Page 306 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Although I have clearly benefited from this arrangement, it is nonetheless disappointing that so many dogs and other animals are surrendered or abandoned because of lack of understanding of all that pet ownership entails. It is an issue that this government is working very hard to address.
Lola is a beautiful, placid and obedient dog. However, irresponsible ownership can occasionally result in unfortunate incidents. The act already provides people subject to dog attacks with a power to claim compensation from dog owners where their dog has attacked and caused injury or damage. However, because the act does not clearly authorise the release of personal information, unfortunately people are sidestepping their responsibility by refusing to give their consent to the Registrar of Domestic Animals to release their information to those individuals who have been subject to this attack.
People who are attacked by dogs are currently required to use the Freedom of Information Act to attempt to access the information, as others have outlined before me, sometimes only to find that the particular dog owner can use processes in that act to make difficult for the department to release the information.
The Privacy Act 1988, particularly information principle No 11, allows personal information to be released if, amongst other things, the release is authorised by law. New section 55A will provide that authorisation. I understand that the Department of Territory and Municipal Services consulted with the office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner in developing this provision and has ascertained that her office is satisfied with the legislative safeguards built into the new section, together with the administrative actions TAMS will take to advise the community about the new provision.
While no-one wants to think that their dog attacks or harasses others, it does happen. Occasionally a dog, seemingly well trained and on a leash, can suddenly threaten and lunge out. Owners need to accept responsibility. Fortunately, most do. This bill improves on the duty that pet owners have to be responsible for their dog and ensure that people who are injured can obtain compensation.
Recently there was a recorded incident in Melba in my electorate that resulted in a family cat being euthanised. Responsible ownership limits the frequency of such occurrences. But how should we, as a community, address incidents of irresponsible dog ownership? I was surprised and disappointed to learn that staff of Domestic Animal Services are threatened and harassed when they are performing their duties. These threats have extended to their families.
A pet may well be a member of a person’s family in many instances, but this does not give a person a right to threaten and harass DAS staff when they are going about their job. It is a deplorable state of affairs when our public servants do not feel safe to do their job. I agree with the amendment to remove the requirement for their names to appear on their identity cards and to replace them with a unique identity number.
While, on the whole, I believe pet owners are responsible, I also believe we have more work to do as a community to ensure that pets are properly and responsibly
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video