Page 1211 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 29 March 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
have said, this is not so much a political, ideological issue but an issue which requires resolution for the community.
I have read that there are 60,000 dogs in the ACT, so nearly a quarter of us have dogs. It is an important issue, and it is one where we have to balance the rights of everybody and the likely actions of dogs. It is particularly complicated, because, of course, dogs do not actually read legislation and it is complicated to ensure that what we do is going to make a positive impact.
When my colleague Mr Rattenbury was Minister for Territory and Municipal Services in 2014, a major set of changes in penalties for dog attacks was brought in. These changes substantially increased the penalties that applied. After these 2014 changes, the maximum penalty for repeat offences was up to $75,000 and five years jail.
Mr Doszpot’s motion suggests that dog attacks have continued to increase. If this is, in fact, the case, I guess you could say that this highlights a major concern with Mr Doszpot’s motion. I am not convinced that even higher penalties will work, and I am reluctant to commit to even higher penalties without substantial community consultation.
Do we really think that if a dog is mauling another dog it is going to stop because its owner might end up in jail? Clearly, that is nonsense. Equally, do we even think that the owners of dogs, if their dog is mauling someone, are going to stop because they think, “For $1,000, it is not a problem, but for a larger amount of money, yes, I will make sure that this does not happen.” We are not convinced that the major solution to this problem is increasing penalties.
We are also concerned that increasing penalties may potentially have a disproportionate impact on low income families. We have spoken to the RSPCA about this and they are concerned particularly that for low income dog owners who are having difficulties financially, imposing a large fine is not going to have any positive impacts and, I understand, may in fact end up in someone potentially even being in jail because they cannot pay the fine. What is going to be the real-world impact on a family whose dog escapes their yard and attacks someone? What happens to them if they are suddenly hit with a $20,000 or $40,000 fine? Are they going to lose their home? What is the actual impact?
I have general concerns about the amendment. I think that the focus should be on education and enforcement by domestic animal services. Yet the ALP’s amendment is backing out of the best part of Mr Doszpot’s motion, which is the call for additional funding so that domestic animal services can do this work.
My biggest concern is that this is an area where I know that I am not an expert and I know that I do not have the knowledge to really say what the solution to the problem is. I do note that today Minister Fitzharris has introduced an animal welfare strategy, and it is open for public consultation for the next six weeks. It would seem to me that the logical response for this Assembly is to look at that strategy and, if members or parties are concerned about the strategy, make submissions, make comments on it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video