Page 1706 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 9 May 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
government decisions and government information is a legitimate, expected, important and crucial role in any Westminster parliament. We call on the government all the time to provide information. Questioning that approach and implying that the information called for must be simplified is hypocritical at best and perhaps petulant as well.
We continue to be told that DAS is understaffed, including by DAS employees themselves. We have been told that people take months to get responses to letters. We have been told it has taken a long time for the government to take action on resourcing in DAS. In fact the minister herself mentioned the need to go through the recruitment and the training and that it will take time. Of course it will, and that is why it should have been done back in March last year when Mr Doszpot first called for it, instead of being watered down by the minister to “consider” providing more resources, thus adding extra time to that entire process—the process that the minister today said will take time. Imagine if she had started that process back in March last year, as called for in the original motion. Wouldn’t that be the thing?
Once again I find myself lectured to by members on the other side about what is the real intent of my motion. I am sorry, but surely I am best placed to understand the intent of my motion. I think Ms Le Couteur referred to the intent and spirit, in fact, of my motion. Perhaps that was an attempt at a little dig at me. I had this during the last sitting from Mr Gentleman, who told me that his amendment better reflected my intent. What that actually shows is a patronising attitude—patronising, condescending and snobbish. For those opposite, many of whom probably do not own a dictionary, “patronising” means to treat with apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority. Thank you so much for telling me that your amendments better reflect the intent and spirit of my motion. I feel so much better for having you tell me what I really mean.
Let me go back to the unfortunate death of a woman as a result of an attack by a dog. This was part of the original motion. It had to be part of the motion; the government has made it so. This minister has consistently refused to commit to extra resources for DAS to manage uncontrolled and dangerous dogs. Eventually action by the minister was triggered only by the death of a woman from a dog attack.
I remind the minister that in a motion to the Assembly on 29 March 2017 Mr Doszpot called on the government to allocate more resources to investigate serious attacks by dogs. In her response Minister Fitzharris changed the motion to read “consider allocating more resources”. On 21 September, in a ministerial statement on the management of dogs, the minister still did not commit to more resources. Sadly, that commitment to more resources was only triggered by the death of a woman in Watson later that year.
I do not wish to be lectured to by Ms Le Couteur—I hope she can hear me, even though I am addressing the Speaker—on our action on the issue of dangerous dogs. Mr Doszpot’s bill last year proposing stricter action and penalties on dog management included that, in the event that a dog causes serious injury or death to a person or death of a domestic animal, the registrar must seize the dog and must hold it until the completion of investigations, must make an investigation into the incident, must
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video