Eckhoff Gerrard: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14120] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I will take a short call as I am sitting in for Mr Shirley on this bill. I could not help but be bewildered by the comments of the Minister when he said as I recall—and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong—that councils have no records of dog attacks. Why should the Minister be surprised at that? Why should a regional or district council have those sorts of figures—on dog bites for example? And what is the difference between a dog bite and a dog attack? I have not heard that explained. Let me explain this to the Minister: I have been bitten numerous times by dogs but I have not been attacked by a dog. If a dog is caught up in a barbed wire fence for example and its leg is about to snap the instinctive reaction is to reach in grab the dog and relieve the pressure on that leg. Of course the dog will fasten its jaws on one’s hand or anything else that it can get at thinking that that is how the harm is being caused. That is quite a different situation from a dog attack. That is a dog bite as distinct from a dog attack yet there appears to be little or no understanding of that point by the Minister. I am sure the Minister for ACC could have told the Minister for Local Government—had he spoken to her—as Federated Farmers have told me that there has been as I recall something less than $1800 paid out in accident compensation for people who have been attacked by a dog. So the real issue is: where is the problem? For the Minister to say that young Carolina’s horrific injuries—and we do not want to minimise that appalling attack in any way—are indicative of every dog bite or attack is quite wrong. 
I would also ask the Minister this. Since this legislation has come through and was passed some months ago to my knowledge at least four children have needed hospitalisation after attacks by dogs so how has microchipping stopped those dogs attacking children? The reality is that it has not and it never will. This is just a politically correct piece of nonsense by this Government to look as though it is doing something about a problem that it really has no intention of addressing. As one of my colleagues in the House said the issue is about the really dangerous dogs—the pit bull terriers and so on. If the Government really wants to address that issue it should ban them. It should send the dog control officers out to shoot every one of those dogs. Let the Government get rid of those breeds if it is actually serious about dog attacks. But the nonsense of having to microchip farm dogs who offer absolutely no threat to the public is just ludicrous. 
That is all I need or wish to say on this particular issue at this time but I wish that the Minister would understand the extent of the problem before rushing into legislation. That is something we have come to expect from a Government that understands nothing more than political correctness. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 2 be agreed to.