Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

DOG CONTROL BILL 2000 (No. 97)

Second Reading

Mr JIM BACON (Denison - Premier - 2R) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

Mr Speaker, I have much pleasure in introducing a bill that encourages responsible dog ownership and promotes a comprehensive, balanced approach to dog management. The bill recognises the important role of dogs as companion animals and encourages councils to work with their communities to develop sound dog management policies. By carefully balancing the rights and obligations of dog owners, this bill respects the interests of all Tasmanians. The bill has been developed in close consultation with dog owners and their organisations, animal welfare bodies, councils and the broader community.

To ensure that as many Tasmanians as possible had the opportunity to view the 2000 bill, the Government ran newspaper advertisements and mailed the draft bill to all known dog organisations. The Government also made the bill available on the then Local Government Office website. Two public meetings were held to discuss the bill, involving more than 100 Tasmanians. The Government felt so strongly about protecting visually-impaired persons and their guide dogs that we arranged to bus them to one of the meetings. There were also four meetings with council staff designed to discuss and explain the provisions of the new bill and to hear their comments.

The public meetings, press reports and the widely distributed bill stimulated considerable interest. The Department of Premier and Cabinet received approximately 140 letters and submissions regarding the bill and approximately 80 phone calls. Mr Speaker, I can assure the members that my staff answered at least that number of calls. Nearly all the concerns expressed at the time focused on the effective control provisions, in particular whether or not dogs should be on a lead in a public place.

We have listened to these concerns about public safety. The Government believes that every Tasmanian should be able to walk the footpaths around his or her neighbourhood without feeling threatened by dogs running loose. This bill consequently includes a provision that a dog is required to be on a lead when on a road or road-related area in a built-up area. This means that dog owners and those in control of a dog must have their dogs on a lead when on a road, footpath, public walkway or cycleway in a city, suburb or town. This provision has been welcomed by councils, animal welfare organisations and guide dog interest groups, while still being acceptable to dog owners.

Mr Speaker, for the first time community members will have a real input into the dog management and control measures that will apply in their municipal area. Councils are to consult with the public and any appropriate bodies or organisations. They are to invite submissions and consider any that are received before finalising their policies. Councils will then develop policies relating to dog management that have as a major objective the promotion of responsible ownership of dogs. Councils' dog management policies are to include such matters as the provision of exercise, training, prohibited and restricted areas. These areas will be clearly signposted by councils.

Under the Dog Control Act 1987 a council must renew any dog access restrictions they have imposed on an area every three months. This is an onerous requirement on councils in terms of expense and time. The Dog Control Bill 2000 proposes that any area declared under the bill can exist for a period of up to five years. Councils have welcomed this provision. A council may declare some locations as training and exercise areas. These are areas where the public can expect to encounter dogs off a lead. However, the bill requires dog owners to have their dogs under effective control at all times, so when a dog is not on a lead in a public place, it must be close to and in sight of its owner. The owner must also be able to demonstrate to an authorised person that the dog is immediately responsive to his or her commands. A council may also declare restricted areas. Councils may prohibit dogs from entry to an area during certain hours or days. This will allow time-sharing of places like parks, reserves or beaches. I anticipate that councils will work with their communities to make good use of the restricted area provision.

The Government is also concerned about the safety of our native animals. The bill allows councils to declare prohibited areas. Dogs will be banned from these areas in order to protect sensitive wildlife habitats. The prohibition can be for any period of time during the year.

The bill has a very strong focus on the control of dangerous dogs. It is currently quite a difficult and lengthy task for a council to have a court declare a dog dangerous. This bill allows a general manager to declare a dog dangerous if it has caused serious injury to a person or another animal or is likely to cause injury to a person or serious injury to another animal. Very importantly, the general manager will be able to declare a dog dangerous without any unnecessary delay. Dog interest groups and councils have welcomed this provision.

A dog declared dangerous will be required to be microchipped and must wear an approved collar at all times. The collar will be uniquely and brightly coloured, enabling the public to easily recognise a dog as dangerous. When in a public place, a dangerous dog must be muzzled and on a lead held by a person of at least eighteen years of age. When not in a public place, a dangerous dog must be housed in a childproof enclosure or restrained by a lead. Every entrance to the enclosure must have an approved warning sign. At no time is a dangerous dog to be allowed off a lead in a public place, even if that public place is a dog exercise or training area.

The bill provides significant penalties for offences relating to dangerous dogs. If a dog attacks a person, the owner can be fined up to $2 000. If a dog attacks another animal the owner can be fined up to $1 000.

Most dog owners are responsible. Unfortunately, some dog owners behave irresponsibly, both in terms of controlling their dogs and in allowing their dogs to be a nuisance. About 80 per cent of all dog complaints to councils relate to dogs causing a nuisance and barking dogs give rise to most of those complaints. The bill continues the practice of requiring a person who wishes to make a complaint to do so in writing and to pay a deposit, if required by council. If the complaint has substance the deposit is to be refunded.

For the first time, an authorised person may issue an infringement notice for a nuisance offence. Councils will now be able to deal more effectively with nuisance complaints, but ultimately it is up to owners to ensure that their dogs are not a nuisance to others.

As members would be aware, there is a constant problem of dog owners and handlers not removing faeces left by their dogs in a public place. I am pleased to advise that the bill includes a provision to fine such owners, either by an infringement notice or a court-imposed fine of up to $300.

Although infringement notices are already available to councils they have not been widely used because of the low levels of penalties. The penalties have now been increased and it is expected that infringement notices will be issued more frequently for minor offences; for example, the failure to register a dog. An infringement notice will not be issued for a more serious offence. For example, a dog attack will continue to be dealt with through the court system. In essence, the infringement notices will work in much the same way as on-the-spot fines for minor traffic and parking offences. I anticipate that the infringement notices will lead to a significant decline in minor offences and will encourage councils to enforce the provisions of the legislation.

Mr Speaker, I think that it is only fair that dog owners pay a reasonable portion of the dog control and management costs in their municipal area. The Government thus proposes that councils be able to determine fees payable under the bill. In terms of registration fees, there will be an opportunity for councils to provide incentives for responsible dog ownership. Similarly, councils will be able to discount registration fees for pensioners and other financially-disadvantaged residents. The regulations will provide guidelines to councils on the registration fee structure.

Councils have welcomed this freedom to charge their own fees. Although they recognise that the fees will not necessarily meet the full cost of dog control, there is widespread support for the principle that dog owners should contribute a reasonable portion of the costs of dog management and control. It should also be remembered that all sections of the community receive benefits from having good dog management and control.

Members may recall that in November last year I introduced the Dog Control Bill 1999. Due to concerns expressed by some dog owners, and dog owner organisations, I chose to withdraw the bill and asked for it to be reviewed by the Department of Premier and Cabinet. The bill was substantially revised and released for public comment as the Dog Control Bill 2000.

An important issue that was raised during the subsequent consultation process is that of microchips. Microchips can be a very good way of identifying a particular dog. Because of this benefit in identification, the Government proposes that all dangerous dogs be microchipped. At this stage the Government does not intend to make microchipping mandatory for all dogs. The South Australian Government is undertaking extensive research into an appropriate microchip system for dogs and cats in that State and we can learn from them in this matter.

As I said earlier, councils, dog interest groups, animal welfare organisations, guide dog interest groups and the public have been involved in refining this bill. I intend to establish a small working group, representative of such organisations, to assist the development of the regulations that will support the legislation. The regulations will address the offences for which infringement notices will be issued and will provide guidelines for councils to apply in setting dog registration fees. For example, the working group may recommend that a desexed dog attract a lesser fee than an entire dog and that the fee for a dangerous dog be more than the fee of an entire dog.

I also intend to establish a working group consisting of representatives of dog interest groups, councils and government agencies to examine the microchipping issue, to monitor the developments in South Australia and report back to the Government.

Mr Speaker, I conclude by saying that the bill promotes a comprehensive and balanced approach to dog management and encourages responsible dog ownership. In doing so, it respects the interests of all Tasmanians. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr HIDDING (Lyons - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Speaker, we welcome the opportunity to comment on this bill. The fact is that it has been a long time coming for Tasmania. I need to make the point that this is a dog bill, not a cat bill, and that once this is over if you thought this was hard, wait until we start on the cat bill because there is a whole different scenario with that, of course, and I can see -

Mr Jim Bacon - A different minister will be doing it.

Mr HIDDING - that your advisers on this matter are already quailing at the thought of beginning on that particular task but there is a body of work to be done with that. We are going to see in Tasmania a scenario in our community where it is going to be more difficult to own a dog. It is going to be, to some people, a disincentive for a parent when a child might ask, 'Mummy, can we have a dog?' - it could well be a disincentive for the family there to say, 'Yes, okay, let's go and get a dog. Let's go down to the pound, let's pay our $30, $40 or $50' - what it used to be - and come home with a puppy and you would do your best with it and you let the thing out for a run. Really, it is not very long ago that that happened in Launceston but it still is happening in other parts of Tasmania where councils have not kept pace with each other around the State of Tasmania.

Certainly in the city in which I live, in Launceston, longer than ten years ago there was a lot of work done on these regulations and it has been law in Launceston to walk your dog on the lead for quite some time now. But then when I arranged a residence down here for when I was working down here I was shocked to find that, in the particular area where I was - a very nice built-up area - I could be out for a walk of an evening and come across all sorts of dogs running loose from their owners' seemingly ineffective control, but it was a shock to see there are different standards around the State.
So it does not amaze me that the time has come that we, as a State, need to look at a framework of legislation that individual councils can get to work and regulate, in as sensitive a manner as possible, the fine balance between the rights of dog owners and the happy life of a dog, and the lives of other citizens who also have to live with that dog in the community.

So we think that this is a reasonable outcome. We did not think so when the first draft came out but it is interesting, is it not, that sometimes in a consultation process you do need to be brave and withdraw - you know, put something out there, it did fire up a considerable number of people. The Premier was talking about the sort of numbers that were contacting his office - I think they probably all rang us first or we might have even told them to ring you. No, we would not have done that but we certainly had a lot of contact as well and it was appropriate that you pulled that and sent it back for more work. What we have ended up with, through that refining process, is about as good as you can get, given some strong opinions in the community about all this.

I grew up in a large family with lots of little kids - seven kids in the family. It was considered there was no room for a dog but for the last twenty-odd years we have enjoyed one or two small dogs in our family. But I was, as a ten-year-old, bitten by the next-door neighbour's boxer. It frightened the heck out of me, it eyeballed me, it stepped up to me and bit me on the leg and just sauntered off. I stood there stunned and I realised then that these dogs are not necessarily cute friends to everybody. In that particular family, it was a terrific dog, never bit anyone. It obviously looked over the fence -

Mr Rundle - I heard a different story, I thought he bit the dog.

Mr Ken Bacon - You can't blame him.

Mr Jim Bacon - It must have known something about you.

Mr Rundle - He's a Dutch Rottweiler.

Mr HIDDING - Obviously somebody had worded the dog up about me and it felt constrained to come and jump over the fence and bite me on the leg. I still carry the marks and the scars and the trauma of that that lasted for least six months of my life.

Mr Rundle - My dog's a good judge of character, your neighbour's was too.

Mr HIDDING - But I have had, all my life, a heightened awareness of what a dog can do and certainly with my children, as they grew, I was probably over-protective of my children with other people's dogs and now I have a grandson, about three or four years old, and he frightens the heck out of me. He walks up to any dog and just pats it and you think, 'My goodness, I hope he knows what he's doing', but you do want to be protective against these animals. Children do not see dogs as potential threats. They see them as members of a family in the pecking order and play with them, but of course these animals do not have the range of emotions and control on thoughts that humans have and can, for all sorts of strange reasons, snap and badly damage humans and other animals, and we have seen recently some awful examples of photographs of kids with stitches and lacerations on their faces and arms, and it just makes my blood turn cold to think of what happened at that point. It reminds me that in a society where that continues to happen we need to bend our mind to a framework that best suits everybody.

So we have a situation in a State where we have local government looking at their very existence, saying, 'Well, perhaps we should have full status as local government around the place' on the one hand, and on the other hand they are saying, 'This dog thing's too hard for us. You set the rules, because it is too hard for us. We won't be able to do that.' And so it is our duty here in this Parliament today to pass legislation that says to councils, 'We've made the hard decisions for you. You have got to make the rest of the decisions in your public space areas that will best suit your areas.'

I think this bill really does address those matters, and I congratulate everybody involved in this final draft. I had probably twenty-odd concerns that I was able to tick off one by one. With the briefing that I received - and I thank you, Premier, for that - I was able to mostly address those fairly quickly. Tasmanians have to understand now that when they take their dog for a walk it is an offence if that dog leaves droppings on the footpath or on somebody's nature strip or on a road surface. It is going to be very different. What is going to happen in an ordinary household is that mum is going to say to the child taking the dog for a walk, 'Don't forget to take a plastic bag'. People will be buying in supermarkets in a few weeks' time - and I have seen them in other States - little yellow plastic bags where you pick up the droppings, invert them and drop them into a rubbish bin, and they will be at the front and back doors of people's houses, and they will grab a couple of those and take their dogs for walks. I would hope that local governments in this State realise that it is far better to not have to worry about fining anybody for this. It is far better to place at convenient places in areas where there is lots of dog-walking - just nailed, for instance, to a wooden post - a batch of those bags. I last saw them in a beach area interstate. Wherever there were walking tracks, wherever there were footpaths, there were a bunch of these nailed to a fence somewhere where you could access them. No excuse, no excuse at all, and I do not think anybody was offended by having them there or people having to pick up after their own dogs.

For people who have dogs, it is no big deal to have to pause while your dog relieves itself on somebody's nature strip and walk off, but for somebody who owns the nature strip and keeps it in good order, who has a tree out there and mows the lawn three times a week because the person is retired, who does not own dogs, that is one of the most offensive things that can happen to him. The phone calls that I have had over the years, whether it was in my seven years as an alderman of the City of Launceston, or even since being here, from people just foaming at the mouth: 'Dogs are pooing on my nature strip' - the level of concern was very high and they saw that as a great nuisance.

Others do not see that as a great nuisance, but the barking of dogs, especially during the day-time - not so much at night because normally the owners are home - dad goes off to work, mum goes off to work, kids off to school, dog at home, it has its water and its dog bickies there, but it gets bored and after a while it starts to yap, and it yaps all day. Well, that is lovely if you are at work, but for the people left in the suburbs the frustration is just enormous. I will be pursuing in the Committee stage just how for a local government body, by the use of infringement notices and in moving the case forward, I think there would be relatively quick redress if a case developed and somebody actually made a complaint. That is not to say we want the whole world out there regulating the heck out of every barking dog scenario in Tasmania, but certainly in some suburban areas it has got beyond a joke and I am sure some dogs just like the sound of their own voice. Then of course they fire up the whole neighbourhood, like you used to do as a teenager, Mr Ken Bacon - who is smiling at me - where you would go into a quiet neighbourhood late at night; you would come home from a party and somebody would go, 'Woof, woof' and you would start the whole neighbour going. Just as a joke, of course, and that is what happens often in these areas. So a nuisance comes in many ways and I do believe that this bill does set the framework up to address most of those.

The attacks on people and other dogs is a matter that I would like the Premier to address in his response. Most often, when a dog attacks a person or another dog, there are substantial costs involved, not just the damage, the trauma and the hurt, but there are substantial costs involved for medical expenses and certainly vet's expenses. The first thing you do with a pup when the pup is bitten is to go down to the vet. There is an x-ray and the dog has to stay in for a couple of days and before you know it, you are up for a bill for $150 to $200 for your puppy because somebody let their dog off the lead; a dog misbehaved and did the wrong thing. There is an infringement notice capacity but of what comfort is it to the owner of the dog? What comfort is it to the owner of the leg that might have been well and truly mauled, the suit trousers torn, and in fact the last time I was bitten by a dog was while on the hustings - the last campaign, the one before -

Mr Jim Bacon - He was definitely a wake up to you, that dog. He was a Labor dog.

Mr HIDDING - Well, indeed. He was a scruffy little thing and it was in the township of Triabunna.

Mr Hodgman - A yappy, scruffy little thing.

Mr HIDDING - It was. It was a yappy, rotten little scruffy thing in the township of Triabunna.

Mr Ken Bacon - That was a plant, that one.

Mr Jim Bacon -And there are lots and lots of them.

Mr HIDDING - and I commented to my wife, 'Have you noticed that almost every dog in this place looks identical? They are all related, these dogs; they are all yappy, scruffy little dogs'. And at the very next house, one came charging out from behind the house and latched onto my leg so, again, the dogs had been talking.

Mr Jim Bacon - Yes, they got the message.

Mr Ken Bacon - They never bit me.

Mr Rundle - It was called Republican Rogue - a broken-down greyhound the Labor Party used to own, I reckon. Republican Rogue it was called. It used to run around in -

Mr Jim Bacon - The syndicate could still get it, I reckon, or one like it - maybe a pup.

Mr HIDDING - In all seriousness, Mr Premier, there is a provision under clause 63 for additional orders, which allows a court to order that an authorised person may seize a dog, and that a general manager is to refuse an application. It seems to me that if there were an additional order: that the court may order the restitution of damage costs - I am not proposing an amendment on my feet but that is something that I wanted to raise with your people today and perhaps you could consider that and, if it is amendable, we could do that in its passage between here and the other place. But it seems to me that this would afford a level of comfort to people who not only have the trauma of a dog attack but are then able to ask the judge for an order to redress the monetary side of the attack.

I suppose it could be said that the judge would be able to do this, under this or that, but it would seem to me that a proactive order in there, that the bench could see and say that under the terms of the Dog Control Act, Parliament considered this and decided that if there was material damage to a person and a financial loss to a person as a result of an offence under this act, then there should be some redress. So we would like you to consider that.

The vexed question of whether a dog should be on a lead or whether my dog can walk alongside me, because when I whistle it comes every time, never washed with me because I have never seen a dog that would respond to an immediate whistle or an order if there was another dog or a bitch on heat being walked on the other side of the street on a lead - and I note that is also an offence under this act - but sometimes these female dogs come on heat early and it is not immediately apparent to the owner, if it is a breeding dog and has not been desexed. There are no circumstances that I would accept that a dog will not break away from his owner and cross the street to try to get to that other dog; that primal urge is stronger than any other chocolate reward it is going to get - it is a question of what is the more enjoyable reward, I suppose - so there is no way that I will accept that and I say, therefore, that the only way to fix it is that dogs on leads are the way to go.

I recognise, however, that people I work with and come in contact with just cannot get their minds around that. 'I've never had to do it. This isn't right'. It seems to me that in working out the plan each council will be able to sit down and say, 'In our particular council we have so many dogs. They do like to walk them, they do like to run on the lead, where can we do that?' In the City of Launceston there is one down near St Leonards, a dedicated dog run area and there is never anybody there, strangely enough. I do not know where they actually take them or what people do to let their dogs run free but I never see anybody there. Perhaps with this new regulation those areas will be under much more use.

The hard question, I suppose, is for every estate - and I notice every time there is an appalling attack by, say, a Staffordshire bull terrier or a cross of an American pit bull or some of the appalling dogs that I see people with - it seems to me that some people have personality disorders that they need to surround themselves with animals like that.

Mr Jim Bacon - Perhaps they're okay if they're properly trained.

Mr HIDDING - Yes. I do not want to unfairly denigrate any particular breed of dog. Staffs frighten the heck out of me. There are a couple not far from me which the owner has been letting loose in a public area for some time and it is not a safe place to be. But for all that what happens is when there is a dreadful attack, people start to talk and say, 'Those breeds should be stamped out. That's got to happen and that's got to be stamped out'. The media goes to see a vet and the vet says, 'That breed, you know it's not a good breed, the Government should consider stamping that breed out'. And Premier Bracks just the other day in Victoria again in response to an appalling attack, I think that breed was Staffordshire but whatever it was Premier Bracks said, 'We're looking very strongly at banning this breed from Victoria'. How much of this is rhetoric? Is it at all possible, Premier? And have you considered -

Mr Jim Bacon - Is it the right way to go about it?

Mr HIDDING - Have you considered whether it is possible or whether it is the right way to go, whether there is any value in this? Or whether this framework would be sufficient to allow people to breed those dogs and even crossbreed those dogs to even worse breeds because this is sufficient protection to people in our community? I think that is an issue that we cannot sweep under the carpet. There is an expectation from some people that we will do something to outbreed some dogs. I accept that, that is fraught with problems but I would like to give you an opportunity to place on the record why and if that has been considered, if not something being brought on today. With those words we will be moving through some questions in the clauses but certainly it has our support.

Ms PUTT (Denison) - I suppose at least we have finally dog control legislation here before the House and we are debating it. But I think it is most unfortunate that the Government abandoned the tripartite approach that had been taken up until the time that you came into Government to bring into place legislation governing both cats and dogs. That was an unfortunate and indeed I believe cowardly decision that you drop the need for legislation with respect to cats.

You would be no doubt aware of that history, that during the previous period of government the Government then was developing a cats and dogs bill. Both the other parties in the House were not only kept up-to-date with that with briefings but were in fact consulted at length over the provisions that were contained therein, in order to work to a consensus position that legislation that came before this House on cats and dogs, combined cats and dogs legislation, would start from a point of agreement in this House so that it could have some likely chance of going forward and becoming law in Tasmania.

You obviously decided to drop that like a hot potato the minute you got into government and I would be interested to understand exactly what informed your decision making in that regard. because, as I say, the different parties had been kept involved and had not simply been informed but had been actively consulted and been part of the development of those provisions. It would be much better that we did take that combined approach and that we did deal with some of the issues that are outstanding for cats at the same time that would bring into place some very necessary provisions with respect to dogs and, of course, a number of the measures that are required are ones that should occur across the board for cats and dogs and would, in fact, make the administration and the costs of looking after a registration system, in particular, much more financially viable were the cats and dogs provisions to be taken together and put into place as a coordinated system.

Of course, once you came to government you proceeded to develop legislation that related to dogs only, dropped the cats out and, in fact, have made an extremely unsatisfactory agreement with the Local Government Association with respect to the control of cats, which does not even address the most critical issue. No doubt you would be fully aware of that, since you are the minister who also has carriage of that area in that particular agreement. Of course, the whole nub of cat control legislation is about attempting to prevent ongoing recruitment of feral cats into the wild which has to be done by having an effective registration and compulsory de-sexing regime for cats, otherwise there is little point in investing money in trying to deal with feral cat populations because the ongoing recruitment means that they simply continue to start up again.

Mr Jim Bacon - What's this agreement with local government that you're referring to?

Ms PUTT - You have an agreement with the Local Government Association with respect to cats and cat control which was concluded at the end of last year.

Mr Jim Bacon - Will you please give me a copy of it?

Ms PUTT - Yes. It was announced and I have had some lengthy conversations with the Local Government Association and the Mayor of Brighton, Tony Foster, on the subject, so I do not know why you do not know what you have done.

Mr Jim Bacon - It might have been an exchange of letters - no agreement.

Ms PUTT - An exchange of letters?

Mr Jim Bacon - It might have been.

Ms PUTT - You made a public announcement about it.

Mr Hidding - We're on dogs.

Ms PUTT - As I was saying, the business with cats is twofold. The first side of it is, in order to deal with feral cats you have to stop having more cats getting going wild -

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER - We are on dogs.

Ms PUTT - I know that and you will understand why I am saying this in a minute. This is part of a logical train of argument that comes up to a provision that is in this act, that could be made much more financially viable if we also implemented the changes that need to happen with respect to cats, which is why I am pursuing this argument.

You need to deal with feral cat recruitment by compulsory de-sexing which has to happen through a system of compulsory registration and de-sexing for cats, unless it is a breeding animal and it is registered as such and so on. That would be a whole range of things that would be set up under that legislation. Then, of course, for the welfare of cats as well, you have a number of provisions.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER - I am rather confused - I thought we were dealing with dogs.

Ms PUTT - Perhaps if you followed my line of argument you would understand why I am talking about this, because what I am leading to is the matter of microchipping which is something that you have been unable to resolve and which you say, in your speech, that you have not managed to reach a conclusion on or get into place. It is the matter of microchipping which is also comes into play with respect to cats. The objection that councils make repeatedly is that the system of microchipping is too expensive to operate.

Mr Jim Bacon - You haven't come to any point at all.

Ms PUTT - However, the point is that if you have a system of microchipping that extends to dogs and cats, so that you get the economies of scale, and you are not running a parallel and different system for dogs than for the one that you have cats, then it becomes much more financially viable. It is a resolution that would actually assist both in the identification of all dogs, not just dangerous dogs, and of cats, and getting that uniform and parallel system into place.

The history of this bill of course is that you originally introduced a bill last year which produced an almost immediate and rather hysterical community outcry over the draconian measures, as they were seen by many people in that bill. That led to a revision and basically a flip-flop to the other side, to excessive leniency. That meant that there then ensued an outcry from people who were concerned that the Government was not going to want people to have dogs under control on leads at all. And of course we had the media stories about the guide dog that had been attacked by other unrestrained dogs and a number of other pertinent stories and issues that were brought up by member of the public. Fortunately, they did that. So that you have at least moved to a situation now where you have some requirement for the restraint of dogs on leads. But what you have done in this legislation is a bit too much of passing the buck to local councils.

Wherever something has proved to be a contentious issue that is difficult because of the way it reflects on you publicly in terms of the amounts of angst you have to deal with, you have shunted it off to councils to do the hard work and wear the odium. And, as I say, it is just lack of guts. So it is unsatisfactory to leave to them a number of the measures that you have. And in particular to leave up to councils to determine which sensitive wildlife habitats will have dogs on leads and which will not. You should have gone further here with respect to where dogs need to be on leads and not on leads in parks and wildlife areas and you have not. You have left it to local government instead to determine on a piecemeal and case-by-case basis. This means that we will have no coherent management of these issues across the State but a bits-and-pieces approach. And that, secondly, you leave it to the councils rather than doing what you should do in terms of your responsibilities about protection of our native wildlife. And of course we have heard from the Mayor of Brighton, Tony Foster, and from a number of other groups who are very concerned about your lack of fortitude in this regard and the way that you have attempted to devolve and are in this legislation devolving this onto local government, passing the buck to councils.

I had a number of interesting letters on this matter and the Animal Management Officers Association of Tasmania, I know, made a submission and have some very interesting points. And I think that this issue of when a dog is under effective control and where it is pertinent to keep a dog on a lead is, of course, one of the most critical issues. They believe that all dogs should be on a lead no longer than two metres when controlled by a person in a public place. And their reasoning is:

'Animal Management Officers are THE industry experts in how nuisance incidents or dog attacks can be PREVENTED, they have been investigating such occurrences for many years. It is indisputable that dogs that are controlled by a suitable lead cannot wander onto other people's properties and cannot cause harm to other animals or persons.
We advise that the number of dogs that are trained to such a degree that they will not leave their owner's side, irrespective of the stimulation or temptation to do so would be less than two per cent of the dog population. This leaves a remaining 98% that may cause an incident that may otherwise have been prevented.

The association is of the opinion that no matter how expert a person is or thinks they are on the subject of animal behaviour, people can NOT possibly know what a dog is thinking. As professionals dealing with dogs every day of the week, AMO's do not assume at any stage to know what a dog is thinking or at what instant it may turn.

Dogs on leads may still greet and socialise at their owners discretion and be instantly withdrawn should they take a dislike to each other. This is impossible to achieve should one or both dogs not be on a lead. Furthermore a dog on lead when approached by one that is not, feels more threatened and cornered (due to the lead) and is more likely to react badly to the other dog and a conflict ensue. With the other dog not being able to be brought instantly under control the owners may well be injured trying to separate the dogs.'

They considered that your initial proposals in this regard - I guess, your round two proposals in this regard - were around the wrong way and said:

'It would be easier to administer protection of members of the community and their animals if dogs had to be on the lead and Councils declared specific areas where dogs could be exercised off the lead.'

I think what you have ended up with is a situation that is sort of half way there, but not entirely there. That situation would also provide uniformity and consistency statewide and that is one thing we have to guarantee we are not going to have in this bill because we know the decisions about what will actually happen on the ground in a range of instances are devolved to local councils who will make different decisions in different areas and we will not have the level of consistency. This is going to be extremely confusing for people. I will not go on to read the rest of that at this point.

The issue of the protection of wildlife is a serious one but has not been dealt with at all adequately in this legislation. I just want to make that point again. I want to return to the issue of microchipping as well. As I have said, I believe that in terms of legislating to control cats so that we can both ensure a humane environment for pet cats and also so that we can stop the ongoing feral cat population, one of the tools that we need is to introduce compulsory microchipping and that I believe that if we did that across both dogs and cats we would get the economies of scale and we would also get the most effective identification system.

Mr Jim Bacon - Which product would you choose?

Ms PUTT - Which product? I am aware that there are several different types of microchipping and I am also aware of the problems that did occur in Victoria where that matter was not resolved before the legislation came in. However I am further aware that it is quite possible to resolve that matter at the outset and not get in to those difficulties and have had extensive discussions with the vets on this as well as with a range of other people.

As you would be aware, I have been conducting my own public consultation on the issue of cat control legislation for the past year or so and have had extensive discussions with a wide range of interest groups. It is just a shame that the Government for some reason has completely dropped this and leaves it instead to someone with my minimal resources to try to achieve the resolutions. Certainly we have gone a long way in dealing with a lot of the stock objections about the administrative procedures and their costs that were initially brought up by the councils and have done quite a lot of work into the way in which you would manage the registration system and have regional holding areas rather than expect each council to put in all the infrastructure. So those resolutions are quite well developed and certainly I have been having discussions across the board with all the different concerned people.

On the matter of microchipping I have here a letter from the Tasmanian animal welfare coalition and that is an amalgamation of the following organisations: the Canine Defence League which operates Dogs Homes of Tasmania; Feline; the Tasmanian Animal Protection Society; the Cat Association of Tasmania; the Kingborough Dog Walking Association; the Tasmanian Canine Association and the southern division of the RSPCA and they say that they are calling on the State Government to include in the new dog control act a provision to phase in over a two to five-year period compulsory microchip identification for all dogs in Tasmania. They say:

'The microchip implant is the most effective form of permanent identification available. The microchip is implanted in the animal and carries a unique number, linking the owner by their name, address and telephone number at a central database. When lost, the animal is simply scanned with a special electronic device that displays the microchip identification number.

Many details are yet to be considered to make state-wide microchipping a successful reality.'

Certainly that is true but that is not a reason for not beginning to proceed in that direction. I have been able to work through the objections with the objectors and come up with sensible ways to deal with a lot of the problems that are brought forward; especially as we have the advantage of knowledge of the pitfalls that have been encountered in other States we can now do that.

They go on to say:

'We therefore seek an enabling clause to be inserted in the Act - due to go before Parliament in the Spring session.

Compulsory microchipping would provide many benefits for local government authorities, shelters/pounds, the community as a whole and the lost animal. These include:

the ability to trace owners of injured animals brought into veterinary clinics;

assisting Animal Control Officers, Animal Welfare Officers, shelters/pounds and animal welfare groups to identify the owner of a registered pet that has lost its tag;

a reduction of abandoned animals;

owner identification in the case of dog attacks;

a reduction in costs for animal control services provided by each of the 29 councils in Tasmania.'

Of course that is a very significant one.

'Accredited lay people can implant the "chip" and implantation causes little to no discomfort for the animal. The majority of veterinary hospitals, shelters, pounds and animal welfare organisations currently possess scanners.'

In summary, they urge that Tasmania has the opportunity to be a frontrunner with this issue and were asking me to support the inclusion of compulsory microchipping in the new Dog Control Act. Well, I do support it; it is just a shame that it is not here.

I find it interesting that you are able to include the provision for microchipping dangerous dogs but not to go any further with it and I would like to -

Mr Jim Bacon - Why do you just keep ignoring what I said about it? You're just grandstanding.

Ms PUTT - and I would like to hear your reasoning behind why you have only done that. I heard what you said about South Australia and, as far as I am concerned, that is a bit of a cop-out. What I am saying is that we should be proceeding here and we should be doing it in tandem so that we do look at cats as well.

There are a number of other matters that were raised by the Animal Management Officers Association of Tasmania and I think that one that does concern me which has not been raised as yet is the extension of the holding time of seized stray dogs which they say will have a disastrous impact on all councils and in particular those operating their own pounds. But they also are concerned it is going to be detrimental to the health of the dog. They say that the holding time will increase the occupancy rates of the pens, result in overcrowding and force the need to expand pounds and pens which would obviously be expensive.

Mr Jim Bacon - You'd rather destroy them earlier.

Ms PUTT - They are also concerned about the dogs suffering stress due to confinement, possibly up to fourteen days and are worried about dogs suffering unnecessarily. Of course I do not think that dogs should be destroyed if there is a reasonable chance that they are owned by somebody who is going to claim them, hence my strong call for microchipping, which makes it easy to identify quickly that an animal is registered and who the owner is. I suppose that you are flagging by your statement that the extension has occurred because at the moment dogs are being killed willy-nilly under the current system because their owners cannot be found. Is that correct? Is that what this is about, because I have not heard people complaining about that but if that is what is going on now then, sure, we need to do something about it.

But I do need to know how these concerns have been dealt with because, after all, these are the people who deal with these dogs on a daily basis. These are the workers who actually pick up the dogs and look after them at the council pounds and so on. So they obviously would not make a comment like this without it coming from very extensive knowledge.

The dangerous dogs issue - I am very pleased that we have this upgrade in legislation with respect to dangerous dogs. It is an issue of great concern in the community and we have needed to address it for some while and members will probably recall that this was an issue on which Gerry Bates was particularly strong and forcefully argued for many years that we needed to be upgrading the legislative protections.

I am pleased about the approach that has been taken which does not necessarily target a few specific breeds but looks at the behaviour of the individual dogs. Clearly that is a sensible approach.

I have in my notes: 'fees issue' and that is the last matter that I think I want to come to. It was just a little unclear to me in your second reading speech that councils will be able to determine fees payable. In terms of registration fees there will be an opportunity for councils to provide incentives for responsible dog ownership. They will also be able to discount registration fees for pensioners and other financially disadvantaged residents. I was astounded at the way that was put. I would have though that you would require discount registration fees for pensioners and other financially disadvantaged residents rather than leaving that up to councils who may or may not decide to implement that particular regime. It will be interesting to see what happens when individual councils are determining fees and we have different fees depending upon where you live. I would have at least thought that some degree of coordination, so that people could be assured that no matter where they live, if they were in that category of financial disadvantage that could know that they had discount registration fees. That would have been much more appropriate.

I am pleased that you are establishing a working group to look at the issues around fee structure and whether a de-sexed dog should attract a lesser fee and so on. These are all issues which are exactly the same for cats, if you look at cat control, and exactly the same issues that I have been working through with people, as well as the microchipping issue and so on. Because these issues run parallel for both dogs and cats, I would like to recommend to you that that working group look at cats as well and not simply dogs, so that we can begin to hope that we will eventually, one day, get out of some government in Tasmania some sort of workable cat control legislation. We are almost at the point now where we are going to be the only State that will not have done it. It is a sensible measure both for the welfare of the animal and the protection of the environment. I would recommend that you do that.

Obviously, the Greens have had legislation before the Parliament for ten years now for cat control. It has just been routinely voted down every time. I have gone to great lengths to upgrade and improve that legislation and to deal with the range of issues that are routinely brought up and would be quite prepared to liaise with any working group on the discussions that I have had, the various solutions that I have had under consideration and the matters that have been put to me by people because I am earnestly committed to trying to move this forward in some way. Which is why, even though I am in a crossbench situation where I have no hope probably of getting far with this legislation, I have persisted through all these consultations to try to nut out the problems, because somebody has to do it. Somebody has to break through that nexus of political lethargy that surrounds doing anything about cat control, so I was willing to put the time in. I would really like to have some discussions again about trying to get some of these parallel measures working together for both dogs and cats.

Mr BONDE (Braddon) - Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased we are only dealing with dogs today. We would have been here forever if we had been dealing with cats as well. There are a couple of observations that I would like to make. It will not take very much time.

Of course, we all know that dogs are an extremely valuable part of society. I suppose as a farmer, you tend to think of working dogs but companion dogs are probably more important to society than working dogs in one way because they do give a lot of comfort, a lot of companionship to people, particularly to those people who are lonely and people who are not able to get around as well as the rest of us. But there is no doubt that dogs do pose a threat to, not only to human beings, I suppose, but to other animals.

I think particularly about the problem with stray dogs in amongst sheep. That has been an ongoing problem ever since, I suppose, there has been dogs and sheep. Of course, one only has to attend an attack to realise the potential disaster that a pack of dogs can wreak in a sheep flock. We are stressing a lot of importance on dogs in public places but there is another instance that I would like the minister to address and that is the instance on private property but not under restraint.

As people in this room probably realise, you are entitled to enter somebody's property by the shortest route to the front door - that is a common law provision. You are not trespassing if you wish to visit the people at that house for some reason or another, whether you are invited or not, and unless you have been told specifically not to come, you are entitled to go by the shortest route to the front door which is generally conceded to be the footpath, even though it might wind around and might not necessarily be exactly the straightest, shortest path to the front door.

As a police officer of ten years' experience, I was often accosted by dogs who were on private property. Their owners were sublimely ignorant of their capacity to be quite nasty, and in fact, you dragged them by your trouser leg from the front gate to the front door and when the owner opened the door, they would say, 'Don't worry about him, he doesn't bite' - and he has already bitten you half a dozen times on the way. The dogs either did that or they wrapped their arms around your leg and had a quaint way of showing affection to your leg. They are a problem on private property and, as I said, if you are entitled under law to go the shortest route to the front door then that does not make it a public place but it does make you entitled to do it and you can sometimes get a very nasty bite from a dog that has that tendency.

When I was transferred to a new district, one of the suburbs here in Hobart, the old inspector said to me, 'Whenever you go to a private home in that suburb, don't wear your cap', and I said, 'Why ever not?" and he said, 'Because I think the dogs are trained to attack people in caps'.

Ms Putt - I was going to say I thought perhaps it was the uniform, Bill, but I thought you might interpret it the wrong way.

Mr BONDE - No, the cap indicates the presence of a uniform. So there is a problem there and the problem that I particularly wanted to get some advice on from the minister is the problem of working dogs. We know when they are working on a public road seems to be covered, but when a farmer is taking his dogs - say, he has been working them on one side of the road and he takes them across the road or up the road a bit and then across - according to the way I read the act - and I may be quite wrong and I would ask the minister to address that - but they have to be tethered while they on a motorbike, on a one-tonner or on a vehicle. A lot of sheep herders, in particular, use three or four dogs. If you have a flock of 1 000 sheep, one dog just cannot work them so they work three or four dogs at one time and, of course, from bitter experience, I know it is very difficult to tether three or four dogs on the back of a one-tonner. I had a special little caboodle on the back of my vehicle that contained the animals, without being tethered, with little hurdles round, but the difficulty of keeping these dogs tethered on the back of a one-tonner has been raised, particularly if they have a disagreement, because they can end up over the side and still on a lead - and if they fall off a vehicle, contrary to what a lot of people might think, they are tremendously resilient and they seem to be like a rubber ball, they roll along the ground and then they get up and you think you have killed your dog, but in fact there does not seem to be much wrong with him other than a bit of ruffled fur. A lot of people use ag. bikes and they have special little platforms on those bikes for their dogs and it would be far more dangerous to tether them onto those platforms than to let them stand there. They ar e particularly adept at standing on those little platforms and depending on how adept the rider is, of course - if he comes off then the dog comes off. If they come off and they are tethered, then they can get some very nasty injuries, when in fact they may well not have got the injuries if it was not for the tethering. I suppose it might be like safety belts in cars when they came out and everybody said, 'Well, we'll be killed by the safety belt rather than saved by it', but I think that may have been overlooked or I may have misread the legislation.

On the question of microchipping, my daughter is just shifting to Melbourne and apparently in Melbourne and its environs you are not allowed to have a dog unless it has a microchip and unless it has had its shots for flu or whatever it is they have the shots for. She took her dog to the vet the other day and she got a bill which did not leave her much change out of $200. It is not a cheap thing but it is compulsory in Melbourne so she was told, so that is why she had it done.

All these things can be achieved in time but, as I said, people have a great affection for their dogs and any government would be quite foolish and insensitive to say - and the same applies for cats - that we are going to control your animals to the point to where you will have little or no say in exactly what happens with them. And of course as far as leaving it to local government, it is a fact that you need horses for courses in this exercise. What is appropriate in Hobart proper, for instance, may well be not appropriate for a person who got in touch with me the other day up the back of Bothwell. So it really does need horses for courses and who better to judge what is needed in the district than local government.

If you take the Bothwell district, for instance, many of the councillors are graziers themselves. They understand its problems and they also understand that dogs have to be kept under control because of sheep attacks and so on. I think the Government have struck a balance. When you talk about legislation you always feel that there ought to be a statewide regulation or statewide conditions. But it is quite obvious to me that somebody has given a great deal of thought to this and I think it is a damn good idea to have, as I said, horses for courses. You have an urban environment like Hobart, for instance, where 99 per cent of the dogs would be companion dogs, and then you have -

Mr Jim Bacon - A bit more balance.

Mr BONDE - Well, there are very few companion dogs. All our working dogs are companions. I think they have to be treated differently and that conveyance of dogs is something that needs to be addressed. It was a point that was raised by a couple of farmers but I dare say it has caused some apprehension. I hate to think it applies to going from one side of the road to the other; sometimes they do not go straight across; they go up the road to another property or what have you. I was always one who, as I said, did not trust my dogs not to fall off so I built little hurdles in the back of our one-tonner and it worked very well. You just opened the door, they all hopped in and you got out and opened the door and they all hopped out. But a lot of farmers do not like the idea of hopping out of the ute on a wet day; they send the dog round the sheep so they do all of their control of the dogs from within the cab. Somebody said a while ago -

Mr Jim Bacon - They toot instead of whistling at them.

Mr BONDE - No, the whistle is the way. Somebody said a while ago it was only 2 per cent - I think, the member for Denison, Ms Putt, said that there were only 2 per cent that respond to some control or other -

Ms Putt - I was actually reading something from the Animal Management Control Officers Association.

Mr BONDE - I would have thought that all of those dogs must be working dogs then because I can assure you that you can get a dog to obey your commands whenever they can hear you and that is a hell of a long way away. And some of those working dogs, I do not think it would matter what other temptations there were, they would respond to that whistle because they know what the result of disobeying is.

Ms Putt - But they're about the only ones that are like that.

Mr BONDE - It is just another dog and we all know what happens to a dog that will not do as he is told.

As I said, a lot of thought has gone into this. It may not be the be-all and the end-all of everything and of course it is not the only time - if something is found that ought to have been done in the future there is no problem at all about that being done. But I think it is a good foundation on which to work. That Dog Act has been for a long time of course. There are many points of view, particularly about dogs in public places. I know a lot of parents, particularly of small children, have a great objection to dogs being on a beach at all where the children are playing in the sand and there are faeces and urine and stuff. That is a bit of a problem. I think councils again are the people in the best position to judge whether there ought to be a beach that is for dogs and a beach that is for humans only. As I said, it will vary from place to place, from district to district because of the variation in the type of animals that are there.

I think we have to be mindful of the fact that all dogs - I say all dogs but you cannot say all dogs, but many dogs - irrespective of whether they are a poodle or whether they are a Rottweiler can get upset and they can be quite dangerous, particularly to other animals. I suppose the people sitting up the back with their guide dogs would be people who are extremely vulnerable to dogs not properly under control in a public place.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know the member for Denison, Ms Putt, mentioned a lot about cats and I do not think there is anybody here who disagrees with her that there needs to be some control of cats. But we are dealing with dogs today and I think this bill, when it becomes an act, will go a long towards providing adequate public control of dogs in our environment.

Mr BEST (Braddon) - I will be very brief - I will only take about five minutes with what I have to say, just a couple of things. Basically, in my experience in local government one of the big issues, believe it or not, has been dogs.

Ms Putt - Penguins! Dogs and penguins, yes, I forgot to mention penguins.

Mr BEST - Dogs and penguins but dogs in particular, more so than dogs and penguins. I think this is definitely the right step to take with this legislation. One of the sad realities when it comes to dog control is the lack of responsibility of some owners and I think that is the big bugbear with this issue. I think the legislation goes a long way in addressing those problems because it is very easy, I guess, to become jaded about the issue of dog control when one picks up the newspaper or sees something on the news or receives a complaint about someone who has been attacked by a dog. But it is very unfortunate that in most cases it is usually due to the irresponsibility of a dog owner. As well as having received complaints from the community - I will put this story just briefly on Hansard . My mother-in-law was attacked by a dog and, as an auxiliary nurse, she had the job of assisting elderly people in their homes, with cleaning and that sort of work. She was attacked by a dog and it was a very nasty incident. It was not a very brutal attack but the dog bit her on the leg and she had a very nasty mark on the leg, and it knocked her confidence around for some time. But the strangest thing about it was that it seemed impossible to get anything done about the dog itself and the owner was quite blasé about the whole thing, as if to discard the matter as not being important. That is a personal family experience but I am aware that has generally been the experience for most people out there in the community.

It is a serious attitude matter that has to be addressed and I think the legislation does go a long way. I think there is a lot of flexibility in the legislation to allow local governments to determine areas that are places where people can exercise their dogs free of leashes, an alternative, the other side of the coin, being that a person who should be in control of a dog has the dog on the leash. I have always found it a bit odd that we can have this argument put forward that you are considered to be in control of a dog by having it within sight, because I think there are a lot of cases where that certainly is not the situation, and whilst there are very good dog owners around who have obedient dogs and can control their animals in that regard, certainly in public places I think there has to be a strict rule in that regard because of incidents that have happened and because unfortunately, there is a minority group of people who do not look after their animals properly. Often they play savage play, role play, with the animals and they encourage the animals to be vicious or to bark or to interfere with other people. So to that extent, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the legis lation is the correct legislation and I am - and I mean this - very pleased to see this legislation come into this Parliament and I personally will be quite pleased to see this area cleaned up.
Mr HODGMAN (Franklin) - Madam Deputy Speaker, this is good legislation and the Government do deserve credit for bringing it in. I think there would be generally, basically good, strong community support. Like many in this Chamber, I have been an owner of a dog or two dogs for over 30 years; we do not have a dog now. I find nothing personally of a problem within the legislation in principle. I will raise shortly some matters of just logistical and machinery concerns that I have in administering the legislation but it would be reasonable to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I probably have somewhat of a conflict of interest, because the president of the Kingborough Dog Walking Association, Tony Walch, is my cousin. And whilst I can bear the brunt of -

Mr Jim Bacon - I don't think it bars you from speaking.

Mr HODGMAN - No, I realise that, but in a moral way, I can bear the brunt of government criticism but copping family criticism, Madam Deputy Speaker, is something I do not want to endure. So in that situation there probably is a slight degree of conflict but - no, Tony assures me - and of course other organisations have been involved with the legislation - that it has had a very good, thorough consultation process, something I have been critical of this Government in the past for not doing but in regard to this legislation I do understand it has been thorough and I do understand it has been good.

I guess once the legislation is passed, one should never assume that that is the resolution to the problem. A lot of the areas in this legislation refer to defining an area near a shopping centre or a school, and there is a presumption that the person with a dog knows where the school boundary is or the shopping centre boundary is. I remember with national parks very much that that is not always the case. There was an elderly woman who lived in Coles Bay or was visiting friends in Coles Bay at Freycinet, and who took her dog onto to Richardsons Beach to walk around -

Mr Llewellyn - Part of the national park.

Mr HODGMAN - and she was in a national park. She did not know she was in a national park, she was an elderly woman. She copped a $100 fine, and that is the sort of difficulty. Conversely, Parks and Wildlife, when there was a protest at Mother Cummings up in the north-west, there was a freely advocated, 'We're going to take our dogs in there and we're going to face up to you, National Parks'. No charges were laid. You always have this messy, grey area depending on the ranger or the law enforcement officer, and depending on the location. No government can ever really legislate for that situation. It is just something I think is worth putting in the second reading speech that, yes, if everyone obeyed the legislation in a perfect world we would not have any problems, but down the track there will be problems and you will no doubt address that.

I know there was a situation in some of the forestry areas of the reversible onus of proof: that you had to prove you were not cutting down a tree in a forestry area. If you could do that you were innocent, but until you could do that you were considered guilty by cutting a tree down -much the same as taking a dog into a prohibited area. I mentioned to Tony areas like Blackmans Bay Primary School which runs from the school boundary into the bush, into residences - you are never quite sure where the school boundary starts and finishes. Clarence Council abuts Eastlands shopping centre and you have a kind of generic land in between. You are not totally sure where the shopping centre land stops and the council land, recreational land takes over.

I just hope that those officers who are going to enforce this legislation do look at it and do take a commonsense approach. I know with the litter legislation there were some litter wardens who were over zealous, there was almost an expectation, 'You must book 100 people for dropping litter in a given period of time', and you had this sort of 'We must get on with it'. I just say that to the Premier and I record it in Hansard . I do not do this in any other way than just writing it into the second reading debate, but the punishment fits the crime concept is something we must be ever mindful of. If you look at some of the fines: if your dog dies and you do not advise the council, you are up for $100 fine. Conversely, the other day driving along the north-west coast -

Mr Jim Bacon - Up to, I think.

Mr HODGMAN - Well, maybe up to, but the prospects are there. It could be up to a $100 fine if you do not notify what is basically the cancellation of a registration because your dog has died. I was travelling 94 kilometres in an 80 kilometre speed zone and copped an $80 fine. If you look at the balance of concern to the community, I would say my speeding was probably a greater concern than notifying the council that the dog had died.

There are other examples we looked at. At a school, if you are walking your dog through a school you can face a fine of up to $500; if you are driving your car near a children's crossing at a school and you fail to stop, your fine is about $250. Your driving a car and failing to stop, I would think, is a far more critical situation than walking a dog through a school ground where you can get almost double the penalty. They are the anomalies and you can go through - and I do not put them in any more serious concept than that. It is, I guess, a case of just registering in Hansard when we bring in legislation we must be ever mindful that the punishment should fit the crime. Whether walking a dog through the school ground and copping a fine of up to $500 or failing to stop at a children's crossing and copping a fine of $250, either the children's crossing and failing to stop is too low or walking a dog through the school grounds is too high. Either way you cannot say the punishment truly fits the crime.

A dog not wearing a muzzle - and I really think this should be a hard-hitting fine of $2 000, but if you are driving a vehicle which is considered unfit for use on the road you can be fined up to $250, so you have those broad parameters of penalties, not necessarily meeting the crime.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think this good legislation. I certainly do not want to hold it up and I know that our spokesperson will be raising some issues in the Committee stage, but it is a good example of a government finally realising that if it brings in legislation with proper consultation it will get the support of the Parliament, it will get the support of my family and it will get support from me, so without any further ado I support the legislation.

Mr RUNDLE (Braddon) - Just briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is fairly well documented that I am a dog owner and a dog lover, and my wife is as well. It is a pity in society that we are forced as a community to legislate to cover those people who do not really do the right thing. It is not just in relation to pets, but in relation to everything - the criminal code, civil law et cetera - we obviously have to protect members of the community often from those people that are not responsible and in relation to this legislation I think it would be true to say that that is generally the fact. Most dog owners are responsible people. Perhaps they have a fault that they are too trusting of their own animals because they know them and believe that they are never going to damage any other person - they tend to have perhaps a more relaxed attitude at times than they should have to their own dogs.

As for those dogs that are not controlled and can injure children, in particular, but anyone, then obviously those defenceless young people, the elderly and others need the protection of legislation.

It is another step down the road of our lives being dominated by parliamentary edict and by regulation and I think, while we have to be responsible and while we have said on this side of the House we are supporting this legislation, as members of parliament we do have to be careful that we are not proceeding up a path year by year when we come in here and add to the law of the State year by year, that we have to be sensitive to the incursions we are making into the freedoms and the liberty of people and that is a balance obviously between that principle and the protection of our community from a whole range of ills.

I want to read, if I may, a letter that I think sums up the feelings of a majority of dog owners. It was a document that came to me just today from Centrelink and there was a letter here written to the mailbag section in Your Letters. It says:

'Pets. I am an elderly lady owned by an elderly dog. He keeps me fit insisting on a daily walk. He introduces me to new friends and is a wonderful welcoming committee when I return from even the shortest outing. I exist on a single pension, pay private rent and run a car; however there is a downside - the increasing expenses. For all that, I would not be without my faithful and very spoilt companion.'

And I think that sums up the feelings of a lot of people who actually are dog owners. Many elderly people want them, not only as companions, but also for security because of the risk of burglaries, people who have no compunction at all about burgling a home and in the course of events injuring elderly people - we see it even in Tasmania which we hoped and thought was once immune from this sort of thing - and so dogs are not useless ornaments in many cases; they serve a very real purpose in society as guide dogs, as companions, as watchdogs to ward off strangers et cetera.

I do not have any problem personally with the legislation. I have a dog that is a large and powerful creature called a Rhodesian Ridgeback and potentially that is a dog that needs to be trained and needs to be controlled because it is large and powerful, and I would not like to think of that dog being unrestrained and becoming aggressive towards any human being because it would have the potential to do significant damage. Its name is Pembroke; it was actually named after the former Minister for Health, Peter McMckay, whose nickname was Pembroke, and my dog is called Pembroke. They have a number of things in common - it has a very gruff exterior but underneath it has a heart of gold, which I think also the former Minister for Health has -

Mr Jim Bacon - But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, definitely.

Mr RUNDLE - Absolutely - and it also served a purpose when we were in government; he was the Minister for Health and the Health department often appeared to be out of control and at weekends I could take it out on Pembroke, what I could not perhaps get the other Pembroke to understand or when to come to heel. But, anyway, that is another story. Thank you.

Members laughing.

Mr COX (Bass) - Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not my intention to hold the House the House up. I was contacted by some people and asked to pass on a couple of points. Like previous speakers I have always had dogs; I do not have now. I vowed and declared that after the last one I would not get another one. The time they take to look after properly was more than I had, so we no longer have one.

I think I have probably only ever been bitten once and that was down in the Tamar Valley when I was doorknocking - it was a nasty little thing.

Mr Jim Bacon - It's a very hazardous thing doorknocking, isn't it.

Members laughing.

Mr COX - It is. I do not want members on the other side to take offence but I think they were Liberals, so I am not too sure whether they got the dog onto me as I left.

Mr Hidding - Well, you squared up for the rotten yappy little thing at Triabunna that got me.

Mr COX - Although I did one day, I went to Lilydale, and the lady opened the door and there was this thing about 27 stone in full flight coming at me. She shut the door and I ran, so that was the other time.

Mr Rundle - Was that the householder or the dog?

Mr COX - No, it was definitely the dog.

I do not have a fear of dogs - I am fortunate. There are, however, some people who are absolutely terrified and they are the ones who contacted me and asked me to pass on their thanks to the Government and specifically to the Premier. They live in fear of any dog and I think some previous speakers may have mentioned this.

There was a letter to the Examiner a few weeks ago about a lady who was walking along the boardwalk and she said she saw a dog coming toward her. The dog looked harmless but it was a big dog. She froze on the spot, she was petrified. The dog walked past and a little further along an Alsatian did exactly the same thing and she could not go on. The dogs were harmless, the owners knew that those dogs would not create havoc or cause harm but that person had such an horrendous fear of dogs that she was terrorised by it.

Mr Rundle - But the third party doesn't know that.

Mr COX - No, and that is exactly right, the third party does not know. My wife is terrified of dogs. If we go somewhere and there is a dog in the yard she literally will not get out of the car until somebody comes and gets that dog. If we are going to a home, if she is talking on the phone, she will say to them 'Do you have a dog?' and ask them to put the dog inside. It is a fear I do not understand, yet it is one I respect and one I accept.

As I said, I will be brief. All I was asked to do was pass on the thanks of those people who now believe that they will have a safer path, safer walks, more comfortable walks and they believe that the dog owners will be able to take their dogs, they will be able to walk and they will all be able to share the footpaths and boardwalks.

Mr JIM BACON (Denison - Premier) - Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their support of the legislation and their comments in relation to this matter. I will refer to the various matters that have been raised and I think there has been some good points raised in relation to some parts of it.

Mr Hidding raised the question of compensation and had raised this with me previously, in fact in clause 62(3)(g)(ii) on page 44: a magistrate can make orders in relation to compensation as well as the catch-all subsection at the end of that clause where he can make such orders as a magistrate may see fit and, bearing in mind that with dog attacks they would not be dealt with by infringement notice, they would be dealt with in legal proceedings so that can be covered by the magistrate making an order which would, I presume, take into account the actual cost that might have been incurred.

Mr Hidding - It would. I'm sorry, I didn't see that. I saw clause 63 and I thought there was one order short but that takes care of it, thank you.

Mr JIM BACON - You were also asking about seizing dogs and the response to that is - I think you were querying the delay that might occur with it all - the council must institute legal proceedings within seven working days of seizing the dog or at the end of that period release the dog to the owner. I think that was one you raised. You raised an issue about bitches on heat. In fact clause 16(2) refers to that, that a bitch on heat must be confined away from public places. I do not know if Ms Putt is coming back or not, but if I just leave her for a moment and go on to the member for Braddon, Mr Bonde, I think he raised some very relevant points.

Firstly I agree, and that is very much the philosophy behind this bill that the idea that one size fits all in relation to this is clearly ridiculous. I was on King Island at the weekend, and at Circular Head. In most rural areas of the State there are quite different situations than in the cities and towns and built-up areas, and particularly I think your comments in relation to working dogs are relevant. My impression certainly has always been that working dogs are of very little concern to other people, because in fact they are very well trained and very responsive to their owner. The whole point of being a working dog is to do what they are told and to do the work that is required of them. But you were particularly asking about the provisions in relation to vehicles. In fact under clause 16(3) it says:

'The owner or person in charge of a dog must restrict the dog sufficiently while it is in or on a vehicle so that it is unable to leave the vehicle or attack any person or animal outside the vehicle.'

So there is no requirement for it to be on a lead, and I agree with you, particularly in relation to motorbikes, that it would be an extremely dangerous situation or potentially dangerous situation if a dog were on a lead and were to fall off. But commonsense will prevail, I am sure, in these matters, and certainly -

Mr Bonde - There just needs to be some clarification of that, to say that it cannot leave the vehicle simply because it will respond to its owner's directions does not necessarily mean it can't. That was the thing that concerned them. The only way you can say it can't leave the vehicle is if it were tethered or within an enclosure on the thing.

Mr JIM BACON - I cannot hear you, Bill.

Mr Bonde - That particular section said that you had to be satisfied it can't leave the vehicle. Well, it can leave the vehicle. What I am saying is I am claiming they respond to their owner's directions, but theoretically they can leave the vehicle, so we just want to watch that somebody does not get over-enthusiastic about the idea and prosecute somebody for not having them tethered. The only way you can be sure it could not leave the vehicle is if it were tethered or if you had it in an enclosure. I think it will sort itself out out there.

Mr JIM BACON - However, it does not have to be tethered. I think the point was made by the member for Franklin, Mr Hodgman, about commonsense being applied. One of the points that was made to me is that in fact council dog control officers know very well the dogs in the district or municipality that might cause problems. They also know the dogs that do not cause problems, and particularly I think in rural councils, where the communities are smaller and people do know each other and have plenty of experience of seeing people with their working dogs, there will not be a problem. In the particular case that you raised about a mob of sheep being taken across a road, then that is covered because it is a dog that is working, so there is no need for the dog to be put on a lead while that is done.

Mr Green - What about hunting dogs running a 'roo across a road?

Mr JIM BACON - Eh?

Mr Green - I don't want to mention the word 'roo.

Mr JIM BACON - No, I would not get into that. I thought we had just about heard the last of that.

Mr Bonde - It's going to be difficult as far as hunting dogs are concerned, actually, because when they take after a 'roo or a wallaby they can't necessarily be claimed to be under control, unless it is under control of the instinct to catch the wallaby.

Mr JIM BACON - No, but of course you could only go hunting where you have permission from the landowner -

Mr Bonde - Oh, yes, but they don't stop on your property. They go for miles.

Mr JIM BACON - I think that is right, but commonsense will prevail. So we think the situation with the working dogs is covered, but it is going to need commonsense, and a commonsense approach from the council officers to make sure that is so. I thought your point about farmers in particular, whilst their own dogs are well behaved and respond to commands, the fact is that one of the problems behind the existing legislation being introduced was because of dog attacks on livestock, and so on, so that is that.

Mr Bonde - Premier, before you leave that, we might have to address the question of dogs on private property but, say, attacking people as they walk the shortest route to the front door. You might see a sign on the gate, maybe, 'Beware of Dog' but you do not know whether he is going to bite you or whether you might tread on him, but the fact is I was always led to believe, as a police officer attending these places, that you were entitled to go the shortest route to the front door. A lot of people have dogs - sometimes quite savage dogs - in the confines that surround at large -

Mr JIM BACON - Precisely, and in those cases if it is a dangerous dog then very clearly there are to be signs erected or the dog secured in a child-proof enclosure. For a dog that has been declared a dangerous dog I think that situation is covered, but with other dogs that may not have been declared dangerous - and I think the anecdotal evidence that was provided by various members about the hazards of doorknocking quite often applies to dogs that would be highly unlikely to have been declared dangerous dogs.

Mr Hidding - You still take your chances on that basis.

Mr JIM BACON - Clause 4, in proposed subsection (4), 'A dog is under the effective control of a person on private premises if the dog is securely confined to those premises'. Again, I take your point that if someone enters the front gate to go to the door, there is some risk involved.

Mr Hidding - That's right, if it's not a declared dangerous dog but it's a big dog you've got to make the choice whether you walk up the path or not.

Mr JIM BACON - Yes. Personally - and I say it as the minister responsible for this - I think the member for Braddon, Mr Rundle, made a point about how far this legislation can go. The signs that people attach to their front gates or front fence saying, 'Beware of the Dog, Enter at own risk', and so on, I think is a good message for people. I do not see how, if they are secure within the private premises - I think then to introduce a provision that the dog had to be, for instance, on a lead at all times even on private premises would be going too far with this legislation.

Mr Bonde - A lot of dogs are kept in those private premises to protect the premises anyway, so it's difficult to address.

Mr JIM BACON - And bearing in mind that dogs that are specifically in premises to provide protection of the premises are highly likely, if they are employed by a security firm, or something, they are automatically dangerous dogs.

Mr Hidding - They've got their own section in this, that's a whole new section.

Mr JIM BACON - Yes. If you are talking about someone who informally uses their dog as protection - and it may be one of the yappy little terriers that Mr Hidding referred to, it does not mean they do not give a nip - in any event we are not prepared to go even further to say that people must secure their dogs on private property.

It was not surprising that Ms Putt raises the question of cats, I would have been very surprised if she had not. However, there is a significant difference between cats and dogs in that cases of cats attacking people and cats attacking guide dogs may not be entirely unheard of, but I certainly -

Ms Putt - Not very many big cats in Tasmania.

Mr JIM BACON - cannot remember hearing of one. I do remember a cat jumping on me and digging its claws in but whether it could have been declared a dangerous cat or anything, I do not know. I think it is rather a different situation.

The Government did make a decision to proceed with the dog control legislation because of the concern in the community, and I freely admit that we got it wrong the first time we had a look at it. I think this is an example of when we went back and had better consultation and more thorough consultation with groups around the place, we did, I think, manage to come up with a good outcome. Even though you have on behalf of specific groups or individuals raised points that they make, they are supportive of the legislation.

Some people might say it does not go far enough and certainly in relation to microchipping I met with the Canine Defence League just recently and they raised that matter, but there are also difficulties with microchipping currently as it is done in other States. My advice is that the microchipping in New South Wales is fraught with problems in relation to the database, access to the database. The fact that it is being really commercially driven by a number of different organisations with different equipment, different costs of -

Ms Putt - There's a scanner that will read all of them.

Mr JIM BACON - Yes, I understand that. It did seem to us that we have put it in for dangerous dogs as an extra measure for identification. We are serious about the working group of representatives of the various dog interest groups and we are looking at what is happening with the work from South Australia. Can I say to you that we will not have you on the working group because you would only want to talk about cats all the time -

Ms Putt - But I have done quite a lot of work.

Mr JIM BACON - Yes, of course I will ask the officials to make sure that the working group does consult with you about it and we are not ruling it out for all time. It just may well be another example of technology developing to the stage where that is the most effective way of identifying dogs or, for that matter, cats. But we believe that at the moment we should monitor developments with it. We will get a report from the working group and then we may decide to proceed further with it.

Now you are back in the House, Ms Putt, I must answer this thing about saying it is weak to leave it to the councils. There are vastly differing circumstances between different parts of Tasmania.

Mr Hidding - Different lifestyles.

Mr JIM BACON - I do not believe it is good government to be making laws that apply uniformly across the State regardless of the difference between different areas and -

Ms Putt - I said particularly in respect of wildlife protection. That was my concern.

Mr JIM BACON - Yes, and in relation to -

Ms Putt - One council cares about penguins and another doesn't, that sort of thing.

Mr JIM BACON - In relation to all of your points about that, why we are saying it is a big improvement on the current situation is that councils will be required to develop a dog management policy for the area and they must do that in consultation with the community and that includes the question of areas that should be protected.

There has been, I think, some argument up on the north-west coast on the beaches with penguins -

Ms Putt - But that's where I think that you actually need Parks and Wildlife to be able to say, 'These areas will be off limit'. Please find a way to do that, rather than the council deciding whether they think penguins are of value.

Mr JIM BACON - Again, it comes back to commonsense and we would certainly expect councils to consult with Parks and Wildlife if there are particular areas where there are significant colonies of native animals and, again, I think that we are prepared to see how this works. I think it is better for the local community and local government to be determining these matters and we will certainly provide what advice they need and support in that. I might point out too that 'an authorised person' includes a person who is a ranger under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 in relation to that, so 'authorised person' has considerable powers within the legislation so that may give you more comfort.

The member for Franklin, Mr Hodgman, raised an issue about whether people know they are on school grounds or in a shopping centre. Basically those provisions in clause 28: 'A person must not take a dog into 'a school ... shopping centre' - and so on. Most of that is in the current act. The grounds of a public swimming pool have been added as a new provision and there are also new words added to the area of a children's playground. We have added 'within 10 metres of a children's playground'.

There will be reference in the regulations to signage, obviously. It will be one of the matter the councils will have to address and it is simply not possible to have signs every 5 metres around schools. There may well be places where someone might walk along and not realise it is a school but equally with signage I think those sorts of problems will in the main be avoided. In the specific example he gave of Eastlands Shopping Centre and Clarence Council, all that is a built-up area and dogs would have to be on leads, and they cannot be taken into Eastlands. I do not really think that that specific example is such a problem.
He made the general point about the punishment fitting the crime. The particular ones he raised: we would expect them to be dealt with by way of infringement notice which is usually 20 per cent of the maximum penalty. So rather than it being $100 for the particular offence he mentioned, it may be $20 on an infringement notice. Of course we always try to make sure the punishment fits the crime and that is one of the reasons why I withdrew the whole bill before because there was an inconsistent approach to penalties. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think I have answered most of the points that were raised.

Mr Hidding - Just before you sit down, I want to raise something. This will avoid our having to go into Committee from my point of view. Clause 5 explains what a 'dog at large' is. The question I have is that a council has to set up a dog management policy. Is there anything that forces a council to act? For instance could a council be dilatory in not having a dog ranger? We have all this body of legislation that says, this is what happens if a dog is at large; we want councils actually to perform as well, don't we?

Mr JIM BACON - In fact some councils currently share dog-control officers. We really think that by requiring councils to develop a dog-management policy, making a prerequisite of that, that they must involve the community in consultation - in fact there will be pressure on the council to ensure that it is carried out.

I must thank the Kingborough Dog Walking Association for some jokes that are in here which will allow me to finish on a lighter note, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - I hope you have pre-read them.

Mr JIM BACON - I have pre-read them and there are some of them I will not read out, I think they are a bit unfair to the dogs, myself, or to particular breeds. We will have to talk about breeds, that is right. How many dogs does it take to change a light bulb? There are all different -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - And the answer is, Premier?

Mr JIM BACON - Well, it depends what sort of dog you are. This is really type-casting particular breeds. I like the Dachshund, 'I cannot reach the stupid lamp'.

Members laughing.

Mr JIM BACON - And the greyhound whose response was, 'It isn't moving, who cares'.

Members laughing.

Mr Hidding - I knew this would be flushed out but do we have poodles, can you tell us -

Mr JIM BACON - Well, yes, the toy poodle. The poodle's response to how many dogs does it take to change a light bulb: 'I will just blow in the border collie's ear and he'll do it. By the time he finishes rewiring the house, my nails will be dry'.

Members laughing.

Mr JIM BACON - Rather than waste any more time in the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will lend the list to other members so they can check out what their favourite breed of dog might do about the light bulb. That is the final issue. The question whether breeds should be banned or not and, yes, I was aware and saw the comments of Premier Bracks the other day in relation to bull terriers. I think he was talking about the American pitbull. We do not believe that it is right to declare a whole breed of dog, dangerous. We do point out though that the so-called American pitbulls are in fact banned from import into Australia. There are obviously some here or some that are claimed to be. And certainly council officers know the dogs that cause problems and should be declared dangerous. But, I was thinking about this the other day and if you think back to when I was young, the really feared dog was the German shepherd and everyone used to say - you know, German shepherd. Whether that was because I was growing up in the fifties, whether it was a bit of a hangover from the war -

Mr Hidding - They had some bad ones, there has been very good breeding lately.

Mr JIM BACON - But the advice I have now is that German shepherds in Australia in fact are regarded as the best in the world, I think. A lot of work may have gone on in breeding over a number of years but certainly to declare a breed like that, I think is really a misunderstanding of the problem that this legislation is not saying that dogs are evil and have to be controlled. Really it is legislation - and the dog does not know what is in the legislation, it is the people who do.

Members laughing.

Mr JIM BACON - And they are the problem and that is what the legislation is about. As I said in the second reading speech, the vast majority of dog owners are very responsible, they love their pets and they look after them well and make sure they are not a bother to anyone else. Unfortunately, there are people in the community who are irresponsible about it or take a quite antisocial attitude with their dogs and those are the people who need the worry about this legislation.

Finally, can I say that we do have a couple of guide dogs in the House today. I do not know, Mr Deputy Speaker, if it is the first time - I would not think it would be - that a guide dog has been in the House but particularly the attacks on guide dogs were of extreme concern to us as a government. It is not only distressing for the owner of the dog who obviously develops a very close attachment to their dog because they depend on them so much but it is extremely expensive to train a new guide dog. And the attacks on guide dogs and the representations made to us by people with guide dogs or on their behalf were particularly persuasive in developing the legislation. So I would like to thank those people who have assisted us. The many people who took part in the consultations, we have listened to you all. I am gratified by the fact that the various groups we have consulted with have said that they think it is a fair compromise and I look forward to passage of the bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - I think you would agree the behaviour of the dogs has been magnificent, better than some members perhaps, Premier?

Mr JIM BACON - There is no question about these dogs that have been here today; they are not a problem.

Bill read the second time and taken through the remaining stages.