Page 525 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Other changes commended by the review are: greater restrictions on the breeding, sale, or ownership of non-desexed dogs, recognising that there is a strong link between non-desexed dogs and dog attacks; greater restrictions on owners of dangerous dogs; and greater enforcement powers for acting on nuisance, harassing and dangerous dogs, including a new offence provision for anyone who provokes a dog attack and the introduction of precautionary control orders.
Following the introduction of these amendments the independent expert review reflected positively on the operational, strategic and administrative processes of DAS, particularly their efforts to promote responsible pet ownership and raise awareness of the importance of reporting dog attacks. Despite the cost of a dangerous dog licence being increased dramatically to $750 per annum in the changes a year ago, the opposition bill suggests doubling this again from ten times the cost of registration to 20 times. This goes against what was agreed a little over a year ago, which is already a significant cost burden.
This serious increase in cost for a dangerous dog licence has already resulted in a far greater number of dogs being euthanised since late 2017 due to their owners being unable to meet the financial burden of keeping a dangerous dog. There is no need for this to be increased, especially not to the proposed amount of up to $1,500. That guarantees that only families and individuals with high incomes will be able to consider this option. This again comes down to the fact that the opposition bill ineffectively targets dogs instead of the behaviour of their owners.
Lower income families will be forced to relinquish their dogs for euthanasia due to the exorbitant fee instead of having the opportunity to acquire a licence and keep their pet safe in a contained yard under the strict conditions of a dangerous dog licence. This would not address the number of dog attacks in our city and clearly presents equity concerns. Potential safety risks and animal welfare concerns also come to mind, such as in the instance of a family that is unable to comfortably afford the cost of a dangerous dog licence making the commitment anyway to keep the dog they love and as a result is unable to afford the additional costs associated with a dangerous dog licence, such as secure fencing, signage and appropriately sized cages. This is where money should be directed rather than into government revenue.
For these reasons I cannot support the proposed amendment to increase the cost of the dangerous dog licence to such an extent at this time. It would not bring us closer to the goal of reducing dog attacks, particularly as it contributes nothing towards prevention. I also note that changes to fees can be made through amending the fees disallowable instrument if needed in the future rather than through the primary legislation of the Domestic Animals Act.
The ability of DAS rangers to do their jobs and apply their knowledge to the cases at hand is extremely important to ensure that the best possible outcome is achieved every day for the people of Canberra. The opposition’s bill proposes to remove the ability of DAS to apply a relinquishment fee where staff deem it appropriate. I note that removing barriers to relinquishing dogs was recommended by the independent review. I also note that this is already occurring at DAS, with fee waivers regularly granted in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video