Mr. McArthur's Speech

Title
ANIMALS LEGISLATION (RESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP) BILL 21 November 2001 ASSEMBLY
ANIMALS LEGISLATION (RESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP) BILL

Second reading
Debate resumed from 1 November; motion of Mr HAMILTON (Minister for Agriculture).

Government amendment circulated by Mr HAMILTON (Minister for Agriculture) pursuant to sessional orders.

Opposition amendments circulated by Mr McARTHUR (Monbulk) pursuant to sessional orders.

Mr McARTHUR (Monbulk) -- It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of the Liberal Party to the Animals Legislation (Responsible Ownership) Bill. In doing so let me make it clear that the Liberal Party has for many years had a strong commitment to both responsible ownership of animals and the work on the prevention of cruelty to animals. In that work we in the Liberal Party have also recognised the need for farming enterprises and industries to be able to carry on normally accepted farming practice and to have
some defence for that practice from applications by overzealous and extreme sections of the animal liberation and animal welfare lobby that sometimes make accusations that are unsubstantiated and take actions that are unjustified. As I said, members of the Liberal Party strongly support responsible ownership. We strongly support measures to prevent cruelty to animals, and we have a long record of doing that.

Honourable members will be aware that the bill amends two principal acts -- the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994. I will briefly go through those in turn and outline the Liberal Party's response to specific aspects of the legislation and then move on to some of the comments about the way it will or will not work and its impact on the broader community, let alone on animal owners.

The amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act are largely unspectacular and uncontroversial, with the exception of one clause as originally drafted. They propose some new offences and increase the government's regulation-making powers, and the opposition will deal with that later. The amendments also provide for increased opportunities or powers to search dwellings and seize animals. Those three amendments are welcome, and the new offences proposed in the bill are sensible.

There is already a prohibition on animal fights, cockfights, dogfights and those sorts of things, for very good reason. The Victorian community of the 21st century does not and would not support organised fights where people encourage one animal to fight another for gambling purposes, to win prizes or whatever other reason. It is no longer acceptable. Maybe in the 19th century it was an acceptable pastime, but clearly the community does not regard it as such now. Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act it is already an offence to organise an animal fight or to have premises for carrying out those fights. This amendment says that from henceforth it will be an offence to attend an organised animal fight, so that people who do so and are detected can expect to be charged and to face fines of up to 60 penalty units, or $6000 dollars. It is hoped that that will be an effective deterrent for people who would otherwise get their sport out of watching animals tear one another apart. I think the community will support that, and I congratulate the minister on bringing in that amendment.

There are also amendments relating to searching residential premises and the seizure of animals. There have been problems where inspectors or authorised officers have been aware of animals that have been mistreated. While they have had access to properties, they have not been able to specifically or effectively gain access to residences. In some well-known cases people who were mistreating animals were well aware of the limitations of the inspectors' powers. They deliberately kept the animals inside their residences in order to deny the inspectors access to gain evidence for prosecutions or to get hold of the animals to make sure they were being properly treated and cared for.

These amendments deal with those situations. They will allow an inspector with a search warrant to enter a residence. The inspector will need reasonable grounds to apply for a search warrant, and a magistrate will have to be convinced that the warrant should be issued.

The bill will provide for the sort of circumstances that will then apply in serving and executing warrants and in notifying the owners, the occupiers or the residents wherever possible in order to avoid forced entry. But clearly the officers will have the power to effect a forced entry if that is necessary.

Secondly, the insertion of new powers into the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to allow for increased ability to seize animals that are being abused or mistreated or are suffering will enable the minister, of his own accord if he has reasonable grounds to believe animals are being mistreated, to give notice to the owners of the animals and after seven days order the seizure of those animals so they can be disposed of in accordance with the act. Animals may be seized for care and rehabilitation purposes or for humane destruction, depending on their condition.

If the minister is not able or available to make the decision because of the time limits, there is also power for an inspector, with the written approval of the secretary of the department, to apply to a magistrate for an order to seize animals for virtually the same reasons. Again the bill sets out the details of the warrant and the procedure for the exercise or execution of that warrant. The Magistrates Court is to take proper notice of fair

dealing with people who are subject to such warrant applications, and penalty provisions apply under these proposed sections as well.

Let us now deal with the amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act that, as initially drafted, did cause a problem. I refer honourable members to clause 8 of the bill, the amendments circulated in the name of the Minister for Agriculture and the amendment circulated in my name. As drafted, clause 8 would insert a very broad regulation-making power into the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. I refer honourable members who have an interest in this to section 42 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the regulations section.

Historically the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act has had very restricted and defined regulation-making powers, and the activities, actions, implements or equipment that have been banned have been banned by provisions inserted in the act and not through the use of some general regulation-making power.

A specific power has been inserted into the act to deal with specific activities, actions, implements or pieces of equipment. As drafted, clause 8 goes far wider than that and would insert a regulation-making power that would allow the minister through the Governor in Council to prohibit or regulate any activity or procedure which may cause physical or other harm to animals and to prohibit or regulate any equipment or implement which may be used for a purpose involving cruelty to animals or which may cause physical or other harm to them.

On the face of it, that seems fine and reasonable. During the course of the briefings the opposition received from the government, and in the public statements it made, the government made clear that this regulation-making power was aimed at a restricted set of circumstances. The government spoke of banning equipment such as spurs used at cockfights, equipment used at dogfights and practices such as the pin firing of horses. That is all the government spoke of and all we were briefed about in relation to the legislation.

I am not suggesting that the government deliberately contrived to deceive, but I do say that the briefing specified three separate and very narrow activities or sets of equipment that the government sought to ban. In the clause as drafted, the government has introduced a regulation-making power that is so broad that a minister could use it to ban any activity at all that he or she thought may cause harm to an animal. I can think of one or two activities in normal animal husbandry, and certainly in livestock husbandry,
that would meet that test -- for instance, the tail docking of lambs and dairy cattle, the castration of lambs and calves, earmarking cattle and sheep, the mulesing of sheep and the branding of cattle. These are all normal farming husbandry practices that, as a farmer for 40 years, I have followed on a regular basis.

My family, neighbours and farmers right throughout the length and breadth of Victoria have followed these practices in a responsible and normal manner for decades.

All of those things could be subject to a regulation made under this regulation-making power. Under the clause as drafted we could have had the prospect of a Governor in Council declaration in a quiet week or between Christmas and New Year when not everybody is paying a lot of attention to political issues -- or perhaps even during the run-up to the World Cup play-offs, when Auditor-General's reports sometimes fall of the back of a truck -- which proclaimed a regulation saying that tail docking is banned and you could face a fine of $500, or whatever amount, if you do it in future. That may please some, but I assure the minister it would create havoc in the livestock industry, and it would certainly cause consternation amongst dog owners. That is far too broad a regulation-making power, as is the power that envisages the prohibition of any equipment.

I would have thought that there would be activists in the animal welfare or animal liberation lobbies who could quite plausibly, reasonably and passionately argue -- perhaps they would not convince me, but I am sure they would convince some of the people in the media -- that, for example, a lot of equipment and implements used in stock handling, such as the cradles used for lamb and calf marking, branding irons and rabbit traps, are all capable of inflicting cruelty or pain on an animal and therefore should be banned.

I imagine it would not be this minister, because he has some experience in these things and he has been around country Victoria, but perhaps a more naive and easily persuaded minister in the future might be convinced by that argument and might have a regulation gazetted, approved by Governor in Council, which banned rabbit traps.

Those who have possession of rabbit traps, even though they do not use them -- they were grand-dad's traps and they used them when they were a kid or something like that -- if the traps are hanging in the shed or on the gatepost -- --

Mr Hamilton -- I have a few.

Mr McARTHUR -- The minister has some. The minister may actually fall foul of this regulation himself, because he has admitted he has a couple of rabbit traps. In his retirement, when the minister is enjoying the benefits of superannuation, he would be very surprised to find that this regulation as drafted could make him a criminal. I certainly would not seek to have that done. I know the minister has no cruel intent -- he is not a cruel man -- so he is probably pleased that we have brought this to his attention.

The clause as drafted would allow extreme actions by either a government or a minister, actions that Parliament could not oversight, because the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act does not have a disallowance clause for regulations. The Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act, which is also amended by this bill, has a single house disallowance clause in it, but the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act does not. As initially drafted this bill could have resulted in the proclamation of some very draconian
regulations, and Parliament would not have had the opportunity to take action on those regulations on behalf of the wider Victorian community.

The members of my party and I believe that is unreasonable, so we made public statements about it and drafted an amendment to delete clause 8. However, we made it clear to the government that in doing so we would welcome specific amendments that dealt with the three instances we were told about in the briefing that the government wanted to ban.

I have to acknowledge that the minister has acted on this quickly and has drafted amendments which in effect delete clause 8 as initially drafted and insert words to allow the proclamation of regulations banning those three specific activities or implements that the government sought to advise us of in the briefings. They are prohibiting the procedure of the firing of horses; prohibiting the possession and use of dog or cock fighting implements and other similar fighting implements; and prohibiting or regulating the use of
pronged collars and electronic dog training collars. I thank the minister for making those changes.

I am happy to advise him that we are very pleased to see those amendments and will support them during the committee stage if the bill gets to committee, and if it does I will not move the amendment I have circulated. The minister's reaction has been responsible, and I thank him for it and assure him that farmers across Victoria will be grateful that he has seen the wisdom and has reacted on their behalf.

I will turn to what are basically three groups of amendments to the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act. They provide increased penalties for certain activities, they increase the level of funding that goes to government from dog registration fees and they provide for the use of those funds for research and extended education into domestic animal ownership, management and education.

Controversial and worthy of significant comment are the very specific aspects of the legislation, and I will deal with these in reverse order because it will be quicker to do so. One amendment increases the amount of funds that a municipal council remits to the Treasurer each year for dog registration. Currently it is $1 per dog, and that will be increased by $1.50 to $2.50. The uses to which the money can be put are expanded, and money may now be allocated for research into domestic animal management. I have no objection to either the increase in the amount of money that is remitted to the Treasurer or to the increase in the area of research and expenditure. I invited comments on this legislation from the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), the Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) and a number of municipal councils. As far as I am aware, as at 11 o'clock this morning we had no adverse comment about the increase in fees, so from that I am assuming that the councils are also happy.

Mr Steggall interjected.

Mr McARTHUR -- Have you an answer? No, the honourable member for Swan Hill does not have an answer either. So either the MAV and the VLGA are relaxed about this -- --

Mr Cooper -- Councils are always relaxed about shoving up fees! They will be very pleased about that.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) -- Order! The honourable member for Monbulk, without assistance, on the bill.

Mr McARTHUR -- I think the honourable member has a couple of issues he wants to pick up with his local council, and perhaps he will do that later on.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) -- Order!

The honourable member for Mornington will get the call at a later stage, and we will be happy for him to put his issues then.

Mr McARTHUR -- There might be a Mornington Peninsula council about to get a spray from the honourable member for Mornington very shortly.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) -- Order! The honourable member for Monbulk on the bill.

Mr Cooper -- They are all the same.

Mr McARTHUR -- All councils are the same? No, some are better than others.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) -- Order! Will the honourable member for Monbulk come back to the bill?

Mr McARTHUR -- I would not want to wish Darebin council on any community other than Darebin. The Shire of Yarra Ranges, the City of Knox and the City of Maroondah are far better operations than the People's Republic of Darebin. I would not like to see all councils lumped together permanently and on the record in this place, Mr Acting Speaker. That is just a passing comment as we go.

Mr Cooper -- It is also a matter of opinion.

Mr McARTHUR -- Yes, just a matter of opinion. Nevertheless, the councils have not objected to this increase in fees or the increase in areas that the fees would be expended on, so we are happy to accept that.

The second amendment to the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act relates to increased penalties, particularly for setting a dog to attack, to a very substantial 120 penalty units or six months in jail. It is a substantial increase and a very significant penalty for someone found guilty of that offence, and it will get community support because there is little support for people who deliberately encourage their dogs to attack either other animals or people.

There is also an increase in the penalty for liability for a dog attack. If a dangerous dog -- not a restricted breed dog -- that is not a guard dog attacks or bites any person or animal, the owner will now be liable for a fine of 120 penalty units or six months in jail. For the layman's benefit 120 penalty units is $12 000, so people face a substantial penalty for this offence.

A dog is declared dangerous because of its past actions, and these are not guard dogs but dogs that have had attack training or that have already attacked another animal or a person and been declared dangerous under the provisions of the act. If a dog that is not a dangerous dog attacks someone, the fine is increased from $500 to $1000. Those are broadly in line with community expectations and will cause no great offence.

I turn to what might be called the politically opportune parts of this legislation -- that is, the breed-specific aspects. In creating this legislation the government is treading a path which other governments around the world have tried and failed at. Around the world breed-specific legislation has a sad and sorry history. I understand the reasons for it, and I do not question the motives of people who promote breed-specific legislation.

However, I question the effectiveness of it, the research that led to the decision and the minister's own commitment to it, despite the fact that the Premier made a rash statement on public radio one morning about a sad and tragic event. It is the sort of knee-jerk political reaction that results in bad law, and as time passes it will be shown to be ineffective law.

The bill introduces breed-specific legislation in a fairly underhand and tricky way. It does not attempt to define breeds, although nominally it is aimed at four specific breeds. They are referred to in the advisory notes to the bill as the dogo Argentino, the fila Brasileiro, the Japanese tosa, and the American pit bull terrier. The bill simply says that all the dogs that the commonwealth bans for importing into Australia are declared restricted breed dogs in Victoria. Once a dog is a restricted breed dog then certain conditions apply to its ownership, control, management and registration, and certain penalties apply for breaches of those requirements.

The commonwealth regulations do not specify, define or accurately describe those breeds. They simply say you cannot import them. As far as I am aware the commonwealth import ban relies on the documentation that accompanies the dog. It does not rely on the expertise of the officers at the border being able to tell what is a Japanese tosa, an American bit pull terrier or a dogo Argentino. I would be surprised if Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) officers have the capacity to determine one from the other, and I would be very surprised if they have the expertise or experience to define a pure breed of one of those breeds or a crossbreed of one or maybe two or three of the four breeds.

The legislation hangs its hat on the commonwealth import prohibition. It says that if the commonwealth has banned it from being imported then it is to be a restricted breed in Victoria. How will that be exercised? In effect the government is saying that owner-onus applies.

In the future when such dogs are registered or re-registered at the local council the owners will have to make declarations that the dogs are or are not members of those restricted breeds. That puts a substantial responsibility on owners who may not be in possession of the information.

There are many people around the state who know exactly the breeding and background of Rover in the backyard, but there are tens of thousands of Victorians who have a pooch in the backyard and have not got a clue what its mother or father was. Whether it is brown, speckled, striped, brindle, tan, black or white does not matter -- it is just a dog. It has a leg at each corner, a head at one end and a tail at the other, and that is about all they know. Somebody may have told them that it was a boxer-lab cross or three or
six different types of cross when they bought it from a pet shop or when they got it from a shelter or a pound or from a neighbour or Aunty Beryl.

Mr Steggall -- Why Aunty Beryl?

Mr McARTHUR -- Aunty Beryl is a generous soul!

However, there are thousands of people around Victoria who do not have the foggiest idea about the breeding of the dog they control, are responsible for and in most cases love and care for. Yet when their registration is due for renewal or when they register the pooch for the first time they are expected to fill out a piece of paper and say whether or not Rover is one of those four breeds -- and if they get it wrong they could be subject to penalties.

The government has a second string to its bow.

Despite what the owner says about the dog, it can be declared a restricted breed. There are owners out there who have registered American Staffordshire terriers, which are virtually genetically identical to American pit bull terriers. They are bred for the same purposes and along the same blood lines, but historically there was an argument between two groups of owners who set up two different associations back in the early 20th century. The two different breeds are now recognised, with two different associations
representing them. They will be treated differently by this act, despite the fact that some of the dogs belong to both breeds and have papers from both breed societies. Who the hell will tell whether the dog is an American pit bull terrier or an American Staffordshire terrier?

Mr Cooper -- They will have a minister called Solomon!

Mr McARTHUR -- We do not have a minister called Solomon.

We have a bunch of authorised officers called Solomon and Solomoness who will be able to go around the state and, despite what the owner says about the breeding of the dog, point to a pooch and say, 'I think that is an American pit bull terrier so I will declare it to be an American bit pull terrier' -- and that declaration will stand. That declaration will override the owner's declaration on the registration papers. That declaration could be challenged only if the owner says, 'Hang about a minute, I don't agree with you. I don't think it is an American pit bull terrier; it's a boxer cross. That is what it was described as when I got it from the lost dog's home', or from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA).

Mr Steggall -- Hugh said that is what it was!

Mr McARTHUR -- Yes, that is what it was described as and that is what the owner believes it is! What will happen?

You will have to go off to a panel of people appointed by the minister, who will be experienced and expert in deciding what is or what is not a restricted breed.

Page 21 of the bill refers to the review panel. If somebody has declared your dog to be a restricted breed dog you will be able to apply within 30 days for a review of the decision. You will have to pay a fee, but you will be able to apply for a review. The minister will then convene a review panel consisting of three people with knowledge of or experience in the identification of dog breeds. I have talked to a few groups about this. The RSPCA wants nothing to do with this panel. It said, 'This is not our job; we do not want to be
part of it'. The authorised officers of councils have said, 'We do not want to have anything to do with this. We don't know one dog breed from another. We are not qualified to tell'. I am not too sure who will do this, and I do not know if the minister is too sure about who will do this either.

I have plenty of evidence, which I will get to, which says there is no scientific method known to man which will correctly identify whether or not a dog is an American pit bull terrier or a boxer cross or an American Staffordshire terrier.

Mr Cooper -- What the hell have you created, Keith?

Mr McARTHUR -- This august panel of experienced people -- who will not include RSPCA inspectors because at their annual meetings and conferences they have said they do not want a bar of it and will only reluctantly be authorised officers of councils -- will have to decide whether or not Rover is an American pit bull terrier. And good luck to them.

The bill is silent on what happens if an owner disagrees with the decision of the review tribunal.

There is no restriction or prohibition on that aggrieved owner then taking action in the courts. I can see the prospect and very high probability of a series of appeals going to the Supreme Court on the basis of these review panel decisions, because owners have documentation or evidence which leads them, justifiably, to the view that the review panel got it wrong. If that happens the minister will have a serious problem, because that will clog up the courts with unnecessary cases which do nothing to protect public safety
or promote animal welfare.

Let us look at what various people have said about breed-specific legislation. First of all I will refer to the RSPCA. In the 2000 edition of its A3 guidelines on companion animals the RSPCA addresses the question: what about aggression in dogs? Bear in mind that the Premier's reason for doing this is to control dangerous and aggressive dogs and to improve public safety. At page 24 paragraph 3.3.1.5 of the RSPCA
guidelines states:

Behaviour may be influenced by genetic predisposition, experience (such as primary socialisation and other learning), present environment and the dog handler.

It does not say anything about behaviour being a specific attribute of breed. It refers to genetic disposition, but does not say that breed A does X and that breed B does something different. At page 27 under the heading 'Control of dangerous dogs' and the subheading 'Breed' paragraph 3.4.4 states:

Any dog of any breed or mixture of breeds may be dangerous and thus the legislation to control dangerous dogs should not 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 an official RSPCA publication dated last year; I do not believe it has changed. So the RSPCA says, 'Let us do this on a deed, not breed, basis'. Who else has had a view? On its web page the Australian National Kennel Council (ANKC) says:

The ANKC strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be 'dangerous' based on specific breeds or phonetic classes of dogs.

It goes on to make critical comments about media hysteria and government knee-jerk reaction to this producing bad law. Further on it states:

We strongly oppose blanket prohibition on breeding and mandatory spaying/neutering which takes away the rights of breeders and owners who take and fulfill their responsibilities in a serious manner.

Finally, the ANKC says:

We will not support legislation which determines the 'dangerousness' of a dog on the basis of breed alone.

The Australian National Kennel Council is very clear in its views.

In comments on the legislation the Victorian Canine Association (VCA) says:

A dog of any breed, including a cross-bred dog, has the potential to become aggressive.

Inappropriate behaviour in dogs is more likely to be caused by lack of control, lack of socialisation and training, and/or unsuitable environment. Attempting to control aggression in dogs by legislating against a breed has failed throughout the world --

Minister --

and has caused significant pain and suffering to the non-aggressive dogs of that breed and many thousands of owners. Countless thousands of innocent dogs have been killed yet the incidence of dog attack has not diminished -- in those areas --

Dog incidents will remain a problem until governments recognise that the solution lies in effective community education not the killing of dogs.

Killing by breed is an ineffective quick fix sponsored by media generated fear and anti dog sentiment.

The VCA also points out:

At the Urban Animal Management Conference held in Melbourne --

only two months ago, Minister --

29-31 August 2001, the animal management officers (AMOs) --

the authorised officers of councils --

agreed that they were not qualified to identify dogs by breed, and further that they did not want that responsibility.

I put it to the minister that the authorised officers do not want to do it, as they do not believe they are qualified, and that the RSPCA does not want to do it, as it believes it has a conflict of interest in this and for other reasons. Who will do it? Perhaps some experts from the minister's department, or perhaps group-breed or multi-breed judges from the ANKC. I am not too sure who else would be brave enough to take on that job.

What was the response by the Australian Veterinary Association, which it emailed to the minister and the Premier? It says:

The experience in the United Kingdom and Europe is that --

restricted breed legislation -- leads to expensive litigation for government without a reduction in dog attacks.

It goes on to say:

It is a bandaid approach that will not prevent the problem of dog attacks.

It is ludicrous to introduce the legislation before Paul Hemsworth, the director of the Animal Welfare Centre, conducts a research and development project on dog attacks. This is akin to introducing an ovine Johne's disease eradication and compensation program before the national program was completed.

In other words, the minister has jumped too early. What does the American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia say? Clearly it has a vested interest in this because it represents one of the restricted breeds proposed to be legislated against. It says:

Breed specific legislation by its nature is unjust. Good dogs and good owners are punished equally as bad dogs and bad owners, while bad dogs and bad owners of other breeds are ignored.

It says further:

Another much discussed problem with breed specific laws aimed at the -- American pit bull terrier --

is the much debated topic of identification. It is very common for the general public -- and many so-called experts -- to incorrectly identify a bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, miniature bull terrier, and all their crosses as an -- American pit bull terrier.

This is further confounded by the addition of the American Staffordshire terrier -- or Amstaff -- that can still have a dual pedigree issued as both an -- Amstaff -- or an American pit bull terrier.

There will be mass confusion as a result of this. It says further:

It is clear that a breed specific approach does not address what is an obvious social problem; that of inadequate control of domestic animals.

If he wants to improve animal management and public safety, the minister should penalise the deed, not the breed, because breed-specific legislation has not worked anywhere in the world.

I turn to a paper presented by Dr Stephen Collier, lecturer in human and environmental studies at the University of New England, to the Queensland government in response to its similar knee-jerk reaction in launching into breed-specific legislation.

Talking about the instincts of dogs and breeding for particular traits he says that inbred instincts:

have to be shaped and developed by training, but some expression of them is a default behaviour of the respective breeds. Aggression is more highly developed in some breeds than in others, and it has been produced by selection for certain functions, such as hunting, property guarding, or personal protection.

He further says:

There are many forms of aggression in dogs, with scholars producing various lists, but generally they include dominance aggression, pain aggression, prey aggression, fear aggression, intra-dog aggression, possessive aggression, territorial aggression and protection aggression ...

Of relevance to the American pit bull terrier is intra-dog aggression, which is exhibited to a high degree by many individuals of the breed.

That is because the American pit bull terrier was bred for fighting -- one dog fighting another dog -- but it was also carefully selected so it would not bite the handlers or judges at those fights. Dr Collier goes on to say:

However, even the breeds responsible for the greatest proportions of attacks have a majority of individuals that have never bitten anybody. It is reasonable to argue from this that there are not any dangerous breeds if this designation is meant to imply that all or most individuals of a specific breed are likely to attack people.

Dr Collier goes on:

Unfortunately, as lurid accounts of the breeds -- that is, American pit bull terriers -- depredations increased, the breed became more desirable to the worst elements of dog owners. An example of this was seen
recently -- in the United States of America -- after two canary dogs (owned by criminals to guard drug processing premises) killed a woman in California. Breeders of canary dogs had a surge of inquiries for pups, with some callers openly stating that they wanted killer dogs.

How is this dealt with? Dr Randall Lockwood, a humane society professional in Washington, said in 1988:

Breed-specific regulations often come from a legitimate desire to identify problem animals before they cause injury. However, breed-specific provisions provide a superficial response to a deeper problem. Although 'pit bull' type dogs have lately been implicated in a disproportionate number of severe attacks and fatalities, this is a recent phenomenon that seems to reflect a consistent breed preference among irresponsible owners rather than a universal characteristic of the dogs. In the past similar focus was placed on other breeds that were fashionable among people likely to be negligent in the handling of their dogs. Breed-specific laws penalise responsible owners and good dogs while failing to address the many problems posed by other breeds and their owners. It is for this reason that most major animal welfare organisations, including the Humane Society of the United States, the American Humane
Association, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Massachusetts SPCA, recommend against breed-specific legislation.

There are a number of other relevant quotes in Dr Collier's paper, and I will refer to a couple of them. He makes the salient point that if American pit bull terriers were made to vanish from Australia

immediately, the frequency and severity of dog attacks would be reduced very slightly, if at all.

The government in proposing this legislation has put absolutely no evidence on the table to show that the bill will achieve its stated aims, those being to improve responsible dog ownership and increase public safety. Nowhere in the world has this approach worked, and nowhere in Australia has this approach worked -- and it is not going to work here.

I understand the minister's aims. I support his objective of trying to improve the responsible ownership and management of animals, whether dogs or otherwise. That is sensible and is supported by all sides. It is something demanded by the community, and I understand and support the government's wish to improve community safety. But I do not believe the government has the right answer. This will not work: it has not worked, and it cannot work.

It is a political con foisted on the community by an opportunist and politically correct Premier who made a rash statement on public radio early one morning before he had had the chance to get decent advice.

The government is now out there saying, 'We have solved the dog attack problem. We have brought in restricted breed legislation, so pit bull terriers will now be controlled'. No-one can define a pit bull terrier, and no-one can properly define crosses between other breeds and pit bull terriers. I refer honourable members to these photos, and I invite the honourable member for Seymour to have a look at them. The first set comes from the government's own web site about rehousing potentially aggressive dogs from pounds and shelters. There is a photo amongst these of a brindle dog with a little bit of white under its chin going down its neck, with slightly floppy ears, a broad head and a strong neck. It looks like a pit bull type, and the caption says, 'Do not rehouse this breed. Gas it. Get rid of it'.

Let us have a look at the Lost Dogs Home web site, which is proudly headed 'Our graduates picture gallery'. There is a proud photograph of a brindle dog with a little bit of white coming down the chin, with slightly floppy ears, a broad head and a broad neck, and the caption says, 'Larrikin is a spoilt, in the nicest sense, staffie who looks pretty pleased with his life up there in Wendouree with the Harrison family. As far as he's concerned, the grass doesn't come any greener in any pasture'. The two dogs are virtually identical.

If Larrikin had been in the Lost Dogs Home and the person responsible had looked at the government web site and seen the photo of a brindle dog with the white touch under its chin, the white hair running down its neck, the floppy ears, the broad head and the broad neck, he would have ended up as blood and bone. Instead he is now happily living with the Harrison family in Wendouree. He is a wonderful little staffie.

The government's own web site cannot make the distinction, and the government's guidelines on how to determine what is an aggressive and dangerous dog that should not be rehoused cannot distinguish between a staffie and a pit bull.

We will line up 50 dogs of various breeds in a showground, and I challenge the minister to put his best guys in there. I will bet London to a brick that they cannot correctly identify the various pure breeds and the various crosses of those breeds. The government is giving an impossible task to the authorised officers of councils. It is also giving an impossible task to the review tribunal. It is pandering to the community in the pious hope that this will solve the problem of dangerous dogs and reduce dog attacks on people. It will not. Eighty per cent of dog attacks happen in the backyard when the family pet bites a family member or a
visitor. Only 20 per cent of dog attacks happen elsewhere. The problem is not the breed; the problem is the deed.

The sooner the government focuses on that, the better off dogs will be, the better off dog owners will be and the safer the community will be. I support the government's objectives, but its execution is lousy.

Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill) -- I compliment the honourable member for Monbulk. I thought he covered this issue extremely well and raised in some detail the many issues that are part of this legislation.

This is legislation that those of us in country areas keep a close eye on, because we are dealing with an area of distrust between some areas of the country and the city. Where you get into the argument of cruelty to animals and into the laws that some people wish to bring in, you run into some areas of tension. As the honourable member for Monbulk said, this legislation covers amendments to two acts -- the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance Animals) Act.

Before I get started I should refer to the comments I made yesterday about ministers in this place who have made a habit of not being in attendance when their bills are debated. I must commend the Minister for Agriculture, who has never missed a debate on any of his agricultural bills. If his cabinet colleagues followed the example he has set, then this place would be far better than it has been. I say that in all sincerity. I have been utterly disgusted by the senior ministers within this government, none of whom has been in attendance for the debates on their own legislation. I admire the Minister for Agriculture for always fully participating in debates on legislation that impacts on his area.

I will first run through the amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which deal with regulations prohibiting certain procedures and possession of certain implements and their use on animals. The National Party had some concerns about this area and was going to vote against clause 8 of the bill. I believe the regulation-making power was an incorrect way for the minister to approach those areas. Lo and behold, today an amendment has been circulated by the Minister for Agriculture which removes the
relevant provisions of clause 8 from the bill and replaces them with provisions setting out specific actions and implements that the legislation will ban. In other words, the minister is now legislating: (nb) prohibiting the possession of any implement or thing of any of the following classes --

(i) dog or cock fighting implements;

(ii) any other similar fighting implements or things.

(nc) prohibiting or regulating the use of an implement or thing of the following classes --

(i) pronged collars;

(ii) electronic dog training collars ...

I imagine the regulating power will give permission for those things to be used under certain circumstances.

By taking out those provisions in clause 8 the minister has taken away the National Party's objections to this legislation. I will mention a couple of reasons for those objections. We live in a time when tensions exist between metropolitan and country areas when it comes to animal welfare and the production of food and fibre. To have a regulation-making power as broad as that set out in the clause as drafted would place pressure on a minister to act, because the power would exist and would give him an opportunity
to ban or change farming procedures that from time to time upset city people. The National Party is pleased that that clause will not go ahead. If the government is going to restrict farming operations and procedures in that way, then it should do so by an act of Parliament in this place and not by regulation. That has been acknowledged.

I have not yet seen the report that led to this legislation, but when the debate came through over the airwaves and around the place there were calls for the banning of rabbit traps. Dr Hugh Wirth from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals took great delight in telling everyone how evil and terrible rabbit traps are and that it should be illegal to possess them. I do not think he realises that there are a couple of rabbit traps hanging up in every shed in country Victoria.

Mr Helper -- What about bear traps?

Mr STEGGALL -- They would be bear traps where the honourable member comes from. The National Party was not madly impressed with the idea that an organisation such as his, working with the government, would be able to literally overnight make criminals of most of our country people.

Farming procedures upset the city from time to time, and pressure is exerted on country people. The media, being a metropolitan-based operation, gives us some very difficult times in the country when it wants to set out on a process of making a point in any of the intensive agricultural areas such as piggeries, feedlots, chickens, broilers and egg production. Taking clause 8 out of the bill changes my contribution to this debate quite a bit.

Among the amendments contained in the bill, it creates a new offence of attendance at animal fights; it is a bit of a clean-up. The National Party was surprised that it was not already an offence, but there are no great problems with it. It also introduces new powers to enter and search a dwelling and investigate animal cruelty. Once again we are delving into an area where judgment will be needed, but there is no great argument for officers not to have that power.

The bill sets out the process by which the search and seizure of animals will take place. As with a lot of these things where interventions are made on people's private homes or property, attention to detail by the officers will be very important in determining whether the operation is acceptable.

The bill empowers an inspector to issue a notice to comply with animal cruelty notices, which is a positive. It also allows an inspector to obtain a warrant to seize an animal at risk. We have had examples of the need for that type of action from time to time, particularly with horses, in some people's minds. The farming community is always very wary of legislation moving into this area. We have attacked these subjects through codes of practice and best practice procedures or accepted procedures in most of our industries. I hope and trust that that is the way we will continue to operate and that we will not move into the regulating-type operation we see in the bill as it stands.

We must be able to have accepted codes of practice and best practice procedures under which our farming communities can operate and confidently.

One of the matters that arises in connection with this bill and fits into a lot of things is the right-to-farm
legislation that has been the subject of debate in this place for some time. I remind the Minister for Agriculture that his commitment to me for a conclusion to that right-to-farm problem by the end of this year has not been delivered. The National Party would be very keen to see the government act in a far more positive way, not just offering words but actually getting the legislation in and delivering it. The minister and I are in agreement on the approach, the actions and directions for right-to-farm operations. The matters dealt with in the bill are part of it in many ways; they are on the fringe. The codes of practice will be part of it in different ways. I would be very pleased to see a little more progress on that because our country communities are really crying out for it.

The amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, with the exception of clause 8, which is to be removed, are supported and will not be opposed by the National Party.

Part 3 of the bill amends the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act. This is probably the area everyone will want to speak about. It is an interesting piece of legislation, as the honourable member for Monbulk very aptly described it. I want to run through the amendments briefly so people can get an idea of what they do. The amendments introduce definitions of 'restricted breed dog' and 'recognised organisation' similar to those we have now. A recognised organisation is an organisation concerned with restricted
breed dogs. At the moment, if I remember rightly, there are other applicable organisations under the act.

The minister has powers to delegate under the legislation and that is vital. I remember -- not under his ministry -- that we had trouble in my electorate with some lions, would you believe? The Minister for Environment and Conservation was very pleased to have the ability to delegate as we dealt with that difficult issue. So the minister's power to delegate is supported.

The local member would have liked to have been able to delegate the same thing, but he could not -- there was nowhere to go.

The legislation goes through the restricted breed and declares an owner onus section so when registering the dog an owner must declare whether the dog is a restricted breed. It is the main weakness in the legislation and one I suggest the government and the authorities will get over by just transposing that where there is doubt to the dangerous dogs sections, particularly where there is a history of doubt in those areas. When I first looked at this I was of the opinion that the dangerous dogs sections, which we had
some differences with and some discussion about last time it was before the Parliament, was probably the area by which a future government would try to solve the problems that are raised in the area over and above this one. For all the matters raised by the honourable member for Monbulk there are lots of holes in the bill.

There are many subjective judgments and if someone wants to take it through to the courts we will have a lot of difficulty, whereas I believe governments will fall back onto the dangerous dog definition and sections of the act far more quickly than they will stay with the restricted breed.

The bill also gives requirements to register restricted breeds. Local councils have to have a restricted breeds register. Restricted breeds must be permanently identified. Just as we have a dangerous dogs exemption from identification, the bill provides an exemption list for shows. I find that a bit funny. When you talk about the issues that the honourable member for Monbulk was raising, such as how you would prove that a dog is a particular breed, having the identification might be of some assistance. It can
be taken off for the shows, so that will continue to confuse the rest of us as to which dog is which breed.

The control of restricted breeds is introduced.

The bill covers a few of those areas where a person who has a registered restricted breed must notify the local council within 24 hours if a dog is lost or sold. I wonder about the 24 hours, but that is in the bill. An owner must notify in writing to a new owner that the dog is a restricted breed. The restricted breed must be securely confined on the owner's premises. The premises must have warning signs. The dog must be muzzled and controlled when outside the owner's premises. Only two restricted dogs are able to be
owned unless the council gives a permit for a greater number. People should be aware that 'a dog' under the act is not a pup. It is not a dog until it reaches about six months of age so this does not interfere with breeders until the dog is six months of age.

A minor of 17 years of age or less must not own a restricted breed and a minor must not take a restricted breed outside the owner's premises. If the restricted breed breaks any rules it is seized.

There are warrants for search and seizure and powers to destroy restricted dogs which are similar to the dangerous dog operation.

Although clause 21 is necessary in the bill it is the provision through which every one will walk. It provides a defence if the owner reasonably believes it was not a restricted dog. You have to have that in the legislation because it is an area where ignorance will be a defence and when you take into account all of the subjective judgments for a restricted breed I am not sure how the legislation will continue through. As I said, most of the controls will come back to the dangerous dog definitions in the principal act.

On the matter of the review of a decision, if a dog is declared we have the panel concept. I cannot think of any other way to do it, but the honourable member for Monbulk covered that area well. There is area for concern here. The identification of the breeds might be okay for some of the experts in life, but I wonder how it will go in courts as to whether the identification is far too much of a subjective judgment than a definite one. The rest of the legislation provides for more money to be collected by the councils and to its
being put to more uses.

Although the bill has a number of difficulties, it is not opposed by the National Party.

It. Some of my colleagues will put strong arguments against the concept of having breed-specific legislation and I acknowledge that. The honourable member for Rodney has strong opinions on the breed-specific legislation concept and that is reflected in my own comments, except that I believe we have a bit of a double shuffle here where ministers and Premiers in particular might want to be able to stand up in public and say, 'Look what we have done. We have made it a lot safer for our people'. There are those of us who look at the implementation of what we have in front of us and say, 'Hang on. I'm not convinced yet that this is going to work'. But the dangerous dog definition in the act is there to fall back on and that does not require a breed definition to sort out the breed.

The National Party will not oppose the legislation. It would have vigorously opposed the amendment to section 8 of the Prevention to Cruelty to Animals Act, but that having been removed it believes the legislation should be able to progress through the house.

Honourable members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Loney) -- Order! I was about to call the Deputy Chair to order.

Mr STEGGALL -- I was about to do the same thing myself, Mr Acting Speaker, but I saw the Deputy Speaker there and thought, 'My goodness, I had better not. She gets a bit cranky when I do that sort of thing'.

I do not have much hope that the legislation, if it succeeds through Parliament, will resolve the problem of dog attacks on people. I think the dangerous dog definition will do that far more effectively. The government has probably alienated itself rather severely from a lot of dog owners who do not share its belief that in all cases it is the breed that causes concern.

Pit bull terriers have a bad name and are a problem in certain areas, there is no argument about that; but I am a little intrigued about why we did not use the dangerous dog definition instead of the breed-specific one. It is just my feeling, but I would have thought that this area was covered under the dog act.

Having been a councillor of the Rural City of Swan Hill for 10 years, I can tell you that the biggest and longest debates we ever had were about dog acts!

An honourable member interjected.

Mr STEGGALL -- No, mainly dog acts and us! Local councils will take a lot of delight in working out how they can be sure that a pit bull terrier is a pit bull terrier and what they should do about it. What are they going to do if someone objects?

The legislation refers to a panel. I agree that we need a panel -- it is the best way -- but I have my doubts about the expertise such a panel will get from around Victoria in declaring breeds of dogs in ways that will satisfy the courts of our land.

Mr HOWARD (Ballarat East) -- I am pleased to speak on the Animals Legislation (Responsible Ownership) Bill, which is a proactive piece of legislation brought forward by the government in response to community concern about dog attacks -- and that is the part of the bill being focused on. The government has attempted to balance the concerns of the community against the rights of dog owners to reach a fair position on the issue. The bill addresses a number of other issues in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act, which I will talk about a bit more.

The bill came about after the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee looked at this issue and presented a report to the government. Significant consultation has been undertaken to further refine the legislation, and discussions on the issues have taken place with groups such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Municipal Association of Victoria. Local government will have a significant involvement in the enactment of the legislation, and therefore councils needed to be consulted.
The Lost Dogs Home was consulted, and a public consultation paper was put out. More recently fact sheets have been produced advising people of the intent of the bill.

The Municipal Association of Victoria has not expressed any undue concern about the legislation, and the RSPCA has not reacted as strongly as perhaps it would have liked. Clearly the legislation attempts to be
balanced but proactive in its outcome and in recognising that although the dangerous animals legislation is in place with regard to dog bites, a dog has to have attacked for it to be declared dangerous.

The part of the legislation that people are particularly interested in suggests that it is appropriate to bring within Victorian legislation dogs that have been bred for fighting purposes -- and the federal government has recognised in its legislation that these dogs should be prohibited from being imported.

I will come back to the specifics of the legislation, but we have already heard that it makes it an offence to attend an animal fight. The bill also expands the enforcement powers in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Once officers have a magistrate's order they are empowered to go inside premises. That is mostly directed towards urban residences where people may keep dogs and cats inside the house.

While under existing legislation warrants can be issued to enable them to enter properties, officers are not able to enter residences. However, in order to get a magistrate's order the responsible officers would need to present a case as to why it was necessary to enter the residence.

To extend the legislative powers we have introduced the opportunity to seize animals under a warrant. The legislation is also strengthened by the provision enabling inspectors to issue order on the owners of animals requiring them to comply with particular activities, which should improve the welfare of animals under their owners care. The government recognises that that will give inspectors the opportunity to carry further authority and will ensure that we will not have to wait for further cruelty to take place
before the act becomes formal.

Some powers have been talked about as slightly contentious issues.

We have put forward an amendment in that regard whereby certain activities or procedures and equipment will be made illegal. The amendment specifies that it will not be an open-ended issue. It relates to prohibiting the procedure for the firing of horses and prohibiting possession of dog or cockfighting implements and any other similar fighting implements or things. It also involves prohibiting or regulating the use of pronged collars and electronic dog-training collars. I am pleased to note that both opposition
parties are happy to accept the amendment. It clarifies concerns that have been raised in the community about the government perhaps using this legislation to do things other than what is expressed as its intent.

Another part of the bill that has received some attention is the requirement on councils to provide an additional $1.50 per dog registration under the act. That money will go into a fund which will be of great benefit to the community, and it is something that I wish to emphasise in my comments on the bill.

The money will be spent on a number of things, including further investigations of dangerous dogs, why dogs attack and dog ownership, as well as a number of other issues. The fund will be used to develop educational programs to ensure that members of the community understand before they purchase a dog which breeds are more appropriate for their purposes, as well as providing more information about their responsibilities as pet owners. It will be a useful addition and will enable substantial amount of funding
to be made available to develop useful community programs.

I turn to the other part of the bill that has certainly given rise to much public attention. It is one that the newspapers have addressed, and it is about the restricted animals part of the bill whereby we have used the federal legislation.

We also looked at the legislation on this very issue which has already been enacted in South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland, where they have introduced the restricted coding that is aligned with the federal government's code in regard to prohibited imports.

Four dogs have been mentioned under that category -- dogo Argentino, Japanese tosa, fila Brasileiro and the American pit bull terrier. Of the four breeds, the only one that is already in Australia is the pit bull terrier, and that is the one that is attracting a lot of attention. When these dogs have attacked they have been very violent. The nature of their bite is such that they grip on vigorously and do not let go. There have been cases of people being attacked by pit bull terriers that have caused great trauma in the community.

Knowing the background of this breed of dog, and given that it was bred as a fighting dog, the federal government introduced its own legislation.

That led the three other states that I have talked about to enact their legislation. Victoria believes it is appropriate to introduce proactive legislation dealing with a breed that is believed to be a potential threat to the community and therefore requiring owners of those dogs to do a number of things to ensure that people are not put at risk by their ownership of those dogs.

The owners requirements relate to escape-proof and child-proof fencing, permanent identification using microchips, notifying councils of their ownership of pit bull terriers and then any change of ownership, and other issues such as those. If these dogs are taken out in public, they are required to be muzzled and not to be in the control of a minor. Again, these issues relate to the Dangerous Dogs Act, so it is about extending the same restrictions in that act to these particular dogs.

Issues have been raised about how we can determine what is and is not a pit bull terrier. This is an issue on which we will require expert advice. Although we know it is the responsibility of a dog owner to declare on the registration of his or her dog that it is a pit bull terrier, if there is a dispute about that and a responsible council officer believes that a dog which has not been declared is a pit bull terrier, he or she can pursue that matter. An advisory panel of experts will be established to clarify the issue. They should be
able to provide advice to that council officer as to whether the dog is in fact a pit bull terrier, a cross-breed or another breed.

So that should help to clarify this issue.

We will work through this process closely with the community as the bill is enacted. As the name says, it is all about responsible pet ownership, recognising that there is a fear in the community about dog attacks. We need to be mindful that this legislation shows that this government wants to be proactive in this field, being fair to pet owners but at the same time ensuring that they carry out their responsibilities. I am very pleased to support this legislation before the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr COOPER (Mornington).

Debate adjourned until later this day.
smile-wailful