Page 1832 - Week 06 - Thursday, 5 June 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
But sadly, a minority of dog owners are not aware of, or do not take seriously, their responsibility to ensure that their dogs are not a threat to other people or other animals. Those who do not take their pet ownership responsibilities seriously may be found reckless under the law.
The bill that I am presenting today ensures that if a person is reckless as to whether their dog attacks another person or animal, that person may be found criminally liable for their dog’s actions. For example, if a dog owner fails to maintain their property’s fences and their dog escapes and attacks a person, this bill holds the dog’s keeper responsible for that attack.
Dog attacks have a serious impact on our community. The physical and emotional scars of having been the victim of a dog attack can have a lasting impact, as can the emotional impact of finding the body of your family’s beloved pet dog or cat after it has been mauled to death by an uncontrolled dog, or having to make the decision to euthanase your pet after it has been the victim of an attack.
DAS rangers are also impacted by dog attacks as they are required to deal with the victims of attacks. So are the doctors, vets and ambulance officers who know only too well the trauma experienced by dog attack victims. This personal trauma also reflects an economic cost to the community from dealing with the aftermath of dog attacks and a financial impact on an individual who is faced with hospital and veterinary bills.
The ACT has opposed the trend in other jurisdictions of introducing breed-specific legislation to try to avoid dog attacks. Instead, the ACT’s policy position is that breed-specific legislation is not effective in preventing dog attacks, and that introducing dangerous dog legislation that applies to individual dogs is more effective.
Breed-specific legislation has been particularly criticised by the Australian Veterinary Association, which has pointed out that as there is no DNA test that can identify a dangerous breed, any declarations of dangerous breeds can, and will, be contested in court. Victoria’s experience following the introduction of its 2011 breed-specific legislation would appear to support the Australian Veterinary Association’s criticism of these laws.
On the other hand, dangerous dog legislation focuses on specific individual dogs that have already exhibited signs of aggression, rather than targeting individual breeds. The RSPCA has expressed its support for the ACT’s position on this matter.
The current legislation provides an offence when a dog has attacked or harassed a person or an animal. The penalty for such an offence is 50 penalty units and this bill does not change this. However, the changes do update the provision to reflect modern drafting and also to take account of human rights and Criminal Code compatibility.
The offence of a dog attacking or harassing a person or animal is now clearly drafted as a strict liability offence which means that the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. This will allow for a prosecution case to be mounted on proof of the act occurring rather than the examination of the intentions or otherwise of the defendant.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video