Page 527 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
animal management. I commend the government response, which is not to support the opposition’s bill to the Assembly.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.22): The Greens will not be supporting Ms Lawder’s Domestic Animals (Dangerous Dogs) Amendment Bill today. My team and I have met with a lot of people—stakeholders and constituents—to discuss this issue. They have included the RSPCA, the Animals Defenders Office, victims of dog and cat attacks and domestic animal services volunteers. Among Ms Lawder’s proposed changes to the Domestic Animals Act are two new subsections to section 6 of the act, both relating to registration of pets. Ms Lawder is proposing that registration fees be waived for dog owners who successfully complete approved dog training.
I have no doubt that this is a laudable idea. We are not against the idea. The issue is the practicality of it. The dog trainers that we have spoken to simply would refuse to train an unregistered dog. As Minister Steel pointed out, registration normally happens considerably before the time of dog training. So there is a real problem here. I sympathise very much with Ms Lawder on this, because it is the sort of problem that could easily be addressed by the government. But with the tools available to Ms Lawder or to me as backbenchers, there is no easy way to kickstart something like this, nor do I do think the legislation is going to do it, unfortunately.
I understand that DAS already has the capacity to waive registration fees for dog owners who are struggling financially. On this note, I would encourage DAS to communicate this capacity much more widely. I fear that it is similar to the situation relating to age deferrals for rates. The policy is okay, but the government simply fails to inform, or sometimes actively prevents, people who would benefit from it knowing about it.
The DAS website states that surrender fees may be waived where the owner would otherwise suffer hardship. But this information regarding rego fees is just not on their website. This should be fixed. Registration is a simple and effective mechanism that allows authorities to maintain contact with dog owners, help unite lost dogs with their owners and establish whether or not they are desexed. There needs to be improved enforcement for dog owners who fail to register their dogs.
Ms Lawder’s next amendment is to section 24 of the Domestic Animals Act. This amendment will see a doubling in licence fees for dangerous dogs. I am really concerned that what this would do in practice is result in decreased registration compliance by owners of dangerous dogs and also potentially dangerous dogs. If a dog is actually dangerous, it is important that owners are encouraged to keep them under control. This is clearly preferable to euthanising a dog.
One of the more obvious ways to decrease attacks by dangerous dogs is to have more preventative measures in place so as to stop as many dogs as possible becoming dangerous in the first place. There should be comprehensive training for pet owners and breeders and comprehensive education for children. Special efforts must be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video