Baldock Larry: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Baldock Larry: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10039] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 First I commend the Minister of Local Government for bringing what has become I believe very good legislation back to the House. He is to be commended for that. I also thank David Carter who chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee and all the other members of the committee for the very cooperative way in which we have worked. The officials also need to be thanked for their work in making a great many amendments to the original legislation before us including some of the major changes made at the last minute in the Committee stage. 
When I first began on this process earlier in the year some colleagues advised me that dealing with dog legislation is always a lose-lose situation so I embarked on it with some fear and trepidation. It is very difficult when one is dealing with people’s pets to come up with legislation that will please everybody but I believe we have done an excellent job. Most of the feedback we have received so far has been very positive. People have been very pleased that parts of the bill have been taken out and that a large number of amendments have been made to the Act that will make it even more effective. 
I begin by concentrating on some of the positive initiatives in the bill. First of all we give increased powers to dog control officers for enforcement and for education. That is very important. The dog control officers are the front-line people dealing with dogs in our communities and they need to be supported with good legislation and more powers so that they can do their jobs effectively. This bill allows them to go on to private property to apprehend misbehaving dogs which is an important step forward. It also gives them powers to provide food and shelter for dogs that have not been taken care of and I think all of us are pleased with that provision. We have retained the probationary owner category so that dog control officers can work with offenders to help them learn to be better owners. I believe that most of our dog control officers are working positively with people and helping them to become better owners rather than penalising them unnecessarily. Probationary training will be mandatory under this legislation which is a good step forward. 
There will be much tougher penalties for offences against the Act and real and workable infringement fees. The national database for tracking all dogs will be a real asset in the tool bag of our dog control officers. It will ensure that dogs with dangerous histories are not lost from the records if they travel between regions and we welcome that addition to this legislation. There will also be better public safety which is the primary focus of the legislation. Tough new public safety criteria for council by-laws will result in many communities in dogs being required to be leashed in publicly frequented places particularly children’s and family areas. I am pleased though that we did not take the position of requiring all dogs to be leashed at all times. Councils in particular approached us and asked us to leave it up to them to decide. We found I think a reasonable and common-sense compromise in requiring people to carry a leash with them. 
Councils are now to be accountable for their enforcement of dog control laws. We have given them the tools. It is now up to them to make sure their neighbourhoods are safe. One of the important features of the legislation too is that councils must report on an annual basis regarding what they are doing in their communities to enforce the legislation. That makes them accountable not just to central government but to their local communities because individuals in the community will be able to monitor what their dog control officers are doing. That is the key to the success of the legislation. 
There is a new category of “menacing dogs” for dogs displaying threatening behaviour or dog breeds or types of the schedule 4 variety that need to be muzzled in public. I believe that is not too onerous a condition to place upon dogs that we know are capable of inflicting serious injury on people if they attack. As I have said in other speeches it is not like some overseas legislation such as that in England under which one is banned from owning a dog of a particular breed. It simply means that people will have to muzzle those dogs when they take them out in public. Those four classes of dog that are inherently dangerous are banned from importation and that is a sensible step. We do not want to see those other three breeds—which could cross-breed and become a problem—follow the example of what has happened with the American pit bull. 
We have reasonably strengthened the fencing provisions without going to the length of the ludicrous requirement to have fencing to the front door as was in the original bill. People should have the assurance that they can pass by other people’s properties without having dogs come out on to the street. Even if those dogs do not attack it can be a very nerve-racking and frightening experience and the requirement that councils can place upon people to fence their properties will be useful in that regard. 
All dogs are capable of being man’s best friend although I personally prefer to have a wife in that regard. Whether they are small or large dogs people can become very attached to dogs as pets. If as a result of the passing of this legislation there is a trend over time for people to shift away from the American pit bull – type dog and the larger attack-type dog and begin to choose something a little less aggressive as a family pet then the legislation will have been doing its job in that regard also. The point that needs to be made—which the speaker before me missed—is that when it comes to American pit bulls dog control officers do not have to identify the breed. We understood that that is difficult. That is why we have allowed for a category of “type of dog” which makes it much easier. If it looks like a pit bull— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Smells like a pit bull. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: —and if it smells like a pit bull it will probably bite like a pit bull. Therefore it is reasonable to ask the owners of the dog to muzzle it when they take it out in public. 
 Some initiatives in the bill that United Future takes particular pleasure in are that firstly there will be a national database from 2006. It will be not just for microchipped dogs but for all dogs that have been registered because that will be useful for dog control officers as I have said before. Secondly irresponsible owners convicted of offences and given destruction orders under the Act will have to provide death certificates to prove their dogs are deceased—not just hidden away or loaned out temporarily. I am told by dog control officers that that is a real problem. An owner is given a destruction order and the officer going to look for the dog is told the owner has taken the dog into the bush and shot it but in actual fact the dog appears in another municipality or community somewhere else and still is a problem. Territorial authorities will have the power to impound dogs charged for dangerous offences while their owners await prosecution proceedings. That I believe is an important improvement to the 1996 Act because it will keep dangerous dogs off the streets while that prosecution is going on. As I said earlier the audit process has become compulsory for councils and will add great weight to the responsibility of councils or great motivation for councils to enforce this law effectively. 
I want to make some final comments about the issue of microchipping and what costs that will bring to dog owners. It has been suggested in some press releases in the last couple of days that a registry would result in costs of something like $25 million. I just cannot believe that. Research into that issue was done very carefully. One of the things the microchip registry was compared with was the national vehicle registry and it was claimed that it cost $25 per vehicle to maintain a registry on an annual basis. So I asked our researchers to look into that and they found that it cost $24.8 million for the Land Transport Safety Authority to maintain its database. Considering that the cost is spread across our country’s 2.9 million vehicles and that most vehicles are registered twice a year the cost would really amount to $4 per vehicle per registration. To suggest that the cost is $25 is stretching the truth considerably. 
The estimates regarding the cost to owners of microchipping dogs are also incorrect. They include the assumption that vets would be the only ones to install the microchips and we have made it very clear to the Minister in our support for the legislation that installation of them must be open for competitive pricing. Dog control officers can do it and private contractors will also be able to be engaged to make sure no one has a monopoly on installing the chips and therefore keeps the price very high. It seems reasonable that when taking a pup at age 3 months for its vaccination the chip could also be implanted then if the owner wanted a vet to do it and that would not mean an additional or separate consultation fee. 
I commend this bill to the House.