Page 871 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 March 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(d) in 2016-17 the average rate of reports of dog attacks in Canberra was one a day;
(e) in 2018 the average rate of reports of dog attacks reported in Canberra was two a day;
(f) from the 2017 calendar year to the 2018 calendar year confirmed attacks increased slightly from 360 to 392;
(g) from the 2017 calendar year to the 2018 calendar year the number of dogs euthanised at the direction of Domestic Animal Services has increased from 3 to 29;
(h) in 2018 over 117 warnings and 59 infringement notices were issued for dogs being in public places without a lead or not under effective control;
(i) in 2018 118 fines, 88 warnings and 68 control orders were issued in relation to dog attacks; and
(j) in early 2018 the ACT Government increased the number of positions managing domestic animals by 8; and”
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (4.31): I thank Ms Lawder for her motion and for her continued interest in animal welfare in the territory. The ACT Greens firmly believe in protecting our community and our animals. The recent attack on Mimosa, a therapy alpaca, was senseless, upsetting and unacceptable. It is clear that the attack on Mimosa was illegal under our current legislation. There is not an issue with the legislation here.
The attack on Mimosa was animal cruelty not only for the alpaca but also for the dog. The dog owner in question allegedly filmed the attack instead of attempting to intervene. If the dog owner did as was alleged, the dog owner was encouraging the behaviour of the dog. Encouraging a dog to harass or attack another animal is deplorable, and owners that do so should be penalised. The owner in question, if these allegations are correct, should not be allowed to keep a dog.
With regard to Ms Lawder’s motion, paragraphs (1)(g) and (h) state that “anywhere else this rate of increase in crime or injury would be regarded as a crisis”, and “anywhere else this rate of increase in the neglect of animal welfare would be regarded an animal welfare tragedy”. These statements are, quite frankly, insulting to the people of the ACT. I assume that Ms Lawder did not mean to insult the people of the ACT. I assume she actually just meant to insult the government. It is insulting to insinuate that the people of Canberra do not consider these attacks to be an animal welfare tragedy. You only have to look at the public reaction to the attack on Mimosa. Clearly, the people of Canberra do regard this as a tragedy. It is hyperbolical to state that the rate of increase in reports of dog attacks is an out-and-out instance of total neglect and a crisis.
Ms Lawder’s note (i) in paragraph (1) states that “dogs that have been found to have committed vicious attacks on people or other animals are still returned to the community”. That statement could well be correct, although I would not have used the word “vicious”. It is a very emotive and subjective term, but if that were removed I suspect that that statement would probably be true.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video