Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3269 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

There is no doubt that cats and dogs form an important part of many people's daily life, but for others they can be a nuisance and they can impact negatively on other animals and the environment more generally. In developing legislation to control cats and dogs there will always have to be a balance between the rights and responsibilities of the pet owner, the welfare needs of the animals, the rights of other people to not be disturbed by animal activity and the need to protect the environment. The strategic companion animal management package goes a long way to finding this balance and it is certainly an improvement on the legislation it replaces.

Some features of the package should be noted. The requirement for dogs and cats to be de-sexed unless the owner has a permit will hopefully bring down the number of unwanted cats and dogs in the ACT and the need to put down such animals. The requirement for domestic animals to have some form of identification will help to unite animals with their owners and reduce the numbers of stray animals that have to be put down.

I might just tell a little story about how contentious this is. One day when driving to work I noticed a big sticker on the back of a car that said, "De-sex the Assembly: leave the dogs alone." I found that quite amusing and it did make me realise that people felt very passionately about this issue.

MR SPEAKER: It's been done already, Miss Tucker.

MS TUCKER: Really-there you go. Not for everyone, I suspect. The provision in the Domestic Animals Bill for a cat curfew and the declaration of areas in which cats are banned sets a good framework for action to reduce the impact of cats on native wildlife, although it will be interesting to see how this can be implemented in practice.

I will be supporting these two bills and I will be supporting the government's amendments. In the detail stage I will be putting up quite a few amendments to the Domestic Animals Bill to highlight various parts of the bill which I believe could be better drafted. Some of them are minor but if we are passing a significant legislative package then I think we should try to get it right first time. I will raise later a few animal welfare issues that I do not think have been fully addressed in this bill.

MR RUGENDYKE (12.02): Overall there are some worthy aspects to these bills that I am pleased to support. The aspects of the bill that relate to the way we handle dangerous dogs and nuisance dogs are very good. But it does appear that we have gone over the top in some areas. For example, we can no longer take our dog to the lake for a swim. We cannot take our dog with us to watch the kids play football. If we do so it will cost us a thousand bucks. We have got to pick up the dog poo-personally I think it is probably worth a hundred bucks to leave it there, but never mind.

The people of Tharwa are not allowed to walk their dogs near the Murrumbidgee River, and that seems to be a bit over the top. They have to write to the Conservator of Flora and Fauna. Gee whiz! You have to leave your dog on a leash. In some places that is probably seen to be fairly over the top. I would be interested to know how you manage to corral your cat and confine it to your premises. It is interesting to note that we have to have our dogs and cats de-sexed. There is probably a penalty as well for not doing that. That might be or might not be fair enough.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .