Eckhoff Gerrard: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9888] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on the schedules. Hopefully the Minister of Local Government will answer a couple of questions that I have for him if he would not mind. There is a fine of $500 listed in schedule 1 for failure to keep a dog under control. Can the Minister show me anywhere in this bill a definition of “control”? Does it mean a dog on a leash or walking at heel or strolling along in front? What exactly is the definition of this word “control”? I can see quite a lot of conjecture by many in the Kennel Club and so on as to exactly what it means. 
I think members of the Committee might be interested to know that just an hour ago my secretary had a ring from the Kennel Club relating to a little story I had told about a child grabbing a dog’s unmentionables. I stand corrected; the term is “manhood”. I want to ensure that that is correct and I am grateful to the Kennel Club for that. Obviously the Kennel Club is very very interested in what is going on during this debate. I am sure it will be equally interested in the schedules. 
I find in the schedules descriptions of the offences that can be perpetrated against society such as wilful obstruction of dog control officers and false statements relating to registration. Where in this bill are significant fines imposed against the breeders of fighting dogs for example? Instead of $500 why not make it $100000? It seems to me that nowhere in this bill are there sanctions against the people whom this bill is desperately trying to pick up. The gangs are not mentioned. They are one of the big sources of the fighting dogs that cause so much damage. They use cross-breeding which makes it almost impossible for the dog control officers in the execution of their duties to determine exactly whether those dogs are one of the breeds mentioned in schedule 2. I suspect the bill will also start driving the breeding of those dangerous dogs even more underground than it is. It will make life even more difficult for the dog control officers and for the legitimate owners of dogs. 
Coming back to the schedules I note that the fine for failure to carry a leash is $100. We all forget to carry our driver’s licence from time to time. [ 
Interruption 
] Barbara Stewart says she is a totally law-abiding citizen. Well if one has a couple of vehicles one can leave one’s licence in the wrong vehicle from time to time. Again we are penalising the innocent when the real perpetrators of problems in this society seem to roam completely free. 
There is a $1000 fine for allowing certain dogs to be at large unmuzzled. Again the language in the bill is appalling. How do we define those “certain” dogs? Again it will be interpreted by some one way and by others a different way. I have no doubt that various territorial authorities will put their own interpretation on it. It seems to be a trait of this Government that it passes legislation that it then allows society or the courts to interpret; the legislation does not say what Parliament meant. Our job is to provide certainty. Whether in the Dog Control Amendment Bill or in any other bill we should be providing absolute certainty to the courts the territorial authorities or whoever it might be as to what Parliament wants. We should be stating precisely what a dangerous dog is or what a “certain” dog that must be muzzled is. There should be no ambiguity so that members of the public know exactly what the Government is proposing and so they are able to vote against the Government at the next election with even greater vigour and fervour.