DOG AND CAT MANAGEMENT (CATS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 June 2007. Page 372.)

Mr KENYON (Newland) (11:19): I rise today to oppose the bill brought to us by the member for Fisher on a number of grounds.

Mr Hanna: The fur's going to start flying now.

Mr KENYON: It already has in my electorate. I believe that these decisions should be left to local communities. They should be decisions for local councils, local areas, people who know their circumstances best and are able to take into account what is going on in their local communities, not by a state government.

Mr Hanna: It's the same everywhere.

Mr KENYON: It's not necessarily true, though, that the environment in which they exist is the same. Whilst cats have an effect on the local environment in the metropolitan area, it is not as marked as it might be in a more pristine area out in regional areas. It may mean that you need to adopt a different attitude to the way you manage dogs and cats in other areas.

One of the best examples of the way you might have local management has been brought up by the Tea Tree Gully council in my electorate. Until very recently the council was planning to have very rigorous enforcement laws. It proposed cat registration and the enforcement of laws, and it proposed that ratepayers should have enclosures for cats. One of the consequences of that was quite a large impost on individuals wishing to own cats, probably far and above what they should have to wear, and, in fact, far and above the effect that the cats might be having on the local environment.

I think the Tea Tree Gully council was proposing to make residents pay thousands and thousands of dollars on cat enclosures. They wanted to have fines, they wanted to employ people, and buy them cars to drive around and catch cats. It might be getting back to the cat detector van of Monty Python fame. They may indeed be going down the route of having a dog licence crossed out with crayon, and cat written in. Who can tell?

Be that as it may, it would have imposed a large burden on Tea Tree Gully council ratepayers at a time when they are already receiving some of the highest rates in the state. It is something that was being strongly opposed by some members of the local community, and I am happy to say that on Tuesday night the council decided to trial other methods—hopefully cheaper and more effective—for controlling cats in the Tea Tree Gully area. If there was a state-based system, as proposed by the member for Fisher, it would take away the flexibility of local councils and communities to manage cats in a way that is most effective for their council area and also for the environment. So, I have no difficulty at all in opposing this particular bill.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:22): A very disappointing contribution from the member for Newland, who sprouted information—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I think he has been severely injured in a scrum at some stage. But there was no research evidence. If he talks to anyone who knows anything about the subject they will know that cats in the urban area kill a lot of native birdlife and other fauna as well. If you talk to people like Associate Professor David Paton at the University of Adelaide he will give you the statistics.

The member for Newland and, sadly, this government is unwilling to have the backbone that other Labor governments have had in Australia. I wrote to the minister here saying, 'Why can't you follow the lead of other Labor governments and have a statewide coordinated approach?' It does not take away the role of councils. The member for Newland obviously has not read my bill. It gives councils the role, the responsibility, for establishing cat management plans. That is what it says. It says the cat management plan can incorporate the following: can limit the number of cats per household; can provide for desexing; can provide for lower fees for pensioners and those on fixed or low incomes; can impose a cat curfew; can deal with roaming cats or cats causing a nuisance. And it does provide for microchipping by regulation.

The original argument from the government was that it did not provide for microchipping. It does. It allows for it by regulation, and it provides for the registration of cats. I do not know whether the member for Newland or the minister, who is the same minister responsible for animal welfare, is happy that thousands of cats are destroyed every year in the metropolitan area by the welfare agencies. Thousands of them. That is not the total that are killed out in the countryside. Anyone who knows anything about feral cats will know that anyone who has a commitment to the environment will destroy them on sight. I have done it myself and I will continue to do it.

I feel very sorry for cat lovers and for cats, having regard to, as I say, the number of cats destroyed every year in the metropolitan area. I think the number of cats that the Animal Welfare League destroys each year—I will have to double check—is in the order of 2,500 cats. And you get from this government a wimpy approach.

John Hill when he was minister for the environment almost had this issue sorted out. He had consulted with councils. What we have now is a Labor government without any backbone and not prepared to tackle an issue which is one of the most devastating impacts on native fauna. Even in our street we had someone move in recently with a Siamese cat; it is up on our roof and other roofs tearing possums apart. Is that something that this government condones? Are they happy to have cats destroying birds and other native fauna? They do not seem to care.

But the government of Victoria did, and does. The government in New South Wales did, and does, and the answer I got back from the minister was, 'Oh, they can do it because they are bigger.' That is not a rational argument; that is a nonsense. I do not know who has got the minister by the fur, but someone has. Someone got hold of the minister by her fur and got her to wimp out on this issue. This is a government that talks about global warming and climate change, but does not worry about what is happening to biodiversity under the umbrella of an overheated sky. It is absolute hypocrisy and weakness on the part of this government. I thought this government would show some potential and show some backbone in dealing with this issue. But we get: 'Leave it to councils. Let's hope they do something.' How pathetic. They are not going to do much at all.

Kangaroo Island is trying to do something; a very serious issue there. But here councils like Norwood—pathetic. They do not want to upset a couple of people who have an obsessive view that cats should be able to do what they like, where they like, how they like. I can tell you that there are a lot of people in the community who feel strongly about this issue and who are very disappointed that we have a Labor government that is not as committed to the environment as previous Labor governments were, and when John Hill was minister for the environment.

What we have is a wimpy approach, 'Leave it to Beaver, leave it to councils, let's hope it sorts itself out.' They know full well it will not. Nothing will happen. It is a cop out. It is a weak approach by a government that should know better, and they should stop listening to a couple of people who have a one-sided, obsessive view about this, people who do not care about the wider environment. And, so, a sad outcome.

The house divided on the second reading:

AYES (2)

NOES (35)

Majority of 33 for the noes.

Second reading thus negatived.