Page 3301 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 13 November 2007

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


Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

MR PRATT (Brindabella) (5.45): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 3313].

My amendment seeks to tighten up the issue around dangerous dogs and I alluded to this in my primary speech. We think it is necessary that the ACT do identify a list of dangerous dog breeds and that this list be publicised so that members of the public know that they have a responsibility to come forward to authorities and register their dogs.

We do not seek to ban dogs, and we know that there is a vibrant debate around this question of what comprises a dangerous breed of dog. But we still think it is responsible for the government and its authorities to start somewhere and I will be talking on my third amendment a little bit more about that. Whilst I acknowledge that the identification and definition of a dangerous dog is subject to that debate, we think it is necessary. A list is not necessarily exhaustive, but importantly such legislation imposes a certain discipline on both the government and the community.

I believe this amendment will more actively safeguard our children and that, after all, is the most important thing here. We do not seek to deny people the ownership of certain dogs, we do not seek to ban certain dogs, but we do think that there is a primary responsibility, a duty of care. We want to keep our kids safe, and that is why we think it is necessary to identify a dangerous dog breed list.

There is no reason why the government should not support this amendment—no reason at all. There are some breeds of dog that are notoriously dangerous; therefore the government should be prepared to start with that identified list of dogs. I repeat: we do not seek to ban dogs, but we do seek to identify as a starting point a list of dog breeds which the government has a responsibility to monitor. Beyond that we can have a debate about where that list goes to.

I just want to bring some details to the attention of the chamber. The Victorian and New South Wales governments both have dangerous dog lists—quite lengthy lists. There is a lot of information available from both state governments about the listings that they have created, which I would invite the government to have a look at. We believe it is very important that we do have such a mechanism in place. We think that is responsible government and we are very disappointed that the government has not decided to look at this issue. Therefore, I commend to the house my amendment No 1 for a new clause 9A and I seek to have it written into the government’s law.

DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.49): While I acknowledge that Mr Pratt’s amendment is a sincere response to a very concerning situation, I indicate now that I will not be supporting any of the Pratt amendments, simply because this kind of regulation does not work. It is too difficult to say with any certainty just for a start that a dog belongs to one breed or another. What about those that are 50 per cent banned breed and half something else? Which part of that dog wins that battle?


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