Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Experience humanity amplified

Pet rights in body corporates coming today.

By johnboy - 26 August 2008 30

When I kicked off a debate about a right to have companion animals in body corporates and rental properties I wasn’t actually aware that Andrew Barr had already fired the starters’ gun on the issue and had introduced the Unit Titles Amendment Bill 2008 which, amongst other things, addresses part of this issue.

With debate on the Bill today the RSPCA has announced how pleased they are.

Of particular interest is this bit:

    Clause 12 – New sections 51A to 51C – creates sections 51A, 51B and 51C.
    Section 51A Animals – owners corporation’s consent the provision provides that an owners corporation must not unreasonably withhold consent for the keeping of an animal by the unit owner or occupier. An owners corporation can impose conditions on the consent.

    The provision was previously provided for in the default articles in the Unit Titles regulations however the provisions have been moved into the Act to ensure the rights of a unit owner, to keep animals or allow animals to be kept in a unit, are protected. The Unit Titles regulation provided that an owners corporation could amend its articles to preclude any right of any unit owner to keep an animal.

    The unit owner can apply to the ACAT if a dispute arises about the keeping of an animal.

Which just leaves a right to reasonable pet ownership in rental properties. 37% of our poll respondents reckon it’s a vote clincher for whoever runs on it (and another 25% consider it important but not decisive).

Our opponents are sad, old, will never change their vote, and will die soon. So who do you really want to be lining up with?

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
30 Responses to
Pet rights in body corporates coming today.
S4anta 2:27 pm 26 Aug 08

I am with Jakez. The chances of anyone telling me that I am not allowed to ensure that there are no animals in my rentals is nil.

And I am about as far away from a freaking young liberal as you are to the left wing JB.

jakez 2:12 pm 26 Aug 08

johnboy said :

jakez you’re making the same argument made by con men who’d like consumer protection laws to go away and the racist landlords of not very long ago at all.

Do you ever take a look at the company you keep?

You are attempting to equate the fundamental safety of a building with pet ownership. You are attempting to equate a persons race, with pet ownership.

Patently absurd propositions. Not only am I an old sad man, now I am an old sad man who seeks counsel in racists and con men. The ad hominems and straw mans continue unabated.

As for those instances. Fraud is a crime, a legitimate crime, and is clearly within a libertarian framework.

The con men should pay the price for their fraud, and the racist landlord should pay societies price in ostracision and loss of monetary reward. Both situations can be handled by market forces and a just legal system that protects property and body.

jakez 2:06 pm 26 Aug 08

caf said :

jakez: Given that all property in the ACT is leased, the ultimate property owner in most cases is the ACT Government. So by your own doctrine, they have the right to impose this legislation – or even to dictate the colour you must paint your kitchen.

Very good Caf, very good. I am quite impressed. That is probably the best argument out there.

Outside of the framework of accepting that legitimacy, I’ll say that I obviously have significant problems with the way the ACT is set up with regard to land. I’m not sure that philosophically I accept the role of Government as a landowner and thus hold them to task accordingly. Considering the way Government’s acquire land, the principles of homesteading, and the ‘rights’ that a Government’s people have with land are complex and it’s probably easier for me to concede the point rather than muddy the waters.

As such, one can’t look up at the clouds all day and pretend. We are under that framework and have to deal with it as best as we can. I haven’t looked at the Act since I studied Property Law so I can’t exactly remember what the terms of the leases are, however let’s say that they could do as you suggest. I would separate the political realm from the private realm by saying that I hold the Government to a classical liberal framework while accepting that they very well can pass this legislation.

With the Government, I think it’s illegitimate on an abstract level. With a private person, I think it is wrong to stop people from having pets but would not step in to prevent it.

My point here is not to suggest that the Government can’t. In engaging johnboy I’m engaging with a person who believes that tenants have a right to pets, not someone who is arguing that a land owner (the Govt) has the right to tell the tenant (the ‘owner) that the sub tenant (tenant) has the right to have pets.

…got that? I’m not sure I do. The Government’s use of language betrays the fraud of the real situation. Many people don’t realise how things are set up in the ACT and I find that concerning.

So I address my arguments to johnboy in that manner and they should be understood as such. I accept that the Government can make these rules, but I do not accept that the Government is the same thing as a person, and as such I don’t think they should make these rules.

Beyond all that philosophical wankery, I’d suggest that pluralism and tolerance is a noble goal and that it is the mark of a good society that old sad bastards can live together in a pet free environment, if they so desire. (see the old thread for an expanded argument of this nature).

johnboy 1:43 pm 26 Aug 08

jakez you’re making the same argument made by con men who’d like consumer protection laws to go away and the racist landlords of not very long ago at all.

Do you ever take a look at the company you keep?

Clown Killer 1:41 pm 26 Aug 08

Beware the wooden horse presented as a gift. Next it will be rent control.

caf 1:38 pm 26 Aug 08

jakez: Given that all property in the ACT is leased, the ultimate property owner in most cases is the ACT Government. So by your own doctrine, they have the right to impose this legislation – or even to dictate the colour you must paint your kitchen.

Overheard 1:37 pm 26 Aug 08

I love animals, but I just believe there are so many bigger fish to fry (pun definitely not intended). Good on them if they support it, but a candidate’s stance on the issue could never be a personal vote-swayer.

(I nearly wrote ‘vote-sawyer’, which is of course related to casting a ballot for a Mark Twain novel in an Amazon on-line poll.)

In fact, if it became too time-consuming or onerous, I’d be wondering, ‘Isn’t there something else you think you should be concentrating on?’

jakez 1:26 pm 26 Aug 08

Granny said :

jakez said :

I’ll pick up the keys to your car later this evening.

*hehe* jakez, you are always getting in trouble when you say things like that because people believe you and think you’re going to come to their house and take their keys and stuff. I’ve never known anybody to be more universally believed when they didn’t want to be!

: )

HAHA! I know exactly what you mean.

…why do I hear sirens?

Granny 1:19 pm 26 Aug 08

jakez said :

I’ll pick up the keys to your car later this evening.

*hehe* jakez, you are always getting in trouble when you say things like that because people believe you and think you’re going to come to their house and take their keys and stuff. I’ve never known anybody to be more universally believed when they didn’t want to be!

: )

jakez 1:14 pm 26 Aug 08

Incidentally, your pardigm of property rights is the same used by many old socialists that claimed that property was theft and that everyone should have access so long as they didn’t destroy it.

I’ll pick up the keys to your car later this evening.

jakez 1:11 pm 26 Aug 08

johnboy said :

Still no cure for young liberals.

The most free market countries in the world respect the rights of tenants to do what they like as long as they hand the property back in the condition they found it or pay up to make it good without care for what they do inside.

That’s the western liberal tradition and property rights.

The tenant does not have a right to do whatever they like so long as they don’t harm the condition of the property. They have a right to do whatever they like within the bounds of the voluntary agreement they entered into with the property owner.

I’m sure your unsourced conjecture is largely true, I never said we live in a free world, however if you want to play the legal postivism game, don’t expect me to buy into it. Just because it is the law does not make it right.

As for your young liberal remark, well congratulations on playing the man and not the ball. It takes a big man to attack me for my age. All I will say is that if there is a cure I would not take it as I love my disease too much. As for the Young Liberals, I wish they were libertarians but they aren’t.

johnboy 12:59 pm 26 Aug 08

Still no cure for young liberals.

The most free market countries in the world respect the rights of tenants to do what they like as long as they hand the property back in the condition they found it or pay up to make it good without care for what they do inside.

That’s the western liberal tradition and property rights.

jakez 12:53 pm 26 Aug 08

I’m sad old and will die soon apparently. But at the ripe old age of 24, with my 3 pets beside me, I’ll die on my feet standing up for the property rights that have brought western civilisation out of the dark ages.

johnboy 12:39 pm 26 Aug 08

If he comes out for pets in rental properties then he, and anyone else in favour, will be preferenced higher than anyone who does not. Speaking just for my ballot of course.

I’m a teensy disappointed that he’s de-linked the body corporate bound property owners from the renters, but that’s life.

Skidbladnir 12:37 pm 26 Aug 08

So, given that you’d previously made a comment about how you owuld lend support to whoever did it, is Andrew Barr the RiotACT endorsed mascot\candidate?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site