Page 1535 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
officers who have access to ownership information linked to a permanent means of identification, enabling owners to be rapidly reunited with their lost or straying animals. Microchipping also provides a firm basis for the government’s policy of promoting responsible pet ownership in the Canberra community.
The third proposal is for improved regulation of attacking and dangerous dogs. I am sure that Mr Mulcahy and particularly Mr Pratt will be interested in what we are doing to contain attacking and dangerous animals. The bill restricts applicants for dangerous dog licences to adults. This change will remove any doubt that minors can be held responsible for the behaviour of a declared dangerous dog before a court. A court may order a dog to be destroyed if it finds against a dog and its owner for harassing or attacking a person or an animal. The bill gives the registrar power to seize the dog to give effect to the court’s order.
The maximum penalty for a person found guilty of allowing or encouraging a dog to attack or harass a person or an animal is currently 50 penalty units, or $5,000. I hope the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is listening to this, because she may be interested to know the penalties for animals which attack other people. The bill introduces a new offence and a more severe penalty for a person found guilty of the same offence where the dog had previously been declared dangerous under the act. In these cases, the maximum penalty has been increased to $10,000 or six months in prison.
The fourth proposal is for tightening dog seizure and return provisions. In line with similar measures under New South Wales law, where escape of a dog has resulted in impoundment, the bill amends the act to allow return of a seized dog to its owner to be delayed until the premises where the dog will be kept are secure enough to prevent the dog escaping.
This measure has wide community support and will apply to offences leading to dog seizure committed on both public land and on private premises. Extending the power to restrict return of a seized dog until the premises are secure to offences committed on public land is the first of three amendments to the exposure draft bill that the government has agreed to. Further, to allow more time for such conditions to be met, the bill will amend the act to allow the statutory 28-day return period for seized dogs to commence from the date of seizure, not the date the offence was committed.
The fifth proposal is for compulsory cat desexing before age of first breeding. Given that cats can breed at four months of age, the bill will make cat desexing compulsory by three months of age, rather than at the current desexing age of six months. Data from the RSPCA-ACT shows that the number of unwanted cats surrendered during the breeding season has not declined, but has increased in recent years. In 2005-06, 14 per cent of cats going to new homes required desexing and 45 per cent overall had to be euthanised because new homes could not be found.
Submissions received from informed and experienced vets, RSPCA-ACT and information provided by Victoria’s cat protection society shows that young kittens recover quickly from a desexing operation carried out by a skilled vet and are less stressed by desexing than older cats. Under corresponding Victorian law, two Victorian councils, with the support of local vets, have introduced similar laws making cat desexing compulsory by three months of age.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .