HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-11-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (PROTECTION FOR WORKING ANIMALS) AMENDMENT BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendments.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In relation to this, what has basically happened, as I understand it, is that the amendment that was foreshadowed here on the last occasion by the member for Stuart was inserted by the other place. That is now returned to us. In addition the other place has removed the capability for regulations to be made to extend the class of animals.

I want to say a couple of things about this. I repeat what I said to the member for Stuart, which is that if the regulation-making power were retained, obviously we would listen to any reasonable request to extend something by regulation. However, I understand that the opposition and the other place, generally, have a dislike of that form of regulating matters. I will not attempt to have an argument about that, and I can foreshadow that that part of it, the part that removes the regulation-making power, I will accept.

I still do not think it is the best outcome, but I will accept that amendment. However, the other part of the amendment seeks to insert a provision which basically refers to 'council dogs' (I am paraphrasing), and I want to say a few things to explain why I have the attitude that I do to this. First, in my view this amendment is too wide, because it is capable of 'capturing' a number of dogs—not literally, of course—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Metaphorically; it is capable of metaphorically capturing a number of dogs that are not intended to be covered by the definition. So it is an inherently vague description. Secondly, dogs captured by this definition may not have any particular qualifications. I know that most dogs have not been to university or anything else—

An honourable member: Some have.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Some have, but police dogs have an extensive training regime, as do the dogs that help people with sight impairment. They are very intensively-trained animals; a lot of effort, time and money goes into training them.

The other thing is that not only might the creatures potentially captured by these amendments not have particular qualifications, but they may include animals that belong to private security firms that have been contracted by councils. This raises the question of quality control and what training these animals have, if any, in order to fall within the definition of working animals. So, part of what we were trying to capture with the concept of working animal was a highly trained assistant for in one case the police and in the other case the visually impaired.

I am advised that dogs that are guarding property in a council area may include guard dogs which are left on their own to guard a property. Unlike other animals which have been included in the bill by the government, dogs used by a council may not be under the control of a handler and, as such, it is not appropriate that they be included in the definition of working animal in the same sense as a police dog or a seeing-eye dog is.

The amendment was prompted, as I understand it, by the use of a specific dog patrol in Port Augusta and Ceduna. In my view it is not appropriate to include these particular animals; in fact, it might be quite problematic, given some of the media attention that has been devoted to these animals in the past.

I want to advise of a few media reports which might be of some interest to members when considering whether or not we wish to extend a particular protection to these particular animals. Before I go into these media reports, can I say I am not reading these into Hansard for the purposes of saying I have any objective view one way or the other about these reports, but I am saying that these reports exist, they are on the public record, and we will be capturing the animals to which these reports refer if we proceed with this amendment.

The first report I wish to mention comes from ABC Online, Thursday 3 July 2008, and it is from the AM program and is entitled 'Mixed reaction to dog patrols in Ceduna'. I will not go through the whole transcript, because it will take some time and people would perhaps not be greatly informed by me reading the whole thing, but the context is this. Perhaps the opener is the best way of capturing the beginning of it. Tony Eastley, the narrator begins:

Dog patrols used to counter anti-social behaviour in a South Australian town are being compared to the security used in South Africa during the apartheid regime. The isolated coastal town of Ceduna hired a security service nearly three months ago after repeated fights on the town's foreshore and heavy drinking in the streets—

neither of which, by the way, I condone; that is incidental. It continues:

The patrol is so popular with some parts of the community, the council has decided to extend it. However the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement says using security dogs in this way is racist and unfairly targets Aboriginal people.

Then it goes on with Nance Haxton, the journalist, reporting from Ceduna. We discover in her report that the animals concerned are a Rottweiler and a German Shepherd named Eva and Max—evidently Adam was not available—and they are controlled by two security guards. Further on in the same transcript, they quote Mr Neil Gillespie, who was the then director of the Aboriginal legal service in Adelaide, and I read his quote without saying that I necessarily endorse it or have any view one way or the other about it, but you need to understand what has been said about this, and I quote:

This is not South Africa in 1975; this is Australia in 2008 and I think that it is targeted at Aboriginal people. To bring in Gestapo-type guards is just worrying. Again, I repeat, it is a racist action by the Ceduna Government.

Ms Chapman: Ceduna what?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Ceduna government. As I said, I am not asserting an agreement with Mr Gillespie's expressed views. I am simply saying this is there on the public record about this particular dog patrol. Furthermore, there was an article in The Advertiser. This appears on 18 July 2011. The Advertiser report is headed 'Security guards accused of racism during Ceduna deaths inquest' and it goes on to say:

Private security officers are removing Aboriginal people from the scenic foreshore at Ceduna because of their race, an inquest has heard.

In any event, I will not read the whole thing out, but it has an image on the front of a couple of chaps leading what look like our old friends Max and Eve again down the road, and the tone of it is—I think it is best to say, at the very least, this is a controversial initiative; can I put it that way? Then, again, 8 May 2008, The Advertiser again reports, 'Residents on edge as Ceduna calls in the dogs'. That is the heading and, again, we have a nice image of Max and Eve on the front of the paper and it begins:

Ceduna council has a 'South African mentality' and is running the town as if it were a police state, Aborigines say. They are outraged that the council has employed a dog squad and other security measures which they say target the Aboriginal community. Community elder Mitch Dunnett said there were reports of people being intimidated and bitten by the rottweiler and German shepherd used by the privately run dog unit.

Then they quote this gentleman saying:

You see pictures of South Africa when the white people used to use dogs on the blacks up there. That's what's happening in Ceduna.

I expressly make this clear: I am not endorsing any comment made by any of these individuals. I have never met Max or Eve and I have never seen this patrol, but I point out to members of the house that this particular activity by these dogs is not without its degree of controversy.

For the reasons I have already explained, namely, that these dogs are not highly trained dogs in the same way that a guide dog or a police dog is, and for the reason that they are not necessarily dogs that work with handlers all the time, and for the reason that the term of 'council dog' is a very general term and may capture a whole range of activities which involve dogs (some of which might or might not be trained), and because it may capture (as in this case) potentially privately owned and operated contractors who use dogs, I am opposing that amendment.

I will summarise it. I am prepared, in the interests of bringing this matter to a close, to accept the amendment removing the regulation-making power from the legislation, if that is a very strong view of the council and given the fact we do not have a lot of time to argue about this. I am prepared to yield to the council in respect of that matter. In respect of this second matter, for the reasons I have just explained, unfortunately, I am not prepared to accept that amendment.

Ms CHAPMAN: I note the government's acquiescence to amendment No. 2, which is to delete paragraph (e) and therefore the expansion of the definition of application by regulation, and I note further the government's position on amendment No. 1, which is designed to include the same protections for dogs employed by a council as defined by the Local Government Act for the purpose of enforcing council by-laws, conducting security patrols or protecting or guarding property in the council area.

Can I say that if the fate of this bill is that it fails completely in due course, I do not think that it will leave any great gaping hole of inadequate protection for the dogs that are already proposed in the definition and have already been agreed to. As is already set out in the contribution by the opposition here and highlighted, expanded and reported upon in another place, it is already clearly covered by legislation to provide for quite severe penalties in the event of a working dog providing services to the blind or police services and the like. As I say, if the fate of this bill was that it were to fail, we consider that there would be adequate protection. Further criticism of this bill has expanded to others, who have been reported as describing it as just a complete stunt. The fact is that, from the opposition's point of view, whilst we did not object to the passage of the bill, we would not be alarmed in the least if the whole bill failed.

I think I noted just in this last week, and it might even have been last night, news reports that the person has been charged with offences surrounding the incident out of which the whole of this legislation seems to have been born—that is, the quite severe injury of a dog in service. Thankfully, he recovered, but charges have progressed. In fact, I think the alleged offender has been charged with more and other serious crimes, and we would hope that anyone who is involved in the unwarranted attack on the subject dog is appropriately treated.

However, the government's decision to exclude the amendment that is proposed from the Legislative Council—on the basis that there have been media reports of events in Ceduna which suggest that the use of patrol dogs either by a private agency or in the circumstances he has described would justify their opposition—I think is grossly unfair. Firstly, let me say this: the fact that dogs in these circumstances that are proposed in the amendment are employed by subcontracted private security firms, in my view, should not in any way exclude them.

Secondly, there is no indication from the material that has been provided that the dogs which do this work on behalf of local government—enforcement of their by-laws—do not have any training. They may not be trained for the same length or to the same extent or in the same particular detail, for example, as a police dog. They would certainly have, I would expect, different training from that of a dog that would be providing services to a person who is vision impaired. But to suggest that in some way they do not have adequate training without providing any detail, I think is unfair.

I would expect that, for the purposes of a licence as a security firm—private or otherwise—they would have to have certain threshold qualifications for their dogs and that would be something that would be expected to be applied for the purposes of employment by the Ceduna local council, or indeed at Port Augusta or other precincts in which this service is provided in the country.

My recollection is that the member for Stuart raised these as examples in his electorate or neighbouring areas where they had been used by another level of government other than the state government to provide security services and that there was no justification for excluding the same protection to these animals as that applied to the enforcement agency—namely, the SA police—provided by the state government.

I suppose the argument, as I understand it, is that dogs under the responsibility of the federal law are also included in the original bill—that is, customs dogs and dogs which are there to detect drugs, and which are handled by federal police officers and other security personnel at airports, for example, and also undertake an important role. My recollection of the debates is that they were included and that they would also have a different job to do.

I can vividly remember going into a United States airport and observing an occasion when little basset dogs were given the task of checking all the luggage. It was an internal airport, so it was like what we would call an old-style airport, where you walk across the tarmac and get on your plane up some stairs. You get wet on the way and the usual things; in the United States, you usually get snowed on or something. In any event, there are no air buses or bridges that are available to take you to the large capital airports, and it was common to see these little bassets and beagles being used for the purposes of their job.

I remember one occasion quite vividly in an airport, coming into Washington. A passenger had gone up and kicked this little dog, who was only doing his job and, so much so, being a little dog it flew into the air—not a great distance but obviously squealing in pain in reaction to this. It was completely unwarranted and unacceptable conduct to any animal. But, here's this little dog doing his job and he is treated in this way. Of course it is reprehensible and it is the sort of thing that we should be ensuring they are protected against. That was an event, obviously, in a different jurisdiction.

I just make the point that we are covering all sorts of dogs in working environments that may not be trained to attack people, or to growl an intruder into an area, or chase down a person who is carrying a weapon. It might be just some little pet, some little animal that is specifically given a task in its particular area of expertise, for example in detecting drugs or contraband in some way. So, I just make this point: if there is a social objection to the use of certain dogs, in a patrol sense, and there are allegations, for example, of racist use—that is, the deliberate application of this service to exploit the opportunity to pick out an Indigenous community or some other racial group—then let's have that debate. I do not have any problem with that.

I can think of other occasions in regional areas where there is behaviour—and Ceduna is not an exception in this—where there has been the cry of racism in response to certain conduct. I can remember being the shadow minister for education and visiting Ceduna Area School. There was an issue of application of separate disciplinary regimes for different racial groups within the school. I had been asked to attend in response to an allegation that certain children were throwing rocks at little children as they entered the school yard early in the morning—so they were just outside the perimeter of school. These children were being rained on with rocks. There were parents who complained about this.

I sent a message off to the then minister for education that this was obviously intolerable behaviour and it needed to be dealt with. There was a general declining to deal with that issue, and there was major concern in the community, culminating in a public meeting with a number of people attending. When there were comments made about this, there were headlines in the local paper and flashed across the radio. Indeed, there was even a headline in The Advertiser about certain responses to this as being likened to apartheid.

Certainly I do not agree with the assessment that they had made of that, but I make the point that it is not a very wise move to rely on one or two media reports as to the accuracy of what has actually occurred in respect of its application to this; in other words, to rely on those reports as being what I would think a serious and concerned social comment that has been reported about a certain activity. The colourful language the descriptors that were to apply in my view ought not be relied upon by the government in determining the policy question of whether this definition should apply.

If in fact the government feels there is some use or abuse of a certain quite legitimate activity, which this is—it is my understanding that these dog patrols in Port Augusta and Ceduna are quite legitimate activities—there is some significant social downside to them being available or utilised, in particular for conducting security patrols, then let's have that debate. It would seem that the basis upon which the government is declining this amendment from another place, as has been pointed out, really covers I think a very helpful contribution and idea by the member for Stuart, I think is inadequate to galvanise our support in his mission of disposing with this amendment. We will not be moving in the same direction. I note the government's agreement to No. 2, the opposition supports No. 1 and we will see whether that is a matter which culminates in a conference, no doubt.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I think the genesis of this legislation was questionable in the first place in two respects. I am more concerned about the welfare of the police officer than the dog. That is not to say I am not interested in or an advocate for animal welfare, but it is interesting that after this incident the focus was on the wellbeing of the dog. I did not hear anyone express any concern about the risk to the police officer. Any cruelty of any kind to animals is unacceptable and I would have thought that the Animal Welfare Act would have covered someone doing something harmful to a police dog or any other animal in our state.

However, the reality is that we have this bill and we need to deal with it. I agree with the Attorney, who I think is right on both counts. Personally, I am not concerned if the Attorney had regulation-making power in respect of this matter, but I accept his view that it is reasonable not to pursue that. In terms of working dogs, council dogs, etc., I think we need to bear in mind that police dogs are in a special situation because they are likely to be threatened and possibly harmed.

The member for Bragg mentioned a situation in an airport. A kick up the backside, whether you are a dog or a human, is not pleasant, but I think it is a little bit different from getting a knife or some other instrument stuck in you, and that is the reality for police dogs. I am a great supporter of the police having dogs as part of their armoury, if you like. They should have more of them because there is one thing for sure: a crook can outrun a sergeant, but it cannot outrun a well-trained Alsatian, labrador or whatever other police dog you have.

If you extend this concept beyond police dogs and dogs that perform a similar function, I think you are opening up a can of worms. At the shopping centre where my office is, we have had dog patrols by private operators and there are a lot of concerns about that. The shop owners have tried various techniques to scare undesirables away.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: Hasn't worked on you, Bob.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: They are often defined as young people, so that rules me out. They tried dogs and then they tried Frank Sinatra. Frank Sinatra's Come Fly With Me was very effective. If I hear that tune ever again, rather than pacify me, it will probably provoke me into doing something that might see me put out at Yatala. That certainly scared people away. I think it was more effective than having guard dogs. When you have heard Come Fly With Me 100 times plus you are off flying with the fairies.

The Attorney raised a point about dogs which could be under the supposed control of contractors. We had a recent case down south where the City of Onkaparinga, in conjunction with the NRM board and the state and federal governments, constructed some fantastic wetlands at the northern side of Reynella East College and also on Candy Road. Some of the contractors who were doing that work used dogs.


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. J.R. Rau]


The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The contractors had dogs behind a fenced-off area to keep an eye on their machinery out of hours, and I think it does raise the point that the Attorney was focusing on. People had concerns about the welfare of the dogs because it was very hot weather. I do not think they are in the same category as a police dog. A police dog, for example, is a highly trained, specialised animal, and I have some concerns about some of these so-called 'guard dogs' which are left in used car yards and contractors' fenced off areas over weekends and so on. I think trying to extend the concept there is inappropriate.

Likewise with Ceduna—I have been there; I think the likelihood of the dogs in Ceduna (if they are still being used) being attacked in the same way that a police dog could be is also unlikely. Being honest about it, the present of those dogs is often to deter Aboriginal people, and I think it is a slur on Aboriginal people to suggest that they would or are likely to engage in a violent attack on a dog, whether it be a police dog or a contractor's dog in Ceduna or anywhere else.

I agree with the government. I think this issue is best dealt with by restricting the application to specialised dogs, including, obviously, police dogs. I would like to see an extension of this bill and an improvement to the Animal Welfare Act to tidy up some aspects of inspection and protection of animals, because I think the current Animal Welfare Act is lacking. If that act was updated and improved, it certainly could have covered situations that we are now talking about in respect of this bill. I support the government's position in not pursuing the regulation argument but restricting the application of dogs to particular categories, including, as I have said, police dogs.

Amendment No. 1:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

That the Legislative Council amendment No. 1 be disagreed to.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 2:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

That the Legislative Council amendment No. 2 be agreed to.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT