Dog (Amendment) Bill; Crimes (Dogs) Amendment Bill

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Vice-President of the Executive Council), on behalf of the Hon. R. J. Webster [8.30]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The object of these Bills is to put in place stronger measures which may be taken against irresponsible dog owners. The Bills focus in particular on owners whose dogs have shown vicious behaviour and which may have already caused harm.

Whilst everyone in the community may not own a dog, there are few who are unaffected by dogs in their daily lives. The vast majority of dogs provide benefits to society through companionship or working skills. However, a small minority may pose a significant danger if uncontrolled. Responsible dog ownership is therefore imperative for the good of all in the community.

The existing Dog Act sets the minimum standards of dog ownership which the community expects to be observed, for example leashing a dog whilst it is outside its own yard. These standards are clear and easy to understand. There is, however, an element which does not observe these basic rules and it is here that the potential for harm arises.

The aim of the amendments is to build upon the existing legislation to encourage responsible dog ownership. The Bills make irresponsible owners more accountable for their actions, especially where their dogs have been proven to be dangerous to persons or animals. The measures will also reduce the likelihood of harm occurring in the first place.

I might emphasise that there is no intention to place any burden on the average family pet owner who is conscientious in controlling his or her dog.

The need for reform is demonstrated in the significant level of community concern over the number of injuries caused by dogs. Young children in particular have sustained horrific damage.

The New South Wales Department of Health maintains statistics on injuries caused by dogs which require hospitalisation. Recent figures show that there were 178 people hospitalised from dog bites in 1989/90 and this figure increased to 387 in 1990/91. Half of these victims were children. The much larger number of less serious attacks can only be guessed at.

Similar concerns have been voiced by other States and there has been joint commitment to develop controls for vicious dogs. These Bills are in furtherance of that commitment by the Government.

In 1988 the New South Wales law reform commission made a number of recommendations on dog control in its report on "liability for injuries caused by dogs". Some of its recommendations were implemented immediately. With these further amendments a substantial proportion of the Commission's recommendations will have been implemented.

With the provisions of the Dog (Amendment) Bill and the Crimes (Dogs) Amendment Bill, the Government is fixing the responsibility for a savage dog squarely on the person who must control the animal - the owner. It is recognised that the problem of savage dogs in the community does not originate with the dog but with the owner. This then is where the burden must lie.

Let me first mention the amendments to the Crimes Act. The legislation follows the recommendations of the Law Reform

Page 2274
Commission. It was concerned at, and I quote from the Commission's Report, "the dog which is kept for its vicious character" and that "existing criminal sanctions...Do not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence committed when such a dog is set on someone".

The offences have been created to ensure that the law is effective against a person who uses a dog as a weapon to cause harm. Such cases may be isolated but are completely reprehensible.

New clause 35A provides that where a person maliciously uses a dog to cause actual or grievous bodily harm, a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment may be imposed if actual bodily harm is caused, or 7 years if grievous bodily harm results.

I would stress that all of the common law defences such as acting in self defence apply to these offences. Responsible use of a guard dog does not therefore expose any person to conviction.

Section 440AA of the Crimes Act also applies to impose a maximum penalty of $100,000 as an alternative to imprisonment.

Turning now to the Dog (Amendment) Bill, councils will be given powers to declare any savage dog which is ordinarily kept in its area as "dangerous". The owner of a dog declared dangerous is then subject to stringent requirements to control the dog and to increased liability for harm caused by that dog.

Particularly, the owner of a dangerous dog must keep the dog effectively restrained while on the property where the dog is ordinarily kept so as to prevent it from attacking any person or animal. The means of restraint is at the discretion of the owner and could include a fence, chain or enclosure in a building if appropriate. In addition, clearly visible warning signs must be erected on the boundaries of the property.

The dog must be leashed at all times when outside the land or premises where it is ordinarily kept and the exemptions which apply to other dogs will not apply to dogs declared dangerous.

Other requirements deal with the movement of a dog to another place temporarily, change in the dog's ownership, and ensuring that the council is informed of the dog's whereabouts.

Liability for attacks by a dangerous dog extend to attacks occurring without provocation on land or premises where the dog is ordinarily kept, by amendment to sections 6, 20 and 20B of the Dog Act.

A council will be able to declare a dog dangerous under new clauses 9D and 9E if it has attacked a person or animal without provocation, or if it has repeatedly threatened to attack or chased a person or animal without provocation.

A definition of "provocation" is inserted in recognition that there will be instances where there is justification for the dog's behaviour. If a dog has been provoked according to the definition, it cannot be declared dangerous.

For example, "provocation" includes the situation where a dog is being abused by a person or being attacked by another animal.

The definition also encompasses instances where a dog reacts viciously to a person who is attacking the dog's owner or another person towards whom the dog could reasonably be expected to be protective. A dog may have formed protective instincts, for example, towards members of the owner's immediate family or household.

The legislation therefore recognises the importance of responsible use of a guard dog to protect life and property.

Based on the principles of natural justice, clauses 9F to 9L will provide that if a council is considering the declaration of a dog, it must give notice of its intention to the owner. It must then consider any comments made by the owner. Following this, if a council decides to declare the dog dangerous, the owner will have 28 days to appeal to the local court which may confirm or revoke the declaration.

Once a declaration is in force, the dog owner is then subject to the strict requirements of clause 9T which have been outlined, in addition to all existing obligations.

The maximum penalty for any breach of the dangerous dog provisions is $1000. The penalty is also applicable for failing to register a dangerous dog under section 5.

Magistrates' powers under the Dog Act to enforce these new measures have been consolidated and extended. They are now contained in new clauses 9M to 9S.

The local court has existing powers to order the control of a dog or even its destruction. These powers have been melded with the new provisions so that a magistrate will have the capacity to effectively resolve any matter involving a dog without the need for additional court proceedings.

To take one example, the court may declare a dog dangerous of its own initiative if satisfied that the dog has attacked without provocation as previously explained. It may also order further controls such as muzzling or finally destruction of the dog, if the dog attacks again. This is in addition to any penalties or criminal sanctions to which the owner is subject.

I must emphasise here that the ultimate sanction of destruction of a dog following an attack is given appropriately to the courts only. Local councils are not given any similar ability.

It is unfortunately true that some members of the community will continue to show a flagrant disregard for the rules of dog ownership. In particular, where a dog has attacked and caused injury to another, the dog's owner may continue to ignore obligations to control the dog, putting the community at risk.

To address this the courts have been given the power to disqualify a person from owning a dog for a time under clause 19A. The power is only available where a person has committed at least two criminal offences involving a dog attack. Of course, the exercise of the court's full discretion ensures that this measure is only imposed where warranted.

It has been necessary also to increase the penalties for all offences under the Act. It is manifestly clear that the current penalty levels in the Dog Act no longer reflect the cost to the community of the breach or of enforcement of the offence.

The maximum penalty for general offences is increased to $500. Offences flowing from a dog attack are more serious, and a maximum penalty of $1000 is imposed.

These penalties may be imposed by a magistrate if the owner is taken to court. Councils will continue to have the option to issue "on-the-spot" fines in a lesser amount for certain offences as an alternative to court proceedings. The level of penalty is specified in the Dog Regulation, together with other matters such as registration and impounding fees.

The Dog Regulation is set to be reviewed in its entirety as part of the government's ongoing regulation review process. The review process will follow the passage of these Bills and will involve public consultation.

Of a more minor nature, Schedule 2(5) deletes certain administrative provisions which will be transferred to the regulations in anticipation of their review. Consequential regulation making powers are included in Schedule 2(6) and Schedule 1(10).

It has become clear that ordinary members of the community, both dog owning and otherwise, have borne the burden of savage dogs which are irresponsibly controlled. Any dog becomes a menace only if its owner lets it. Therefore the Bills fix the blame where it most often belongs, that is with the owner.

The range of measures which are proposed are designed to encourage responsible dog ownership throughout the community, especially in those persons whose dog owning ethic is demonstrably lacking.

Page 2275

The government also strongly supports the warnings of animal welfare experts in response to dog attacks, particularly where a family pet has attacked members of the family. Regrettably, it must be said that any legislation is of only limited effect in these instances.

To repeat the warning - while dogs may be excellent companions, parents and dog owners should be especially aware of the danger any dog poses to a child, and any person should approach a dog with caution.

To further the community education process, there will be a three month "lead-in" period before the measures take effect. Through this, the public and enforcement agencies will become fully aware of the provisions and the continuing responsibilities which come with the pleasure of owning a dog. Animal groups such as the R.S.P.C.A. and the Animal Welfare League are already anticipating these amendments, having been involved in consultation prior to drafting.

I commend the bills.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW [8.32]: The Opposition does not propose to vote against these bills or to move any amendments, but we desire to express our view that they do not represent a completely satisfactory revision of the law in relation to dogs. It must be said that for many years governments generally have failed to fully provide satisfactory and balanced laws relating to dogs. Those who live in the inner city are aware not only of the general problems that dogs create but of the dangers that dogs pose, particularly to young children. The Opposition believes that this bill does not sufficiently grapple with those problems, and that the Government and the Opposition should find a satisfactory alternative.

Dog attacks are a serious problem. In 1990-91 in New South Wales, 387 people were hospitalised as a result of dog bites, and in 1989-90 178 people were hospitalised. Members of this House are well aware of some quite horrific and appalling attacks by dogs on young children, and we all react appropriately and emotionally to those attacks. Significant legal restraints need to be imposed on dog owners in order to preclude shocking and tragic dog attacks; and this legislation has not been embraced with any enthusiasm by interest groups - not only dog owners but parents and other interest groups. On the contrary, in so far as it attempts to provide an answer to the problems it has been regarded sceptically.

It is public knowledge that on 1st March a meeting of interested groups was convened at the Bankstown offices of the Department of Local Government. At that meeting were representatives of the Animal Welfare League, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Canine Council, the Local Government and Shires Associations, the Australian Institute of Ordinance Inspectors, the Australian Institute of Environmental Health, New South Wales Division, the Child Accident Prevention Foundation, New South Wales Division, the Animal Welfare Advisory Council, the Police Service, the Australian Veterinary Association, the New South Wales Farmers Association, and perhaps other groups; certainly groups with a real and valid interest in this legislation. At the meeting a resolution was passed in the following terms:

That the Minister's initiatives are welcome but the proposed legislation is re-active rather than pro-active and is unlikely to be capable of effective enforcement and will not prevent the majority of attacks.

A second resolution was in the following terms:

That the existing problem requires an effective educational program, both to the public and to Local Government, and a review of all fees and penalties which are clearly inadequate and ineffective.

The Opposition understands that those resolutions were passed unanimously. Despite that expression of criticism, it seems that the proposed legislation has not been substantially revised since the date of that meeting on 1st March. The new legislation increases relevant penalties, but there is doubt whether it sufficiently increases the penalties to provide an adequate deterrent or answer to the problem of dogs attacking citizens. The new legislation provides for new criminal offences, but they have the appearance of being rather difficult to prove and of providing rather expansive defences to defendants. It is legitimate to question whether the new criminal offences and avenues of criminal redress will really provide an effective and comprehensive answer to the problem of the conduct of dog owners.

The penalty provisions of the legislation will be increased to $500 in many cases for general offences. The maximum penalty for a dog attack will be increased from $200 to $1,000. Again it is legitimate to question whether maximum fines of that magnitude are sufficient to deter wrongful behaviour by dog owners. Where a person uses a dog to inflict actual or grievous bodily harm on another person, significant penalties are provided, namely, imprisonment and fines of up to $100,000, which can be imposed by the court. However, the Opposition makes the point that those offences are likely to be difficult to prove to the criminal standard of onus of proof - beyond reasonable doubt. One wonders whether those penalties will be sufficiently effective. I suppose I am expressing ambivalence about this legislation: the Opposition is not prepared to oppose it because it is an attempt to grapple with the problem, but it seems an inadequate attempt. It would be appropriate for both the Government and the Opposition to consider whether more comprehensive and more satisfactory laws should be enacted to deal with dog problems.

The Hon. BERYL EVANS [8.40]: I am pleased to support the Dog (Amendment) Bill and the cognate bill. The object of the bills is to strengthen measures for the control of dogs in the community, including dogs with vicious tendencies. In New South Wales alone, injuries caused by dog bites requiring hospital treatment increased sharply from 178 cases in 1989-90 to 420 cases in 1991-92. Over recent years disturbing graphic accounts of dog attacks, particularly on young children and the elderly, have been reported by the media, and there have been strong calls by the community for stricter dog control legislation. The present Dog Act requires the compulsory licensing of all dogs but enables local councils to level only a relatively small fine, and it is difficult for councils to enforce many of its provisions.

Page 2276

The proposed amendments seek to avoid harm occurring in the first instance and to control dogs that have already caused injury. Schedule 1 of the Crimes (Dogs) Amendment Bill will amend section 35A of the Crimes Act by proposing two new criminal offences. A person using a dog as a weapon to inflict actual or grievous bodily harm on another person can incur a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment or a fine of $100,000. However, it is emphasised that this does not include the responsible use of a guard dog for self-defence or other defence purposes. Amendments to the Dog Act will enable a local council to declare a dog to be dangerous if it has attacked a person or animal without provocation. Proposed sections 9F and 9G provide that a dog's owner has an opportunity to comment on a proposed declaration of a dog as dangerous and that such declaration will be subject to review by a magistrate.

The principal bill defines provocation as a person teasing, tormenting or abusing a dog, deliberately trespassing upon a place where a dog is kept, or attacking a person in front of a dog; or another animal attacking a dog. I find that definition intriguing. Many times I have seen teasing, tormenting or abusing of a dog. It is usually done by little boys who love to do just that. If a dog behind a fence barks at little boys, the boys will rattle the fence or walk backwards and forwards to tease and upset the dog. It is very difficult to tell little boys that they must not do that. However, if they are not warned or if no one is there to warn them, and a dog attacks them, there is trouble. Over the years I have owned a German shepherd and it has been fascinating to watch that dog behave in the country. German shepherds are trained as one-owner dogs. My two sons had the greatest joy in teasing that dog by pretending that they would hurt me, and the dog's reaction was incredible. One trains a dog to look after its owner.

I used to have to travel hundreds of miles alone in my car to collect children from school and so on. I always took my dog with me and I knew there was no way that a single person could open the door of the car while the dog was in it. Yet at other times I have offered a lift to someone and the dog has sat back and smiled at that person, in the way that a dog often can, and not harmed that person. The important thing is that dog owners control and train their dogs. Once a dog has been declared dangerous by a local authority it must live under strict rules. The owner must restrain it by a fence, chain or enclosure to keep it on its property. A warning sign must be erected and the dog must be leashed at all times when it is outside the property. The local council must be notified within 24 hours if the dog goes missing, dies, is sold, or attacks a person or animal. Breaches of the provisions relating to dangerous dogs will incur a maximum penalty of $1,000.

I wonder how we identify dogs as dangerous. I could tell the House a very interesting story, but the former Leader of the House told me I must not do so. I am amazed that when a council registers a dog the owner is given a tiny disc to attach to the dog's collar. If a dog is reported as lost and the only way it can be identified is by means of the disc on the collar, the owner will be very lucky if the disc is still there. The maximum penalty of $1,000 is a lot of money and may make people realise how important it is to train and control their dogs. Proposed sections 9M to 9S of the Dog Act will extend a magistrate's powers in the event that the dangerous dog provisions are contravened, and will include the power to order the destruction of the dog, if necessary. A magistrate will also have power to disqualify repeat offenders from owning dogs for up to two years.

Penalties for contravening dog laws will also be increased. The maximum penalty for general offences will be increased from $100 to $500, and offences flowing from a dog attack will be increased from $200 to $1,000. These are maximum penalties that may be imposed by a magistrate if the owner is taken to court. In effect the new provisions will make all owners legally responsible for the behaviour of their dogs. It will be easier for anyone who is attacked to seek redress against a dog's owner. Very often owners do not understand the needs of their dogs. It is very easy to acquire a little dog, but eventually that little dog grows into a big dog, and the owner might have no idea of the dog's needs. One of my colleagues, for example, has a very large dog that needs continual exercise and control. Many people do not understand how intelligent dogs are.

The Minister has chosen not to single out a particular breed of dog, and I agree with that because there is no way that one can say that a particular breed of dog is savage. Dog attacks have involved not only bull terriers and other fighting breeds but also a wider range of breeds and crosses. Honourable members would know that in the country we have many different breeds of dogs. The smallest dog I have owned was a fox terrier, which my sons loved as a tiny pet. Admittedly that small dog was used to my small sons, but whenever anyone else came we had a problem. We tied the dog up in the back shed whenever small children came to visit. On one occasion my cousin visited with a small child. Most people will acknowledge that it is difficult to keep an eye on a small child all the time. That child roamed up to the shed, found the small dog, and patted it very nicely, but the dog almost bit off the child's ear and we had to race the youngster to the doctor. It is not the size or type of dog that makes it savage; it depends entirely on the dog itself and how it is provoked.

It is now generally acknowledged that it is not the breed of the animal that is the problem but the failure of the person who buys the animal to train it responsibly. How many times have we heard people say that Christmas is coming and that a small dog would be an ideal Christmas present? Unfortunately many parents are tempted to buy a darling little puppy for a child, thinking that the child will love the dog; but in six months' time the dog will be much bigger and often no thought will have been given to its proper care and control. There is a growing trend by some people in some areas to keep large guard dogs for protection, particularly with the escalation of
Page 2277
house robberies; but unfortunately many owners have no idea of how to control or train those dogs. A German shepherd is the most intelligent dog one can have, but if it is not trained and controlled, there is no way to predict what it will do.

These amendments will ensure that minimum standards for dog ownership are maintained, but the problem will not be solved by regulation alone. When two-year-old Romy Wallbank of Randwick approached a leashed dog and put her hand out to pat it, she could hardly have been expected to sense the danger of her action. Before she had a chance to touch it she was viciously attacked. I cannot understand parents who walk along with a small child, see a tethered dog, and allow the child to reach out its hand and pat the dog. That is probably one of the most dangerous things one could ever do, yet it is the dog that is blamed, not the parents. Children aged five years and younger are the most common targets of dog attacks, receiving most injuries to the head, neck and face, which are within the reach of the dog. If a parent does not say to a child, "It is a lovely dog, darling, but please do not touch it, just look at it", why blame the dog?

Dogs can attack for a variety of reasons. Some feel threatened, others are aggressive and territorial in nature. The very act of patting a dog on its head or back can be perceived by the dog as an aggressive action. Yet, this is what most adults accept and even encourage children to do when approaching a dog. Almost half of the children bitten by dogs are attacked in their own home or in relatives' homes. I have just explained to the House how the smallest dog my family ever owned was the only one that attacked a visitor's child. Young children are far too inexperienced to recognise the warning signals dogs give when provoked. It is important that adults teach their children the right way to approach and handle dogs.

The Minister has signalled his intention to introduce a public education program, which I am sure will be enthusiastically received by the community as well as by animal welfare and child protection groups. Education in the schools is most important. Children love animals, no matter how big they are, how small they are, or what they look like; children never sense any fear from animals. They are inclined to walk up and say, "Isn't it lovely?" and reach out their hand, and that is when the trouble occurs. I support the Dog (Amendment) Bill and the Crimes (Dogs) Amendment Bill and sincerely hope that these further measures, together with public education, will encourage more responsible dog ownership and reduce the growing number of vicious dog attacks, particularly on young children and the elderly.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.52]: An Australian Associated Press release dated 19th May says:

Pit bull terrier turns on owners

Police had to shoot a pit bull terrier after it unexpectedly turned on its owners and mauled them in St Albans in Melbourne's west last night.

The couple had their wounds stitched in hospital after the pit bull terrier they had owned for two years and described as usually very loving attacked them without warning when they went into their garden at 9 pm.

A few days ago an article in the Sydney Morning Herald reported:

Dog shot dead after elderly woman mauled

An elderly woman underwent emergency surgery on her leg last night after being mauled by a dog which jumped a two-metre fence and attacked her while she was gardening at a Roselands house yesterday.

The dog was an American stafford terrier.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to identify the dates of the articles.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: The AAP release was dated 19th May, as I mentioned earlier, and the article in the Sydney Morning Herald was dated 3rd May. Two or three years ago I asked a question about the use of pit bull terriers for dog fighting but I did not receive a satisfactory response. In any event, the legislation is now before the House and the Australian Democrats support the Dog (Amendment) Bill and its cognate bill, the Crimes (Dogs) Amendment Bill. As the Minister said in the lower House, responsible dog ownership must be encouraged. Owners must be made to realise that the dog they own is potentially a threat to any person or animal. They must exercise due care and be responsible for their dog's behaviour. The figures cited by the Minister are 178 hospitalisations in 1989-90 following attacks by dogs and 387 the following year. Those figures are worrying and indicate how serious the problem is and how alarmingly it is growing.

This legislation fails to sufficiently address the main issue. It is unquestionably true that people on the street are at risk from attacks by dangerous dogs, and judging from the article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 3rd May, that applies also to people in their gardens. Nevertheless, the greatest risk to people is in the home or at a neighbour's house where someone is attacked by a dog known to them. This has once again proved to be the case in the article I read about the dog attack in Melbourne. Research conducted by the Melbourne-based Child Accident Prevention Centre has shown that children under 12 - more specifically, children aged between one and four - are most likely to be attacked. Of those attacked, three quarters are friends or family of the dog owner.

This information indicates that more must be done to educate people about the dangers of owning a dog. Dogs cannot be blamed for being dogs, just as children cannot be blamed for being children. Babies and young children should be kept separate from dogs, in particular dogs that are known to be potentially dangerous. When a child is in the presence of a dog it should always be under strict supervision. Preferably, the dog should be kept out of reach of any children, as we all know that children are inquisitive by nature. It is very easy for a parent to be distracted, if only for a moment, and in that
Page 2278
very short space of time an attack can occur, leaving a child scarred for life, not just physically but also mentally.

A number of dog breeds are known to be dangerous. Fortunately, on 26th November, 1991, the Federal Government announced a ban on the importation into Australia of four dog breeds and their genetic material. The dogs are the pit bull terrier, used for dog fighting in this country; the Japanese tosa; the dogo Argentino; and the fila Braziliero. The latter two have not been imported into Australia, and now never will be. At that time the Federal Minister indicated that there were 10,000 American pit bull terriers in Australia, with a likely population of 30,000. As I have already said, many of these pit bull terriers are used for dog fighting.

If a family is considering buying a dog, or acquiring a dog from the pound, it is best to wait until the children reach school age and are able to understand that any dog, however tame and passive it may seem, has the potential to attack. I have had the unfortunate experience of having two Alsatians, both acquired from other people, and both proved quite vicious and, regrettably, had to be put down. Apparently, they had had bad owners before us and somehow got to the stage where they were uncontrollable. It is very sad when one acquires a dog as a companion animal and it has to be put down because it is uncontrollable.

When one acquires a dog it should be taught to obey commands from any member of the family, not just the parents. Dogs can now be trained by official trainers and returned to the home fully trained. It is also important for a family to realise that a dog is for life. Often people buy puppies, which are cute and cuddly, but sometimes they grow into very large dogs. Many dogs are dumped at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals at Christmas time. People go on holidays and they have their dogs put down - it is tragic. I received a letter from the RSPCA on the legislation which said:

RSPCA NSW is in the main happy with this amendment as for the first time in Australia it puts more emphasis on the dog owners rather than the dogs themselves.

That aside, there are still major problems regarding dog attacks which can't be resolved by this amendment. The only resolution will be through education, of children, owners and the general public as a whole. All dogs show some sign before they attack.

It is also nearly impossible to implement these types of fines because the legal fraternity cannot come to grips with the fact that someone can steal a car and get a fine of merely $200 or so and yet a dog attack can invoke a fine of up to $10,000, or more and\or gaol. Also it is questionable whether increasing fines will reduce dog attacks.

Clearly more people and other resources are needed to police the current Acts rather than trying to find a resolution through some piece of legislation hastily put together which is difficult to implement, merely to satisfy public demand following sensationalised dog attacks.

The Dog (Amendment) Bill itself needs further clarification regarding the "means of restraint being at the discretion of the owner". The Minister's Second Reading Speech outlines that this discretion could include a fence, chain or enclosure. RSPCA NSW has some difficulty with the owners of dangerous dogs being given the discretion on the manner of "restraint". RSPCA NSW believes that all dangerous dogs should be housed in a suitable secure enclosure and only be on a leash and muzzled during exercise or transport.

The RSPCA supports this legislation, even though it is not as adequate as it should be. The RSPCA has provided me with information indentifying persons who have been attacked and where those attacks have occurred. I can make this information available to honourable members if they are interested. The Australian Democrats agree with the Opposition's comments on the desexing of dogs. It is widely recognised that desexed dogs are less aggressive. This legislation could only help in reducing the number of attacks. It is a step forward that this legislation places more emphasis on the dog owner than the dog, but it is not breed specific.

Legislation enacted in the United Kingdom two years ago after well-publicised horrific attacks on small children targets the pit bull terrier and the Japanese tosa - two dogs that are bred to fight. As I said earlier, the Federal Government has banned the importation of these dogs and two other breeds of dogs that, as yet, have not been imported. We must ensure that the numbers of dogs with awesome power, which are bred to be aggressive, are kept to a minimum. Sooner or later a pit bull terrier will kill a child. The outcry that this could cause will undoubtedly provoke further calls for stricter controls. Legislation must be proactive rather than reactive. I hope this legislation will help reduce the incidence of attacks on children in particular. I rather fear that it may not be adequate to do that.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL [9.2]: It gives me pleasure to support the Dog (Amendment) Bill and the Crimes (Dogs) Amendment Bill. As other speakers have clearly indicated, I hope this will overcome the number of unfortunate incidents that have occurred in recent times. These incidents have been occurring for a long time, but recently attacks on people and children by dangerous dogs have been a lot more serious. The legislation will increase penalties and allow for the classification of dangerous dogs. If a dog is guilty of any misdemeanour - attacking people or proving to be dangerous - a magistrate will have the power to impose additional controls. Without going through a number of clauses in the legislation, because other speakers have done that and debate is becoming repetitious, I would like to add a few thoughts of my own.

It was interesting to note tonight on a television program at 6.30 on Channel 9 that the importation of the American pit bull terrier has been banned in the United Kingdom. At present there are heavy controls over those dogs. Because of attacks in recent years that breed of dog has come to our notice. There has been a lot of pressure in Australia to implement similar restrictions but, as yet, that has not occurred. This legislation has been introduced to overcome community concern about attacks. Honourable members, when campaigning and door knocking in various suburbs and towns in this State, would be
Page 2279
aware of the hazards they could be confronted with in unknown territory. I have had several unpleasant experiences when door knocking, the most recent at Wyoming during the last by-election for The Entrance. I was about to walk along the path of an unfenced yard when a dog broke away from its handler's leash and flew at me from about 10 metres. The dog managed to take my tie and part of my shirt but I count myself fortunate that my footwork was faster than the dog's, otherwise part of my abdomen would be missing.

I do not know what breed of dog it was. It looked like a pit bull terrier, but I will not condemn that breed on my reckoning of its background. I had not entered the premises, yet I was in the middle of what could have been a nasty attack. I am sure many other members of Parliament have been bitten on their ankles and have had their socks and trousers torn. One of the most fearful moments of my life was when I was door knocking in Helensburgh during another by-election. I was thinking seriously about whether I should walk 100 metres along a path to a house in that electorate. I eventually decided it was worth it for another vote. When I arrived at the house I discovered that no one was home. My knock on the door brought a big dog out of the laundry. There I was on the verandah with no one at home and 100 yards between me and the exit to the property. I maximised my dog-staring skills, backed down the path for 100 yards without taking my eyes off the dog, and got out alive.

The Hon. Beryl Evans mentioned earlier that the trend nowadays is to own bigger and more vicious dogs because of the level of crime in our community. A lot of these dogs are ill-trained and housed in confined spaces, albeit small yards. Some of those yards are not secure enough for these large dogs. This presents a grave risk to people innocently walking by going about their lives, which is what they should be allowed to do. I hope this legislation will ensure that owners become aware of their responsibilities and look after the dogs that they choose to own and have on their properties. I believe the general level of safety within the community will be enhanced by this legislation.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.8]: The Call to Australia group is pleased to support the Dog (Amendment) Bill and the Crimes (Dogs) Amendment Bill. The existing Dog Act, which is being amended, has set out for some time the minimum standards of dog ownership that the community expects to be observed. These standards include a dog being leashed while outside its own yard. Because of the increase in attacks on adults and children I agree that there is a necessity to tighten dog laws. This legislation will encourage responsible dog ownership and make irresponsible owners more accountable for their actions, especially where their dogs have been proved to be dangerous to persons or animals. These measures will also reduce the likelihood of harm occurring in the first place.

This legislation is not directed at a person who is conscientious about caring for his or her dog. But there is a need for this reform because of the number of injuries caused by dogs. Younger children have sustained damage to their faces when dogs, for various reasons, have lashed out at them. At one barbecue that I attended a very friendly dog was moving around under the tables and chairs picking up food scraps. One of the children decided to get down on his hands and knees and at one point tried to remove the food from the dog, which up to that point had been quite friendly. The dog reacted, as it would under that kind of provocation, snapped at the child, and bit its cheek. Often a peaceful situation may change with a child's lack of understanding of how a dog may react if provoked.

On another occasion one of our pets, a dog that had been quite friendly, fastened its teeth on one of the children's feet and penetrated the child's foot. I do not know what our children were doing, but they may have been kicking the dog. Seeing such situations has made me more sympathetic to dogs, but at some point the realisation must be faced that it may be dangerous to have a dog in the vicinity of children because accidents can occur. The dog is then blamed for the accident. When a child is attacked by a dog, often no one is aware of the events that led to the attack. It is important that the Government, through this legislation, respond to widespread concern in the community, while not discouraging people from owning pets and not having an anti-dog attitude.

The Crimes (Dogs) Amendment Bill relates to some specialised areas. Proposed section 35A provides that where a person maliciously uses a dog to cause actual or grievous bodily harm, a heavy penalty should be imposed. A maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment may be imposed if actual bodily harm is caused, or seven years' if grievous bodily harm results. That can occur when people are protecting their property - particularly factory yards where guard dogs may have a genuine purpose - but may on occasion use the dog for the wrong purposes. Not the dog, but the owner who has misused the dog that has been trained as a guard dog, would be to blame. The Dog (Amendment) Bill will give powers to councils to declare any savage dog that is ordinarily kept in its area as dangerous. The owner of a dog declared dangerous is then subject to stringent requirements to control the dog and to increased liability for harm caused by that dog.

The owner of a dangerous dog must keep the dog effectively restrained while on the property where the dog is ordinarily kept so as to prevent it attacking any person or animal. The restraint must be decided by the owner and could include a fence, chain or enclosure in a building, if appropriate. Some unchained dogs may cause problems if they are adept at jumping fences. I have owned a number of dogs that were very good at jumping over even six-foot fences. Owners must be careful to ensure that if a dog is restrained by a fence, it does not have the ability to jump the fence. Even a high fence is often
Page 2280
not sufficient protection. The owner may need to keep the dog on a running chain within the yard, even when it is fenced. Owners should be aware of that possibility and should not rely merely on the fence.

A maximum penalty of $1,000 exists for any breach of the dangerous dog provisions. That penalty is also applicable, under section 5, for failing to register a dangerous dog. The maximum penalty for general offences will increase to $500. Offences flowing from a dog attack are more serious, and a maximum penalty of $1,000 is imposed. If the public, the owners of dogs, conscientiously observe the bills, attacks on innocent children should reduce. The Call to Australia group is pleased to support the bills.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.14], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support of this important community legislation. Honourable members have raised a number of issues to which I should respond. The Hon. J. W. Shaw mentioned consultation with a number of main interest groups. The Government has consulted all those groups on the amendments to the Dog Act. This occurred long before, as well as leading up to, the meeting of 1st March, to which he referred. The issue of consultation was thoroughly observed by the Government. The Government is addressing the resolutions that were passed at that meeting, particularly the question of registration fees and on-the-spot fines, together with other financial provisions. These are contained in the Dog Act Regulations, which will be reviewed following the passage of these bills.

Councils will, for the first time, be given the ability to deal with dogs that are known to be dangerous. At present they are powerless to act in those circumstances. If a dog is declared dangerous, the owner must comply with the stringent control measures if he chooses to keep the dog. With these amendments, the Government will put in place provisions that will enable councils, police and ordinary citizens to take more effective measures against irresponsible dog owners. However, as animal welfare experts have reminded us, dogs are essentially animals that must be trained and controlled in a responsible manner. This legislation is aimed at encouraging responsible dog ownership, which is ultimately a matter for the individual.

The Government supports the importation bans on certain breeds of dog that are being imposed by the Federal Government. However, breed-specific controls within local communities are considered unworkable and discriminatory and would not receive the support of the Government. The Government reiterates that all dogs, regardless of breed, may be dangerous, and for legislation to be effective it must therefore apply to all dogs. Pit bull terriers are therefore adequately covered within the legislation, as raised by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. The dangerous dog provisions apply to cases where dogs have repeatedly threatened to attack. The amendments seek to prevent all breeds of dogs causing harm. With those comments, I commend the bills to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time and passed through remaining stages.