Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to present a policy document released this month by the Australian Veterinary Association, entitled Dangerous dogs—a sensible solution: policy and model legislative framework. This is a highly emotional issue and commands media and community attention, especially when the often horrific attacks occur, and in fact even deaths, particularly of children in our community. I congratulate the Veterinary Association for the work they have done in proposing this new legislative approach, in reviewing international policy relating to dangerous dogs and in recommending both policy and model legislation which could be adopted by the states and territories. The work was undertaken principally by Dr Michael Hayward from the Centre for Companion Animals in the Community, together with the policy development group and media communications group of the AVA and members of the executive of the South Australian branch. It summarises current classification of dangerous dogs in each of the Australian jurisdictions and refers to legislation relating to both dog and cat management—and, of course, they are very different approaches in the different scenarios in the different jurisdictions. The paper provides an insight into equivalent legislation in 13 countries around the world and cites in the bibliography some 83 peer-reviewed references in presenting the arguments and in formulating the recommendations of a common approach which could be taken by the states and territories. It draws also on the American Veterinary Medical Association's experience and that of the British Veterinary Association.

In summary, the Australian Veterinary Association makes these points. First of all, contrary to popular opinion and views and direction undertaken by most jurisdictions, a breed-specific approach to legislation and regulation of dangerous dogs is not an efficient, effective or legally accurate approach to take. Within Australia and around the world, where this approach has been taken it has failed, and the legislation has typically been revoked. There are of course, as common sense would dictate, a number of factors to be taken into account when considering the potential for an individual dog or indeed a breed of dogs to exhibit dangerous behaviour. The first would be heredity or the breed. The second would be the environment, particularly with reference to the characteristic of ownership of the animal or animals, the sex and age of the dog, its training and socialisation and, indeed, victim behaviour. It is the fact that most dog bites occur in the home, where the animal is known to the victim. Owned dogs are far more dangerous than strays in public when considering dog bites. In fact, something like 65 per cent of the recorded dog bites to children in our country are from within the home by dogs that they know, and only one-third occur in public. Of course, we also regrettably understand that young children have as much as a two per cent chance per annum of being bitten by a dog. Child behaviour is critically important. To quote from the work of Beaver and his colleagues in the United States in 2001:

Children’s natural behaviours, including running, yelling, grabbing, hitting, quick and darting movements, and maintaining eye contact, put them at risk for dog bite injuries. Proximity of a child’s face to the dog also increases the risk that facial injuries will occur.

When speaking of dog behaviour, I think all of us anecdotally are aware of the fact that owners and their animals quite often look alike. Indeed, if they do not look alike when the animal is first purchased or taken on board, each grows to look more like the other. But, on the serious side of this, work done in the United States and the UK supports the fact with regard to dangerous dogs that high-risk animals fit into the picture of high-risk lifestyles. In other words, typically dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs are owned by young men, very often of aggressive behaviour. Regrettably, socioeconomic circumstances come in in the sense that the predominant numbers are from low socioeconomic areas, and they themselves quite often come to the attention of the law by virtue of crime, drugs and, of course, a macho image. It then becomes the logical point that the overwhelming message is owner responsibility. We know from our studies in genetics and other fields that behaviour is a function of both genotype—the heredity of the animal—and its environment. Of course, never is this more true than in relation to dangerous dogs.

I come to breed-specific legislation, which is the direction jurisdictions have followed—that is, to place a ban or stringent restrictions on certain breeds.

Evidence shows that it does not work and cannot work. Breed on its own is not an effective indicator or predictor of aggression. In fact, it is difficult to actually determine from DNA analysis what the breed of an animal is. In one study overseas 88 per cent of dogs identified as being of a certain breed were not, once DNA analysis was undertaken. Veterinarians are reluctant to declare an animal a breed or a cross for fear of being sued by owners, should they be aggrieved in the judicial process.

In fact, if logic is applied to this study, it becomes obvious that the number of animals that would have to be removed is so high that removing any one breed would have a negligible effect. There is nothing then, of course, to stop the sort of person I described earlier turning around and purchasing an animal of another breed.

The legislation was tried in New South Wales—this is breed-specific legislation—and it failed. It has also failed spectacularly in the UK, in Spain, in Germany, in Holland and in Italy. In fact, in Italy, when they started to look at breeds that should be removed due to aggression, included amongst those that you would expect were also corgis and border collies. So where do you stop?

The simple fact of the matter—as Senator Joyce, coming from a rural background, and all of us, would know—is that all dogs have a capability of biting. In South Australia five particular breeds, representing a third of the dog population, accounted for three-quarters of attacks where victims in that state were hospitalised. Along with Rottweilers, German shepherds and Dobermans, Jack Russells and blue heelers were included. As council officers will tell you, of course breeds other than those that we normally regard as the most aggressive will bite.

I turn briefly to this draft model legislation which has been proposed by the Australian Veterinary Association. It is based, as logic would hope, on early identification of and intervention for potentially dangerous dogs, not only having regard to the breed or breed mix. The paper in its entirety speaks to regulations relating to dogs and their owners, and places considerable burden of responsibility on the owner to control the socialisation, the training, the behaviour and the restraint of the dog.

The legislation as it is proposed by the association calls for a permanent form of identification, for example, RFID chips, which are so commonly used in identifying animals and other assets. It calls for a national identification and registration system because of the free movement now of animals across state and territory borders. Importantly, the draft legislation points to the need for a national reporting system, not only of people hospitalised as a result of dog bites but going further through surveys to medical practices, to veterinary practices and to local councils to get a handle on those accidents or bites occurring and not requiring hospitalisation.

The document also speaks of temperament testing, which is being undertaken universally now. It speaks to the need for education, particularly of children; but most importantly, for legislation that would ensure that the regulations in the act are enforced.

In conclusion, I seek leave to table the document by the Australian Veterinarian Association, Dangerous dogs—a sensible solution.

Leave granted.