Page 1146 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 10 April 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
racing greyhounds and dangerous dogs and to allow issue of fines by stating or reframing offences as strict liability offences.
My colleague Mr Parton will talk to those issues about the management of greyhounds, but I note the complexities introduced by the government’s need to include provisions for one class of dogs—that is, greyhounds—which unnecessarily complicates the proposed legislation.
We are pleased that the government still recognises the need for significant improvements in ACT dog legislation, given the relentless efforts made on this issue by my late colleague Steve Doszpot. Mr Doszpot, along with all of us on this side, recognised the urgent need for serious attention to be given to improvements in the legislation regarding the management of dogs. The legislation presented by the government and passed last year was clearly not quite adequate, resulting in the need for this amendment bill today, and the bill does not address our continued concern about the level of discretionary power in dealing with dangerous dogs.
The bill imposes greater restrictions on all dog owners for a variety of lesser matters including: keeping an unregistered dog; keeping a registered dog by a person who is not the registered keeper; the registered keeper failing to tell the registrar of a change of address; the registered keeper failing to tell the registrar of a change of address of where the registered dog is kept; keeping a dangerous dog except in accordance with a dangerous dog licence; having an unmuzzled dangerous dog in a public place; having an uncontrolled dangerous dog in a public place; taking a dog into a prohibited area; taking a dog into a prohibited place; not restraining a dog on someone else’s private premises without permission; not removing faeces; and having a female dog on heat in a public place.
The bill introduces strict liability for a range of dangerous dog-related matters and a range of lesser issues. However, the bill only partially addresses the issues that we and many of the community feel are needed to address and deal with the menace of dangerous dogs.
On the issue of discretion, the scrutiny of bills committee called on the minister to respond to why it is considered appropriate for possible conditions to be set out in regulations or at the discretion of the registrar, and the bill attempts a difficult job of trying to patch together a whole lot of different amendments in what is already a structurally clumsy Domestic Animals Act. The act really requires a complete rewrite. We said this last year when my colleague Mr Doszpot was working on it, and we say it again today.
The government has been reluctant for years to address the serious and growing issue of dangerous dogs in Canberra. The government and we as a community have had to deal with the tragic results of this negligence. The government has been dragged kicking and screaming to make changes to dog legislation, and I again acknowledge the efforts of my late colleague Mr Doszpot in relentlessly holding the government to account on improved dog legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video