A Dog-Gone Stupid Law

The law in New South Wales is quite clear when it comes to where owners can take their dogs.  They must not be closer than ten metres from any area where food is being prepared or consumed - and "beer " is technically "food "in the eyes of the law.

That is an ordinance that is either widely ignored, or rigidly imposed across Sydney suburbs.  Many fashionable coffee shops welcome customers and their dogs and it is common to see people enjoying brunch with their faithful pooch sitting placidly under the table.   Other restaurants rigidly bar dogs and often even the blind and their guide dogs are turned away, even though they are legally exempt from that law.

Up until now, the acceptance of dogs in pub bars was very much a matter for each publican.  There was usually at least one pub in every suburb where dogs were welcome but lately council rangers have been conducting a crackdown.   There have been reports of owners being hit with a six hundred dollar fine and publicans have been fined for condoning this law breach.

Now a private members bill has been introduced into the state parliament by a Greens supporter to specifically allow dogs in pub bars.  It will probably not make it into a law change but it is an attempt to preserve the friendly dog culture that has made so many old pubs a welcome haven for men who escape weekend drudgery with the excuse that "they are taking the dog for a walk "!

At the same time a peculiar new ordinance has been applied to Asylum seekers with regards to pets. Leaked guidelines reveal that asylum seekers receiving government support will now be required to seek the approval of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection before buying a household animal.   They may be required to furnish evidence that they can cover the cost of pet ownership.

What is unclear is to what extent this direction applies.   Does it simply extend to adding a dog or a cat to the household ?   Or will it also include the acquisition of a caged bird, Guinea pig or a bowl containing Goldfish ?   And more importantly, what does this imposition hope to achieve ?

Many animal lovers will claim it is counter productive.  Gaining the right to remain in this country is a long process and those with children would benefit from having a pet.  That is an Australian custom that we would be better seeking to pass on to new citizens.  Advocates of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre are scathing and claim it is "another terrifying display of arbitrary power to decide the rights of people seeking asylum ".

Dog and cat ownership in Australia is declining as fewer people live in a home with a backyard. It will decline further if we erect more barriers to where pets may be taken and make ownership more onerous.  There must obviously be restrictions on large and savage dogs, but most pets under the control of their owners fit well into the café and pub scene.  Their presence in dining establishments in Europe is legendary.

Perhaps the best advice to the lawmakers would be to "loosen up " and have a second look at restrictions on the law books.