Page 1570 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 19 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (10.42), in reply: I would like to thank members for their contributions in this debate. I will address some of the issues that they raised towards the conclusion of my speech. I would like to inform members of the very wide distribution of copies of the Dog Control (Amendment) Bill to key groups and individuals who are concerned about dog control matters, and it is interesting that the vast majority of those key groups and individuals have supported the amendments proposed. I have received many individual letters of support and I also have received support from key groups and organisations such as the RSPCA, the Australian and New Zealand Federation of Animal Societies and the Animal Liberation organisation.
I must say that I am also very supportive of the Minister's efforts to convene a seminar to address issues of concern regarding dogs, a seminar which was held several weeks ago. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the seminar due to my regular commitments with the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee, which meets on Friday mornings, but I would have attended if I had been able to. The working party which was convened as a result of that seminar met last week and Karen Nicholson, my private secretary, attended on behalf of my office. I understand that many issues were raised during the seminar and a wide variety of issues have been raised with me arising from the numerous submissions and representations that I have had on this Dog Control (Amendment) Bill.
A number of the issues cover a very wide range of areas. I suppose that this is indicative of a need, overall, to really have a look at our Dog Control Act 1975 and reform it in a lot of key areas. One issue which has come up is that perhaps owners convicted of having had their dogs attack people should be barred from owning other dogs of a similar type in the future. Other issues which have been raised with me concern the proximity of dogs to neighbours' residences, and dog exercise areas where dogs are off the lead and presumably are under the control of their keepers. I have also had the issue of insurance raised with me. What happens when people are injured by an attacking dog and how can they achieve some sort of compensation for the injuries received?
I have also heard a lot about the dog control unit, its administration of the Act and its hours of operation. Many people have commented that it is limiting that the dog control unit is available on weekdays from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm but really has no power to take dogs in overnight and on weekends, for example, and public holidays. I also became aware of a suggestion that the RSPCA would like to act as inspectors to help enforce the provisions of the Dog Control Act - a move that I would support. They also feel very strongly that it is the deed of the dog and not the breed of the dog, necessarily, that needs to be addressed. Other issues such as the desexing of dogs and penalties for keepers of dogs found to have attacked other animals have been raised.
There is also the very general issue of taking an educative approach to dog ownership in the ACT, and I believe that there is a lot that could be done in that area. Other issues include obedience training and the need for a mongrel dog association to complement the existing Canberra Kennel Association, which is an umbrella group of pedigree dog clubs and organisations in the ACT. I also have had representations about invisible fence arrangements for properties and also a suggestion that there be a marginal increase in dog registration fees to cover the cost of the dog control unit more effectively. I think that basically covers all the issues that have been raised with me.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .