Page 1208 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 29 March 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
legislation in this chamber relating to the rights of victims to have standing at the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and last year significant change was made to domestic animal legislation, most notably to outline very clearly that responsibility for pet ownership rests with the pet owners: they not only have a responsibility to ensure that an animal behaves appropriately in community settings but are responsible for the welfare and care of those animals too.
That work last year, passed by this Assembly, of which Mr Doszpot was a member, also made changes to offence provisions under the Domestic Animals Act. These changes related to allowing a dog to attack a person or animal, causing serious injury; a dog attacking a person or animal causing serious injury when it is not with its keeper or carer; increasing the maximum penalty for the offence of allowing a dangerous dog to attack or harass a person or animal to 500 penalty units, imprisonment for five years, or both; and increasing the infringement notice penalty for the offence of allowing a dog to harass or attack a person or animal from $200 to $350.
As the amendment I will move indicates, I am happy to review these penalties and consider how further to improve them. We need to be mindful not to penalise dog owners who, in the majority of situations, try to do the right thing. For example, under the Domestic Animals Act, the offence of allowing a dangerous dog to attack or harass a person or animal has a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units, which equates to $70,000, imprisonment for five years, or both. By way of comparison, the offence of allowing a dangerous dog to attack could be considered comparable to the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Earlier this year, the Assembly passed the amendments I mentioned previously to allow rangers to seize a dog before determining its status, rather than having to declare its status as dangerous and then seizing the animal. The amendments also made it clear that a person who, or whose animal, has been attacked or harassed by a dog is able to seek review of the registrar’s decision to issue a dangerous dog licence.
Also, as I mentioned, the changes passed in February enabled victims of dog attacks to have standing at the ACAT and ensure that they will be kept informed of appeals to the issuing of a dangerous dog licence. This directly addressed key concerns of community members who were part of the group mentioned in Mr Doszpot’s motion. Under previous legislation, unfortunately, a victim was not able to be a party to the appeal process, so it was important that the Assembly made those changes.
Of course, as we know, a dog does not need to be declared a dangerous dog to be aggressive. All dogs have the capacity to be aggressive. Unfortunately, legislation can only act as a deterrent to a certain extent. I think we can all agree that we also need to boost education and awareness of responsible pet ownership as a key means of preventing such attacks.
It is of concern to me, of course, as minister that there are dogs in our community attacking other dogs. I ask members to consider exactly what the legislation and regulatory framework might look like where a dog who has given no indication of previously being aggressive does, very sadly and distressingly, attack another dog in a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video