Page 3296 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Domestic Animal Services. I acknowledge Drew McLean in the gallery and wish him well. I think he is a bit traitorous, but I still wish him well. Riding in his fire engine, I think that is rather nice. Staff of that unit have done some rather brilliant work here.
Members will recall the government introducing these wide-ranging amendments to the Domestic Animals Amendment Act following a major review begun in 2005 and following consultation with the stakeholders and the community in the provisions of the exposure of the draft bill. I reject the suggestion from the Greens that this consultation has not been extensive enough. I actually believe that it was a very, very wide bit of consultation, and that is shown by the way in which the legislation has been composed. It is fair to say, I think, that had we not done it properly, the opposition would have picked holes in it pretty quickly. I hardly think, though, that if you receive 61 submissions on the exposure draft bill that that is not what you would call a decent community consultation.
There was widespread community support for these proposals. In the interests of time we might move on. I have said enough about the actual bill in the presentation speech. We talk about lifetime registration of dogs, the compulsory microchipping of dogs, improved regulation of dangerous and attacking dogs, and—this is where we actually disagree with the opposition—the definition of dangerous dogs. We believe in the notion of deed, not breed. We actually believe, in fact, that the dangerous dogs are individual dogs, and, quite often, the behaviour of that dog can be sheeted home to abuse, neglect, bad training and ignorance of the owner. It is not an inherent trait in a dog to go down this particular track.
We do understand, of course, that there are some dogs out there that have a natural instinct to go and kill things. Jack Russells, for example, in fact, terrorise cats, because they are bred to go down that path. We will talk about this during the detail stage, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, but I do note that there is a view out there that rottweilers are really terrible things, they are a dangerous breed and we ought to not have those. There is a thought that we ought to label blue cattle dogs as a dangerous breed as well as pit bull terriers.
I do not think anybody would disagree that, if those dogs were abused and trained in a particular way, they are dangerous dogs. Let us just check back on hospital statistics on this and ask ourselves what was the most common breed of dog in recent times that inflicted a bite on a human being who had to front to the hospital. My latest information is that it was labradors. They are not on the list of dangerous dogs, and I know from my own history of doorknocking—I imagine Mr Pratt has done as much doorknocking as I have, and possibly Dr Foskey—I have been bitten by only one dog. In all of my time doorknocking in the suburbs, I have been frightened by a few dogs but have been bitten by only one, and that was a silky terrier. It took my ankle out and frightened the life out of me. But I do not see the silky terrier sitting on this list, so I suggest that, in fact, it is not a breed thing; it is about the individual dog. Let me tell you, I was also bitten by my parents’ grey silky terrier, but there you go.
We will be tightening dog seizure and return provisions. Mr Pratt and I have had some conversations around that. We are widening the scope of amendments, of course, to attacking and harassing offences, and I appreciate the support that I am receiving
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .