12 October 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to make some comments on the Crimes and Domestic Animals Acts Amendment (Offences and Penalties) Bill 2011, which, as the name suggests, amends the Crimes Act 1958 and the Domestic Animals Act 1994.
It creates new indictable offences in the Crimes Act 1958 relating to the failure to control a dangerous, restricted breed or menacing dog in a manner that might result in death and to reckless conduct by dangerous, restricted breed or menacing dogs which might endanger life. It increases the penalties in the Domestic Animals Act 1994, particularly in relation to attacks by dangerous and restricted breed dogs and to the keeping of dangerous, menacing and restricted breed dogs.
There is some repetition here, but clearly all bases need to be covered in relation to these matters. It provides a requirement for a restricted breed dog to wear a collar, which will be prescribed in regulations further down the track. It will also prohibit the sale or transfer of a restricted breed dog to any person other than an immediate family member and only upon the death of the owner.
The member for Bundoora raised an important point about ensuring that whoever takes control of one of these dogs does so on the basis that they are able to control the beast.
We are all acutely aware of the events that have prompted this legislation, which was probably not on the immediate calendar in terms of the parliamentary timetable. The government has acted appropriately and promptly, and the tenor in which the debate has occurred this afternoon and the mood of the house indicate the seriousness with which we regard this matter.
It has been interesting to see the reaction to not only the proposals in the bill but also the measures effected by the previous amendments to the Domestic Animals Act 1994. To my dismay in the Beleura Hill area in Mornington, as the deadline for registration closed in, a number of dogs were let loose to run on the streets. They were obviously discarded by their owners — when all they had to do was take the dogs down to the council and register them.
That is an unfortunate situation and one which is cultural as much as anything else. While it is not the immediate subject of this bill, it is a matter we certainly need to address.
The definitions here are important. A ‘dangerous dog’ is a dog that has been declared by a council to be dangerous. Perhaps it has caused serious injury to an animal or to a person — and that is determined on the basis of actions by the dog — or it is a guard dog for non‑residential premises or a dog that has been trained to attack. Any dog that has been trained to attack is self‑evidently a dangerous dog.
A ‘menacing dog’ is slightly different. Basically it is a dog that has rushed or chased a person or animal or has perhaps gone that one step further and bitten a person but has not caused serious injury.
A ‘restricted breed’ relates to five particular breeds. I will not attempt a number of these pronunciations, but the American pit bull terrier, or the pit bull terrier, is the most obvious of those. The definition also relates to a dog that falls within a standard approved under section 3(3) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 for any of the restricted breeds.
I touched on the culture a moment or two ago. If I might be permitted a bit of a trip down memory lane, I recall that in the Mornington shire in the late 1980s, as the town was growing a bit, we had a lot more dogs. We had dogs on beaches and all those sorts of good things, and I mean that in the positive sense of the word. A situation developed where dog attacks became quite frequent — or far more frequent than they had been.
As the feeling grew amongst the community that they were not safe, actions by dogs that were perhaps not aggressive were construed by people as being aggressive. The council took what was an unprecedented step and virtually doubled the number of authorised officers in the budget of that year — 1988 or 1989. It took a punt that revenue from dogs that were then registered would increase as a result but more importantly that there could be a stronger focus on the enforcement of the existing regulations.
That was done, and within three months the dog problem was dealt with. The number of attacks declined significantly — almost to zero. A far greater number of dogs were registered, and dog owners again became respectable in the eyes of the community.
That was a cultural thing. It is worth noting that to change the culture, sometimes some fairly tough decisions need to be taken. The provisions in this bill will send a strong message to the community that the Parliament — that is, members of Parliament on both sides of the aisle — is not prepared to accept the continued presence of dangerous animals.
The amendments to the Domestic Animals Act 1994 require a restricted breed dog to wear a collar. The regulations for that provision will be set later. The collar will be different to that worn by a dangerous dog, so it will be readily identifiable by the public and also, importantly, by the council.
The sale or transfer of restricted breed dogs will be strictly limited so that upon the death of an owner there will either be a transfer to a family member or the dog will be surrendered and destroyed.
The penalties for restricted breed dog offences will be significantly increased to bring them into line with those for dangerous dogs. All these changes complement the recent amendments that saw the introduction of approved standards and the removal of the amnesty at the end of September.
It is worth noting that the dangerous dogs hotline, which the government has established, has received a steady number of reports from both dog owners and the general public. If nothing else, it allows councils to operate in a more focused way with their approach.
The bill also makes a number of changes to the Crimes Act 1958, particularly regarding the offence of failing to control a dog, resulting in death. The maximum penalty for this offence will be 10 years imprisonment.
It provides for a further offence of failing to control a dog, endangering life. The maximum penalty for that offence will be five years imprisonment.
The public needs to be aware and dog owners need to be aware that there are consequences for the actions people take. That has not previously been the case in this matter. People are free to own these dogs while they are around, but there should be consequences for people’s actions.
Legislative Assembly 12 October 2011
Printer Friendly Version...