Page 5227 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 29 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
mentioned in her remarks that the government is looking to streamline the appeals period so that we do not have dogs which have clearly been declared dangerous being stuck for a very long period in a small cage, potentially in a very injurious situation. We certainly do not want to see that happen. We need to consider the dogs’ welfare, as well as the welfare of the community as a whole.
The government also intends to amend the act to provide more powers for rangers to seize puppies that have been illegally bred without a breeding licence. This could further increase the number of dogs being seized and held. The obvious concern is whether or not domestic animal services has the resources or processes in place to adequately manage the likely influx of impounded dogs.
Members may also be aware that neither RSPCA nor DAS volunteers are allowed to walk a designated dangerous dog; only trained and qualified staff are able to do so. In some instances I understand that it may require more than one member of staff. If this bill creates an influx of designated dogs being impounded then there will need to be a commensurate increase in the workforce resources to manage these dogs. It will surprise no-one that the life of an impounded dog is far from ideal. If they are not managed properly, walked regularly and socialised, they could well come out of the experience in a worse, less sociable condition than when they came in.
I understand that the government has committed to the construction of 25 new kennels at the Symonston facility, and I welcome this increase in resources. I understand that the government is of the opinion that the new changes resulting from the amendments which are likely to be passed today can be managed in the short run within existing resources. However, I am concerned that in the long run this will almost certainly require additional resources so that the animals that have been impounded can be managed in a humane way.
If the compulsory investigations are not done fast enough, the new kennels will fill up anyway and the territory will have a real situation on our hands. Both the Liberal bill and the government amendments will lead to an increase in seized and impounded dogs. This needs to be seriously monitored to make sure that we do not create a new problem with inhumane treatment of impounded dogs while we are trying to address another problem. I am not trying to downplay the current problem, but we need to look at all sides of it.
The government amendments indicate that a seized dog must be impounded until the completion of an investigation. Amendment 13F allows the registrar to extend that period indefinitely. As I said, this is a risk to animal welfare outcomes, and the long-term impounding of dogs must be monitored and resisted by both DAS and the registrar.
I note that the new amendments introduce the possibility of home detention for a dog in certain circumstances. This is a useful addition, but I believe it needs to be accompanied by a notice to the complainant or the victim that this is happening, if that person is living in the immediate vicinity of the home-detained dog. I would have thought that the government or the Liberals could have introduced requirements to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video