Proposed New Victorian Dog Laws Dead Wrong

[Andrea&John]

OK, have sent another mail to a few members. Thanks Erny for your mail, made it a lot easier I'm very grateful for all the work you do. I added a few of my own words but the main thing is to show them that we are still watching and haven't forgotten I suppose..

[Erny]

I received a response to my correspondence from the DPI to my "recent correspondence" (not sure which of the 3 letters they are responding to, or perhaps all?). Anyway, the wording sounds familiar :

Thank you for your recent correspondence in which you wrote to Members of Parliament about concerns regarding the proposed dangerous dog legislation changes. As the department responsible for the development of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (the Act) that regulates the management of companion animals in Victoria, the Minister for Agriculture has asked that I respond on his behalf.

The State Government is committed to promote animal welfare and responsible pet ownership under the provisions of the Act. This will be balanced with strong legislation to protect the community from nuisance and dangerous dogs. The aim of the legislation is to give councils greater powers to control dogs that are dangerous, of a restricted breed or unregistered and to increase court imposed penalties on irresponsible dog owners. The proposed Bill reflects the government's intention to toughen action on individuals who practice irresponsible dog ownership.

The information gained from the Dangerous Dogs Survey conducted in January 2010 and the views of major stakeholders, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Australian Veterinary Association and Dogs Victoria, have been considered in preparing the Bill which balances the interests of animal welfare, animal control and community protection. In addition, the government will expand its Responsible Pet Ownership Program educational initiatives and provide training and practice note guidance on the changes to authorised officers of councils.

The Bill will be debated shortly in Parliament for final decision. Thank you for your correspondence on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Dr Hugh Millar

Executive Director Biosecurity Victoria / Chief Veterinary Officer

This is my proposed response to the above :

Dear Mr Joe Helper MP and Dr Hugh Millar

Thank you for your letter. Unfortunately it is the DPI’s ‘standard’ letter and goes nowhere to answering the many concerns and questions that the public (including myself) have raised, asked and expressed in relation to this proposed Bill.

With all due respect, we are already well aware what the current Government is endeavouring to do by the imposition of this proposed Bill, consequently the DPI’s correspondence is out-dated and uninformative. Collectively, the correspondence you would have received from myself and also from others who share similar concerns, has already clearly pointed out where the proposed Bill will net dogs and people who are essentially responsible and whose dogs are not dangerous. To even suggest power to register a breed a restricted breed even though it is not a restricted breed is preposterous and wrong. The proposed Bill Title is misleading, as is your letter, to suggest that it only relates to dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog owners. These things and more are what the many communications to your Government point out and as the people of the Government we ask that these be addressed and remedied. If it cannot be, then the proposed Bill should not be passed.

A response to the questions we have asked and concerns we have raised is what we seek, as unless satisfactory answers and assurances can be given by Government, the laws within the proposed Bill remain as unjust and contrary to the rules of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness as what they clearly appear to us now and as such should not be passed.

I respectfully request that you re-read my recent correspondence (including that forwarded on 26th May) and would be most appreciative of the Government’s answers to each of the questions raised therein. If the laws contained within your proposed Bill are fair, workable, and without error, it should be reasonably easy to answer the questions and concerns that have been raised and put before you.

I am currently experiencing computer issues. Strangely, both computers have been affected, although in different ways. I'm currently looking into the situation. If I am off the air there are one or two of you who know how to reach me should it be necessary.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Erny

[shel]

According to this link it might be being debated today/now?

[Erny]

Seems the link to "Parliament Live" is down as well? Another "404" message.

Nope - seems it is ok, although audio seems a bit out of sync with video at this moment.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Erny

[lmwvic]

The information gained from the Dangerous Dogs Survey conducted in January 2010 and the views of major stakeholders, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Australian Veterinary Association and Dogs Victoria, have been considered in preparing the Bill which balances the interests of animal welfare, animal control and community protection. In addition, the government will expand its Responsible Pet Ownership Program educational initiatives and provide training and practice note guidance on the changes to authorised officers of councils.

The Bill will be debated shortly in Parliament for final decision. Thank you for your correspondence on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Dr Hugh Millar

Executive Director Biosecurity Victoria / Chief Veterinary Officer

Nobody in the Bureau of Animal Welfare has seen any results from the Dangerous Dogs Survey conducted in January unless I have been lied to!

It could only have been considered by the Minister's office who ran it.

[Erny]

Imwvic - are you able to urgently whizz in a letter to the DPI pointing out this one point?

ETA: If AWA were not privvy to it, who analysed the results of that survey?

Edited June 22, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

Not sure who was speaking, but whoever it was has asserted that he wants the debate for the proposed Bill (amongst 7 others) to have been held by 4pm on Thursday. It's being argued now by the Member of Kew, that pushing 8 debates through in such a small amount of time will give the "leaders" of those Bills time enough to have their say, but doesn't allow the opposition time enough to argue them.

Now the Government is having a big argument about how good their "Business Program" is.

They went to the vote and of course Labour won it which as far as I can tell means that the proposed Bill relating to Domestic Animals Act is to be listed for debate on the Government Business list for this week, which means it has to be debated by 4pm on Thursday or it goes to the guillotine. Not sure if "guillotine" means it goes to the Vote without debate necessarily being conducted or completed, once 4pm Thursday comes around.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Erny

[Staranais]

Done. ;) Hopefully if lots of us write, someone will pay attention?

Edited to add, I was in two minds about posting what I'd sent here, but just in case it serves as inspiration for someone else:

Dear Member of Parliament,

I have recently been informed by a friend of mine who lives in Victoria that your state is intending to amend your dangerous dog legislation to give council workers the right to make an on-the-spot decision to euthanise any dog they deem "dangerous", giving owners no right of appeal. I have also been informed that the new legislation will only allow owners forty eight (48) hours to find and reclaim a missing pet.

As a dog owner, I am dismayed that you feel it is appropriate to euthanise dogs without giving owners any right of appeal. I am especially appalled that this proposed legislation includes dogs that have never bitten anyone, but merely "look dangerous" in the opinion of a council employee.

As a veterinary student, I can assure you that we handle dogs every day in our clinic that may "look dangerous", and may even growl at or rush at people when in a novel and frightening situation, but that do not bite and that would pass an impartial temperament test with flying colours. I strongly feel that owners should have the right to obtain an impartial assessment of the dog's temperament from an independent qualified dog trainer, and present this information at an appeal, before any decision is made to euthanise any animal.

I also feel that 48 hours is an entirely insufficient length of time to allow an owner to find and reclaim a missing pet. Council recording systems are not perfect - I have heard of several cases where people have been told on the telephone that no animal fitting their pet's description was present at the pound, only to find the animal there when they visited in person, recorded as a different colour or breed. Holding animals for at least a week to enable working pet owners to visit all the local pounds in person seems only reasonable.

I realise I do not currently live in your constitutency, so my views may be worthless to you. However, after I graduate I am considering moving to Australia to seek work as a veterinary surgeon. As a dog owner, I will certainly not be seeking employment anywhere in Victoria if these laws pass, and will also discourage my classmates from doing so.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Staranais

[Erny]

Hey Staranais

Thank you so much. You don't even live here, yet you're in there pitching in with us to try to stop further wrong happening before it does.

Cheers, and us Victorians in Oz land very much appreciate your help

Erny.

[leannek]

Bump

[Casster17]

just recieved an email from Willian Sykes the bill will be passed on Thursday with no further debate and will be going to the upper house on 27th July... I guess its time to switch to sending letters to the upper parliament. Mr Sykes apologised claiming he did not have much time to debate it.

[Erny]

Received the same.

Typically, our current Labour Government hasn't even bothered to TRY to answer any of our questions. Because they can't, really. So they just bully their Bills through. Why? One can only guess there's more in it than what meats the eye. They obviously have their special reasons that they aren't making privvy to us.

No vote coming from me for them.

[Erny]

Further to the above ..... I've received Media Releases made by Mr. Bill Sykes MP and Mr. Peter Walsh MP.

Seems the Liberals and Nationals did not oppose the Bill.

I don't get it. I just don't get it.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Erny

[SpikesPuppy]

Further to the above ..... I've received Media Releases made by Mr. Bill Sykes MP and Mr. Peter Walsh MP.

Seems the Liberals and Nationals did not oppose the Bill.

I don't get it. I just don't get it.

Because it is EASIER to just get rid of the nasty bitey doggies than sit there and think about an actual solution to the problem

It's what the public want. All the public sees is that these nasty, vicious pit bulls are being killed which is a good thing so they can't hurt the little children or elderly grandmothers.

:D

Have stayed quiet in this thread (have not had much time until now), but have sent emails off to various MPs and received generic responses. Don't even own a scary breed at present, but was thinking that if the smooth collie lunged at someone in her happy, I love you, you're my new bestest friend!!! way, it could be seen as aggression. Likewise, being a stock guard, they are smart and intuitive and if she didn't like someone (especially if she escaped and had to be caught, therefore possibly stressed), I've no doubt she would growl and being a big (ish) dog, of an unfamiliar breed, again, the wrong ranger could easily decide to put her to sleep.

Aside from that, the fact that there is anything less than a week for a dog to be claimed by it's owners is disgusting. I am a little confused by the proposed bill, but it is my understanding that there doesn't even need to be any proof or evidence that the dog is nasty or aggressive, so in theory, the dog neednt even be of a restricted breed or 'type' but the ranger could just not like that breed or type of dog and order it destroyed??? Correct me if I'm wrong...

[mackiemad]

i cannot believe that the liberals sat by and did nothign, at the very least, you're the opposition- OPPOSE!

very disappointed. i got the email from william sykes as well.

so who do we email now guys? lets not give up on this

[Erny]

i cannot believe that the liberals sat by and did nothign, at the very least, you're the opposition- OPPOSE!

very disappointed. i got the email from william sykes as well.

so who do we email now guys? lets not give up on this

Upper House.

I'm taking a wee break on this. I threw myself into it to the detriment of my own income generating work and I need a bit of time to re-focus and try to get that side of things back on track.

[Erny]

Read away. I'm going to mow the lawn. Too psyched out on this to concentrate. Marvelous what mowing the lawn (and walking the dog) can do to clear the mind .

HANSARD

VICHANSARD

Whole Speech

Member Selected - SYKES

________________________________________

Title DOMESTIC ANIMALS AMENDMENT (DANGEROUS DOGS) BILL

House ASSEMBLY

Activity Second Reading

Members SYKES

Date 22 June 2010

________________________________________

22 June 2010 ASSEMBLY

________________________________________

Dr SYKES (Benalla) -- I commence by thanking the member for Pascoe Vale for cutting short the time

for her presentation to enable me to make a couple of brief comments on a subject that is near and dear to my heart. I am a dog owner and I am a dog lover, but I have zero tolerance for dangerous dogs, especially sheep killers, of which I have dispatched many.

I focus on three aspects of this bill. First, the breed-specific component of the legislation is fundamentally flawed. The focus should be on deed, not breed. I know that from my experience with sheep killers. It is not necessarily pit bull terriers; it can be Jack Russells, German shorthaired pointers, kelpies or collies. The issue of a breed-specific approach is flawed. If we look at the practicalities of applying the breed-specific approach, then the guidelines provided at this stage by the government are very general, and it will be an absolute minefield to come up with any form of guidelines that will accurately help determine what are restricted breeds. Primarily they are pit bull terriers and their crosses here in Victoria.

The second issue I will touch on briefly is the level of authority given to council officers to destroy a dog after 48 hours and the basis for forming a reasonable belief that a dog is dangerous or likely to be dangerous. I have seen the template and the four factors to be considered in determining whether a dog is likely to be dangerous, and I have seen the decision-making tree. I believe both the templates and the decision-making tree are a very sound basis for addressing the issue, and whilst they may be refined in light of experience, I believe they are a very good basis and will alleviate many of the concerns raised with me by very many people.

The third issue concerns the level of authority provided to the council officers. It is the expectation of the minister, and I believe it will be enforced, that an individual officer is likely to be required to consult with his superior before making a decision to destroy an animal after the 48-hour minimum period.

On the broader issues of the level of feedback and the broad range of issues raised in the bill, I refer members to the excellent presentation by the member for Swan Hill.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Last Updated on Wednesday, 12 May 2010

Edited June 23, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

VICHANSARD

Member Selected - WALSH

________________________________________

________________________________________

Title DOMESTIC ANIMALS AMENDMENT (DANGEROUS DOGS) BILL

House ASSEMBLY

Activity Second Reading

Members WALSH

Date 22 June 2010

________________________________________

22 June 2010 ASSEMBLY

________________________________________

Mr WALSH (Swan Hill) -- I rise to make a contribution on behalf of the Liberal-Nationals coalition on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010. The purpose of this bill is to make further provision for the registration of restricted breeds, to amend the definition of a restricted breed dog, to provide for the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to review the declaration of restricted breed dogs, to abolish the review panels that used to have that role, to increase penalties for certain offences, to further enable the making of declarations of dangerous dogs and menacing dogs, and to provide further powers for dogs to be destroyed.

Any companion animal legislation that comes before this house always attracts a lot of interest, and this legislation is no different in that regard.

Most members would have received a lot of emails about this particular piece of legislation. I would like to acknowledge all those people who took the time to provide feedback to me and other members about this issue. One of the great things about Australian

________________________________________

democracy is that everyone can have a say and come back with some form of comment for members to discuss in this place. I would like to thank everyone who made a contribution. No doubt members will not agree with all the contributions that were made to them in the emails they received. Some of the emails that came in indicated that some people had not read the legislation well and understood what changes will be introduced -- the issue is not what some people believe it is.

The only restricted breed identified in this legislation that is in Victoria at the moment is the American pit bull terrier. I will try to pronounce the restricted breeds. They are the Japanese tosa, the fila Brasiliero, the dogo Argentino, the Perro de Presa Canario and the American pit bull terrier, as I said. The American pit bull terrier is the only restricted breed that is in Victoria at the moment.

This legislation is another step in responsible dog ownership, and those who are responsible dog owners should not have an issue with this particular piece of legislation. I believe, and I hope the majority of members in this place agree, that a dog owner needs to take responsibility for the actions of their dog. That is what the responsibility of owning a pet is all about. In some ways the actions of the dog are an extension of the owner's actions, and that is the way it should be seen by society: a person who has pet dog has an obligation to make sure it behaves correctly in public. Like most of the legislation introduced in this place, this bill is not about those people who do the right thing, it is about the small minority who do not do the right thing. Those dog owners who do the right thing and take responsibility for their dogs, including having the dog registered, identifiable and restrained in public, will probably never have anything to do with this particular piece of legislation.

The parliamentary library has provided an excellent brief on this bill, and I commend it to anyone who is interested in the legislation. In his second-reading speech the minister said:

It is a central tenet of dog management legislation that a dog is confined, registered and identifiable to its owner.

One of the comments the minister made -- and I have heard it in the comments made to me -- is that something like 40 per cent of dogs in Victoria are still not registered animals. We have the Domestic Animals Act to deal with restricted breeds, and if it were actually enforced by local government, we would probably have much better compliance and more dogs registered in Victoria. The minister also said that in 2010 there were 335 restricted breed dogs in Victoria, but a lot more dogs would probably fit into that category if they were checked and registered correctly. He went on to say:

In order to better regulate restricted breed dogs, in the place of current prohibition, the bill provides a two-year amnesty period to allow owners to register restricted breed dogs and thereby bring them under the existing strict controls.

This amnesty period is to allow those people who have a dog that is either a restricted breed dog or a crossbreed dog to be identified as a restricted breed or registered as a different breed. If they do not comply with the legislation, the dog can be seized and destroyed.

The bill increases a number of penalties for non-compliance with this particular legislation. The library brief refers to dog attacks in the community. It mentions that Australia probably has one of the highest rates of pet ownership in the world, with something like two-thirds of households having pets.

If you are talking about the number of dogs Australia-wide, there are something like 4 million dogs in Australia, which is a huge number. Owning shares in a pet food factory would probably be a good business to be in.

Mr Helper -- No pecuniary interest?

Mr WALSH -- No, there is no pecuniary interest at all. The library brief refers to the fact that something like six people are attacked by dogs in Victoria every day -- that is a frightening number when you think about it -- and in 2008 something like 2000 people were treated in hospital for dog bites and their length of stay ranged from two days to one month.

In 2009 almost one dog attack a week was reported in the Greater City of Geelong area, yet the number of registered dangerous dogs had dropped by almost half, so there is an issue about how people are managing their pets out there.

Research by the Monash University Victorian Injuries Surveillance Unit found that in 2005 to 2007 there were three deaths and more than 6330 people were treated for dog bite injuries in Victorian hospitals. The VISU research found that two-year-olds were at the highest risk of dog bite injury and that something like 57 per cent of dog attacks were on a person who was known to the dog. A substantial number of the victims had been attacked by their own family pet or a friend of the family's pet. I will come back to this later in my contribution when talking about the increased registration fees that will be paid to the government. There is a real need for an education program so that people understand that they need to be more responsible with their pets, particularly when they are around their children or their friends' children. One dog attack on a child is one attack too many in Victoria.

Just seeing the results of a dog attack on a child is traumatising for us, let alone the trauma for the child or the parents or friends of the child.

The VISU went on to state that there is some evidence that biting dogs are less likely to be registered than non-biting dogs. It seems the issue is that the owners of some of these categories of dogs have effectively gone underground. We have introduced a number of bills in my time in this place to deal with these particular dogs, but some of the owners have gone underground and are no longer registering them. That is an issue that needs to be picked up. The VISU goes on to say that the issue is complicated by the fact that nearly half of the dogs in Australia are crossbreeds. That is probably true given the number of dogs you see around -- --

Ms Munt -- There is nothing wrong with a good mongrel.

Mr WALSH -- No, there is nothing wrong with a good mongrel, as the interjection pointed out, but if that good mongrel is dangerous, the owner needs to make sure -- --

Mr Helper -- Then it is not a good mongrel.

Mr WALSH -- It is not a good mongrel; that is exactly right!

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Beattie) -- Order! A little less yapping in the chamber!

Mr WALSH -- The pun was very good, Acting Speaker. The legislation deals with the issue of dangerous dogs and restricted dogs and the fact that they need to be declared as dangerous, menacing or restricted breeds. The location of such a dog also needs to be recorded on the Victorian declared dog register.

Owners of dangerous dogs must display signs warning people that a dangerous dog is kept on the premises. An owner of a dangerous dog must notify their local council within 24 hours if the registered dog is missing or if there is any change to the owner's address, the place where the dog is kept or the ownership of the dog, and dangerous dogs must wear collars at all times.

I suppose it comes back to reinforcing the message for those people who raised issues about the short time frame that councils had to deal with these dogs if they were seized while roaming at large. If people comply with the legislation there is no need for councils to put those dogs down.

This legislation also gives councils the power to seize and destroy restricted breed dogs if they have not been previously registered, declared or living in Victoria prior to 2 November 2005. Those who were in this place at that time would remember when we introduced that legislation.

If memory serves me correctly, some contentious issues arose, particularly about border issues between New South Wales and Victoria, on which side of the river a particular dog might live, and making sure that those registrations were normalised at that time.

One significant increase in penalties means that if a person who is in apparent control of a dog at the time of an attack or biting, whether or not the person is the owner of the dog, is guilty of an offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding 120 penalty units. As I said at the outset, the responsibility is on the dog owner or the person in control of a dog to make sure the dog does not attack people, otherwise it is a very serious offence. Some significant increases in penalties are contained in this bill.

Another issue I would like to touch on is shown in a couple of very good flow charts which were provided by the Victorian Bureau of Animal Welfare. The charts very clearly set out the details of how dogs will be dealt with if they are seized. I commend these charts to people who have reservations about how their dog might be handled if it is found at large. If a dog at large is identified as a danger to the public, the chart shows that it will be seized by the council, impounded and scanned for its microchip. The question then is whether the dog is identifiable to its owner. If it is, which means the owner has done the right thing, you go to the 'Yes' column and a notice is sent to the dog's owner, who has eight days to recover the dog. It is only when a dog is not identifiable to an owner that the issue of the time frame for the destruction of that dog kicks in. Again, if people do the right thing there is no issue.

The other flow chart relates to dangerous dogs that are at large or in a prohibited place.

There is another series of questions, and if that dog is identifiable to the owner and the owner can be contacted, the matter can be dealt with by the council and the dog potentially can be returned to the owner. However, if the dog is not identifiable, the council has a responsibility under the time frames in this legislation to destroy it. I reinforce that people who do the right thing, have their dog registered and identifiable and have a collar on it, there is no issue because the owner can be found and informed what is going on.

Earlier I spoke about the issue of education programs. Clause 17 of the bill is entitled 'Payments to the Treasurer'. In this place members always show great interest in payments to the Treasurer, and section 69 of

the Domestic Animals Act provides that each council must pay an amount to the Treasurer in respect of each registration fee collected annually for the registration of dogs and cats. Currently councils must pay $1 in respect of each cat registration, which the bill proposes to increase to $2, and clause 17 of bill provides that councils must pay the Treasurer $2.50 for each dog registered, which is to be increased to $3.50. It is estimated that there are 800 000 dogs in Victoria, and if every dog was registered and $2.50 paid to the Treasurer there would be quite a substantial amount of money available to be used for education programs in Victoria.

Mr Helper -- Your dog is not registered!

Mr WALSH -- In response to the minister's interjection, when I had a dog it was always registered, so I have always complied with that requirement. My dog tended to wander, but people knew where to send it back to.

It was a very good mongrel.

As I have said several times, there is the issue of stakeholders who have commented on this legislation. I would like to start off by quoting the Lost Dogs Home's chief executive, Graeme Smith, who said the proposed legislation would offer little protection. An article in the Herald Sun quotes him as saying:

The number of declared dangerous dogs known to and registered by authorities is the tip of the iceberg compared to the number of dogs with the potential to turn killer ...

There are about 10 000 dangerous pit bull terrier types in Victoria but only 277 are registered as a restricted breed.

As I said earlier, there is a two-year amnesty that provides the opportunity for people who want to do the right thing to normalise that registration and put it in place.

It is interesting that the Victorian president of the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), Dr Hugh Wirth, has called for pit bull terriers to be exterminated. He has made a quite definite statement in the media saying that pit bulls are a menace and not suitable as pets. He has also said that pit bulls are 'time bombs waiting for the right circumstances' and that the breed is lethal because it is a breed that was 'developed purely for dog fighting, in other words killing the opposition'. He has said that dog attacks continually occur because of a mismatch between the choice of dog and owner lifestyle, noting that generally many dogs are still programmed for hunting and working.

As I understand it, one of the issues for RSPCA shelters is that if they are to sell a dog, they have to make sure it is desexed, has been immunised and is microchipped. Staff at shelters spend some time working with potential purchasers to make sure that the dog is matched to the purchaser's lifestyle and to the premises in which it will live. If someone who lived in a flat went to an RSPCA animal shelter to buy a pet dog, you would not find them going home with a big dog. As I understand it, if such people go to a pet shop they would not necessarily receive any advice about that. There is no compulsion for pet shop owners to have dogs desexed, microchipped or vaccinated.

An honourable member interjected.

Mr WALSH -- My advice from Dr Wirth is that there is not. There is no compulsion for a pet shop owner to talk to the owner about what might be the most appropriate dog to place into their lifestyle.

I think there are some issues in that space that need to be resolved in the future.

Quite a few local councils responded to requests for information about the legislation. I received one response from the VLGA (Victorian Local Governance Association), but the Municipal Association of Victoria did not put in a response, which I found disappointing, given that the MAV considers itself to be the representative of local councils. However, the Brimbank council said that there had been 111 reported dog attacks in Brimbank and that there were 50 restricted breed dogs and 49 registered dangerous dogs of non-restricted breeds. The Brimbank council collected 1251 stray dogs in the past year. As I understand it, Brimbank council is one of the councils that has a particular issue with dangerous dogs. We in this place could be cheeky and suggest that they might belong to Hakki Suleyman or that there could be some issues around branch stacking in that area, but we would not go down that particular path, would we?

That would be disingenuous.

However, Dr Peter Higgins from the Australian National Kennel Council has expressed concerns that the proposed legislation will do little, since rangers are overworked and there are not enough of them to protect the community against dangerous dogs. One of the themes that came through in the consultation is that council rangers in general are overworked, and councils do not necessarily have the resources to enforce the issues around companion animals. Some people expressed concern in their feedback as to whether authorised officers or council rangers were appropriately trained to deal with some of these issues.

Peter Frost, the president of Dogs Victoria, which is a state member body of the Australian National Kennel

Council, said that new laws did not present a threat to any dog owners who cared for their dogs responsibly. I suppose that comes back to some of the issues I have been mentioning.

Another group that gave feedback on this particular legislation is Kidsafe Victoria. Kidsafe stated that it wanted Victorian councils to publish monthly tallies of dog attacks in their area. It said that New South Wales and Queensland had recently required councils to report dog attacks to state authorities. Kidsafe also stated that it backed the new dangerous dogs legislation. In particular, Kidsafe supports the increase in council officers' powers to seize and destroy unregistered dogs and the doubling of penalties. Dr Stokes, the president of Kidsafe Victoria, has also called for compulsory obedience and social training for all dogs to be undertaken as part of dog licence requirements. I am not sure that would go down all that well with the 800 000 dog owners in Victoria. It would be a major impost on those people.

The American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia Inc. expressed concerns over the proposed legislation and objected to not being included in the consultation process on the bill. I suppose that is an issue that the minister may choose to take up with the club if he wants to. That club believes very strongly that it is the deed that should be punished rather than the breed. That is an ongoing theme that comes through in quite a lot of the consultation from people who have reservations about this legislation. They believe it is the deed and not the breed that should be punished. One of the issues with that approach is that once the deed has been committed it is quite often too late, because the deed has resulted in an injury to a child or another person.

When I look at what other states do, my assessment is that Victoria is probably at the leading edge in what it is doing with the control of companion animals, particularly in relation to dangerous dogs.

In some of my reading I learned that at one stage England and the Netherlands, from memory, had legislation that outlawed particular breeds and that was found not to work, so I advise anyone proposing to go down that path that it will not necessarily work, because it forces the ownership of those dogs underground.

One of the interesting statistics I learned was that in 2009 the City of London seized 1146 dogs, but because of the way its legislation works people can challenge the destruction of those dogs, and it can cost the police in London anything up to 9000 to fight a court case on whether or not a dog should be destroyed; so there were some particular issues there.

To finish off, one of the other groups that came back to us with comments on the legislation was the German Shepherd Dog Club of Victoria. One of its comments was:

It is stated in this bill that some 40 per cent of dog owners fail to register their animals. Surely this is a failure of the current system, yet we see nothing in the bill that would effectively counteract this situation.

I think I have already touched on the fact that there is a need to better enforce the current domestic animals legislation rather than extending it further. The German Shepherd Dog Club of Victoria goes on to comment that the current legislation should be enforced more often.

The Australian Companion Animal Council commented that there are something like 850 000 dog owners in Victoria -- a huge number -- and that management of pets in the community is an emotive issue. It strongly disagreed with the introduction of the domestic animals legislation, particularly the two flow charts I talked about earlier relating to the powers of councils to dispose of dogs. The council believes that:

... random attacks in public places are comparatively rare, and as such education for parents and children is the best strategy to decrease the occurrence of dog bites.

Again, the education of the owner and the dog is probably more important than the education of other people who are around the dog, although other people do need to be aware of the dog's sensitivity.

The goodfordogs.org website also gave some feedback on this legislation. It said:

Fines for failing to register or renew registration for a dog should be in proportion to the offence. Owners of impounded dogs should be given the opportunity to register their dog as a condition of its return but should not face steep fines that would result in more dogs remaining unclaimed.

I found that an interesting scenario. If you took that logic to the nth degree, most people would not bother to apply for a drivers licence until they were caught. There need to be some reasonably strong punitive measures for those who do not do the right thing and register their dog. Goodfordogs.org went on to say that:

Breed-specific legislation (BSL) has been tried around the world --

as I mentioned --

and has not been shown to reduce the incidence of dog bites. Experts here and abroad are calling for a rethink on dangerous dogs with a focus on 'deed not the breed'.

But, as I said earlier, once the deed is done it is too late.

The last comment I would like to touch on is from Dr Bill Harkin, president of the Victorian division of the Australian Veterinary Association, who said:

We do not support the breed-specific parts, though, and believe that it should be the actions or behaviour of the dog, not its breed, that should determine how it is treated.

He goes on to say:

It would be better to impose greater sanctions on irresponsible owners --

rather than punish the dog.

He says further:

If you don't recognise the role of the owner in the existence of dangerous dogs, you won't even come near solving the problem. If you were able to immediately eliminate every pit bull and pit bull cross, but they were replaced by Rottweiler-Doberman crosses, selected for aggression, and trained to be aggressive, it won't be a safer place for children. That you can be sure of.

I suppose some people for good reasons, and some for not so good reasons, like to have that type of dog around their place, sometimes as a guard dog, but if they are not trained well and if they are not restrained, they can be dangerous to people.

The Liberal and Nationals coalition will not be opposing this bill.

The thought I would like to leave people with in relation to this legislation is that the current provisions of the Domestic Animals Act need to be enforced more rather than introducing further provisions to increase the penalties.

There is a real need to work with local government in particular. Councils bear the brunt of this work with the registration processes and employing authorised officers and rangers to make sure that as many as possible, if not all, of the dogs in Victoria are registered. If all dogs were registered, there would be better control over what is going on and we could make sure people were very well educated about how they should manage their pets, particularly how they should have them restrained when they are out in public if they are large dogs, restricted breeds or dogs that have some potentially dangerous habits and which could attack children.

I emphasise to the minister that we need to make sure the current act is enforced better, and in summing up the last question I would like to put to him that is of interest to a lot of people is: with the abolition of review panels, how is the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal process going to work in reviewing particular dangerous dogs? We all know someone somewhere who has been in the VCAT process. It is a very long and drawn out process that has quite substantial waiting times. In his summing up of the second-reading debate I will be interested to hear the minister's views about how the VCAT process is going to work on the review of these dangerous dogs.

Last Updated on Wednesday, 12 May 2010

[Erny]

MEDIA RELEASE - BILL SYKES MLA

Wednesday 23 June 2010

Sykes: “Nil tolerance” of dangerous dogs

Nationals Member for Benalla, Bill Sykes declared his “nil tolerance” attitude to dangerous dogs in Parliament last night.

Dr Sykes’ contribution to the debate on Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill was cut short and so he conveyed his key message up front.

Dr Sykes referred to his personal experience with sheep killing dogs to highlight that he had a “nil tolerance” for sheep killers and other dangerous dogs, declaring that he “had dispatched many” dogs that he had detected killing or maiming his or his neighbour’s sheep.

Other key points in Dr Sykes’ contribution was the view which he shared with many people that a dog should be judged as dangerous by its behaviour rather than its breed, summarised as “deed not breed”.

Dr Sykes expanded on his concern about the breed based component of the legislation by describing it as ‘fundamentally flawed’ (because of the many other factors such as the level of socialisation, training and the environment which can influence a dog’s behaviour).

He also highlighted the difficulty of accurate identification of breeds and their crosses describing the development of breed specification guidelines “as a mine field”.

In relation to behaviour, Dr Sykes supports the government proposed decision making process stating that the (decision making guidelines), “template and the decision making tree are a very sound basis for addressing the issue and whilst they may be refined in the light of experience they…will alleviate many concerns raised by very many people”.

Dr Sykes concluded, “Responsible dog owners have little to fear from this toughening of legislation and it is now up to the Brumby Government to ensure effective enforcement of the legislation starting with drastically reducing the numbers of unregistered dogs, which is currently a massive 40% of the total dog population.”

Media enquiries Bill Sykes MP 0427 624 989

[Casster17]

hmmm...... I see they gloss over most areas of the Bill and concentrate on the Dangerous Dogs section... A quick mention of unregistered dogs but thats about it...

Erny have you had a chat to Luke yet???

I think i understand what they are trying to do but... They are going about it the wrong way...