Eckhoff Gerrard: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9880] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 The definition of “dangerous dogs” or “menacing dogs” is interesting. Those of us who have watched a television programme or movie starring a couple of Dobermanns tearing down a lawn at night running towards somebody popping over a fence and salivating as they do so will know it conjures up a pretty terrifying image of dangerous dogs. I have a little story of some people who lived in a house on our property some years ago. They had a Dobermann pinscher—that I think is the full name of the breed. Being a sheep farmer I was unsure about having that huge Dobermann on the property. The people said there was absolutely no problem and they told me what had happened the day before. They had a 2-year-old son or daughter who was playing with the dog outside. The child inadvertently reached up grabbed what I can only describe in this House as the dog’s unmentionables and gave them a bit of a yank. The dog yelped shot inside hid under the bed for the rest of the day and would not come out. But according to some that is a dangerous breed of dog. It was a huge Dobermann. 
It is an interesting exercise when one classifies all dogs purely by breed and says they are inherently dangerous. So too are Jack Russell’s; so too are any little snappy dogs. But to say that a Dobermann is dangerous just because it is a Doberman and just because it has been portrayed that way in books movies television or whatever is applying some sort of a driftnet to this issue. I know that many dogs are menacing and they look very dangerous. As a child I can well recall being scared stiff of walking down the street because of a rather large dog. I think it was a German wire-haired terrier a very curly-coated terrier and it had pink eyes. I can still see it. I was terrified of that dog but my parents assured me that it was totally harmless. So it is all a matter of what one perceives. 
Here we have legislation that is going to track these dangerous dogs by forcing the owners to have a microchip placed in the dogs in a few years’ time. I understand the Minister’s comments that stud breeders will think this legislation is a marvellous advance. They will know that the progeny of these dogs is absolutely genuine and that there is no falsifying of records. It will be of huge benefit to stud breeders whether the animals concerned are dogs or any other animal for that matter. It is a marvellous opportunity but again we come back to the fundamental point that the ACT party has been trying to get across and that is that this legislation will not catch those genuinely dangerous dogs and those genuinely dangerous dog owners. Surely these are the people we are trying to catch with this legislation—not the decent law-abiding people up and down this country who take their dogs for walks and treat them well and whose dogs become part of the family regardless of their breed. Staffordshire bull terriers look hugely menacing but are very placid. They are really marvellous family pets but if people cross-breed them with the pit bull therein lies the problem—and those are the people who are going to studiously avoid microchipping these dogs because microchipping means they could be easily caught and identified; both the dog and the owner. They are not going to do it. So we are imposing yet again extra costs onto law-abiding citizens and families who adhere to the requirements. It is all very well for the Minister and MPs on our salaries to say it is only another $30 or $40 or whatever it might be and that the fees are only a few more dollars. But to a lot of people another $30 to $50 is a significant sum of money and I do not think it is appropriate for us to say that it is not.