Page 923 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 30 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Should it include a desexing cost, or should a component of the animal purchase price be refunded when desexing has been done, verification being by way of a veterinary certificate? Perhaps payment of a desexing fee at the time of purchase is something we should look at. Perhaps we need to think about whether we should make the seller of the dog make sure that the animal is looked after, particularly dogs such as Great Danes, Afghans and so on.
Perhaps we should think about whether there is a necessity to have dogs like bull-terriers. Notwithstanding the statistics that Mr Wood gave, people have experienced, or seen, what a bull-terrier can do, especially one that has not been trained. One wonders whether we should be allowing people to keep those sorts of dogs in the ACT. I believe that the pit bull-terrier should be banned. Perhaps that is harsh, but I say that it is more important to protect the well-being of the people than it is to allow things like bull-terriers to run around. It is obviously not the dog's fault. Let us be honest; it is the owner's fault.
There are other things that we should do, notwithstanding that there are financial limitations, and the Minister has quite adequately covered those. We should enforce the Dog Control Act, which I believe is a very good piece of legislation, albeit that Ms Szuty and Mr Westende are intending to bring in their own legislation. As I said, perhaps we should be licensing the owner instead of licensing the dog. We are aware now that two-thirds of the dogs that run around in the ACT, which obviously belong to somebody or other, are not registered. Mr Westende mentioned the use of the microchip. I think that is a good idea. That is something we should be looking at. Perhaps we should be looking at mandatory tattooing if we are not into the high-tech microchip. Another area that perhaps we should be looking at as well is educating young children at school as to the responsibilities of keeping a dog. It is ironic that we make it mandatory for children to go to school. Perhaps we also should be looking at making it mandatory for all dogs to be sent to some sort of training.
Heavier penalties have been mentioned by Mr Wood, Mr Westende and Ms Ellis, and I agree with that as well. Unregistered dogs that bite, like the two dogs that Mr Wood was alluding to from Kambah, should be put down. That is harsh and drastic, but it is necessary. If a person is injured and requires medical assistance, quite obviously the owner of the dog that bites ought to be paying for the medical expenses.
Whilst in bed this morning trying to get rid of this flu, I was listening to the Julie Derrett show and insurance was mentioned. Quite rightly, the question was asked: What insurance company in its right mind is going to insure anybody who has a dog that is not registered and is breaking the law, for a start, and who in their right mind would register or insure pit bull-terriers and savage dogs of any type? We could look at the insurance situation. If we are talking about adequate training and fencing, do we need to contemplate allowing people with dogs to have front fences as an added protection? That is something, as I said, that we should be looking at.
Madam Speaker, I think this is a bipartisan issue. It is an issue that is of concern to a great number of people, especially when they read the tabloids and see the savage attacks that occur from time to time. As do others in this Assembly, I want to be able to walk along the streets of our beautiful city unhindered and unbitten by dogs. This is a perfect opportunity for this Assembly to get together and make sure that we have the best dog legislation in this country.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .