Legislative Council, Wednesday 9 November 2022

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - I commend the Government on continuing to broadly consider the welfare of animals. Animals are voiceless. Whilst many of them are able to communicate in many ways, including chooks - and I love our chooks; they are quite mad but I do love them - they are vulnerable to the actions of humans and have limited capacity to stand up for themselves.

It is incumbent on us, as humans, but also it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that where strengthening of the legislation can occur, it should occur, to ensure that animals are protected as much as they can be, in light of the role that they play in our society.

I will come to the pronged collars, because that is a big matter in the minds of many related to this bill. During the briefing I was particularly interested to understand more about the presumption of control, custody or possession of an animal and who is in charge of the care of that animal. This can happen in farming operations where you have a corporate farmer who is probably not even on the land. The owner of the farm or the land may have employed people to provide care for the animals - whether they be dairy cows, beef cows, sheep, and so on - and they can starve that particular worker of funds that are needed to adequately look after the animals. Where does the responsibility lie there? Who actually owns the animals? Who has the care of the animals?

In her summing up, I want the minister to further clarify this area. This is a bit like that chain of responsibility approach, in section 3A(2) of the principal act. It does make it clear that more than one person can be responsible here, and that you can potentially charge both if there is evidence that not only the owner of the property and thus the owner of the stock overall was negligent in not providing adequate resources for the worker. Then the opposite occurs where the owner of the farm, the stock, or whatever, did give adequate money but the person looking after the animals treated them cruelly, and said, 'Oh, they are not mine, they belong to that bloke over there who owns the property and owns the stock, I am just doing the job'.

It is very important that these matters are clear, as much as anything can be in these circumstances. The reverse onus of proof is something we should do with great caution. There should always be a presumption of innocence; but where that reverse onus of proof comes on, it is incumbent - as I understand it from the second reading speech and the briefing - that the person has to prove they are actually not the person in charge. I understand why that might be the case if someone dumps an animal and that type of circumstance, and it might be somewhat easy to say, 'Well, that's not my animal, nothing to do with me' and it can make it very difficult to press charges. I want the minister to address her mind a little bit more to that in her reply.

There was a lot of information provided in the briefings, and I thank the member for Mersey and the Leader, and the minister, for turning up for a briefing to give us some information about the bill and the intent - particularly in relation to the use of pronged collars. I will take a bit of time to look at this matter. In fairness to all those who have spoken to us, we need to understand, if we are to support this, why we should do so; or if we are not or to provide other mechanisms, why we should not do so; or why we should perhaps consider amending it to enable certain uses.

Jan Davis and the RSPCA said that dog trainers are not the target of this legislation. I am pretty sure it was her who said that. That is true, it is not dog trainers. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that humane practices are approved for use in training of animals, and particularly dogs, in this case. We understand from the briefing today that you could use a pronged collar on another animal. I assume you could get a big one and put it around a cow's neck, if you wanted to; you could potentially put it around a cat's neck, although it could probably slip it off pretty quickly.

I did go to the literature review that was done. It is titled The welfare consequences of the use of aversive training devices in dogs: a review of the current scientific literature, and this was prepared for the Tasmanian Animal Welfare Advisory Committee by Dr Jane Dunnett, University of Tasmania. I will to read a couple of sections out of this, mainly round the executive summary. To make it clear what this document is:

The purpose of this document is to review the scientific literature regarding the welfare consequences of using aversive training devices on dogs, specifically electronic collars, e collars, and pronged collars. In order to achieve this, articles examining the effects of aversive training methods in general, as well as those examining the effects of specific aversive devices are reviewed alongside their relevant published articles, such as editorials and position statements.

They were not actually going out and doing the work; they were reviewing the literature that currently exists.

This review found there is clear, overarching scientific consensus that the use of aversive training devices - in particular e collars and pronged collars - leads to distinct, undesirable, unintended consequences, namely short term pain and distress and longer lasting adverse effects on dog behavior and mood. Further, a similar clear consensus that the use of these devices increased the likelihood of dog aggression towards both humans and other dogs. This, in turn, leads to early euthanasia and relinquishment of dogs.

That is a little bit contrary to what we heard in the briefing from the dog trainers. I understand what a literature review is, and I assume other members do too - how it collates the currently available information in research that has been done to date. I absolutely accept that the use of pronged collars will modify a dog's behaviour; otherwise, why would you use it at all?

It can, but the scientific evidence suggests that is not necessarily the best way to do it. It goes on, I am not quoting every word from it:

There is no scientific justification for the use of these devices. The evidence shows that while they may be effective in the short-term in some instances, they are no more so than humane reward-based methods. Indeed, in some cases, adversive methods and devices have shown to be less effective than alternative methods and obedience overall is better in dogs trained without punishment.

Further, adversive devices and methods are effective only in suppressing certain behaviours that do not address the underlying issues leading to those behaviours or teach a suitable alternative behaviour and as such, their usefulness is limited.

We saw videos and we saw a very aggressive dog. We can probably imagine why that dog was in that shape, he had most likely been abused and poorly treated and what a terrible thing to do to an animal like that. Sadly, we do see that. Animals and dogs abused to the point they are very angry animals. They are predators by nature, but they will bite anything that will come within their reach. I can understand why a dog might get to that point if it has been severely maltreated. The video that was shown that the member for Mersey referred to, where the dog was very angry in a cage and the dog trainer was putting his closed fist against the cage, noting that there was food down below. In my mind, that was not food being used as a reward, that was food trying to get the dog to eat, but it was not interested in food, it was more interested in having a fight because such was the state of that dog.

One can only imagine what led that dog to be there, in that state, and yes, we saw subsequent footage of the dog being able to be outside of the cage and much more social in their behaviour. I do not deny that at all and the comment that there are some dogs that simply will not be retrained without the use of pronged collars. If the dog needs to be out and can only be out safely with a pronged collar because of the way it has been handled in the past or something, then that is still a dangerous dog.

Because if you need a pronged collar to control them, that tells me that the dog, unrestrained in that way, could cause an injury to another person, particularly a vulnerable person, but anybody. I am not particularly vulnerable, but I certainly had a nasty dog bite from a German Shepherd that put me in hospital for the rest of the day.

Mr Willie - It is a hazard doorknocking.

Ms FORREST - I was out doorknocking. Normally I do not go into yards with German Shepherds. I had not done that before, I certainly will not do it again, but this was an open yard, no gate, no sign of a dog, no dog bowl, nothing. The dog must have been behind the car in the carport and when I went over, and the door of the house was open, I rang the doorbell. As I am standing there waiting with a short skirt on because it was a hot day I felt this thing brush against my leg.

As I walked I looked down and thought, 'Oh my goodness, it is a very large dog' and, you cannot really run at that point, can you? No, so you stay there and hope and I was comforted by the fact the internal door was open so someone was probably home. That person came to the door and I said 'Hi, my name is Ruth Forrest, I'm out introducing myself to the people I have taken over from the member for Montgomery in the last redistribution of the boundary.' Then I said, 'I am just here with your dog, you might like to take your dog inside!'

They said 'Oh no, he's fine, he's never bitten anybody.' I said 'Right, well it would still be nice if you took him in.' 'Oh he is fine, he is harmless.' As I went to hand in the flyer that was in my hand with my contact details on it, that is when he latched on - severe deep puncture wounds on the top and bottom of my arm. I ended up in the emergency department for the rest of the day, requesting lots of drugs - not the same drugs that you had, Mr President, when you had your episode here but they were nowhere near as effective as those ones, despite my request. Despite all the care I took not to put myself in that situation - I do not think the dog had any collar on it; I was pretty much in shock because it hurt a lot.

I was grateful he bit and released me. He did not hang on - that was the saving grace. It could have been a lot worse if he had hung but he bit and released.

Sorry, I got distracted by that.

The point I was making is that even for an older person - we talked about older people; people with a disability taking their dog out and having a pronged collar as a method of controlling that dog more easily. One would expect if that is the case, if it still requires that to be controlled easily by the person in charge of it, it is not a suitable arrangement.

I think of a frail, older person who has a large dog that needs that sort of measure of control. If for whatever reason the dog gets completely spooked - something jumps out in front of it or runs across in front of it and distracts it - I do not believe that even with a pronged collar an older frail person could hold that dog up. They would probably end up on the ground themselves and probably fracture their neck or femur and be in hospital themselves as an older person.

I wanted to make those points. I listened to both sides of this and I would be very interested to hear what other people think.

To conclude in the executive summary here, there are two more points I will read. (tbc)

The demonstrated inability of even experienced trainers to time the delivery of the stimuli accurately and consistently increases the risk that dogs will experience severe and persistent stress when trained with these devices.

As there is no pressured control on it - it is just how hard you pull and if you pull gently and the dog lurches forward then, obviously, that could be a much more serious impact on the dog.

In conclusion, it says:

There is no credible evidence to justify the use of aversive training devices, in particular. E-collars and pronged collars. On the contrary, substantial evidence exists to demonstrate that these devices can cause both short and long-term harm to dogs.

Not one of the studies reviewed supports their use. Humane training alternatives exist which are effective, if not more so.

This is not me saying this, but a review of the literature currently available. I am going briefly to the body of that report. If anyone wants to have a look at this I am happy to hand it around, if you have not seen it already.

Under the scientific evidence, and there is a whole heap here but I will read the first bit:

To date, two literature reviews on the effects of aversive training methods in dogs have been published. In the first, the author concluded that aversive methods jeapordise both the physical and mental health of dogs through undesirable and unintended consequences and in addition, were no more effective than positive reinforcement-based training.

The author recommended those working with or handling dogs should avoid using positive punishment and negative reinforcement wherever possible.

The further discussions I have had with other people who train dogs is if you train them to respond to painful stimuli and do the right thing as a result of a painful stimulus - which is what this is - you are getting them to respond in the way you want them to because of pain, not because it is something they feel good about. Some dogs like a good tummy tickle; others will not. Some like that physical attention from kids; some do not, and if you reward them with what they like, rather than use pain as a disincentive, that is what this is saying, in the way I read it.

The member for Mersey sent a graphic that talked about the number of dogs euthanased in 2020-21. The reason I had a close look at it was because it was for 2020-21, and there were 66.5 per cent of dogs euthanased in that period for behavioural reasons. There were 26.4 per cent for medical reasons. The total dogs euthanased were 2502. There is no indication where this data came from. Is it national data?

Mr Gaffney - Yes, that is national data. In the next one that came to you it has a breakdown of state by state, and the national data.

Ms FORREST - I am sorry I did not see that bit.

Mr Gaffney - There is another one that came over -

Ms FORREST - Anyway, I have the Tasmanian figures. Let us look at what happens in Tasmania.

Mr Gaffney - In that same year?

Ms FORREST - There are two years from 2020 to 2021. Tasmania's figures are lower. Over the two years, the period covered by that graph - that pie chart - and the most recent year, 32 dogs were euthanased out of 217 over two years. These are the RSPCA figures. We do need to remember that the RSPCA get the ones that no-one else wants. The owners have given up on them, they have already bitten somebody or done something, so sadly, they are the kennel of last resort.

No dog is euthanased by the RSPCA without a vet and independent behaviour assessments, and 14 of the 32 euthanased were dogs that were seized by the inspectors that had been seriously maltreated. I can only imagine how difficult it is to try to rehabilitate a dog that has been seriously mistreated. I do not know how that sort of dog would ever trust a human again when you see some of the things that happen to them.

Over that period, when we look at the euthanasia figures, 32 were euthanased, 26 of those were dogs that were unhealthy and untreatable; that included owner or guardian-requested euthanasia. Sometimes the owners have requested the RSPCA to facilitate that because they thought the animal could not be helped any other way.

Euthanasia is usually a method of last resort, and there is euthanasia for illness if there are health problems that cannot be treated - like cancers - where the dogs are distressed and in a lot of pain.

I have a question for the minister. It is something that was raised about the training of dogs such as police dogs and guard dogs. I understand, but if you can confirm this: all police dogs in Tasmania - and I know it is not your portfolio, but you may be able to inform me - are trained in Victoria. That is what I understand. If they are, these are police dogs that are trained to be very responsive to the commands of their operator. In Tasmania, police dogs are not managed with pronged collars and Victoria does not train them with pronged collars as they have been outlawed for about 20 years, or whatever it is.

As I understand it, there are not a lot of trained assistance dogs. A lot of people have assistance dogs but they are not trained assistance dogs. The ones that are trained are for visually impaired people and some others. They are trained for the purpose and with positive reinforcement as I understand, they are not trained with pronged collars either.

There is a concern that was raised with me that fear and discomfort that a pronged collar causes in its use as a training tool ameliorates the short-term problem but it can become a longer term issue or create longer term behaviour issues, which is what that literature review was saying.

Going back to the number of prosecutions that was referred to, Jan Davis from the RSPCA talked about the high bar, I guess, for prosecution of cases. She even showed that photo of a dog that had an injury from a pronged collar. You could see it much more obviously because the dog had been shaved around its neck, so you could see the harm. It is a bit like a pressure wound. If they have their collars on all the time, you will get a pressure wound. It is like lying in a bed; if you lie in the bed too long, you will get a pressure sore, same thing. Constant pressure on a person or animal skin, whether it is a dog, a cow, we have seen them with nasty pressure wounds.

She said that they had 2000-plus calls to review animal welfare matters. They only moved to prosecution of about 12. The dog that was in that picture, with the damage to the dog's neck, was not one they tried to prosecute because the bar was too high, she said, and the prosecutor would not go near it. There was not enough evidence. It was not bad enough to warrant prosecution. One does wonder how bad it has to be before you get to prosecution, when you actually have open wounds that you could see there, whether that is a pronged collar, whether it is an animal being hit with a stick. Surely, we do not have to get to that point before a charge can be laid but that is what Jan Davis was telling me. It has to be egregious harm before it even gets anywhere near the court and a charge being laid.

We know that the pronged collars have been banned in being imported into the country. As one of the departmental officers said, there is a reason for that. It is not illegal to make them in the state or to sell them or make them in the country and sell them but you cannot import them. So, obviously they are coming into the country or they are being used in the state, so they are either being made in the state or country and then shifted around the country. That is a business for somebody. That business would cease if people are making them and selling them in Tasmania, that business would cease. It does not mean they cannot make them. They could probably sell them to another state where it is not banned but they would not be able to sell them in Tasmania.

As the Government has said, we are not in the business of putting people out of business but anyway, that is a judgment call on that one. It is important to note that perhaps people are making money out of this. Is that a driving factor in some people's views? I am not sure.

I also note being here for some time now, that when we debated the Dog Control Act there were moves to deal with the pronged collars at that previous time. The evidence clearly at the time was that it was a matter for the Animal Welfare Act, even though there was a move and a desire to have it included at the time in the Dog Control Act. Hearing that they can use pronged collars on other animals besides dogs, then it probably is much more appropriate to have it in the Animal Welfare Act anyway on that point alone. This is the right place to have the debate; whether it is supported or not is another matter. However, in my view, this is the right place.

I support the overall intention of the bill. I am reasonably well convinced I support it as it is. I will listen to other members' contributions but the other provisions, the ones I have already mentioned and the other provisions, are all strengthening of the legislation in protecting the welfare of animals and that is a positive thing.