Bills

Criminal Law Consolidation (Protection for Assistance Animals) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:13): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:13): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Over the past few months, the issue of dog attacks has been raised with me by a number of constituents, and I have become increasingly concerned about the lack of recourse for owners when their assistance animal, in particular, has been attacked.

I would like to take a moment to note that I will be talking predominantly about assistance animals in terms of guide dogs as it directly relates to the complaints I have received. However, that being said, this bill recognises that assistance animals includes disability dogs, guide dogs or a hearing dog and provides protections to them also.

The impetus for this bill has come through two disturbing dog attacks that have been brought to my attention where people have found themselves powerless in having any enforcement action taken against the owners of the attacking dogs.

The first complaint that I received was that an unsupervised German shepherd attacked an assistance dog. The force of the attack was so significant that it actually sent the visually-impaired owner plummeting to the ground. Whilst this attack would in and of itself be traumatic and terrifying for the person, who had, I understand, no sight at all, it was made worse in that the vision-impaired person fell onto a main road.

Thankfully, the drivers of oncoming vehicles were able to take evasive action; no further injury occurred to the individual and no motor vehicle accident eventuated. That being said, the potential for serious injury to all involved, including to the assistance animal, was in this case indeed substantial. I believe that the assistance dog was also mauled by the German shepherd for some considerable time, and I understand that this resulted in substantial out-of-pocket expenses for the owner.

Another attack—which I do not have extensive details of, but an outline from the individual concerned because they were too traumatised to give all the details—was significant enough to require the assistance dog to undergo substantial veterinary treatment, which of course was also at a substantial cost to the owner.

In both cases—and I am aware of a number of others—I am informed that the relevant councils were notified and, in one instance, SAPOL was called for urgent assistance. Unfortunately, in both instances, no further action was taken. From the information I have received, the owners were informed that neither SAPOL nor the councils had the legislative power to impound the offending dogs or to take any further action.

Currently the Criminal Law Consolidation Act has provisions that punish a person who intentionally injures a working animal and this includes assistance animals, of course. This cannot be taken to mean a person who negligently or recklessly allows their animal to cause death or serious harm to working animal. I am advised that, when the legislative changes brought in as a result of the attacks on police dog Koda were introduced, the wider dog community believed that all forms of attack on assistance animals would be covered by these provisions. They are not. They were greatly dismayed to learn that these provisions did not apply to dog attacks on assistance animals.

The Dog and Cat Management Act provides for a range of control measures to manage aggressive dogs and dog-related injury, including control orders and, where applicable, destruction orders, for dangerous, menacing and nuisance dogs. Specifically, the Dog and Cat Management Act imposes a $2,500 fine and a $210 expiation fee against persons who own or are responsible for control over a dog where the dog attacks, harasses or chases other persons or animals owned by another person. I am somewhat baffled as to why the relevant councils did not think that these provisions would apply in these cases.

Our Family First offices have received numerous complaints in recent years about the lack of enforcement of the Dog and Cat Management Act in cases such as these. I am aware of numerous dog attacks that have occurred around Somerton Park, in particular, which were reported to both police and the council. Sadly, the information I have is that no action was taken. These attacks required police attendance and ambulance attendance. These were not minor incidents. In one instance, it has been alleged that these dogs were actually mauling an elderly couple.

On further investigation, we have come to be aware that often council officers, through no fault of their own in most circumstances, simply lack the resources, the training, the investigative skills or, indeed, the enforcement powers to sufficiently effect the provisions within the act. Whilst these provisions exist in the Dog and Cat Management Act, in the cases I have mentioned and a number of others regarding assistance animals, it is clear that, for various reasons, effective controls and management are not being exercised. Given the seriousness of attacks on assistance animals in particular, we believe these provisions should be elevated from the Dog and Cat Management Act to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

Turning to the bill itself, the concept is in a similar vein to the legislation that we passed in this place in 2013 after the cowardly attack on police dog Koda. Essentially, the bill I am introducing today will hold owners or responsible persons liable for attacks by their dogs that cause serious harm or death to an assistance animal where it is reasonable for them to have proceeded otherwise.

Serious harm is defined as harm that endangers the life of an animal, results in severe injuries to the animal to the point of it being cruel not to destroy the animal, or causes serious and protracted impairment of a physical or mental function or harm that results in the animal being unable to satisfactorily perform its previous work. This is consistent with the definition currently in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. I would just like to read part of the email that I received:

As a guide dog user I deeply appreciate the difference having one has made to my daily life. It is one thing to fight an attacking dog when you have sight but another when your vision is greatly impaired and all you can perceive is a very distressed Guide Dog being attacked and not knowing if you may also be injured.

That is the end of the email, but you can imagine how horrific those circumstances would be, especially for someone without sight or with very little sight. This bill recognises that attacks on assistance animals are significant and potentially more dangerous than other attacks. Accordingly, this offence should be investigated by police where appropriate.

An assistance animal is a unique and extensively trained animal that assists a range of people with vision, hearing, medical, behavioural or cognitive impairments. The cost and time invested in training an assistance dog is enormous. I am advised that training an assistance animal for a vision-impaired person costs between $25,000 and $30,000, and the working age of the animal is from two to 10 years old. Any loss of the use of an assistance animal, whether that is permanently or for a period of time, can have a significant impact on the individual's social inclusion and their personal independence and can, quite obviously, cause great distress to the owner and, indeed, those associated with the owner.

Should an animal have to be retired or even euthanased due to an attack, a visually-impaired person can wait anywhere between 12 months and 18 months for a suitable replacement animal. On the lesser end of the injury scale an animal may need to undergo training to overcome the traumatic effects of the attack. This, of course, is costly, potentially leaving the owner out of pocket and without the assistance animal for the period of time of recovery and retraining.

Accordingly, this bill provides that the court may make an order for compensation for veterinary or other costs incurred in treating the animal. We believe these provisions satisfactorily cover the issues such as veterinary, training or other associated costs should the assistance animal be injured. Unfortunately, there will be times when the owners of the dogs may not be identifiable. However, for the most part, we believe this bill provides appropriate protection to ensure that the problems these two constituents encountered become a thing of the past.

We believe this bill is not only reasonable but also necessary as it provides assurance of liability and compensation to some of our community's most vulnerable people in instances where their assistance animals have been injured. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.