Eckhoff Gerrard: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9868] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 This is a rather important bill and I am happy to talk about Part 1—clauses 2 and 3. It is quite apparent when debating this bill that there is a hugely good intent in it. I do not think anybody doubts there are problems out there. But it is the applying of it in practice in which I see some real problems. 
An example of the requirements now to be placed on territorial authorities is new paragraph (4)(b) of section 10 which has been inserted in clause 3: “the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access ...”. What exactly does that phrase “uncontrolled access” mean? Does it mean the dog will be on a leash so that he is controlled while he gets access or does it mean the dog is uncontrolled on say a beachfront? Whether it be winter or summer huge numbers of people will be there. I do not understand what “uncontrolled access” to public beaches actually is. I assume there will be some dog inspectors at those public facilities checking to see whether the dogs concerned are controlled. I wonder whether the Minister could perhaps explain that a little to me. Does it mean that when dogs are on the beach running free and chasing birds or sticks as they do they are in a very real sense not controlled? By very definition a dog that is taken for a run is not under absolute control unless the owner has been to a kennel club or that sort of thing and has instant control of the dog. My experience of urban dwellers especially is that they use voice control to try to control dogs in these public places and that is not a practical way of doing it. It is only members of the farming community it seems to me who manage to control their dogs; they control them in a much more disciplined way than do so many people who take their animals into what I would call urban situations. So I ask how we are to control animals that are allowed to roam free in those specific areas. 
I have some other real problems too. I was hoping to get a call on the earlier part of this bill where I could have talked about the concept—I think the Minister spoke about it—of education of the public and indeed of the dogs. Education requires an extensive period of time. Owners will not be educated nor will dogs in the very short time frames that this bill allows for so the exercise of having controlled animals in public places frequented by children is probably a totally impractical suggestion or requirement by this bill. 
There is also a requirement for the territorial authority to have regard for the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners. What exactly is that and how in a practical sense will it occur? Will there be a park for dog owners and their dogs and another park next door or will the park be divided up by a solid fence that dogs cannot jump over? I do not think the practicalities have been thought through of how amenities will be provided for the public so that they can enjoy the great outdoors free from dogs—whether it be free from their faeces or just free from their presence. It seems logical to me that we will have to fence these areas in half to allow for both situations to occur. 
The cost of that alone will be very prohibitive and rates will go up yet again. If the Government is dead keen to promote this bill maybe some funding should also follow its passage. One of the problems that territorial authorities face is that although they are compelled to implement the will of the Government on any issue that may not be accompanied by an appropriate amount of funding. It always falls back on the poor old long-suffering ratepayers many of whom may not be dog owners so why should they have to pay? 
Those are the sorts of concepts I do not believe the Government has really thought through. It has not given a practical look at this whole situation.