- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 17 November 2005
Companion Animals Amendment Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 43 of 55
| Next Item »
Page: 19925
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. DON HARWIN [4.02 p.m.]: Before question time I said that the Opposition does not oppose the Companion Animals Amendment Bill, but I outlined a number of concerns with certain provisions in the bill. I was about to conclude by noting that the majority of the cost of enforcing the new legislation will fall to local government, regardless of whatever arrangements are made with revenue and the 80 per cent that goes back to council. Nevertheless, this is cost shifting to local government.
The Government took a high-profile stance in the media last May, publicly vowing to ban certain breeds of dogs, and it is now forcing local government to assume the responsibility and the cost of carrying through on that promise. As the shadow Minister said in the other place, the Minister should move to include in the bill a more realistic system of reimbursing local government for the cost of implementing these measures and, indeed, all legislative measures that impact on local government.
Although we do not oppose the tightening of restrictions pertaining to dangerous dogs—indeed, given some of the horrific stories there is public good in that—we do not believe it is satisfactory for local government to be burdened with the cost. Perhaps the current Local Government and Shires Associations investigation into cost shifting will support repeated calls by the Opposition to fund all mandates that the Parliament imposes on local government. On that note, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.04 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Companion Animals Amendment Bill, which amends the Companion Animals Act 1998 with respect to restricted dogs and enforcement. It also implements the recommendations of the statutory five-year review of the Companion Animals Act. The amendments will prohibit the selling, acquisition and breeding of restricted dogs in New South Wales. It will also strengthen the control requirements and enforcement powers available to manage restricted and dangerous dogs in the community. New section 55 states:
(1) The following dogs are restricted dogs for the purposes of this Act:
(a) American pit bull terrier or pit bull terrier,
(b) Japanese tosa,
(c) dogo Argentino,
(d) fila Brasiliero,
(e) any dog declared by a council under Division 6 of this Part to be a restricted dog,
(f) any other dog of a breed, kind or description prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section.
I note that dogo Argentino and fila Brasiliero are, respectively, Argentinean and Brazilian fighting dogs. Members have not asked whether the dogs in this new section are the only dogs that will be restricted, so the interpretation is open ended. I am not critical of that, but I think the House should note that. Indeed, it should monitor what action is taken by councils and whether the Government will add other breeds at a future time. I note also that the importation of the dogs I have listed is prohibited under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulation 1956 of the Commonwealth of Australia. However, once these dogs are in Australia they can be bred illegally; and, of course, it would be possible to smuggle dogs into Australia, just as drugs and other illegal items are smuggled.
The bill provides for the effective and responsible care and management of companion animals. It enhances the effectiveness of the Act following five years operation. Also, it will prohibit the selling, acquisition and breeding of restricted dogs and will require the compulsory desexing of all restricted dogs, so they cannot be bred. Some people will try to avoid that requirement, perhaps those who are in the outback, and that may need to be monitored.
The bill requires all owners of restricted and dangerous dogs to comply with prescribed control requirements for enclosures, collars and muzzles. It also provides councils with the power to seize a dog if the control requirements are not complied with. The bill requires restricted and dangerous dogs to be under effective control, on a lead and muzzled, and for a person to have no more than two dogs outside their enclosure.
The legislation requires that restricted and dangerous dogs wear a prescribed, distinctive and highly visible collar at all times. It strengthens the enforcement powers available to control a restricted and dangerous dog, provides that the council issue a notice of intention to declare a dog as a restricted dog, and provides that, if a breed assessment concludes that the dog is a crossbreed restricted dog, the dog must then pass a temperament assessment by an approved temperament assessor. It restricts appeals to the court of council declarations of restricted dogs, as an expert is included in the declaration process, increases the maximum penalties, and makes clear that authorised officers have the power to enter property where an offence has occurred. Finally, the legislation reduces general duties for councils that require them to promote the requirements of the Act.
One important aspect is the education of councils in regard to the implementation of the legislation. Councils must take steps to ensure they are notified or made aware of the existence of all restricted and dangerous dogs in their council area. I note that Standards Australia is currently investigating the possibility of adopting the British standard for dog muzzles. That would result in uniformity of approved muzzles. Brandon Gien from Standards Australia said that having a mandatory Australian standard may help to prevent further attacks by vicious dogs. He said further:
We're not suggesting that this is a fool-proof method by any means but if there is at least something that the standard can do to hopefully save the life of just one person, well I think it's worthwhile looking at.
Mr Gien said the organisation will investigate the possibility of adopting the British standard, and concluded:
If there is a mechanism or if there's a product that a standard can actually enforce these dog owners to actually use these things on their dogs, hopefully that will go a long way to prevent this sort of attack from happening again.
A dog being walked on a leash can create fear in a person approaching it, but that fear would be lessened if the person could see that the dog was wearing a muzzle. An owner may think he or she can control a dog, but something unexpected may cause the animal to launch an attack on a passer-by, perhaps an elderly citizen who may be unable to defend himself or herself from being bitten. Such an attack would be prevented if the dog were wearing a muzzle.
I note also that a report was requested by the Department of Local Government dealing with breed-specific legislation issues relating to the control of dangerous dogs. That report was prepared in 2002 by Dr Kersti Seksel, a registered specialist in veterinary behaviour with Seaforth Animal Behaviour Consultants. I will not go through the report at length but it argued that we should not overreact to this legislation. I do not believe we are overreacting. I have no reservations about the legislation. In the report Dr Seksel stated:
Fortunately, the incidence of the death of a victim as a consequence of a dog attack in Australia is extremely low. There had been 11 deaths attributable to dog attacks since 1978.
Personally, I think that injuries sustained in an attack by a savage dog, especially those sustained by children, are significant. Dr Seksel acknowledged that there are many victims with physical injuries of low to medium severity and stated:
Many victims of dog attacks also suffer long-term psychological effects, predominantly fear of dogs or fear of going to places where dogs might be present,
That is simply commonsense. It is one thing to fear an attack by a savage dog, but it would be unlikely for someone who has been attacked and bitten by a savage dog and had their flesh torn apart not to have a fear of dogs. Reading between the lines of the report it would seem that Dr Seksel was trying to downplay the problem when she stated:
Dangerous dogs represent less than 1% of the dog population recorded on the NSW Companion Animals Register and only half of these were involved in an attack on a person.
That may be true. I believe is true, but I do not believe it should be regarded as a minor issue or that we should not be concerned about it. I doubt that people who have been or may be attacked by that 1 per cent of dogs would think so either, especially when such attacks are usually so vicious and physically and mentally damaging to the victims.
In my opinion, a statement published by the Child Accident Prevention Foundation of Australia completely justifies support for this legislation. The foundation stated that each day two or three children attend hospital as a result of having been attacked by a dog. Children under 12 years of age are most at risk, and children aged one to four years have the highest rate of injury. In addition, the dogs of family and friends are involved in most attacks and many such attacks occur at home—40 per cent in the victim's house or yard and 30 percent in a neighbour's house or yard. Of concern is the fact that most serious injury is to the child's head and face, often resulting in significant scarring. Lacerations and bruising to the arms and legs are also common. Restricted dogs, those that are the subject of this legislation, apparently aim for a child's head and face. It takes little imagination to appreciate the tremendous scarring such an attack would leave on the body of a little child. The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the bill.
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [4.16 p.m.]: I want to make a few remarks about this bill, which I only picked up by chance. I have always taken an interest in companion animal legislation, perhaps because in a past life I worked for the Minister for Local Government and we had carriage of the legislation. I was interested to have a look at the overview to the bill and to note that the bill would makes a number of miscellaneous amendments arising out of the statutory review of the Act.
The bill has been presented to us as largely dealing with restricted or dangerous dogs, particularly focusing on a small number of breeds of dogs that are prescribed to be restricted. However, I delved a little further into the legislation and I was interested to note that, typical of this Government, hidden in the legislation—well, not hidden, but well into it—there is a whole series of changes. These, I presume, are the miscellaneous changes arising out of the review.
I will tell honourable members what those changes are. They are merely another grab for money on the part of the Government. By way of example, section 29 (3) provides that cats must have some form of identification, and the penalty is increased from five penalty units to eight penalty units. I then discovered that all of these so-called miscellaneous amendments involve increases in penalties. As it happens, a number of them relate to cats, such as increasing the penalty for the offence of a cat being found in a prohibited place. Perhaps my friends in the Greens Party will applaud that, and think the penalty should be even more severe.
In the second reading speech the Minister made no reference whatever to this revenue-raising element of the bill. The Government has failed to say that it is about to increase fines. I have referred to cats not wearing appropriate registration and cats being found in prohibited places. In addition, the penalty for a cat being deemed to be "nuisance cat" will be three penalty points for a first offence, rising to eight penalty points for the second and subsequent offences.
By increasing the fines for dangerous dogs, the Government shows that it is tough on this issue. The penalty for failing to keep a dog on a lead and muzzled has been increased from 50 penalty units to 150 units. I do not for a moment suggest that that is not a significant offence, but I make the point that the Government has simply failed to make any real reference to this being another revenue grab. The bill goes on in this vain. Section 56 (1) (h) provides for the registering of a declared dog, and the penalty is increased from 50 penalty units to 150 penalty units.
Completely unrelated to dangerous dogs, unregistered dogs, or even cats, section 60 increases from five penalty units to eight penalty units the penalty for denying entry to a person with an assistance animal. I know the definition of "assistance animal", because I was instrumental in amending early local government legislation to clarify that. The bill increases from five penalty units to eight penalty units the penalty for unlawfully charging for the entry of an assistance animal. These may be miscellaneous provisions, but it is about time the Government came clean and indicated that the provisions represent yet another revenue grab, another chance for the Government to get its hands in the pockets of animal owners, who mostly do the right thing.
Like many of my colleagues, today I have been inundated with emails from people registering their opposition to the Companion Animals Amendment Bill, particularly with regard to the provisions about certain restricted breeds. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile said that anybody who had been attacked by a dog may have a fear of dogs for the rest of their life. Indeed, I have been the victim of a dog attack—albeit not by one of the breeds of dogs proposed to be restricted—and I can assure the House that one does not get over it. So the people who have sent emails to me putting forward arguments against such a provision will get fairly short shrift from me.
In particular, I noted two arguments in the emails. The first referred to the persistent claim that there was a 25 per cent increase in dog attacks in South Australia and the United Kingdom after legislation was introduced to ban certain breeds. I fail to see the logic of such an argument. I am sure I will be inundated with emails pointing out why they are right and I am wrong, but it is nonsense to suggest that restricting certain breeds will somehow result in an increase in dog attacks.
Another argument was that pit bulls are well down the list of dogs involved in attacks. I fail to be convinced by that argument. I would have thought that pit bulls are well down the list because there are fewer pit bulls than many other dog breeds. Of course, we can make statistics say anything we want. The overview of the bill refers to the provision of the principal Act with regard to dangerous dogs. Obviously the provision is already in the Act and we have let it through in the past. The overview of the bill states:
At present under the Companion Animals Act 1998 (the Principal Act) a Local Court may declare a dog to be a dangerous dog if it has (without provocation) attacked or killed a person or animal or has repeatedly threatened to attack or chase a person or animal.
I have not seen too many dogs threaten to attack or chase a person or animal. Dogs usually either chase or do not chase. I do not know how we could define "threatened to chase". I have always thought that in legislation we often make simple ideas complex. Schedule 1 [88] inserts new section 58A, which provides that if a council is of the opinion that a dog is of a breed or kind of dog listed in the Act as a restricted dog—for example, a pit bull—or is a crossbreed of any such breed or kind of dog, the council will be required to give the dog's owner a notice of the council's intention to declare the dog to be a restricted dog. The owner will be required to keep the dog under effective control and muzzled. After 28 days following the issuing of a notice of intention, the owner can provide a written statement by an approved breed assessor to the effect that the dog is not of a breed or kind on the restricted dog list or is not a crossbreed of such a breed or kind of dog.
Given that in recent years we have gone down the path of microchipping companion animals, perhaps a more simple system would involve supplying proof of breed when registering a dog and having that information entered on the microchip. Perhaps such information is already on the microchip system these days. Surely we can simplify the system in the interests of saving costs. A person might have a dog that wears a tag, and the dog may be too old to have been microchipped.
Given that in future every dog and cat will have to be microchipped at the point of sale, we need to consider simplifying the system, rather than having this toing and froing with documents proving this and that. It seems that we often tend to tie ourselves up in red tape. Of course, local government does not have the resources that State and Federal governments have. Perhaps we could assist local government by lowering the costs associated with proof of breed.
The Hon. Don Harwin appropriately expressed the Opposition's position. If the Government is set on a path of increasing fines for various offences, it ought to say so up front. The bill increases fines for offences in relation to not only dangerous dogs and restricted dogs but also, as I have explained, assistance dogs and so-called nuisance cats. I wish the Government would come clean and admit that the bill simply gives it yet another opportunity to raise revenue.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.27 p.m.]: This bill amends the Companion Animals Act 1998 to make further provision with respect to dangerous and restricted dogs, and the duties and responsibilities of their owners. The purpose of the bill is to increase penalties for certain offences under the Act and to consolidate enforcement powers under it. The community is entitled to be protected from attacks by dangerous dogs. We have all read stories about people, often the elderly and children, being attacked by dogs. The bill will allow councils to enforce the control of certain breeds, and to test the temperament of other dogs, including crossbreeds.
Unfortunately, whilst it can be argued that some breeds are more dangerous than others—for example, because they have larger and stronger jaws than other dogs and have been bred for hunting purposes—it is regrettable that some of those dogs are owned by people who encourage the development of vicious traits. It is often said that the behaviour of a dog resembles that of the owner. If a dog is bred to attack, it will attack. We have a responsibility to protect innocent members of the public from such dogs and their owners. The bill allows for any dog, no matter what its breed, to be declared dangerous. We support that measure, because any dog that has the misfortune to be maltreated, or is trained to be aggressive by an irresponsible owner, can harm people.
A council's powers to deal with such dogs, and with owners who do not follow the requirements to ensure that those dogs are kept in proper enclosures, muzzled, and so forth, have been extended, as have the penalties for owners who do not comply. The bill increases the maximum penalty for an attack by a restricted or dangerous dog to $55,000, or imprisonment for two years, or both. For all other dogs, a recent regulation created a new fixed penalty of $550 for minor dog attacks. The Greens believe that the minor penalty is warranted: it warns dog owners whose dogs may have attacked someone for the first time to do something about their dog's or companion animal's behaviour, or to restrain it more effectively.
The bill specifies that councils must educate companion animal owners about their responsibilities. The Greens trust that adequate resources will be made available to councils to do so. On an earlier occasion my colleague Mr Ian Cohen argued that some small portion of the profits generated by the pet food and pet accessory industries should be made available for this purpose. We have spoken to the Canine Council of New South Wales, which stated that it is happy with the bill and supports it. The council does not recognise pit bull terriers as one of the 185 breeds it deals with.
With regard to other breeds that are not treated as restricted dogs under New South Wales legislation, such as Rottweilers or German shepherds, the Canine Council informed me that often breeders will breed for temperament—that is, not allow a particular dog to have offspring if they think its temperament is bad or very aggressive. The council also said that it believed that the bill is superior to similar legislation enacted in Queensland, as there will be a more detailed process related to the identification of a breed or crossbreed and a temperament testing process, in which the Canine Council will be involved. In the Act the current listed restricted dogs are:
(a) pit bull terriers,
(b) American pit bull terriers,
(c) Japanese tosas,
(d) Argentinian fighting dogs (dogo Argentino),
(e) Brazilian fighting dogs (fila Brasileiro), and
(f) any other dog of a breed, kind or description prescribed by the regulations as restricted for the purposes of this Division.
The Canine Council of the Australian Capital Territory said it is concerned that some breeds, such as Staffordshire bull terriers, may get caught up in the reference to pit bull terriers because the term "pit bull terrier" may cover breeds that the council claims are not inherently dangerous. However, the current legislation seems to exclude Staffordshire bull terriers, and we hope that the involvement of canine experts in identifying breeds and undertaking testing of temperament will ensure that no non-restricted dog that behaves itself will be caught by the legislation by mistake.
I have had limited time to look into this matter in any depth but I understand that attacks are not restricted to just a few breeds. There is some validity to the argument that certain types of people appear to be drawn to certain breeds of dog—that is, an aggressive, vicious person may choose a powerfully jawed or large dog that is known as a military, hunting or fighting breed. One example is the Alsatian, which once had a fearsome reputation and was the subject of Government action in the 1920s. Alsatians were re-branded as German shepherds and are still used as guard dogs, but are generally not thought to be a suspect breed and are not restricted.
Some owners of American pit bulls may use these dogs as an extension of their own aggression and are more likely to be irresponsible owners. They pick breeds they think are more aggressive and then exaggerate those characteristics by training the dogs to be aggressive or by not training the dogs and allowing them to display and act upon any aggressive impulses. The intent of the bill is that restricted dogs—that is, the five identified breeds that are listed in the Act—be bred out of existence by requiring desexing and disallowing their sale or their being giving away. The Minister said in his second reading speech that there is no place for these dogs on our streets.
On the one hand, some pit bull lovers have branded this as unfair and say that it will result in the extinction of a specific breed. On the other hand, other people might contend that humans have a history of crossbreeding dogs to produce specific breeds and that, therefore, we can also breed them out of existence. For example, human beings bred the dogo Argentino or the Argentinian fighting dog in the 1920s to hunt pumas and jaguars. Other dogs such as the Japanese tosa have been bred for dog fighting. The Japanese tosa is apparently twice as large as a bull-mastiff, making it rather formidable. American pit bull terriers were bred specifically for dog fighting. I note that similar laws banning certain breeds have been passed in other jurisdictions of Australia, in Ontario, Canada, and in other countries, and that most restricted dog lists include the American pit bull terrier, as well as other breeds such as half-wolf dogs.
The Greens would like the Minister, in his speech in reply, to address these issues and to refer us to any evidence as to what breeds, if any, are overrepresented in the 854 dog attacks he mentioned. Is the Government saying that a dog breed has specific genes predisposing it to attack or that once a specific breed of dog attacks it can do more damage by virtue of its physical characteristics? This may be the case, but it would be good to hear a more coherent argument from the Government about these matters. The television program Burke's Backyard quoted statistics to the effect that Australian cattle dogs, bull terriers, Dobermans, German shepherds and Rottweilers were responsible for 75 per cent of all dog bites in Australia.
If the Minister has any further advice on statistics about dog attacks it would be informative to hear that information so that the threat posed by certain breeds is on the public record. We are all aware of high-profile news stories about horrific incidents of people being attacked by pit bull terriers, and three such attacks in close succession provoked the former Premier to move to specify the restricted breeds currently listed in the Act. There is little doubt, moreover, that pit bull terriers have historically featured in brutal dog fighting practices.
I will now briefly discuss the specifics of this bill. At present under the Companion Animals Act 1998, a council or Local Court may declare a dog to be a dangerous dog if it has, without provocation, attacked or killed a person or animal or has repeatedly threatened to attack or chase a person or animal. The bill extends council powers and increases penalties. Failure to comply with control requirements applying to a dangerous or restricted dog is an offence.
If the bill is passed, the maximum penalty will be increased from $5,500 to $16,500. Moreover, the dog can be seized by an authorised officer. The bill requires that dangerous and restricted dogs are subject to greater controls, such as being kept in an enclosure that complies with the requirements of the regulations, and made to wear a distinctive collar and be muzzled and on a lead when outside its enclosure. The bill will allow councils to determine that certain dogs, such as crossbreeds, are restricted dogs. If a dog is confirmed as a crossbreed of a restricted dog, the owner will then have to obtain a temperament test from an approved temperament assessor. If the dog is assessed as not likely to be a danger to the public, it will not be declared a restricted dog.
This is a positive safeguard to protect dogs that may, for instance, be the offspring of a bull terrier and, for example, a spaniel; and although they have one bull terrier parent they do not exhibit signs of aggressive behaviour. I understand that the Royal New South Wales Canine Council has agreed to conduct breed identification tests or to be involved in the conduct of these tests. The bill requires that restricted dogs be desexed—dangerous dogs are already required to be desexed within 28 days of being declared dangerous. A similar amendment would prohibit the sale—which includes the giving away, acquisition, and breeding of restricted dogs. This would have the result that over time certain breeds would reduce in prevalence.
The bill increases the penalties for most of the offences under the Act, particularly in relation to dangerous and restricted dogs, and consolidates and clarifies the enforcement powers, including the power of entry of authorised officers under the Act. It will enable animals that are seized under the authority of the Act to be taken to animal welfare shelters or to veterinary surgeons instead of to council pounds. The pounds and veterinary surgeons will have access to the companion animals register and can therefore check the animal's microchip and identify the owner quickly.
A council will also be able to deal with companion animals that come into the pound's possession otherwise than by being seized under the Act: for example, when a dangerous dog is found wandering the streets without any identifying mark or known owner. The bill also contains a number of other miscellaneous amendments arising out of the statutory review of the Act. The Greens support the bill in the interests of preserving the safety of the community. However, we should bear in mind the very real responsibilities that owners bear in shaping the temperament and disposition of their dogs.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [4.40 p.m.]: It is a dog's life. Yesterday we dealt with a special law to protect police dogs so that people who are attacked by them can be charged with animal cruelty when they try to protect themselves. Today we are dealing with a bill to desex dogs and ban their breeding because their owners have trained them to be savage, were cruel to them so they became savage, or otherwise allowed them to be savage. It appears that dogs are suffering for the misdeeds of their owners. A large amount of research has been done into nature versus nurture with regard to what creates the characteristics or personality of people. My understanding is that the research is fairly unequivocal but that it leans generally towards nurture. My experience of dogs would definitely suggest that the way a dog is raised is far more important than its breed.
I can remember that as a child we were very proud of our labrador, but German shepherds were regarded as being unsafe and likely to bite. At the time Alsatians, as they were known—they later came to be known as German shepherds—were generally trained to protect used car yards or other such property. I know a woman who was a victim of an attempted abduction. Someone locked himself inside her house and then in the small hours tried to abduct her. She fought him off and he escaped. He was never captured. She moved house and got herself a very large dog of a very savage breed. The problem was that she was such a kind person that the dog turned out to be the kindest sook of a dog you would ever meet. I do not think it would frighten anybody, except by its initial appearance. Sadly, I do not think it is much use to her for protection. This is an example of the way a dog is brought up being the major determinant of its behaviour. In May this year, following a five-year review of the Companion Animals Act, Mr Carr announced that laws would be introduced later this year to ban the sale, acquisition, breeding or giving away of pit bull terriers, American pit bulls, Japanese tosas, Argentinian fighting dogs or dogo Argentine, and Brazilian fighting dogs or fila Brasileiro.
The Government's aim is not only to minimise dog attacks. As s the member for Cessnock said in the other place, "The aim is to breed these dogs out of existence. We do not need them." It is not the dogs' fault; it is the owners' fault. It will certainly be upsetting to families that have these breeds as family pets, who love and care for them routinely and properly, to have this Government roundly condemning their beloved dog. Because some people breed these dogs to fight and to be aggressive, caring dog owners will have to suffer. We have been lobbied hard on the bill, as we were on the Act, by both organisations and individuals.
The World League for the Protection of Animals [WLPA] is not in favour of breed-specific legislation. The WLPA says there are more German shepherd attacks than pit bull attacks. Animal behaviourist Dr Kirsti Seksel, in a report commissioned by Bob Carr's Department of Local Government, stated:
Overseas experience has revealed that breed specific legislation has failed to reduce the incidence of dog attack... Breed alone is a poor indicator of whether or not an animal is going to be aggressive to humans.
She emphasised the need for public education and the proper management of dogs known to be aggressive. The WPLA does not believe in picking on a breed. It says that the majority of dog attacks are not by pure breeds. A tiny percentage of each breed, including crossbreeds, has the potential to be dangerous. The WPLA points out that when the Companion Animals Act was introduced in 1998 it was envisaged that a percentage of the funds from the registration of animals would be allocated to the education of pet owners. This has not happened. The WPLA believes that the education of owners is the key to reducing attacks, and that owners should follow the guidelines in the Act.
Bad behaviour is more to do with individual dogs and handling rather than specific breed. Where, we might ask the Government, has the money gone? It has disappeared into consolidated revenue as usual and not been allocated for the purpose for which the tax was raised. The Royal New South Wales Canine Council, through a media release in May this year directed at the Premier, vehemently opposed breed-specific legislation. The President, Mr Irwin, said:
As long as I draw breath I will fight breed specific legislation. My organisation and all its members are bitterly opposed to this type of legislation... We believe strongly in punishing the 'deed not the breed' and the state government must introduce educational programs promoting responsible dog ownership in our schools as a matter of urgency.
The position against breed-specific legislation is also supported by the Australian National Kennel Council, the Australian Veterinary Association, the Australian Companion Animal Council, the Endangered Dog Breeds Association of Australia and the American Pit Bull Association of Australia. I refer to the 2005 policies and positions paper of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Under section 3.4.4.1, which refers to the control of dangerous dogs, it states:
Any dog of any breed or mixture of breeds may be dangerous and thus the legislation to control dangerous dogs should not normally discriminate on the basis of breed. Declaration of dangerous dogs should be based on the behaviour of the dog rather than its breed.
That is quite an unequivocal statement. From reading the second reading speech I cannot see any organisation that deals with dogs that is in favour of the bill's position that specific breeds should be targeted. The American Veterinary Association's Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions entitled "A community approach to dog bite prevention", as published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association, volume 218, No. 11 of 1 June 2001, says:
Breed or type bans—Concerns about "dangerous" dogs have caused many local governments to consider supplementing the existing animal control laws with ordinances directed toward control of specific breeds or types of dogs. Members of the Task Force believe such ordinances are inappropriate and ineffective.
A study titled "Dog bites to humans—demography, epidemiology, injury and risk" by Karen Overall and Molly Love, in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, volume 218, No. 12, of 15 June 2001, at page 1927, states:
Breeds, perceptions, behaviour, and bites—A number of investigators have attempted to find a relationship between breed and dog bites... There are 3 methods by which we can estimate the effect of breed on reported bite incidence. Breed-specific bite rates indicate what percentage of dogs of a specific breed were involved in biting incidence. This requires that we know populations of all biting and nonbiting individuals—data that are rarely available. Relative risk indicates how much more or less likely a specific breed is to be involved in a bite incident, compared with other breeds. Again, this requires a good estimate of populations of all breeds.
The population attributable fraction percentage (PAF%) is a measure of a breed's impact on the overall population. The PAF% is often calculated by using licence records to estimate breed populations. Numbers obtained from this approach may be quite different from the actual populations, because in many locales, licensing compliance is low. No single database is available that would provide complete information for any of these methods.
Effectively, what is being said is that generally there is no data to support that. Some of the best researchers in the world are collecting data. The Injury Control Council of Western Australia commissioned Dr Robert Holmes to write a report, which was entitled "The Injury Issues of Dog Attacks and Bites". At page 3 of that report Dr Holmes states:
Concentrating on restricting certain breeds may yet prove to be counterproductive in the long term goal of reducing injury rates. It may be distracting us from identifying the important causes of dog attacks and bites. Overseas experience has failed to show a reduction in dog-related injuries after certain breeds have been restricted.
Dr Holmes goes on to state:
The grossly disproportionate injury rate to children of 12-18 months old can be accounted for by the behaviour of the toddler that is unfamiliar to a dog that has not been adequately socialised to this particular type of human. The dog is a "child magnet". The child causes anxiety in the dog. Neither understands the body and vocal language of the other. The dog tries to keep the child away from it by biting the nearest body part, most commonly the head region.
In 2004 the Federal Australian Democrats moved a disallowance motion that would have allowed the importation of dangerous dog breeds for scientific purposes. Generally, the Democrats do not agree with the use of large animals for experiments or scientific purposes and they saw no reason to allow their importation for that purpose. Senator Bartlett said in his speech that dog attack figures really are "... very much a result of a lack of responsibility on the part of the pet owner than any inherent danger in dogs in general". Even if it were shown that certain dog breeds attacked humans more than others, it might well be that that breed had been chosen to play a guard dog role.
If, for sociological reasons, a dog had been chosen as a defensive dog, an attacking dog or a dog to protect property, obviously such a dog would be more likely to attack anyone who came near it, and that would increase the bite statistics. The bill will make it an offence to breed, advertise, sell or acquire a restricted dog. Restricted dogs will also be compulsorily desexed. The requirements to enclose the dog and ensure that children cannot get into those enclosures will be strengthened. When a dog is outside the enclosure it must be on a lead and muzzled at all times.
A person will be able to have only two dogs under his or her control in public if one dog is a restricted breed. The dog will also have to wear a distinctive reflective collar. The bill will dramatically increase fines and terms of imprisonment. The fine for a dog attack by a restricted breed or dangerous dog will be increased to a maximum of $55,000—which is 500 penalty units—or imprisonment for two years, or both, which seems a little extreme to me. New section 16 (1A) (a) states that the penalties for dog attacks or bites apply whether or not there is injury to a person. The definition of "attack" is not contained in the principal Act. However, section 16 also states:
Offences where dog attacks person or animal
(1) If a dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal (other than vermin), whether or not any injury is caused to the person or animal...
If a dog rushes at a person and stops and does not bite or chase that person, is that an attack? The Act is not clear on that point. In many sections the alternatives that are given—attacks or bites—constitute an offence. Section 17 states:
Dog must not be encouraged to attack
(1) A person who sets on or urges a dog to attack, bite, harass or chase any person or animal (other than vermin) is guilty of an offence, whether or not actual injury is caused.
I ask the Minister in his reply to clarify what "attack" means. The bill will also increase fixed and maximum penalties for other dogs. On the enforcement side, which is dealt with in new section 18 (1), the present four-hour period to seize a dog after an attack will be extended to 72 hours. If we compare the bill with legislation in other States we find that Queensland, Victoria and South Australia already have in place restricted breed legislation. The Minister also said that other States and Territories are looking at implementing legislation and that all relevant Ministers anticipate achieving a co-ordinated national approach. That has not happened as yet.
The Government, once again, has drafted a bill in response to sensational television reports on dog attacks that have occurred anywhere in Australia. Obviously dog owners need to be educated. If they do not comply with the legislation they need to be disciplined. However, making a dog guilty because it belongs to one breed seems to be heavy handed and unfair. It is worth noting that in South Australia, which effectively banned pit bull terriers in 1992, statistics show that from 1991 to 2002 the number of dog attacks remained virtually static. The list of breeds that attack is most interesting. At the head of the list are Rottweilers, representing about 20 per cent, and next on the list are Jack Russell terriers. People might recall the following quote by Mark Twain:
It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.
These attacks by Jack Russell terriers might give some substance to that comment and surprise some people. In my experience, it seems about right. Following Jack Russell terriers on the list are German shepherds, bull terriers of all types, kelpies, Dobermans and blue heelers. Those six breeds comprise 26 per cent of the dog population but they are responsible for 55 per cent of all attacks. Imagine the outcry if we suggested banning Jack Russell terriers! It would mean electoral defeat for any party that was so foolhardy. I agree, as do all organisations that oppose breed-specific legislation, that dangerous dogs must be controlled and, if necessary, dealt with. The RSPCA agrees with all measures regarding dangerous dogs, such as their being enclosed, muzzled in public and desexed. It does not agree that one breed or another should be singled out and that all dogs of that breed effectively should be declared dangerous.
As with so many bills that are introduced in this House, the Opposition will vote with the Government. It is futile to propose amendments to remove the reference to breeds and to retain the dangerous dog provisions. I stated my position, which is supported by every dog association and by most of the published literature. It is very worrying that the Government is quite happy to increase penalties in this legislation. Such a move is not supported by any of the bodies that have conducted reputable research. The Government will not allocate money to educate dog owners, which is what needs to be done. That is something the Government promised to do when the Companion Animals Act received assent.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [4.58 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Companion Animals Amendment Bill. I shall respond to a few of the issues that were raised. I refer, first, to cost shifting to local councils. It should be noted that councils have long had responsibility for the management of companion animals in their areas. In 1966 my first job in Wellington shire council was to introduce the Dog Act. Councils receive 80 per cent of the $4.6 million in annual revenue that is collected by the Companion Animal Fund from the register of cats and dogs in New South Wales. The balance supports the Companion Animals Unit, which manages the statewide register, as well as education and grants programs to support councils.
The Local Government and Shires Associations requested that the Government provide it with the power to ban restricted dogs in its areas. Associations and the rangers institute have been supportive of the need to introduce a prohibition on restricted dogs and to provide stronger enforcement controls for restricted and dangerous breeds. As I said earlier, the money goes to local government and not to the State. The Infringement Processing Bureau collects a processing fee and the rest goes to local government.
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe's reasonable and astute comment was that some dogs attack more than others because there are more of them. I have statistics to support that claim. In 2004-05 the Department of Local Government reported the number of attacks by the top five pure breeds as follows: 28,850 Australian cattle dogs, 85 attacks; 23,735 Rottweilers, 78 attacks; 35,711 German shepherds, 72 attacks; 40,776 Staffordshire bull terriers, 68 attacks; and only 3,244 American pit bulls and pit bull terriers—less than 10 per cent of all the others—with 56 attacks. Pit bull terriers attack 10 times more often than the other four breeds I have mentioned. I concur with the comments of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, and I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:33:21 : Update this page