DOG AND CAT MANAGEMENT (COUNCIL PLANS OF MANAGEMENT) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:31): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

People say that cats have nine lives; well, legislation can sometimes have at least two. This is not a reintroduction of the same bill, because that is not allowed under standing orders; it is a new bill, but it canvasses the same area as the one that was sadly rejected last week. I say sadly because I do not think members necessarily had read the detail of the bill. A lot of work went into researching it. I have written to every mayor in South Australia and every CEO of every council.

We interacted with the association of council inspectors (that is not the correct title), the people who do the front-line dog management. We consulted with them and said what should be in the bill, and they then had a look at the original draft and we changed it. I changed it after the minister (through the member for Hartley) said a year or so ago that it did not provide for microchipping, which it did through regulation.

We went through a very long drawn-out process of consultation. We consulted and got information from governments interstate, including the City of Sydney, which is one of the front runners in terms of cat and dog management. A lot of work went into that bill, and I do not think that it got the consideration it deserved. I was very disappointed, for example, that the shadow minister did not even speak to the bill, yet chose to vote against it. I would have thought that, as the shadow minister, you would want to debate an issue before casting a vote.

Today I received a letter back from the minister responsible for the area of dog and cat management, the Hon. Gail Gago. The letter indicates that she is waiting for local government basically to decide what it wants to do (that is paraphrasing her words, but that is the nub of it). My view is that there are some councils that have done something in this area. One of the councils on Kangaroo Island (I am not sure how many there are now) has acted in this regard. The City of Tea Tree Gully has been talking about doing something, and likewise the City of Mitcham and the City of Charles Sturt.

However, the reality is that, if you look at all the councils in the state and in the metropolitan area, not much has happened. They need someone in a leadership role to actually get them to do something about cat management. As I have said before, it is not simply about protecting native fauna, although that is an important aspect; it is also about protecting cats.

Last year, the Animal Welfare League, as I understand from its reported comments in The Advertiser a few weeks ago, destroyed 2,500 cats last year. How anyone in the wider community who is concerned about animal welfare could be happy with that I do not know. I heard yesterday that, once again the Animal Welfare League is reporting that it is receiving something like 80 dumped kittens a day. The system is just not working.

It is not just about protecting native fauna; it is not just about the welfare of cats themselves; there is also an aspect which relates to the nuisance caused by cats, which are allowed to wander and roam. People who care about their cats want them looked after. In talking to one of the vets in the Hills area he said that he fully supports what I am doing. When the dog management provisions were brought in, he said that they had a marked reduction in the number of dogs being hit by cars, which he had to try to fix up. The management provisions of the Dog and Cat Management Act have worked—they are not perfect, but they are working. What we need in an adjusted form is provisions which relate to the management of cats.

The member for Newland got a bit carried away last week and talked about cat runs costing thousands of dollars. None of my provisions (nor this one today) state that people must have a cat run. Cat runs are a good idea; in fact, at Minton Farm, which is an animal rescue farm at Cherry Gardens, the person who runs it, Bev Langley, told me that they built one recently out of scrap material for something like $70. It looks fantastic; she showed me a photograph of it. None of my bills (neither this one nor the previous one) say anything about people having to spend thousands of dollars on cat runs.

The previous bill was a lot more comprehensive and, I suppose, more specific than this. It set out to put the wood on councils, because they are the groups that will manage any provisions that this parliament passes, to come up with a sensible cat management plan. As with the previous bill, this one requires that any cat management plan has to be approved by the Dog and Cat Management Board, so councils cannot do anything willy-nilly: they have to get the approval of that board.

What does this bill do? Fundamentally, I am trying to get councils, under the leadership of the minister, the Hon. Gail Gago, to do something about this issue. Labor governments—and I have made this point before—in New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT have dealt with this issue. The local government authorities in those areas tell me it is working very well. The City of Sydney has a very progressive policy in relation to the management of cats and dogs, which is way ahead of us. They have lifelong registration for dogs. You register your dog once; that is it. They have provisions for microchipping and desexing cats where people can go to a veterinary service subsidised by the council on the weekend, and it costs people just a few dollars.

We do not have anything like that provision here. Some groups provide a desexing service and support it. I know that a group called CATS, inspired by Christine Pierson and others, does a lot of good work in that regard, as do some of the animal welfare associations. However, if you look closely, you see that local government has been noticeable by its absence in the main when it comes to innovative ways of managing cats. They have done better in relation to dogs, but still some improvement is needed.

So, what does this bill do? It says that, in relation to cats, councils will develop a cat management plan, but it provides for the control of unidentified cats and for public education on measures for the proper control of cats by their owners and for council monitoring of such measures. That is a much more softly softly approach than the previous bill which I think, despite its being defeated last week, was a very good bill. This bill today also requires that on or before 1 July every year the council has to forward to the minister (the minister for the environment, responsible for dog and cat management), the LGA and the Dog and Cat Management Board a report on the operation of the council's plan of management during the preceding financial year—that refers to cat management, and they also have to do the same for dog management—and publish a copy of the report on a website maintained by the council.

This is a very modest request and requirement for councils to develop a plan to deal with unidentified cats and to educate people in relation to proper control of cats. They will be required to monitor those control measures, provide a report to the minister, the LGA and the Dog and Cat Management Board and publish a copy of the report on a website. It is a much more modest request of councils.

Even this morning I have been interacting with Chris Russell from the LGA, saying, 'Let's try to get something happening in relation to cat management.' I am sure that the member for Goyder would attest to the fact that trying to get all councils to sing to the same tune is a bit like getting all politicians to do so, and the same difficulty is involved with academics.

But the argument that has been advanced by people who are lacking in support for any sort of cat measure is that each area needs to have a separate plan and a different approach. Obviously, you can have a somewhat different approach at Roxby Downs to, say, Unley, but I challenge anyone to tell me why cat management in Unley should be different from that in Mitcham or Burnside. I defy anyone on the grounds of logic to tell me why a cat in Burnside is different from a cat in Mitcham. It might have a higher income, but I doubt whether it would have anything else to differentiate it.

So, we have heard some unconvincing arguments. I have said once before in here that when I have argued to the government, 'Why can't you follow the lead of other Labor governments?', the answer has been that the states involved have more people. That is a completely nonsensical, irrelevant argument. South Australia used to lead not only Australia but the world in a lot of things, but sadly we do not seem to have the people around like Hugh Hudson and Don Hopgood. I do not know where the people in question have gone but, hopefully, within the Labor Party and the Labor government people might see themselves as leaders.

The point I make to members is that I have heard people say to me when they come in here, 'I'm a Catholic MP.' I say, 'No, you're not. You are an MP who is a Catholic.' There is a very big difference. You are not a local government MP in here: you are a member of parliament who may have been in local government, like myself. You are not in here as an agent of the Baptist Church, the Catholic Church, the LGA or Uncle Tom Cobley Preservation Society.

You are in here to govern and to make laws for the benefit of the whole population of South Australia; you are not in here as yourself, and that is reinforced in standing orders. We are not allowed to refer to each other by our first names or surnames, because we represent an electorate. Some people do not seem to understand it. I was trying to convey the point to the member for Finniss that, because you have been involved in local government and you might be passionate about it, you do not come in here to be an agent of local government. We have to make laws for the welfare and wellbeing of the whole community.

Clearly, you cannot please everyone; we all know that. You will never please everyone. Some people out there will say, 'We don't want you to do anything about cats.' I have had death threats as a result of putting up these measures. Someone from Rose Park rang up and said, 'I'll kill you if you stop me having 20 cats or however many cats I want.'

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: That's all right; it is not the only time I have been threatened. I got threatened when we had the big debate about paedophilia. Someone threatened to put a bullet up an area where the sun rarely shines. It was a .303 that he said he would put in that area. But in politics you are in here to do what is right, not what is popular.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: That is why I commend the Attorney and the Premier for taking on the bikies. That is a very risky strategy, and I hope that no harm comes to those two individuals.

Getting back to this issue: let us legislate for the benefit of the community, which is not only those people who suffer the nuisance of cats but those who care about the welfare of cats that are being destroyed by the thousand each year and those who care about the natural environment. Let us do something about it. You will not please everyone and I suspect that the member for Newland was lobbied by a group out there who are very strong cat fanciers. That is fine. He is entitled (and so are they) to put a point of view. But at the end of the day you have to put it all together and do what is right. It is not always popular in all areas, and never will be, but you have to do what is right.

So, I urge members to look at this proposal, to work with local government and to urge the minister, the Hon. Gail Gago, to provide the leadership and to come up with a measure well before the next election, because this issue is not going to go away—I am going to drum it up right to the next election—and make sure that this issue is dealt with soon and properly so that we can protect, not only wildlife, but cats, and also have a good law for the people of South Australia.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.