There are always two sides to a story and I know a little more about this particular incident than what the good gentleman wrote in his article.
Firstly, he did not reveal in his article that he is a Human Rights Commissioner.
Secondly, he did not state that it was only after ground and cabin staff asked him to restrain the dog (as per the reg and as per QF FAM 2.3.6, which reads [in part]...the dog must be restrained wearing a harness. At all times during flight the dog's leash must be tied around the leg of the seat with the leash attached to the dog's collar), that the matter was referred to the Captain.
Thirdly, he also did not state that the Captain left the flight deck, and personally spoke to him in the cabin. He also did not state that the Captain called the Fleet Manager for guidance on the matter, who in turn spoke to the QF Regulatory Affairs Department.
After all of this advice, the gentleman did comply and the Captain was able to depart, knowing that the dog was secured as required by law and company policy.
Now, I was not there, but am a friend of the Captain and I didn't envy the position he was in. We fly aircraft - we are not necessarily equipped to handle people who deliberately set out to make a political statement, which is what we believe this gentleman did.
His article in the paper I thinks demonstrates what this was really about IMHO.