Page 3291 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I commend the government’s new section 50A on harassment. It is very good that clear measures will be put in place for anybody who has got a dog that is a bit loopy and that, if the dog is harassing the neighbourhood, appropriate action is going to be taken.
In relation to dangerous dogs, we know that there have been some tragic and notable incidents of dog attack—not so much here in the ACT; this has been more of a problem in New South Wales, where there are many more opportunities for poorly handled dogs to attack people. Nevertheless it is a risk. The government has partly identified that risk; but we do not think it has identified the risk fully and we think that this needs to be tightened up. Consequently we would prefer to see further measures incorporating a special list that notes certain breeds as being known dangerous breeds and stricter requirements for the premises where such dogs are kept. I will speak to our amendments on this issue a little further down the track.
I turn to the question of identifying dangerous dogs. We believe that the onus must be on a dog owner to responsibly check an ACT list. This is the direction that we will be coming from when we table our legislation. We believe that there ought to be a list of known dangerous breeds and that the onus is on an owner of a dog to check such a list to ensure that their dog does not qualify—rather than the onus simply being left with neighbours who may think that it is a dangerous crossbreed dog but may not be too sure whether they should report it or not report it. I will talk more about that later.
While I am on the question of prohibited areas, let me say that it will be important to ensure that there are sufficient dog exercise areas across the ACT so as not to compromise other prohibited areas such as nature parkland. We support the principle of naming prohibited lands or waterways as being non-dog areas in order to safeguard playing children, vulnerable wildlife or just so that we can secure the peace of mind of picnicking families. I agree with that entirely; I think it is a good initiative. But we also want to see a balance to ensure that there are sufficient dog exercise zones designated in suitable places right across the ACT. Let us have a balance. Perhaps it is a mosaic—non-dog, dog, non-dog, something like that.
In relation to areas that might be designated as dog zones where you can walk your dog—and I am not going to legislate; I am not going to seek to amend the bill—I would ask the government to think about this. We would like the government to have a look at the issue of dog owners, when they walk their dogs in public, at least in publicly designated areas, being able to have available to them little bags or scoopers that they can pick up and use whilst they are exercising Fido in that particular area. We are talking about the sorts of regulations and provisions which I have seen in New York City. Of course, this is not New York City; we do not have quite the same density problems. Nevertheless, let us have a look at New York municipality laws and regulations and adopt the principles where dog owners going into a dog approved exercise area will have to pick up after their dog one way or the other. Let us make it a bit easier and encourage dog owners to take those issues into consideration.
Clause 26 deals with the part 4 heading. We support the initiative for new provisions for the keeping of cats similar to the current provisions for dogs. This is sensible. The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .