Page 5229 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 29 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
attack and it was taken to the vet, treated at taxpayers’ expense and then returned to the owner. This same dog, two months later, killed a person. So a dog that the authorities had knowingly taken to a vet, having caused 42 stitches to a person, was patched up and returned to a person. It is pretty outrageous that you have a situation where the government know that there is a dangerous dog and they then return it to the owner.
At present the laws make impounding and destroying dogs almost impossible. The default is that dangerous dogs are returned rather than dangerous dogs being destroyed. The amendments put forward by the Canberra Liberals change this. The heart of our bill is in sections 53A to 53C, which address the spectrum of harassment, injury, serious injury and death of a person, as well as a serious injury or death of an animal.
In our proposed legislation a dog must be seized and impounded during an investigation into complaints of injury, serious injury or death of a person. In cases where it is found that a dog has attacked, causing serious injury or the death of a person, the registrar must destroy the dog. On lower levels of injury to a person, the registrar may destroy the dog or, if not, must declare the dog to be dangerous and issue a control order to the dog’s keeper. A dangerous dog licence will require the payment of a significant annual fee. Control orders, including secure fencing that must be inspected by the registrar, would also be a feature of the legislation.
Comparable direction is given to the registrar for handling complaints about dog attacks causing a serious injury or death of an animal. In every case the registrar must investigate complaints and must give written notice of decisions to the complainant. The keeper of the dog, and the neighbours, must also get information.
Throughout our amendments the response to harassment, injury, serious injury and death is necessary and proportionate to the severity of the attack and the threat to the community. The people in our community who have contacted us desperately want action. They are tired of the failure of the present system and the inaction of the government in response to their concerns and complaints.
In the end the government has finally shown some understanding of the problem and has seen that we are not being alarmist and that there is a problem. While we on this side of the chamber are glad to see the government finally taking this issue seriously, we also note that the government still does not clearly see the heart of the problem with dangerous dogs in Canberra. We have seen repeatedly the disastrous results of that discretion being exercised. Unfortunately, there is still more discretion in the amendments being put forward by Ms Fitzharris. Dangerous dogs that attack people and other dogs have often not been seized or held. If they have been they are often returned to their owners quickly.
Victims are often kept in the dark about the decisions that are being taken. We heard Ms Le Couteur just then say that there were meant to be more staff at the pound to appropriately manage these dangerous dogs because they need trained keepers to manage them, and they might need one or two trained keepers to take them for a walk. Quite frankly, if a dangerous dog requires one or two trained keepers, that dog is not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video