Page 1707 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 9 May 2018

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

---

destroy the dog subject to strict exceptions or in exceptional circumstances declare the dog dangerous, and must impose control orders on the owner of the dog. In justifying her position in voting against Mr Doszpot’s bill Ms Le Couteur said:

What is going to be the real-world impact on a family whose dog escapes their yard and attacks someone? What happens to them if they are suddenly hit with a $20,000 or $40,000 fine? Are they going to lose their home? What is the actual impact?

Well, if you have not worked out for yourself what the actual impact, the real-world impact, of supporting Mr Doszpot’s bill in 2017 would have been, I can tell you: in March 2017 a dog seized by DAS officers in Watson would likely have been put down. In August 2017 a dog seized by DAS officers in Watson if not previously put down in March would likely have been put down. If Mr Doszpot’s original bill had been supported, perhaps the tragic events in Watson of October 2017 would not have occurred. That is the real-world impact of not dealing with dangerous dogs.

Many dangerous dogs might have already been destroyed, many innocent pets, such as Ms Colless’s cat, might still be alive and many owners would not have been traumatised as they have been. Instead, since we have taken on the issue of uncontrolled and dangerous dogs, the government play politics with it because they do not want to admit that the opposition might be right. Their inaction has seen dozens and dozens of innocent pets savaged, mauled and killed by roaming dogs. It has seen unmeasurable suffering and grief by owners across the city who have lost their pets or seen them terribly injured.

I remind people in this chamber that there are real-world impacts of the things that you say and do in this chamber beyond politics, and you would do well to remember that. They affect the lives of Canberrans. I call on the Assembly to support my motion and reject Ms Fitzharris’s amendment, in order to provide the information that is requested. There is nothing wrong with that “calls for” motion, and the patronising watering down to say it better reflects the intent and spirit of my motion is revolting, reprehensible and absolutely repulsive. I call on you to reject the amendment.

Question put:

That the amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video