Page 3292 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
closer we can move the provisions for keeping cats and dogs the better—where those provisions are applicable, of course: dangerous pet management is a different thing unless you have got a panther or something like that.
We support the bill. I will introduce my legislation later.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.07): In debating the regulation of domestic animals in the ACT, I think that we need to start with the premise that there are too many dogs and cats and not enough adequate homes for them all. Domestic animal legislation needs to seek a balance between making it possible for people to own and care for pets responsibly and ensuring that they do not add to the number of neglected and homeless dogs, cats and other domestic pets trying to eke out a living in our territory.
Last year, the RSPCA euthanased some 200 dogs and 1,200 cats. My understanding is that Domestic Animal Services euthanased a similar number of dogs; hopefully, the minister will be able to provide a more accurate number. I note that the number would have been significantly higher had it not been for the tireless efforts of local animal rescue groups.
Thus, legislation to regulate domestic animals must actively encourage responsible pet ownership to ensure that people are not irresponsibly or accidentally breeding animals that will have nowhere to go, ultimately ending up at Domestic Animal Services or the RSPCA and being euthanased when no-one comes to collect them.
To this end, this legislation certainly contains some good initiatives. The move to lifetime registration and compulsory microchipping for dogs is a sensible change. We all know that the two most important things owners can do to ensure that their dogs come back if they ever get lost is to register and microchip them. Of course, they also have to make sure that they treat them well enough so that the dog wants to return. I do not see the need to introduce this provision over a three-year period. It would be much more efficient to require all dogs to have a microchip at the time they are signed up for their lifetime registration.
Whilst these provisions will have a positive impact, the tag offences created by the amendments to section 15 appear to present significant difficulties. The criticism that I so often express about the government’s failure to adequately consult with the community is unfortunately evident yet again in regard to this legislation. While there was a period for comment on the exposure draft, it is disappointing that the government did not take a more proactive role in ascertaining the community’s views. The result is that the tag provisions in section 15 are simply unworkable, which is why I will move amendments to ensure that the bill can properly reflect and regulate what happens in the community. I note that, through its amendments, the government has taken notice of the canine association’s advice, which my office passed on. That is good; clearly the government does take notice when it gives people with experience and expertise the opportunity to comment.
The requirement to have cats desexed at three months of age and dogs desexed at six months is a sensible and reasonable move. The introduction of a strict liability offence for having an entire dog or cat—using this term in the same sense as Mr Pratt did—without a permit should significantly help in ensuring compliance.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .