Page 5231 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 29 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
opposition leader’s comments, I wish to make a number of other general comments that are also put forward in the supplementary explanatory statement.
I note somewhat a rewriting of a history. I have said on multiple occasions throughout this year that I am keen to work with the opposition on amendments. That is exactly what I have done. At the same time, I indicated on a number of occasions that we are also working on our own amendments. These amendments are presented here today. I note that numerous briefings were offered to the opposition. Of course, the time frames are tight. I understand that and appreciate the cooperation of all members and a number of staff in this building and indeed in the directorate over this period.
With reference to Mr Coe’s point that it is not best practice to propose a number of amendments and his view that they are irrelevant to dangerous dogs, I think that Mr Coe has really missed the point on dangerous dogs, as I explained in my speech earlier. The amendments that we have put forward, which in Mr Coe’s view have nothing to do with dangerous dogs, have everything to do with dangerous dogs. As I have been saying all year, we do not want to get to the point of investigating attacks; we want to prevent attacks. In order to prevent attacks we need to strengthen our legislation around the illegal breeding of dogs; we need to strengthen our legislation around desexing dogs. Far from being irrelevant, as Mr Coe just stated, they are exactly the sorts of amendments we need to have in order to address this very complex issue.
I too have spoken to members of our community who have been the victims of these attacks, who have lost pets in some of the most distressing circumstances. As the responsible minister, however, I am also aware of the vast variety of incidents in our city. I have also received correspondence from owners of dogs, some very aggressive about the fact that their dog did nothing wrong, some very distressed about the behaviour of their dog but also deeply distressed about the prospect of losing that dog. In many cases those owners take the decision to have their dog euthanased. Over 100 dogs a year are euthanased in these sorts of circumstances. There is a wide variety of experience here. I respect the experience of victims. I have heard from them directly and loud and clear. That is exactly why there are so many amendments: because this is a very complex issue. I fundamentally reject Mr Coe’s assertion that a number of these amendments that the government is putting forward have nothing to do with dangerous dogs. They have everything to do with dangerous dogs.
I also point out, as I did earlier, that underpinning this legislation, and in particular the amendments the government has made to further strengthen what the opposition has put forward, is the fundamental principle of public safety. In the instances of death of an animal or serious injury to or death of a person, all elements of seizing a dog, declaring that dog dangerous or euthanasing that dog are in keeping with the opposition’s amendments.
However, legislation simply must allow for some level of discretion. In instances where a person is killed or seriously injured, there will be no discretion. But what the opposition is proposing is potentially a team of rangers, almost as big as our entire police force, to be out there seizing dogs at every instance. I have said publicly on many occasions, “If you are out in public with your dog, no matter how much you
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video