However, I question the effectiveness of it, the research that led to the decision and the minister's own commitment to it, despite the fact that the Premier made a rash statement on public radio one morning about a sad and tragic event. It is the sort of knee-jerk political reaction that results in bad law, and as time passes it will be shown to be ineffective law. 

The bill introduces breed-specific legislation in a fairly underhand and tricky way. It does not attempt to  define breeds, although nominally it is aimed at four specific breeds. They are referred to in the advisory notes to the bill as the dogo Argentino, the fila Brasileiro, the Japanese tosa, and the American pit bull terrier. The bill simply says that all the dogs that the commonwealth bans for importing into Australia are declared restricted breed dogs in Victoria. Once a dog is a restricted breed dog then certain conditions apply to its ownership, control, management and registration, and certain penalties apply for breaches of those requirements. 

The commonwealth regulations do not specify, define or accurately describe those breeds. They simply say you cannot import them. As far as I am aware the commonwealth import ban relies on the documentation that accompanies the dog. It does not rely on the expertise of the officers at the border being able to tell what is a Japanese tosa, an American bit pull terrier or a dogo Argentino. I would be surprised if Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) officers have the capacity to determine one from the other, and I would be very surprised if they have the expertise or experience to define a pure breed of one of those breeds or a crossbreed of one or maybe two or three of the four breeds. 

The legislation hangs its hat on the commonwealth import prohibition. It says that if the commonwealth has banned it from being imported then it is to be a restricted breed in Victoria. How will that be exercised? In effect the government is saying that owner-onus applies. 

In the future when such dogs are registered or re-registered at the local council the owners will have to make declarations that the dogs are or are not members of those restricted breeds. That puts a substantial responsibility on owners who may not be in possession of the information. 

There are many people around the state who know exactly the breeding and background of Rover in the backyard, but there are tens of thousands of Victorians who have a pooch in the backyard and have not got a clue what its mother or father was. Whether it is brown, speckled, striped, brindle, tan, black or white does not matter -- it is just a dog. It has a leg at each corner, a head at one end and a tail at the other, and that is about all they know. Somebody may have told them that it was a boxer-lab cross or three or
six different types of cross when they bought it from a pet shop or when they got it from a shelter or a pound or from a neighbour or Aunty Beryl. 

Mr Steggall -- Why Aunty Beryl? 

Mr McARTHUR -- Aunty Beryl is a generous soul! 

However, there are thousands of people around Victoria who do not have the foggiest idea about the breeding of the dog they control, are responsible for and in most cases love and care for. Yet when their registration is due for renewal or when they register the pooch for the first time they are expected to fill out a piece of paper and say whether or not Rover is one of those four breeds -- and if they get it wrong they could be subject to penalties. 

The government has a second string to its bow. 

Despite what the owner says about the dog, it can be declared a restricted breed. There are owners out there who have registered American Staffordshire terriers, which are virtually genetically identical to American pit bull terriers. They are bred for the same purposes and along the same blood lines, but historically there was an argument between two groups of owners who set up two different associations back in the early 20th century. The two different breeds are now recognised, with two different associations
representing them. They will be treated differently by this act, despite the fact that some of the dogs belong to both breeds and have papers from both breed societies. Who the hell will tell whether the dog is an American pit bull terrier or an American Staffordshire terrier? 

Mr Cooper -- They will have a minister called Solomon! 

Mr McARTHUR -- We do not have a minister called Solomon. 

We have a bunch of authorised officers called Solomon and Solomoness who will be able to go around the state and, despite what the owner says about the breeding of the dog, point to a pooch and say, 'I think that is an American pit bull terrier so I will declare it to be an American bit pull terrier' -- and that declaration will stand. That declaration will override the owner's declaration on the registration papers. That declaration could be challenged only if the owner says, 'Hang about a minute, I don't agree with you. I don't think it is an American pit bull terrier; it's a boxer cross. That is what it was described as when I got it from the lost dog's home', or from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). 

Mr Steggall -- Hugh said that is what it was! 

Mr McARTHUR -- Yes, that is what it was described as and that is what the owner believes it is! What will happen? 

You will have to go off to a panel of people appointed by the minister, who will be experienced and expert in deciding what is or what is not a restricted breed. 

Page 21 of the bill refers to the review panel. If somebody has declared your dog to be a restricted breed dog you will be able to apply within 30 days for a review of the decision. You will have to pay a fee, but you will be able to apply for a review. The minister will then convene a review panel consisting of three people with knowledge of or experience in the identification of dog breeds. I have talked to a few groups about this. The RSPCA wants nothing to do with this panel. It said, 'This is not our job; we do not want to be
part of it'. The authorised officers of councils have said, 'We do not want to have anything to do with this. We don't know one dog breed from another. We are not qualified to tell'. I am not too sure who will do this, and I do not know if the minister is too sure about who will do this either. 

I have plenty of evidence, which I will get to, which says there is no scientific method known to man which will correctly identify whether or not a dog is an American pit bull terrier or a boxer cross or an American Staffordshire terrier.

Mr Cooper -- What the hell have you created, Keith? 

Mr McARTHUR -- This august panel of experienced people -- who will not include RSPCA inspectors because at their annual meetings and conferences they have said they do not want a bar of it and will only reluctantly be authorised officers of councils -- will have to decide whether or not Rover is an American pit bull terrier. And good luck to them. 

The bill is silent on what happens if an owner disagrees with the decision of the review tribunal. 

There is no restriction or prohibition on that aggrieved owner then taking action in the courts. I can see the prospect and very high probability of a series of appeals going to the Supreme Court on the basis of these review panel decisions, because owners have documentation or evidence which leads them, justifiably, to the view that the review panel got it wrong. If that happens the minister will have a serious problem, because that will clog up the courts with unnecessary cases which do nothing to protect public safety
or promote animal welfare. 

Let us look at what various people have said about breed-specific legislation. First of all I will refer to the RSPCA. In the 2000 edition of its A3 guidelines on companion animals the RSPCA addresses the question: what about aggression in dogs? Bear in mind that the Premier's reason for doing this is to control dangerous and aggressive dogs and to improve public safety. At page 24 paragraph 3.3.1.5 of the RSPCA
guidelines states: 

Behaviour may be influenced by genetic predisposition, experience (such as primary socialisation and other learning), present environment and the dog handler. 

It does not say anything about behaviour being a specific attribute of breed. It refers to genetic disposition, but does not say that breed A does X and that breed B does something different. At page 27 under the heading 'Control of dangerous dogs' and the subheading 'Breed' paragraph 3.4.4 states: 

Any dog of any breed or mixture of breeds may be dangerous and thus the legislation to control dangerous dogs should not discriminate on the basis of breed. Declaration of dangerous dogs should be based on the behaviour of the dog rather than its breed.

That is an official RSPCA publication dated last year; I do not believe it has changed. So the RSPCA says, 'Let us do this on a deed, not breed, basis'. Who else has had a view? On its web page the Australian National Kennel Council (ANKC) says: 

The ANKC strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be 'dangerous' based on specific breeds or phonetic classes of dogs. 

It goes on to make critical comments about media hysteria and government knee-jerk reaction to this producing bad law. Further on it states: 

We strongly oppose blanket prohibition on breeding and mandatory spaying/neutering which takes away the rights of breeders and owners who take and fulfil their responsibilities in a serious manner. 

Finally, the ANKC says: 

We will not support legislation which determines the 'dangerousness' of a dog on the basis of breed alone. 

The Australian National Kennel Council is very clear in its views. 

In comments on the legislation the Victorian Canine Association (VCA) says: 

A dog of any breed, including a cross-bred dog, has the potential to become aggressive. 

Inappropriate behaviour in dogs is more likely to be caused by lack of control, lack of socialisation and training, and/or unsuitable environment. Attempting to control aggression in dogs by legislating against a breed has failed throughout the world -- 

Minister -- 

and has caused significant pain and suffering to the non-aggressive dogs of that breed and many thousands of owners. Countless thousands of innocent dogs have been killed yet the incidence of dog attack has not diminished --  in those areas -- 

Dog incidents will remain a problem until governments recognise that the solution lies in effective community education not the killing of dogs. 

Killing by breed is an ineffective quick fix sponsored by media generated fear and anti dog sentiment. 

The VCA also points out: 

At the Urban Animal Management Conference held in Melbourne -- 

only two months ago, Minister -- 

29-31 August 2001, the animal management officers (AMOs) -- 

the authorised officers of councils -- 

agreed that they were not qualified to identify dogs by breed, and further that they did not want that responsibility. 

I put it to the minister that the authorised officers do not want to do it, as they do not believe they are qualified, and that the RSPCA does not want to do it, as it believes it has a conflict of interest in this and for other reasons. Who will do it? Perhaps some experts from the minister's department, or perhaps group-breed or multi-breed judges from the ANKC. I am not too sure who else would be brave enough to take on that job. 

What was the response by the Australian Veterinary Association, which it emailed to the minister and the Premier? It says: 

The experience in the United Kingdom and Europe is that -- 

restricted breed legislation --  leads to expensive litigation for government without a reduction in dog attacks. 

It goes on to say: 

It is a bandaid approach that will not prevent the problem of dog attacks. 

It is ludicrous to introduce the legislation before Paul Hemsworth, the director of the Animal Welfare Centre, conducts a research and development project on dog attacks. This is akin to introducing an ovine Johne's disease eradication and compensation program before the national program was completed. 

In other words, the minister has jumped too early. What does the American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia say? Clearly it has a vested interest in this because it represents one of the restricted breeds proposed to be legislated against. It says: 

Breed specific legislation by its nature is unjust. Good dogs and good owners are punished equally as bad dogs and bad owners, while bad dogs and bad owners of other breeds are ignored. 

It says further: 

Another much discussed problem with breed specific laws aimed at the --  American pit bull terrier -- 

is the much debated topic of identification. It is very common for the general public --  and many so-called  experts --  to incorrectly identify a bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, miniature bull terrier, and all their crosses as an --  American pit bull terrier. 

This is further confounded by the addition of the American Staffordshire terrier --  or Amstaff --  that can still have a dual pedigree issued as both an -- Amstaff -- or an American pit bull terrier. 

There will be mass confusion as a result of this. It says further: 

It is clear that a breed specific approach does not address what is an obvious social problem; that of inadequate control of domestic animals. 

If he wants to improve animal management and public safety, the minister should penalise the deed, not the breed, because breed-specific legislation has not worked anywhere in the world. 

I turn to a paper presented by Dr Stephen Collier, lecturer in human and environmental studies at the University of New England, to the Queensland government in response to its similar knee-jerk reaction in launching into breed-specific legislation. 

Talking about the instincts of dogs and breeding for particular traits he says that inbred instincts: 

have to be shaped and developed by training, but some expression of them is a default behaviour of the respective breeds. Aggression is more highly developed in some breeds than in others, and it has been produced by selection for certain functions, such as hunting, property guarding, or personal protection. 

He further says: 

There are many forms of aggression in dogs, with scholars producing various lists, but generally they include dominance aggression, pain aggression, prey aggression, fear aggression, intra-dog aggression, possessive aggression, territorial aggression and protection aggression ... 

Of relevance to the American pit bull terrier is intra-dog aggression, which is exhibited to a high degree by many individuals of the breed. 

That is because the American pit bull terrier was bred for fighting -- one dog fighting another dog -- but it was also carefully selected so it would not bite the handlers or judges at those fights. Dr Collier goes on to say: 

However, even the breeds responsible for the greatest proportions of attacks have a majority of individuals that have never bitten anybody. It is reasonable to argue from this that there are not any dangerous breeds if this designation is meant to imply that all or most individuals of a specific breed are likely to attack people. 

Dr Collier goes on: 

Unfortunately, as lurid accounts of the breed's --  that is, American pit bull terriers -- depredations increased, the breed became more desirable to the worst elements of dog owners. An example of this was seen
recently --  in the United States of America --  after two canary dogs (owned by criminals to guard drug processing premises) killed a woman in California. Breeders of canary dogs had a surge of inquiries for pups, with some callers openly stating that they wanted killer dogs. 

How is this dealt with? Dr Randall Lockwood, a humane society professional in Washington, said in 1988: 

Breed-specific regulations often come from a legitimate desire to identify problem animals before they cause injury. However, breed-specific provisions provide a superficial response to a deeper problem. Although 'pit bull' type dogs have lately been implicated in a disproportionate number of severe attacks and fatalities, this is a recent phenomenon that seems to reflect a consistent breed preference among irresponsible owners rather than a universal characteristic of the dogs. In the past similar focus was placed on other breeds that were fashionable among people likely to be negligent in the handling of their dogs. Breed-specific laws penalise responsible owners and good dogs while failing to address the many problems posed by other breeds and their owners. It is for this reason that most major animal welfare organisations, including the Humane Society of the United States, the American Humane
Association, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Massachusetts SPCA, recommend against breed-specific legislation. 

There are a number of other relevant quotes in Dr Collier's paper, and I will refer to a couple of them. He makes the salient point that if American pit bull terriers were made to vanish from Australia 

immediately, the frequency and severity of dog attacks would be reduced very slightly, if at all. 

The government in proposing this legislation has put absolutely no evidence on the table to show that the bill will achieve its stated aims, those being to improve responsible dog ownership and increase public safety. Nowhere in the world has this approach worked, and nowhere in Australia has this approach worked -- and it is not going to work here. 

I understand the minister's aims. I support his objective of trying to improve the responsible ownership and management of animals, whether dogs or otherwise. That is sensible and is supported by all sides. It is something demanded by the community, and I understand and support the government's wish to improve community safety. But I do not believe the government has the right answer. This will not work: it has not worked, and it cannot work. 

It is a political con foisted on the community by an opportunist and politically correct Premier who made a rash statement on public radio early one morning before he had had the chance to get decent advice. 

The government is now out there saying, 'We have solved the dog attack problem. We have brought in restricted breed legislation, so pit bull terriers will now be controlled'. No-one can define a pit bull terrier, and no-one can properly define crosses between other breeds and pit bull terriers. I refer honourable members to these photos, and I invite the honourable member for Seymour to have a look at them. The first set comes from the government's own web site about rehousing potentially aggressive dogs from pounds and shelters. There is a photo amongst these of a brindle dog with a little bit of white under its chin going down its neck, with slightly floppy ears, a broad head and a strong neck. It looks like a pit bull type, and the caption says, 'Do not rehouse this breed. Gas it. Get rid of it'. 

Let us have a look at the Lost Dogs Home web site, which is proudly headed 'Our graduates picture gallery'. There is a proud photograph of a brindle dog with a little bit of white coming down the chin, with slightly floppy ears, a broad head and a broad neck, and the caption says, 'Larrikin is a spoilt, in the nicest sense, staffie who looks pretty pleased with his life up there in Wendouree with the Harrison family. As far as he's concerned, the grass doesn't come any greener in any pasture'. The two dogs are virtually identical.

If Larrikin had been in the Lost Dogs Home and the person responsible had looked at the government web site and seen the photo of a brindle dog with the white touch under its chin, the white hair running down its neck, the floppy ears, the broad head and the broad neck, he would have ended up as blood and bone. Instead he is now happily living with the Harrison family in Wendouree. He is a wonderful little staffie. 

The government's own web site cannot make the distinction, and the government's guidelines on how to determine what is an aggressive and dangerous dog that should not be rehoused cannot distinguish between a staffie and a pit bull. 

We will line up 50 dogs of various breeds in a showground, and I challenge the minister to put his best guys in there. I will bet London to a brick that they cannot correctly identify the various pure breeds and the various crosses of those breeds. The government is giving an impossible task to the authorised officers of councils. It is also giving an impossible task to the review tribunal. It is pandering to the community in the pious hope that this will solve the problem of dangerous dogs and reduce dog attacks on people. It will not. Eighty per cent of dog attacks happen in the backyard when the family pet bites a family member or a
visitor. Only 20 per cent of dog attacks happen elsewhere. The problem is not the breed; the problem is the deed. 

The sooner the government focuses on that, the better off dogs will be, the better off dog owners will be and the safer the community will be. I support the government's objectives, but its execution is lousy.