Minute With The Mayor - Mayor Ramon Jayo April 28th

Community Safety Must Always Come First

‍
Following a serious dog attack on 15 March 2025, where a member of our community sustained significant injuries requiring extensive hospitalisation, Council lawfully acted to seize and destroy the two dogs involved under the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act, with community safety as its primary consideration.

On 17 April 2025, Council issued a combined dangerous dog declaration and destruction order. This decision was not taken lightly. It was based on detailed evidence, expert assessments, and Council’s clear legal obligation to act where there is an ongoing risk to public safety.

The dog owner exercised the right to challenge that decision. An internal review was undertaken and completed on 2 May 2025, confirming Council’s original determination

‍

The dog owner, unhappy with Council’s decision, appealed to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), triggering a process that took 12 months to conclude. Hearings were not held until January and March 2026.

This matter has imposed a cost of over $70,000 on local ratepayers, a burden created not by Council’s actions, but by a legislative framework that permits lengthy and costly legal challenges, even when decisions are made lawfully to protect public safety.

‍

Rather than being invested in frontline community services or local infrastructure, these public funds were spent because Council was legally compelled to defend a public safety decision through an inefficient and protracted review process following a serious dog attack.

Ratepayers deserve transparency about why this occurred and why the current system allows it to happen.

Throughout this extended period, Council was legally required to securely house the dogs and engage legal representation, expert witnesses, and operational staff to meet statutory obligations.

‍

Although the owner was self‑represented, Council had no discretion to reduce its involvement or limit escalating costs.

The system requires full participation by local governments regardless of cost, complexity or impact on ratepayers.

This outcome does not reflect a failure of Council decision‑making. It reflects a failure of the legislative and review framework.

‍

Current dangerous dog and QCAT processes allow serious public safety decisions —supported by evidence and upheld through internal review — to be delayed for extended periods at substantial public expense.

Councils are left to absorb these costs simply for doing what the law already requires them to do: protecting the community.

‍

While access to review rights is important, those rights must be timely, proportionate, and balanced against the public interest. A system that enables year‑long delays and tens of thousands of dollars in ratepayer costs in clear‑cut public safety matters is not fit for purpose.

Council is calling for urgent State Government review and reform of the dangerous dog legislative and tribunal framework, particularly in cases involving demonstrated risk to community safety.

‍

Local governments and their residents should not be expected to underwrite prolonged legal challenges where public safety is clearly at stake.

Despite these systemic shortcomings, Council will not compromise on safety.

Community safety is not optional.

This incident also highlights the importance of responsible pet ownership.

‍

When dogs are not properly controlled, the consequences are serious and long‑lasting. Victims carry the impact, and community confidence in public safety is undermined.

This matter was about accountability and reinforcing that dangerous behaviour will not be tolerated. The appeal process has now been exhausted, and the confirmed orders have been carried out.

‍

While the outcome is regrettable, it reflects the seriousness of the incident and Council’s obligation to act, even when the system makes doing so costly, time‑consuming and unnecessarily difficult.

Proceedings relating to the dogs have concluded. Criminal proceedings against the owner remain ongoing. Owner responsibility is the central issue and is appropriately before the courts.

‍

Dangerous animal laws exist to prevent harm, and when responsibility fails, accountability must follow. Council’s actions reflect the real and lasting impact incidents like this have on victims and on the wider community.

‍