I'm sorry but I support the original post.
Sure the pilot is technically legal to enforce such a regulation, however disgression is the better part of valor, and this reg is clearly a horses A RSE.
Not all australian regulations make sense, this one especially.
What are the specifications of the absorbant mat if it is intended to contain the animals bodily fluids?
If it is so important to contain periodic bodily fluid spills then why aren't infants to have an absorbant mat as well? It has been my experience that infants regularly excrete bodily fluids in aircraft resulting in maintenance and delays - I have NEVER seen a guide dog create ANY mess at all in an aircraft.
Secondly, supposing the restraint is also intended to stop a missile dog, then what are the specifications of the restraint?
All too often I see people in aviation get carried away with their own self importance and end up playing power games with passengers.
Far more rewarding than winning a power game is making someones day by helping them rather than forcing un-necessary regulation upon them just to show them how powerful you truly are.
I am often disapointed by the press when they write aviation stories, however this one goes some way to show us as aviation professionals that the system that we work in is often flawed. I urge people to look at this from the other side - not the "well i have a job to do" one.