- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 2 July 2003
Companion Animals
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 48 of 58
| Next Item »
Page: 2674
Mr BARR (Manly) [6.16 p.m.]: Tonight I refer to companion animals and, more specifically, to dogs. Recently there was a local furore in Manly because dogs were being taken to coffee shops and restaurants. The problem arose when council sent notices to some restaurateurs because they allowed dogs on footpaths adjacent to dining tables, in contravention of the Companion Animals Act. I do not want to belabour a point that was dealt with at length by the Manly and metropolitan press, but I believe that Manly council dealt with the problem sensibly and pragmatically by stating that, as restaurateurs were self-regulating, they should deal with the issue as they saw fit. It highlights a deep issue—that is, the role of humans and companion animals and the way in which they have developed together over many thousands of years.
A fascinating area of study known as arcane zoology examines the symbiotic relationship between dogs as they evolved from canis lupis, the wolf, to canis familiaris, today's domestic dog. Some people believe the development of homo sapiens to be linked quite closely to domesticated dogs. One of the questions that must be asked is whether dogs adopted us or whether we adopted them. As I said earlier, this is a deep issue. Quite extraordinary emotions arose in response to the inclusion of dogs at cafes. A local group called Paw Power, headed by Suzannah Mayfield, was formed to fight for the rights of people to take dogs to restaurants. It was quite effective in putting forward a case.
There is a pet in almost every household that one visits—invariably a dog or a cat. Those animals play a pivotal role, a role that should not be underestimated, in family life. Some people might seek to denigrate that role by stating that it might be some sort of neurotic fixation by people who cannot focus their attention on other adult humans. As an avowed, unashamed and unabashed dog lover, I disagree with that view. Dogs play a critical role in family life. Our family has a dog. She is 14½ years old and she has become incontinent. She sleeps on a trampoline bed with a basin underneath, which I rinse out daily. You will be pleased to know, Mr Acting-Speaker, that she has been on oestrogen therapy for the past few days and that has done the trick so far.
People like me go to extraordinary lengths to make sure that our animals are happy and can interrelate with the family. However, city planners, developers, councils and State governments must recognise adequately the important symbiotic bond between companion animals and humans. They fail to do so at their peril because animals are very important to people. When older people take their pet dogs for walks it gives them a chance to interact and talk with others with similar interests. A pet dog can be terribly important to those who live alone. We must not downplay or denigrate the role of companion animals. We should ensure that our planning processes, bylaws and regulations take account of companion animals. A five-year review of the Companion Animals Act is under way and these sorts of issues should be considered carefully in that context. In the meantime, I believe people should be allowed to bring their dogs to outdoor restaurants. Those restaurants that do not want to allow animals do not have to, and those people who do not like to see dogs near tables do not have to frequent those restaurants that allow dogs. There is scope to reach a sensible compromise in this matter.
Private members' statements noted.
[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Lynch) left the chair at 6.21 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:25:14 : Update this page