't have a problem calling out people for talking rubbish. If I couldn't stand the heat I wouldn't do it, obviously.

To depart from my admonishment of needless politicising, I have good friends in forestry. One of them is a professional shooter, at that. I run a small business in a state that relies on forestry and this has now come to an abrupt end. I think I have a right to hold an opinion on the greens, but I will limit my criticism to things they have actually done and policies they actually have. Making up rubbish is not constructive and usually leads to more lies, more distortions and more confusion about the issues.

[Souff]

Aidan2 :p you are almost doing Souff's head in .... I thought I was on a doggy forum, not on the Hush!-how-not-to-talk-about-political-parties forum.

They are all big people in those political parties Aidan and they are used to being roughed up verbally, Lord knows they GIVE as good as they GET, and they can certainly dish out far worse than Shortstep's new signature. One day I might tell you a few stories of what some of them get up to and how they talk about the poor suckers who voted for them.

Souff

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

remember we were just about on track :p

or at least on topic

Edited December 16, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

i would really like to see a test case happen. i am sure there would be a good example somewhere within the dog world

[Souff]

remember we were just about on track :p

or at least on topic

Well yes, we just about were, and then Aiden2 tiptoed back in ... ;)

[Aidan3]

Aidan2 :p you are almost doing Souff's head in .... I thought I was on a doggy forum, not on the Hush!-how-not-to-talk-about-political-parties forum.

They are all big people in those political parties Aidan and they are used to being roughed up verbally, Lord knows they GIVE as good as they GET, and they can certainly dish out far worse than Shortstep's new signature. One day I might tell you a few stories of what some of them get up to and how they talk about the poor suckers who voted for them.

Souff

I'm not sure why you think I'm worried about the politicians? That's not even close!

There are a large number of people using these forums, and each will have their own unique perspective. Writing deliberately inflammatory, misleading, and needlessly political views based on a gross distortion of the truth is offensive to anyone who has a different view (or anyone who values integrity). How do you think Greens supporters, or vegetarians feel when they see this? Or Labour party supporters? Should this be a Country Alliance or Liberal only forum?

The last time I checked it was a forum for purebred dog owners. If a political party proposes a bill that affects purebred dog owners, let's discuss it - sensibly. Let's not use the opportunity to bash or belittle others with nonsensical, paranoid rubbish. If you think the Greens have put forward a bill that stinks, of course that's fine to say. That's not "needless politicising" nor is it inflammatory, misleading or a gross distortion. Shortstep has a valid point, you just have to look very hard to find it.