Do the Penalties Fit the Harm?

The penalty imposed in Arnie’s case has led many owners and trainers to reflect on how animal welfare laws operate in practice. As New South Wales considers reforms that may affect prong collars, the experience in Queensland is increasingly central to the discussion.

Support for strong action against cruelty is widespread. The question now is whether the regulatory settings governing training equipment are delivering the expected improvements, and whether those who manage complex dogs every day are being properly heard.

What this page is about

• A court outcome in Queensland following the death of a dog in a vehicle has drawn strong public attention
• The same legal framework also prohibits prong collars and carries significant financial penalties.
• NSW is considering whether similar rules should apply.

This page looks at why many trainers and owners believe practical experience should inform those decisions.

👉 Read more about the issues shaping the NSW prong collar debate.

NSW, Prong Collars and Consultation 

The move to strengthen penalties for leaving a dog in a hot vehicle in New South Wales has strong community backing. Few people would argue against firm responses to obvious cruelty.

The separate policy question is whether prohibiting tools used by trained professionals will improve safety and welfare in everyday practice.

Background on how these proposals emerged, including confusion about whether prong collars are already illegal, is outlined in this overview of the NSW reform discussion. If the answer is not yet clear, then listening widely becomes even more important.

What NSW Can Learn

As NSW considers whether to follow Queensland’s approach, many owners and trainers believe it is worth looking carefully at what has unfolded since those reforms were introduced.

Queenslanders were told that removing tools such as the prong collar would improve safety and welfare outcomes. Several years later, serious dog attacks and behaviour complaints remain a significant issue for communities and regulators.

This does not mean the prohibition caused those problems. Dog behaviour is influenced by many factors including breeding, socialisation, environment, and owner capability.  However, it does show that simply removing a tool has not produced an obvious or easily measurable decline in incidents. When the benefits are still contested, broader consultation becomes critical.

Other governments facing similar pressure have taken time to review evidence and hear from practitioners before moving to prohibition. In the United Kingdom, proposals to restrict prong collars were considered but did not become national law. In Singapore, debate placed greater emphasis on education, guidance, and responsible use rather than blanket bans.

These examples do not dictate what NSW must do. But they demonstrate that caution, engagement, and inclusion of practical expertise are legitimate policy choices.

Who Gets Consulted

Animal policy includes a range of perspectives. Welfare organisations, rights advocates, veterinarians, regulators, and trainers may approach risk in different ways.

Each of these voices plays an important role.

However, when legislation affects public safety, liability, and real-world management of difficult dogs, many owners believe those with demonstrated, practical experience must also be represented.

Some trainers in Queensland felt their knowledge of high-risk cases did not carry sufficient influence during earlier reforms. Whether or not one accepts that view, it remains part of the current discussion.

For NSW, the lesson may be simple. Decisions are not judged only by their intention, but by whether people feel the right expertise was included.

A Practical Middle Ground 

Many trainers support a tightly regulated professional exemption.

This would not permit unrestricted sales or casual ownership. Instead, it would allow accredited practitioners, working under defined standards and oversight, to use specialised tools in limited, high risk situations.

For governments, that approach aims to balance welfare protection with the need for effective intervention.

Because when trainers are called, it is rarely early.

A dog may already be overpowering its handler. Behaviour may be escalating. Families may be concerned about what could happen next.

The realities remain.

What changes is what a professional is permitted to use.

Supporters say this is why NSW should review the experience in Queensland and consult professionals with demonstrated experience before finalising reform.

Why the Debate Continues

This conversation is unlikely to disappear.  Each time another serious incident makes headlines, people will again compare expectations, outcomes, and whether practical expertise was fully considered.

No one is arguing against animal welfare.

But many are asking for practicality, consistency, and inclusive decision making.

Ask NSW to Consult Experts

NSW has the opportunity to build reform on broad, credible input rather than hindsight.

If the goal is stronger welfare protections and safer communities, then consultation must include trainers who have demonstrated, hands on experience using prong collars in complex, high-risk situations. These practitioners understand the safeguards, the limitations, and the practical consequences of removing options.

Hearing from them is not controversial. It is a matter of fairness and sound policymaking.

Without that expertise, decisions risk being shaped by views about the tool without evidence from those who have actually applied it in the field.

If you believe lawmakers should include experienced professionals before moving to prohibit prong collars, now is the moment to say so.

Encourage NSW legislators to consult experienced practitioners with the tool before final decisions are made. Learn how you can support the call for balanced input into the NSW prong collar proposals.

Legal and Informational Disclaimer

This content is provided for general informational and public interest purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legislative and regulatory settings may change. Readers should consult official government sources for current and authoritative information.

Views expressed are based on publicly available data, professional experience, and observed outcomes. No allegation of unlawful conduct, improper motive, or bad faith is made against any individual or organisation.