Page 1213 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 29 March 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
To add to it, as this dangerous dog, whether it was deemed so or not, was running towards my whippet, the owner shouted out, “Be careful, it’s dangerous.” And it was off a leash. It was absolutely extraordinary. It was not even an off-leash area. It just goes to show the absolute disregard that some people in the community have for the safety of other people and other dogs.
I have another story. My mother-in-law was walking their golden retriever. A dog came out the front door of a person’s house, bolted up to the golden retriever and did exactly the same thing. It had the golden retriever in a headlock. The dog was taken to the vet, it was on antibiotics for the following fortnight and it was pretty traumatised, as were my parents-in-law who were walking the dog at the time. To add to that situation, despite this dangerous dog running when the door opened to this house, there were also infants in the house. It just makes you wonder about the mindset of some people.
I am not saying that this is purely a government responsibility. It is obviously not exclusively a government responsibility. Everyone has obligations with regard to dog ownership. But it is incumbent upon the government to make sure that the rules and regulations are working and that they are being enforced properly.
Whilst we welcome the fact that as a result of Mr Doszpot’s advocacy and numerous other people telling their stories we are actually getting some progress on this matter, there are still some worrying signs, not the least of which is actually in paragraph 1(a) of the amendment. It is quite a perplexing amendment that Ms Fitzharris has put forward. It says:
the number of people treated for dog attacks in emergency departments (EDs) in the ACT last year was 155, however, it is unknown how many presentations are ACT residents …
As if it matters. It is as if somehow they want to know whether you are a foreigner or you come from New South Wales. Does it really matter where a person comes from? Next time someone calls 000 to report a dog attack, are they going to be asked, “Are you an ACT resident?” It is a little perplexing that somebody would amend this motion and put in, “However, it is unknown how many presentations are ACT residents.” It is a bit odd.
Of course, what we do not support are paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b). They seek to add the words “consider allocating”. I think is problematic. In effect, we do need more resources allocated to the enforcement and the investigation of serious dog attacks in the ACT. That does not necessarily mean more money. It might well mean shuffling the money that currently exists within domestic animal services or shuffling responsibilities that exist within domestic animal services to ensure that there are more resources put towards investigating and ensuring that owners are aware of their obligations with regard to dog ownership.
Mr Assistant Speaker, the stories about dangerous dogs in our community are a dime a dozen; so I am very pleased that Mr Doszpot has taken up this issue on behalf of hundreds or thousands of Canberrans that have been affected by dangerous dogs. I am
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video