Mr WETTENHALL (3 December 2008) (4.12 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak in support
of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill. Some of the important features of the bill-namely, the
compulsory microchipping of animals after 12 weeks of age-are going to make a significant difference to the way in which cats and dogs are managed in this state.

Importantly, the legislation provides a consistent statewide framework for their management, overcoming the hotchpotch of arrangements that exist between various different local government areas at the present time.

The compulsory registration and the microchipping of cats and dogs are aimed, among other things,
principally to overcome the distressing number of cats and dogs that have to be euthanased in this state because their owners cannot be found or because they have been abandoned. The statistics that are kept by the RSPCA on this are quite horrifying. In 2007-08 in Queensland the number of unwanted dogs received by the RSPCA was 17,257 and of those 6,962 had to be euthanased. The figures for cats are also quite startling. In 2007-08 some 18,090 cats were received by the RSPCA in Queensland and of those 11,243 had to be euthanased.

Of course, that is distressing for the owners who cannot be tracked who ultimately do not recover their animals who are euthanased, but it is also distressing for the workers who have to collect, care for and then euthanase those animals if their owners cannot be found or if they have been abandoned. This legislation is going to be very well received by not only the workers in local government who will have responsibility for implementing many of the features of the bill but also those who work in our animal shelters. Of course, many of those workers in our animal shelters are volunteers and are dedicated to the welfare of animals.

I want to touch briefly on a very important new part of the bill which introduces a category of
menacing dog. The bill provides for the declaration and management of dangerous and menacing dogs regardless of breed, and menacing dogs will be those which have exhibited behaviour which has not yet reached a level that could be defined as dangerous. The bill recognises that, in addition to the reputation of the restricted breeds, all dogs can potentially cause injury or death. An example I will give to the House was in San Francisco in 2001. There was a tragic case of a woman who was fatally attacked by a dog in the hallway of her apartment complex. The dog was both a restricted breed and also had an extensive history of menacing behaviour. This new legislation has the potential to prevent a similar tragic event occurring in Queensland because the community can now be protected from a dog of any breed that behaves in a menacing manner through the application of these new laws.
In the case I mentioned in San Francisco, there was a known history about the aggressive and
dangerous behaviours that that dog had exhibited. There were cases where the dog had lunged at others, including children, in an aggressive manner and the victim had previously expressed to a friend that she was in fear of the dog as, in an earlier incident, the dog had shown menacing behaviour towards her.

Under this legislation, dogs that behave in a menacing manner will be required to be effectively controlled in public and kept in an enclosure that is child proof, prevents the dog from leaving the enclosure and meets other requirements that we set out in the regulations. That is going to be a very significant added protection to our community, as there are many other cases where a dog that has seriously or fatally attacked a person has a history of menacing behaviour.

People responsible for those dogs should be required to ensure that they are not a threat to the community and this legislation enables authorised officers to act pre-emptively where there is such a history that can be verified, and that is an important protection for the community.

But in acknowledging that there are differing levels of severity in aggressive dog behaviour, the bill
also scales penalties for owners or persons in immediate control of a dog according to the severity of the attack or menacing behaviour towards a person or animal. Those include a maximum of 300 penalty units for an attack which causes death or grievous bodily harm to a person, 100 penalty units for the death of an animal, 50 penalty units for bodily harm and 20 penalty units for an attack in general.

Other members in the debate have spoken about clause 89 of the bill that sets out the circumstances in which a dog can be declared to be a menacing dog. In response to the concerns that have been mentioned about that, in any such provisions in any enactment common sense will need to prevail and the terms of the legislation do give sufficient guidance but could never be expected to cover every particular case. In those circumstances, discretion needs to be provided to authorised officers to act on the basis of the information that they have received and the evidence that is before them, and that is as it should be.

I commend the minister for bringing this bill before the House. It follows an extensive process of
research and consultation. It strikes a good balance between protecting the community and taking into
account the interests of owners of dogs. It encourages responsible pet ownership, which is certainly the way to go.

In conclusion, I acknowledge the work of staff and volunteers in our animal shelters around the state
who do such a marvellous job and, in particular, in my electorate at the RSPCA shelter at Stratford, Kate Barnard and her seven staff and Carol Clifton at the Young Animal Protection Society in my electorate and her eight staff and their army of volunteers who do such a magnificent job.