Bills

Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 March 2016.)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Chaffey, are you the lead speaker on this piece of legislation?

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (15:36): Yes, I am. I rise to speak on the Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2015 and note that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill in the house. The bill has been many years in the making, and the proposed amendments to the current act are the greatest widespread reforms in the state's animal welfare laws in more than 20 years.

Approximately two-thirds of South Australians are dog and cat owners, meaning that there are nearly 3,000 dogs registered in the state. Whilst the vast majority do the right thing and care for their pets, there are irresponsible pet owners who, essentially, provide a broad risk to the community on a number of levels. The mistreatment of animals is clearly a threat to the welfare of those animals, but it is also a threat to other animals, both domesticated animals and native fauna. Humane treatment of all animals is a shared value of civilised societies. Irresponsible pet ownership also impacts on the amenity of local communities, the natural environment, and the local ecosystems we rely on.

Accordingly, measures which promote the proper care of animals, such as the Dog and Cat Management Act, are well established and broadly supported. To put this into further perspective, the management of dogs and cats in our communities has evolved since the act was introduced in 1995, and I think it is important that the act reflects the changing landscape of the management of pets. The higher number of dogs and cats being euthanased and the illegal practices of puppy and kitten farms are two contributing factors to why it is so important that this act evolves.

Ten thousand dogs and cats are euthanased in South Australia every year. Dogs and cats are an important part of family life, and for the vast majority the welfare of these pets is paramount. However, as is always the way, a small percentage often spoil it for the majority. Some may argue that this bill is a paternalistic measure that impedes the rights of pet owners. It is the Liberal Party's view, on the other hand, that it puts in place necessary and appropriate controls that manage the risk of irresponsible pet ownership without unnecessarily impeding the enjoyment of pet owners. Our view is that this bill is well overdue.

It is also important to note the contribution of the late Hon. Bob Such to animal welfare and to this act. In 2006, Dr Such introduced the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Commercial Breeding of Companion Animals) Amendment Bill 2006 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2006. Dr Such introduced the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Welfare) Amendment Bill in 2008. He then initiated the select committee on dogs and cats as companion animals, and this was convened in 2012 after tabling the Animal Welfare (Commercial Breeding of Companion Animals) Amendment Bill in November of that year. It was the first step in arriving where we are today with this amended act on the table.

The select committee was established and received input from 124 individuals, 34 organisations, and 10 breeders. The committee reported in July 2013, and 11 key recommendations were made. Some of the key recommendations were to improve welfare standards in the breeding of companion animals, increase purchaser confidence in the source of their companion animals, reduce the number of surrendered animals and, by extension, euthanasia numbers, and increase public awareness of animal welfare issues and owner responsibilities. I acknowledge the quality bipartisan work of the members of this committee.

Despite extensive calls from the community urging this current Weatherill government to act on the recommendations of the select committee, no action had occurred during the period that followed the recommendations. In the context of the government's lack of action, the Hon. Michelle Lensink in another place introduced the Animal Welfare (Companion Animals) Amendment Bill in September 2014. I understand that the Dog and Cat Management Board was tasked by the government with developing a bill.

A citizens' jury of 35 South Australians was established and undertook consultation in 2015. The jury received advice from animal welfare organisations, local councils, academics, veterinarians and government representatives about issues including, but not limited to, dog attacks, feral cat management, compulsory desexing and the number of cats and dogs euthanased in animal shelters. I am advised that over 1,800 submissions were received. The citizens' jury made the following recommendations:

firstly, that there be greater coordination of educational programs about responsible pet ownership, including the introduction of an online test;

legislation to encourage more acceptance of tenants with dogs and cats;

compulsory desexing of new generations of dogs and cats;

legislation to restrict the sale of dogs and cats from pet stores;

a proposal for a trial of a trap, neuter, release project;

mandatory registration and licensing of dog and cat breeders; and

a centrally-managed, statewide database for microchip data for dogs and cats.

The proposed trial of a trap, neuter, release project was not supported by the government. The government says it will investigate legislation to restrict the sale of dogs and cats from pet stores and encourage more acceptance of tenants with dogs and cats. I am advised that the other four recommendations are supported by the government.

On 18 November 2015, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation finally introduced the state government's response to the select committee in the form of a Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2015. The bill seeks to amend the Dog and Cat Management Act and make related amendments to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, the Equal Opportunity Act and the Major Events Act.

The government's bill implements a combination of the select committee's recommendations and the recommendations made by the citizens' jury. There are some differences between the Hon. Michelle Lensink's bill and the government's bill. In summary, they are that the Hon. Michelle Lensink's bill included enforceable standards for the breeding of companion animals by regulation. The government alternatively proposes to implement that through a code of practice currently being developed.

The Hon. Michelle Lensink's bill provided for a licensing scheme for breeders, subject to a range of conditions which could be revoked or suspended. The bill would make it an offence to breed or mate companion animals without a breeder's license. The Hon. Ms Lensink's bill was based on select committee recommendations; however, after the bill was introduced, she consulted with relevant stakeholders and was considering amendments based on this consultation. The government's bill does not include a licensing scheme for breeders; rather, breeders will be required to be registered and adhere to the code of practice.

The Hon. Michelle Lensink's bill required animal welfare organisations to be approved by the minister. The government's bill does not include this; however, mandatory standards for the knowledge, competency and skills of staff would be incorporated into a pet trade code currently being developed. The Hon. Michelle Lensink's bill proposed that the minister provide general exemptions for desexing, registration and so forth. The government's bill allows the Dog and Cat Management Board to provide exemptions through regulation.

The Hon. Ms Lensink's bill proposed to make it illegal to sell an animal unless it was vaccinated and wormed, and the government will require, by regulation, sellers to provide buyers with written information on vaccinations and other treatments given to the animal. The Hon. Michelle Lensink has undertaken consultation following the introduction of the Animal Welfare (Companion Animals) Amendment Bill and following the release of the Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2015. The honourable member again sought feedback from interested parties.

It is often the role of local councils not only to help mitigate damage through the promotion of responsible pet ownership but to deal with the ramifications when such standards are not met. The capacity of local councils to provide suitable welfare centres for abandoned and/or abused animals is becoming increasingly strained, and sadly many animals are euthanased each year as a consequence of neglect.

In an attempt to reduce these pressures, the Liberal team endorses the proposed amendments to the act put forward in this bill, which will ease the administrative burden placed on councils. In turn, this will reduce the heavy demand on animal shelters, minimise waste and, most importantly, save a significant number of animals from preventable suffering. The proposed changes to registration will remove unnecessary complications in the administration of the act within councils. The new system will encourage dog owners to take active precautions, offering discounts to owners whose pets are both microchipped and desexed.

Additionally, the proposed system will reduce complexities, decreasing the number of registration categories from eight down to two. Any dogs that are not desexed will fall under the non-standard category and their owners will pay higher registration fees. As the mandatory desexing rule comes into effect this will become one category—a 'standard dog'—which is a microchipped and desexed dog, or an exempted dog. This will be a significant step towards simplifying the current system without any cost to its efficiency. Paradoxically, the impracticality of monitoring the training of dogs has rendered the previous rebate for trained dogs ineffective and it is abolished in this bill.

Again, the Liberal Party similarly supports the proposed amendments to sections 5 and 6, which amalgamate dog and cat management. The establishment of a single officer identification and the subsequent abandonment of the requirement of council employees to hold separate authorisation as dog management officers and cat management officers will remove unnecessary administrative barriers for councils in responding to relevant threats.

It is important to remember that the desexing of a domestic animal reaps benefits, not only in controlling populations but through addressing hormone-related nuisance behaviours. The opposition acknowledges the work of the citizens' jury in relation to mandatory desexing, and it is anticipated that the ramifications of this amendment will support a decrease in animal welfare admission rates as well as help to tame the cat overpopulation. Additionally, desexing can prevent hormonal wandering and aggression, creating a safer environment and, importantly, a safer environment for pets.

Although I understand that there will be parties who are concerned about the amendments, it is important to remember that the exemptions will apply through certification by a veterinary surgeon that certain dog owners can be exempted from desexing their animal, with reasonable allowance made for working dogs, greyhounds and security dogs. Exemptions in relation to specific breeds can also be considered until a certain age.

Regrettably, the existence of cat and puppy farms, interested solely in economic gain at the exploitation of animal welfare, is also an unwanted strain on our society. The government's bill makes it illegal to sell a dog or a cat that a person has bred unless the breeder is registered as a breeder. Registered breeders are required to adhere to a code of practice. In requiring all breeders to be registered with the Dog and Cat Management Board, the proposed amendments allow councils to monitor breeders in the area more effectively, in turn alerting them to any emerging problems.

This provision will enable the government and the community to be aware of where breeders are located, and if an offence is committed prosecution will be facilitated. I am advised that the government intends to implement a statewide breeder database but no time frame has been given. The aim is to stamp out puppy farm operators who are currently difficult to locate as companion animals are often sold in public places and cannot be tracked. Breeder registration revenue will be paid into the Dog and Cat Management Fund and used to administer the breeder registration and conduct compliance activities. The government allows the board to keep a register relating to microchipped and desexed dogs and cats.

The Liberal opposition was looking to amend the legislation to specifically exempt working dogs from being desexed. The government has recognised this concern and has proposed that provisions be included in the regulations. The Dog and Cat Management Board has been working with Livestock SA, the South Australian Working Sheepdog Association and the South Australian Yard Dogs Association to determine an appropriate definition of a working dog. The board has indicated that it prefers the definition used in the Queensland legislation, a definition which I understand is also used in New Zealand.

In 2012, the select committee made the distinction between companion animals and working dogs, and members of that committee were of the understanding that working dogs would not be captured by the proposed regime. The Hon. Michelle Lensink again consulted with the working dog community following the introduction of her bill. Generally, the working dog community was supportive of such a scheme, which would ensure that appropriate checks and balances were in place.

Support was given under the proviso that exemptions would be permitted for desexing and, once implemented, would be workable. Livestock SA, the South Australian Working Sheepdog Association and the South Australian Yard Dogs Association all confirmed extensive involvement in formulating an appropriate definition of working dogs and fully supported the Queensland definition. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire tabled amendments in February which will provide full exemption for working dogs. The definition of 'working dogs' was not supported by the working dog community over the definition formulated by the board, in our view, and I understand that the board does not support the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendments.

The Liberal Party has considered both alternatives and resolved to support the use of the Queensland definition. We are also of the view that the issue is one that is appropriately dealt with in the legislation rather than the regulations, so I foreshadow an amendment to that effect. Working dogs are not an area where practices are rapidly evolving such that a definition could become rapidly redundant, so we believe that a statutory definition is both appropriate and workable.

The government's bill includes increasing the expiations and penalties. The Dog and Cat Management Board is advocating, with the support of the Local Government Association, to remove expiations and penalties and place them within the regulations. This, it is argued, would allow the board to update them every three to five years rather than having to convince parliament to reopen the act and review them.

The Dog and Cat Management Board has suggested that there is an option to give power under the bill to increase the cost of fines through regulation. It is suggesting that at least a rise of CPI annually would be suitable. The minister has said that he has no preference either way as to whether there is the power in the bill to increase fines without having to open the bill each time he increases the fines.

The proposed increases to maximum fines for offences under the bill have increased substantially, due to the bill not being reviewed for the last 20 years. The proposed increase in fines is on par with fines for similar offences in other states. Again, the Liberal Party considers that fines should appropriately be in the bill so that they are amenable to parliamentary oversight. The Liberal Party has filed amendments which prescribe the maximum fines, as suggested, without CPI increases. That will allow the bill to be reviewed every five years when any further fine increases are considered.

While the opposition regrets the unnecessary delay in this legislation coming before the parliament, we acknowledge the work done by many stakeholders to make this the best bill it could be. We trust that in the years ahead we will see the benefit of this bill in terms of better treatment of domesticated animals and native fauna, the amenity of local communities and the protection of our natural environment.

Following the release of the Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2015, the Hon. Michelle Lensink again sought feedback from interested and affected parties, and some parties did express concern regarding the following:

increased expiation fees, including 'dog wandering at large' (currently $80, draft proposal $315) and other administrative offences. The Liberal Party has been in the media arguing against the increase to wandering dogs and, as a result, it has been reduced to $210;

working dogs and other service dogs should not be included in compulsory desexing;

some cats groups and interested parties indicated opposition against compulsory desexing and microchipping;

regulations have not yet been drafted; and

no allocation of funding for a statewide microchipping and desexing register.

The Dog and Cat Management Board also suggested that there was an option to give power under the bill to increase the cost of fines through regulation. They were suggesting that a rise by at least CPI annually would be suitable.

The proposed increases to maximum fines for offences under the bill have increased substantially due to the bill not having been reviewed for the last 20 years. In fact, through the opposition and the community's concern, the state government revised its initial fines proposal and, in its amendment bill, the proposed increases in fines are, we believe, now on par with fines for similar offences in other states.

My contribution has reflected that there has been significant consultation. The Hon. Michelle Lensink in another place has done a fine job. She did take some maternity leave during the consultation on the bill and at the time of this bill being introduced into the upper house, and we thank the Hon. Stephen Wade for stepping in to manage the passage of the bill through the Legislative Council.

It is a sensible amendment bill. The Dog and Cat Management Act is long overdue for amendment. It has been 20 years since we have seen any form of movement in regard to the management of dogs and cats. We cannot continue to see the massive numbers of dogs and cats that are being euthanased in South Australia. The dog and cat breeders must be held to account. We are seeing too much piracy.

To my mind, the crossbreeding is very scary. Dogs and cats are being purpose-bred, in some cases for fighting or for breed heights and sizes, for hide shapes and colours, head shapes and all sorts. The by-product of that is many unwanted animals and many animals that are deformed or misshapen and really should not be part of today's society. I know a number of members would like to make a contribution. I look forward to that, but I would like to see the reasonably smooth passage of the Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (15:57): I rise to speak in favour of the government's bill to amend the Dog and Cat Management Act. Throughout the seat of Fisher, we have a number of very committed animal activists and fauna rescue officers, none more vital to our wildlife than the amazing Bev Langley. Bev operates Minton Farm in Cherry Gardens which I have spoken of in this place previously.

Minton Farm has been caring for and rehabilitating sick animals since 1992. On the goodwill of the community, grants and volunteer time, Minton Farm reaches out, shelters and provides veterinary assistance to animals from right across the state. Bev will tell you herself that one of the biggest problems she faces is wildlife maimed and damaged by feral wild animals, namely, cats. My late mother was a collector of strays. My late father made friends with the local birds and took great pleasure in gaining their trust.

We had a house full of tea towels and pens and we always used greeting cards from a variety of worthy animal-related causes. I was indoctrinated into loving and being kind to animals. We were taught to respect and be kind, and it started a lifelong commitment to protecting our furred and feathered friends which has seen me take up a patron role recently with Labor for Animals. I look forward to influencing policy via this group, along with the member for Little Para, who is also a patron.

I am especially proud to support this bill because it continues the very important work of the former member for Fisher, the late Dr Bob Such, which was pursued throughout his entire political career. Dr Such was committed to the protection and safety of all animals. He often spoke in this house in favour of the good work this government was doing to improve the welfare of animals. I know that Dr Such spoke passionately about the religious slaughter of animals in 2011, rising to support the Minister for Agriculture's legislative amendments that ensured that all animals slaughtered in South Australian slaughterhouses were stunned prior to being killed.

Dr Such was also very passionate about the protection of companion animals and appalled at the growing trend of the puppy and kitten farms in South Australia. His work on the 2013 Select Committee on Dogs and Cats as Companion Animals was instrumental in informing the bill that is before us today. In many ways, the recommendations of the select committee form the basis for the reforms outlined in the government's bill, but in many ways, too, this bill goes further than the select committee's recommendations. The three key reforms of this bill are: mandatory desexing, microchipping, and breeder registration. These same themes can be found in the recommendations of the select committee.

The government believes there are good policy reasons for the desexing of both dogs and cats. This would help reduce the number of unwanted dogs and cats that are euthanased every year, clearly. In addition, we know that desexing also decreases the likelihood of some nuisance behaviours, such as hormone-driven aggression and wandering. The select committee also recommended that dogs and cats be microchipped, and I am pleased to see that this bill proposes that.

As for the breeder registration scheme in this bill, I note that the beginnings of this scheme can be found in the select committee's recommendations for breeders' licences. The select committee recommended that breeders' licence numbers appear in all advertising for dogs and cats and highlighted the importance of education about dog and cat ownership, particularly around responsible pet ownership. This amendment bill proposes that dog or cat breeders selling animals need to register as a breeder with the Dog and Cat Management Board. A breeder registration number will be required at the point of sale in addition to the animal's microchip number.

Like Dr Such before me, I want this government, and indeed our entire society, to do everything in its power to improve conditions for dogs and cats and promote good dog and cat ownership. On behalf of the constituents of Fisher and for the Hon. Dr Such, I therefore strongly commend this bill to the house.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:02): I will be very brief. I know that there will be several speakers from both sides of the house who will make very fulsome and informed contributions. I appreciate that they are doing so on behalf of themselves and also on behalf of our respective sides in this chamber. I will not go into great detail myself, other than to say that I do support the bill and the key issues with regard to the registration of animals and of breeders of microchipping and desexing, unless there is a good reason not to. Of course, one of those good reasons is if a person is a registered and responsible breeder.

What I want to talk about for just a few minutes is the other very good reason not to, that is, with regard to working animals. As a member of parliament representing country and outback areas, I know extremely well how important working dogs are to primary production businesses. I think it is entirely appropriate that working dogs have been excluded from the requirement for automatic desexing. I would like to thank the many people in my electorate who approached me on this over the last few years that this has been dealt with by this parliament, this issue in various forms, whether it is in a bill, in committee or in broader discussion.

It would not have been practical at all to require people on farms or stations to desex their working dogs if they were not registered breeders. These people have no commercial interest in being a registered breeder, but they have a very sensible practical interest in being a responsible breeder on a very small scale for their own and for their neighbours' appropriate purposes.

By that, I mean that the people I know, surrounding where I live and also throughout my electorate, work pretty responsibly with each other. If there is a good dog and a good bitch and they are a good match for each other, and if there is a need for another generation of working dogs in that region, they get together. It is not a moneymaking venture, it is not a puppy farm. It is not a way to try to benefit in any way from the breeding of animals, other than the fact that you and your neighbour might need one or two more dogs and that if you get together and work it out in a very sensible and responsible way you can benefit.

To be quite blunt, the dogs will benefit as well because these dogs are bred to work and they are better off if they work. In a home/primary production business environment, where they are treated well and fed well, kept warm and dry and trained to do the job they are intended to do, through their genetic background, that is entirely appropriate. I support the bill. I thank other speakers who will make comments on the bill, and I highlight how important it is that working dogs are dealt with responsibly.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (16:05): I will follow the example of the member for Stuart and be very brief as well. It was one of the pleasures of my life—and that is not overstating the fact—to be on the select committee that did some work with companion animals, chaired very, very well by the now Minister for Education. I am very much pleased that the recommendations that came out from this particular committee have found their way into the bill we now have before us.

I also want to pay tribute to the work that has been undertaken over many years by the Dog and Cat Management Board. They are very good people and very sound thinkers, and they know a lot about all aspects of animals and husbandry, but in particular about companion animals. So I put on the record the outstanding work they have done over an extended period of time in this particular area.

Like you, Deputy Speaker, I am a dog lover. I was once very offended that when you looked at our dogs—who happen to be Cavalier King Charles spaniels—and you said, 'They're not dogs, you would hardly call them a dog.' Of course they are, they are the most beautiful dogs. We walk them down the beach, every day they get down the beach. I get there mostly on weekends but occasionally take them down when Annabel goes to work on Tuesday or Wednesday mornings for a short period of time—and one of the greatest ways to meet people is by meeting other people who own dogs down at the beach. You get know their dogs first, and then after a period of time—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, no; that does not occur. You get to know these people down the beach and then they will say, 'Oh, that happens to be Annabel, Moby's mum.'

Ms Digance interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Your dog, that's right. You know the mums and dads of these dogs before you get to know the people's names. You get to meet the dogs first and then you actually meet them. It is a great atmosphere down there, where dogs are socialised.

However, as the member for Chaffey interjected ever so slightly, from time to time there are some problems. You see some dogs down there that you know should not be let off the lead; they are scary. They scare me and they scare some of the dogs that are there, and, quite rightly, these dogs should not be let off the lead. Sometimes they are, and they do create a problem. I think these are dogs that need to be the subject of some form of—how do you say this in a nice way—temperament control.

We know that temperament control can be done through neutering and, as I understand it, it is also dependent on the stage at which the dogs have been neutered. With Moby, our most beautiful Cavalier King Charles—and he is a king of a dog—we did not desex him very early. We thought we might be able to breed from him, and his sons and daughters, if he ever had them, would have been beautiful. We got him desexed much later and we wish now that we had done it a lot earlier because it would have been a lot better for him.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Did he get a say?

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, he did not get a say. I would let him off the lead, and when he got a sniff I can tell you that he could run three kilometres down the road to get back to that young, attractive female dog. It would nearly kill me, trying to go and get him. So we wish we had done that earlier, but not only for that reason in particular: I understand that some of the health benefits of an early neutering, if you are not going to breed them, can be most beneficial for those dogs.

I am not an expert in this area, but from the limited information that I have—and I can tell members right now that I have visited the Dog and Cat Management Board meeting a couple of times—and my understanding is that not only are there health benefits, it will also improve the temperament of dogs.

With cats, it is a different matter. I will state here that I am not a cat lover. I can tolerate them and I know that will probably create a problem with some people. I do not like cats, but I respect that some people do and I respect and support their right to have a cat. I have had lots of cats during my life but I much prefer dogs, but I also believe and have always believed that the desexing of cats should be mandatory, as it should be for dogs.

I know that from an environmental perspective, it is more likely that cats will create a greater level of damage than dogs ever will. When we were growing up, mum would say, 'Where are you going?' I would say, 'I'm going down to the beach, I'm going to the oval, and I'll be home before the sun sets.' Well, in those days we used to let the dogs out, be home for dinner, and they would always be home for dinner. Life has changed; that does not happen anymore. Dogs are under a greater level of control than they have ever been at any other time of our lives.

The difference is that cats are not necessarily in that category. There are responsible cat owners; even those who allow their cats outside would believe they are responsible cat owners. However, I think we need to manage the impact of cats, and the management of cats, in a different way from the way we have in the past, and that is why I support a move to make sure that we do that through restricting the manner by which they continue to breed.

I support this bill and I think it has been a long time coming. I heard the member for Chaffey's comments about exemptions for working dogs. I support that, but I also understand that we will be accepting the positions that were put in the upper house, and that is already in place. It is not really a worry at all now, and that makes a lot of sense. I think this bill is a quantum leap forward.

I congratulate all those who have been involved with it. I congratulate the parliament for the support that I understand this bill is going to receive. I also congratulate the leadership that has been shown by the Dog and Cat Management Board on this issue and lots of issues before this and those that they will be putting to government in the future. I apologise to anyone who is going to misinterpret the words that I said about cats. I hope it is not being misinterpreted. Just because I do not own a cat does not mean that I do not respect a person's right to own a cat.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: What? Dig a deeper hole? When you compare them to dogs there is no comparison, in my view. This bill is not just about dogs, it is about both dogs and cats, and it is a good move and a good step forward. I am sure this act will continue to evolve over time when people see that the changes that are being made by this bill are making, not even a jot of difference to their ownership but an improvement, and that will give us the mechanism by which we can go forward even further, if that is the determination of this place. With those words, thank you very much.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:13): Dog and cat management has obviously been part of my life for many years as a humble veterinarian out there trying to do his best for his clients. To be part of the select committee into dog and cat management was a great pleasure, along with the member for Mawson, the member for Port Adelaide, the member for Hammond, the then member for Mitchell and, of course, the late member for Fisher the Hon. Bob Such.

When I first came into this place, one of the things I promised my veterinary colleagues was that I would do whatever I could to advance animal welfare. I remember I introduced a private member's bill to amend legislation to ban the tail docking of dogs in South Australia. Many of my colleagues to this day say they have never received as much feedback from their constituents; some are vehemently against it, but the vast majority of people are in support of it.

Animal welfare is a huge issue for us nowadays and people are very passionate about it. To that extent, I still have a letter from the then government whip, Robyn Geraghty, congratulating me on being the first opposition backbencher in the over 100-year history of this parliament (or whatever it was) to have government legislation time put aside for a private member's bill. That is how passionate people are about animal welfare. Both sides knew that I was on a winner. Mind you, having said that, I was warned not to go to the Royal Show that year because there were some dog breeders who wanted to do some desexing on me.

There was a need to push the point that this was all about animal welfare, so I went along to the Royal Show, with the Channel 2 team in tow, and we had a wonderful discussion with an English dog judge. She was livid, but then there is karma in life because her next job was to judge Rottweiler puppies under six months and every one of them had a long tail. I just stood back and had a quiet smile—not gloating, but because we did what was right. This legislation should be aimed at doing, that is, what is right for dogs and cats.

Dogs and cats get into your lives, and everybody here who has had a dog or a cat—and I know the member for Colton said that he was not really passionate about cats, but he understood how people could be passionate about them—well know that people grieve more for their pets than they do for their relatives. It is well known that people spend more time looking after their pets than sometimes they do looking after other family members. I remember a lady brought her dog to me to be examined for a particular problem and she said, 'You can put the kids down; just don't put the dog down.' She was obviously being facetious, but people are very passionate about their dogs and cats.

There is an old veterinary line that dogs have owners and cats have staff. One of the problems we have in Australia is that dogs tend to treat their family as a member of the pack. Hopefully, there is an alpha dog and the dog, the four-legged creature, is not the alpha dog. You see that happen on many occasions. I remember one client who was put in hospital three times by his Rottweiler, but he could not understand that there was something wrong with that relationship.

People are so forgiving about the way their pets rule their lives. They cannot go to bed or they cannot sit on the lounge if the dog is on the lounge or the dog is on their bed, or if the dog is on the bed and they move the dog will growl at them. That sort of relationship is wrong, and yet I understand how passionate people are about their pets. As vets, we often say that the definition of a feral cat is a cat that is outside a lounge room. The problem with cats is that, while they occasionally enjoy the company of other cats, and they certainly appreciate the company of their owners, there is always something in it for the cat.

Cats give a lot of pleasure to a lot of people, and the health benefits of owning a pet are well known. The moment you pat a dog or even sit down and talk to a dog, it is well known that your heart rate drops and your blood pressure drops. Owning a pet is a really healthy thing to do. The problem with cats, though, is that they are such independent creatures. In fact, most dogs know their owners better than the owners know themselves. Cats are way ahead of people. They have psyched their owners out, and that is why I say that dogs have owners and cats have staff'.

We need to make sure that we recognise that cats are quite solitary creatures and they do want to wander around and inspect their range and their territory. This causes great grief to many people, and certainly if those cats are undesexed it can cause all sorts of problems. The range of the average cat, the domestic moggy that comes in at night for a feed, is about four acres. I should say that when they come inside for a feed you cannot always be certain that it is your cat.

I remember a cat coming into the clinic that had been in a brawl and we treated it for an abscess. There was no obvious treatment, but we lanced the abscess; it had gone down and left a bit of a hole where the abscess had sinused, and we gave it some injections. The next day, the neighbours of these people brought the same cat to me saying that their cat had been in a fight. I said, 'Hang on, this is so-and-so's cat,' and they said, 'No, it's our cat.' This cat had adopted these two families. Cats are pretty smart like that, but in the process they are wandering around the district and they are doing some damage—quite a bit of damage in some cases.

I am not sure of the actual number of wild dogs we have in Australia—perhaps some of my rural members, the member for Stuart or the member for Hammond, can educate me here—but it would be in the tens of thousands, I would imagine.

Mr Pederick: Tens of thousands.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Most of those are dingo crosses. The most astounding figure is the number of wild cats we have in Australia. In a good year, a year of no droughts and plenty of feed, it is estimated that there are 60 million wild cats out there. In a drought year, it drops down to about 10 million. Those cats are not your domestic moggy. Remember, if those cats were four times the size they are now, they would be eating us. They would be like a lion or the size of a puma, a mountain lion—and that is pretty scary. When I worked at Perth Zoo as a student I was in with the mountain lions, and when they are not far away from you it is pretty scary to know that an animal like that could eat you, and wild cats will do that.

Wild cats are growing enormously, with the hybrid vigour that is developing, the crossbreeding and the amount of food they are eating now. It is really a disturbing thing to see. When millions of cats are eating the native flora and fauna, they are doing serious damage. So, anything we can do to reduce the number of wild cats and wild dogs out there and manage the domestic cat population is something we should be aiming for.

Can I just put on the record, before I go too much further and forget to do this, that my daughter, Dr Sahra McFetridge, is a veterinarian who works at the RSPCA. Sahra is currently in the United States on a study tour looking at animal shelters and the management of shelters so that we can reduce the numbers of animals that are being euthanased in animal shelters. She is also looking at how to improve the number of animals being rehomed more quickly and at all the ways we manage animals when they are locked up together, so disease management, nutritional management, a whole range of things. That is what is happening in South Australia through the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League and other groups, and I am very proud that my daughter is part of that process.

The need to manage the number of dogs and cats that are in domestic bliss, shall we say, living in people's homes, is something that we need to be very aware of. Some people out there are breeding dogs with gay abandon. They have no concern about the numbers they are breeding. I saw a documentary last night about a lady who had 41 dogs, and she only had 41 dogs because that was the number that could be kept under the council regulations. In most cases, our council regulations limit it to three dogs, and that is quite an acceptable number. Depending on how big those dogs are and how you treat them, that could be a pretty cosy house.

The number of cats is not restricted. We register dogs, we microchip dogs, and we encourage people to desex dogs. Certainly, it is the same sort of thing with cats. There is a real need now to start tracking the number of cats we have in domestic residences that are people's pets. The number of wild cats along our beaches and in our suburbs would astound people. One of the recommendations of the citizens' jury was to trial the capture, neutering and release of wild cats. 'Neuter' is the American term for desexing, and in this case it was a straight-up castration or a spay. I like to use the English spelling of 'spey', s-p-e-y, not the American s-p-a-y, having been trained in the old school.

Catching these wild cats and castrating the males and spaying the females through an ovariohysterectomy (taking out the ovaries and the uterus) and then releasing them, to me, is the wrong thing to do. The advocates of this say that if these cats are put down they will just be replaced by other cats. Well, hang on, no, not if you keep removing them, if you keep constantly at it. They do not breed that quickly. Cats do breed very quickly. They are what is known as seasonally polyoestrous, so as soon as the length of the days start to increase, the females (the queens) will start to come into season. When cats mate, they ovulate, so just about every mating is going to result in a conception.

Cats will produce four, five or six kittens per litter, and they can do two or three litters per season, so they can reproduce quite quickly but, if you keep catching them—and, unfortunately, these cats, in 99 per cent of cases are not suitable for being rehomed—then euthanasing them, you are not only giving the local environment and the local native fauna a huge benefit but the public health also benefits from that because there are some zoonotic diseases that cats carry—not just fleas and worms but also toxoplasmosis. Some of these zoonotic diseases are a serious threat to the residents of South Australia under some circumstances.

Controlling the numbers of dogs and cats is something this bill aims to do. We should always be aiming to do that. The way we do that, though, is by the licensing, or registering in this case, of breeders, which I think is a good thing. There is a need to make sure that those breeders know what they are about and know their responsibilities.

I had a guy who was breeding St Bernards, who openly admitted to me that he was breeding them so he could pay off the mortgage of his house. He was not treating those dogs, particularly the pregnant bitches, in the way I thought he should, and in the end I started charging him quite considerably for what he considered his pleasure. I thought he should have had a little bit of pain in the process to try to educate him about how important it was that he look after his dogs because he was not doing that. He kept bringing them back to me. It was good for business but not good for the dogs. We need to regulate the breeding industry, and this legislation goes a long way towards that.

Exempting working dogs and livestock dogs is part of this, and the member for Hammond will talk more about that. The controlling of cats, and not only restricting their wandering but also restricting their prolific breeding in some cases, is something we need to do. This bill does not go as far as I would like it to in making some of those recommendations of the citizens' jury and also the select committee more forceful. There is a lot of detail that we need to get out of this bill that is hidden in the regulations. I have not seen any draft regulations yet. I would love to have seen the draft regulations.

The bill is about management. It is about having dog and cat management plans, which is great. I hope they are going to be reviewed as often as they say. The bill is about having authorised officers. I just wonder whether veterinarians are going to be part of those authorised officers. I remember that the former member for Stuart, Graham Gunn, used to go on and on in here about the powers of authorised officers. I still have some issues with that because I know of a recent case where an authorised council officer went onto a property to look at a bushfire prevention issue and then found some other things that were thought to be wrong and reported this person to the council.

This act, as other acts should, states that officers are 'authorised persons for the purposes of this Act'. Authorised officers should not feel that they have a badge on their arm and can go and do whatever they like. Some of these authorised officers often have more powers than police officers. I hope that an authorised officer, under this legislation, is going to be a veterinarian. I hope that the groups that are going to be authorised under this will include such organisations as the Animal Welfare League and the RSPCA.

I see there is a definition of a 'standard dog or cat'. I do not think there is such a thing as a standard dog or cat, but the lawyers have some way of working out what a standard dog or cat is. I do not think any owner would say that there is a standard dog or cat.

I am concerned that the insertion of section 21B states: 'The Board may keep a register relating to the microchipping and desexing of dogs'. I would rather have that read that the board 'will' because what is the point if we do not have these registers set up? We need to be able to track these dogs and not have four or five different microchip registers, as we have had in the past. We need to have one central register that perhaps coordinates these others so that, if your dog is lost, or if your cat is trapped by somebody and then taken to be put down, it is microchipped, the chip is there, and we know whose it is straightaway.

There is a need to make sure that the plans of management related to dogs and cats are open to public consultation. They should be there as well, and I think that we need to make sure that we are well and truly across those who do want to breed. To show the family that this is what nature is about, that this is about the birds and the bees, is a good thing. We should not be eliminating that, so I think that there are opportunities in here for a family to have their dog or their cat, their bitch or their queen, have a litter of puppies.

With respect to the desexing definitions in this bill, I have had a number of discussions with a lot of people about this. I am still a registered veterinary surgeon and I have spoken to a lot of my veterinary colleagues about what they are considering here. I know that the definition the government wants to bring in is quite a tight definition; it is not used very often around the place. I have a lot of sympathy with it because, even though it is only a small improvement, there is an improvement in the number of animals that calm down, that are not as aggressive.

If we can reduce the number of dog attacks each year, that would be a good thing, and there are thousands of them. You can see those reported in the Dog and Cat Management Board's annual report—thousands and thousands of attacks. We can reduce that number by reducing that aggression, and one of the best ways of reducing that aggression is by desexing.

If you have ever handled a stroppy tomcat—and I have castrated thousands of tomcats—they can be pretty stroppy. I remember one tomcat launched itself out of a cage at me and latched onto my leg. As I picked it up off my leg it started chewing into my arm. By that time, fortunately, I was close enough to open up the cage and place the tomcat back in the cage—perhaps not as gently as I might normally do—and I was able to slam the door as the tomcat was coming at me for another go. It knew that it did not want to be there and I was going to be the person it did not want to be with. You do not want to be with a tomcat that is really aggressive. If you get bitten by any cat, you want to be very wary about that.

However, with respect to the definition of desexing, I think that at this stage I need to rely on the ability and training of my veterinary colleagues to make that choice, whether a castration is the right thing to do for a male. A vasectomy is not going to remove the testicles, it is obviously just removing the tube that goes from the testicles to the penis so that sperm can come out. An ovariohysterectomy is removing the ovaries and the uterus. Removing the uterus—doing a tubal ligation on the tubes that carry the egg from the ovary to the uterus—is something that is considered. That is stopping the reproduction. It is not really desexing the animal that way, but it does control them.

There are a lot of chemicals coming into the process now that will stop reproduction. It is not, in my mind, desexing the animal. If, in the opinion of the veterinary surgeon, though, that is the best thing to do for that particular patient at that time, then I think we should be relying on the veterinary surgeons to make that decision. That is why I am more than happy to support the amendment that has been put in place. I have had a lot of thought about it, but I am trusting my veterinary colleagues to make that decision on their clinical practice when they see a particular patient.

The government, I understand, wants to go back to the original definition. I hope that it does not insist on that because I think there is room. Ninety-nine per cent of dogs and cats are still going to be castrated or spayed, or have an ovariohysterectomy, so let us not get tied up in knots over this, but let us make sure that we do what we want to do, and that is manage the population, manage the behaviour and manage the people who own dogs and cats.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:33): I rise to speak to the Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2015. As the member for Morphett has indicated, I was a part of the select committee into companion animals. The member for Morphett was on the committee, as was the Minister for Education, the late Bob Such (who brought this to the house) and the former member for Mitchell.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And me.

Mr PEDERICK: And the Deputy Speaker, sorry. I am doing this off spec, without notes, so forgive me, Deputy Speaker, the member for Florey. There is a whole range of issues that have to be managed in relation to dogs and cats. It is one of those issues, even though generally it is a council-managed issue in an electorate, it is amazing how many calls come into an electorate office about. I am sure that would be the case right across the board. It does not matter what party or group you represent or if you are an Independent, I am sure every electorate office has their dog and cat calls that come in.

Some councils have become far more proactive in how they manage cats especially. I know the Rural City of Murray Bridge has got on board with microchipping programs, which are part of this bill, to sort through a cat issue in the local area. It is good to see most councils taking up their full responsibilities under the Dog and Cat Management Act. In regard to the desexing of animals and that kind of thing, something needs to be done so that we can manage the populations into the future. You do not want to be over-run because that brings up a whole heap of health problems and management problems, to name just a couple of areas.

Sadly, a couple of years ago I had to put our pet cat down when he had an injury, because we have a fairly hard policy on the farm. We picked up our next cat, Spooky 2, from the Animal Welfare League. I think we had to spend about $195 and I thought, 'That's a fair bit to pay for a cat,' but then I realised it was desexed, microchipped, the whole box and dice, and we were doing it properly. He has become a great cat. In fact, he is a bit like a homing pigeon. We lost him for five days around Christmas and I thought he had left the building completely, but one morning at about 5.30 he turned up scratching the back window, so he did a great job in finding his way home.

I want to talk about issues around assistance dogs, which are part of this bill. The bill talks about the groups that can accredit assistance dogs. The groups that are the prescribed accreditation bodies are: the Dog and Cat Management Board, the Royal Society for the Blind of South Australia, the Guide Dogs Association of South Australia and Northern Territory Incorporated, Lions Hearing Dogs Incorporated, and any other person or body declared by the regulations to be a prescribed accreditation body.

An issue was raised recently in regard to a residential aged-care village in my electorate. I am involved with it and there is an issue, because pets are not allowed to be kept there, and that has been a rule for around 30 years. We had an issue where some people have moved in and said that they have a hearing dog. However, when we did the investigations we realised that it was not a hearing dog. It was used for the same benefit, but it was not accredited. It would have been fine if it was a fully accredited dog. That would have been no problem at all because it would have been exempt from any ruling, so we are working through and around the issues involved with that.

That example just goes to show that everyone needs to be aware of what is allowed and what is not allowed in regard to what you can have on a premises. Before people get a bit excited and say, 'You're infringing on my rights,' or this and that, what they need to understand is that we pass legislation in this place for a reason, and that reason is to try to make it as black and white as we can in regard to pet ownership and where you can have those pets and where you cannot.

I mentioned microchipping, and there are great moves being made around the place, and certainly a lot of local government sectors are getting on board. Some of the new local councillors, since the last council election, have got right on board to make sure their councils are doing the right thing in relation to microchipping; otherwise, you end up with so many stray cats especially around the place, which causes havoc and is not good enough for society as a whole. That is certainly a good thing that we need to keep on board.

The bill provides for desexing for all companion cats and dogs. Further on, the bill deals with the breeding and sale of dogs and cats and the registration of breeders and prescribes offences for breeders of dogs and cats who are not registered. I joined the Select Committee on Dogs and Cats As Companion Animals because I wanted to make sure that working dogs—or, according to the definition that will be moved in amendments today by the minister, livestock dogs—will be exempt because farmers do trade dogs between each other. Someone might have a good dog and they might want to put a bitch with that dog and get some really handy pups and sell them to a neighbour.

I was concerned and that is why I joined the committee. I am wondering whether the minister in either her summing up or at the committee stage, if we go into committee, can confirm whether or not livestock dogs will need to be microchipped. Obviously, they will need to be exempt from desexing; otherwise, there is not much point having them as part of the rural framework. As the member for Stuart indicated, they are such an asset to a farmer's life. You can have a good working dog that will beat three or four men—or women. Let's not be sexist.

The Hon. S.E. Close: Or five or six women.

Mr PEDERICK: No, I'm not going there. They can do a great job. They can run down the backs of sheep in the yards and save so much time. If you have a good dog, they can half think what the sheep, especially, are doing and get around them. There are good cattle livestock dogs that can do similar things. Cattle can be pretty ordinary beasts to handle at times, and you have to be on your toes. Some dogs have paid a fairly high price dealing with cattle, as have people in the rounding-up of cattle, as well.

They are a vital part of the landscape, whether you are on the inside country or the pastoral country, which is most of the country that the member for Stuart looks after. They are vital to the make-up and to make sure things work in rural areas. There are problems plaguing the state at the moment with the downturn of so many other industries, yet agriculture is holding up because beef is on a bit of a run at the minute and lamb is holding up quite well after quite a while in the limelight.

That is good to see because we have seen dairy basically collapse in the last few days under a global glut of milk. That is going to cause some real issues for our dairy farmers with Murray Goulburn and other companies reducing their contracts retrospectively. I have problems with that from the start. I am not sure how you can get away with that, but things will roll out in the next couple of months and we will see how that does pan out.

In regard to microchipping, desexing and the breeding and sale of livestock dogs, I would ask the minister to confirm in her remarks whether those issues are going to be dealt with as exemptions under the act itself or in regulations under the act. I just want to make sure that farmers and livestock owners have the opportunity to do what they have done for years, not necessarily as registered breeders.

Early in the piece, when this debate was going on—and it could have been nearly two years ago—I was starting to get some phone calls from registered sheepdog breeders saying, 'We are really concerned that we are getting caught up in this.' I am certainly concerned that mixed messages were coming from the different consultation meetings around the place. That is the main concern I have. All the other parts of the bill seem quite sensible for companion animals, but I must stress that livestock dogs are a whole other sphere that we need to make sure we keep so that we can make this great state operate. To be frank, I am not sure how you would police it any way if you made it so hard for livestock breeders to get their dogs.

I must make mention of people who are doing the right thing. One of my staff has a golden retriever. His name is Bear and he is four months old. I note that usually they are desexed at around six months, but he needed some surgery, so Bear woke up whole this morning but he is going to bed tonight missing a few bits. That is the right thing to do. He is a lovely golden retriever, and I am sure he will recover in the next couple of days. But this is all about—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He might be psychologically scarred.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, he may be psychologically scarred; I think his owner is slightly, but she will be fine and Bear will get over it. That is a small price to pay for responsible dog ownership, especially if you have a large dog like a golden retriever. I am sure he will have many happy years once he gets over this minor operation today.

I am keen to see this bill go through, but I am also very keen to hear what the minister has to say about exemptions for livestock dogs. I note that it has been carefully worded so that we do not get the wrong working dogs brought into the bill, or the act when it becomes an act, and it is quite clear that we are talking about livestock dogs. I am just seeking that clarity to make sure that sheep farmers and cattle farmers in this state are looked after and keep operating as they have done for many years.

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (16:47): I would also like to make a small contribution to this debate and welcome the government's finally presenting the long overdue legislation. I would like to acknowledge the many stakeholders who have made a contribution to the substance of this bill, including the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League, the Local Government Association, the Australian Veterinary Association and, of course, the many dog breeder associations. I also want to acknowledge Andrew Lamb, who is here in the chamber today, for all the work that he has been doing in this bit of legislation (and also for the umpiring he is going to do on Saturday).

In my small contribution, I want to highlight some of the outcomes of the committee and of the citizens' jury. One thing that strikes me about a lot of this legislation is that it seems to take so long from go to whoa to get it through this government, from when consultation starts to when we almost see legislation pass. The community has long urged the government to act in this matter, and I am not sure why it has taken so long. Of course, the Hon. Michelle Lensink in the other house introduced the Animal Welfare (Companion Animals) Amendment Bill in September 2014, and the government introduced its own bill only in November 2015, so we have been talking about this issue is for quite a while now.

This bill proposes a number of changes to the act, including mandatory desexing, mandatory microchipping and mandatory breeder registrations. Maintaining animal welfare is of course something that is very important to so many of us. This bill ensures that there are measures that protect animal wellbeing, and that is of course supported. Irresponsible pet owners will now be punished under this new bill. On this side of the house, we support many of the changes, and one issue that this debate has been able to bring out in the community is the need for people to be responsible animal owners, responsible pet owners, and really focus individuals on being responsible for their pets.

As I said, we had a bit of a consultation period on this. There was a citizens' jury, which are becoming very popular at the moment with this current government. We are going to have a citizens jury—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

Mr DULUK: Well, yes; the member for Chaffey interrupts and says that they cannot make a decision for themselves, and supposes that is why they have these citizens' juries. However I think in this case, with dogs and cats, it is quite a sensible one, because it is an issue that really goes to the heart of a lot of suburban communities and streets, around dogs and cats and the noises those animals cause.

Some of the recommendations of the select committee were to improve welfare standards in the breeding of companion animals, increase purchaser confidence in the source of their companion animals, reduce the number of surrendered animals and, by extension, euthanasia numbers for those animals, and increase public awareness of animal welfare issues and owner responsibilities, which I believe are some of the most important. The citizens' jury created by the Dog and Cat Management Board recommended some other points as well:

that there be greater coordination of educational programs about responsible pet ownership, including the introduction of online tests for kids and people in general to become pet owners( and I can just see all those kids out there on their iPads doing their online test in order to look after Moxie the cat);

legislation to encourage more acceptance of tenants with dogs and cats, which I think is a really important one, especially for many elderly citizens who may live on their own and who may use dogs and cats as companion animals; that is very important for interaction and a sense of responsibility and companionship as well;

legislation to restrict the sale of dogs and cats from pet stores and mandatory registration and licensing of dog and cat breeders; and

a centrally-managed, statewide database for microchip data for dogs and cats.

As I said, there is broad support from this side of the house, and it has been mentioned before that the member for Hammond—

Members interjecting:

Mr DULUK: Indeed; Hammond, Chaffey, Morphett, Hartley, all of them, and the member for Stuart. We do want to ensure there is exemption for working dogs in this bill. I certainly know that it is members on this side of the house that always champion dogs and anything related to the land, so we want to see an exemption from that, for the four-legged ones. We also believe that fines in this bill should be open to parliamentary oversight, that that should be looked at through the legislative framework rather than through regulation.

There are a couple of other differences as well around the code of practice. Indeed, for me—and I suppose it will be something we will be seeing coming through—it is how we are going to deal with the code, how breaches of the code will be dealt with, and councils be relying on information from the public to investigate breaches of the code. That is probably a bit of a grey area in terms of how the code will work and how that will be implemented.

As I said, by and large there are big advantages to the community in this legislation, and that is why I think it is broadly supported in the community as well. I think it will see an administrative burden on councils. Reducing the reach of government is always welcome, and I think we will be able to save a bit of money here as well.

The dog registration categories are being reduced from eight to two, so a simplified system, and of course the establishment of a single officer identification will be an important one as well. Councils will also be able to monitor registered breeders in this new legislation, and will be able to further tighten the grip in removing puppy and kitten farming, which we know is a really unsavoury element in the community. I know that the member for Bright has been very vocal in his opposition to puppy farms and those sorts of practices.

Of course mandatory desexing decreases animal welfare admission rates and helps to reduce cat overpopulation, creating a safer environment, and that is one I certainly welcome very strongly. Finally, it is good to see this bill before the house. We would all have liked to have seen it sooner, but I congratulate all the stakeholders in their efforts.

Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. S.E. Close.

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (16:54): It is a pleasure to be able to speak this afternoon on the Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2015. I have had a good wait this afternoon to have this opportunity to speak and I guess it is fair to say that the state has had quite a wait for this legislation to appear before the parliament. It is essentially an amendment of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995, and it is fair to say that that act, as legislation often does, had become quite outdated and did not necessarily meet the modern needs of dog and cat management, and certainly not the introduction and availability of knowledge and understanding of new science in the field.

It is good to see it before the parliament but, as I said, it would have been good to see it earlier than it has actually arrived. As the member for Chaffey said earlier, it has been quite a work in process. Throughout the 2000s there have been attempts by members of this place to see the Dog and Cat Management Act updated, no more so than the efforts by the Hon. Dr Bob Such, former member for Fisher, who spent a significant amount of time lobbying to see an update of dog and cat management legislation in South Australia. I guess it is worthwhile at this time paying tribute to the Hon. Dr Such's efforts on this front.

The need to have appropriate management legislation for companion animals has progressed through parliament initially as a select committee of our parliament, which the Hon. Dr Bob Such championed and brought into being back in 2012. That committee looked at the way our state's legislation dealt with companion animals and ways that it could be updated in order to ensure that our legislation in South Australia was as modern as it could be to give both state and local governments the opportunity to effectively manage and control dogs and cats in our community.

The term 'companion animals' was a term that was used frequently by the select committee and I find that term to be quite interesting in that it is largely restricted to dogs and cats. In my household—and I have just been having a conversation with the Deputy Speaker about this while I was waiting to speak—does not have either a dog or a cat as a companion but we do have a house bunny named Pancakes. I have just had an extensive conversation with the Deputy Speaker about Pancakes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I counselled you on Pancakes.

Mr SPEIRS: I was counselled. We discussed how—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr SPEIRS: Almost as relevant as the member for Hammond's previous speech about his staff member's dog. I was discussing the desexing of Pancakes and how it cost five times as much to desex her as it cost to purchase her, but it was something that we did willingly because she is a very important part of our household. She is fully litter trained as well. They are much smarter animals than you would think. Rabbits are actually more closely related to horses than rats or mice and should never be described as rodents. They are very good pets.

Anyway, I digress, and I do not like to wander off on frolics of my own in speeches but, during my two years in parliament I have been trying to find an opportunity to talk about Pancakes in the house, and that opportunity arose today with dog and cat management, so there it is. Pancakes is officially on the record. She actually has an Instagram account with more followers than me—princesspancakesbun—and you can follow her, and anyone listening in the building can, and add to her 5,000 followers. I think she is more popular than any politician in South Australia on social media, so check her out.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We can fix that. Pancakes vanishes.

Mr SPEIRS: Yes, things like that—so check it out if you are on Instagram. Anyway, I am making a mockery of the parliamentary process. I will go back to my discussion on the dog and cat management bill. I want to reflect on a few items which are contained in this bill, which are receiving broadly bipartisan support from my side of politics. The area that I want to briefly discuss is puppy and cat farms, and the fact that the bill will make it illegal to sell a cat or a dog that a person has bred unless that person is a registered breeder.

The hope from getting this brought into legislation is that puppy and cat farms will be appropriately dealt with in this state, and we will hopefully see the eradication of those because we know that significant unscrupulous practices are undertaken in puppy and cat farms in this state. Animal welfare is not something that many of these farms have at the top of their list of priorities; rather, profit-making is what they are all about. We have seen, on current affairs programs screened on television in the last couple of years, some very unfortunate practices being undertaken on puppy and cat farms.

I know it is something that is brought up time and time again by constituents in the electorate of Bright, which I represent, and it is something that we as legislators here in parliament have to take very seriously. I know I speak for many people in my community when I speak out against puppy and cat farms and the abhorrent conditions that many animals endure in those environments. So, I applaud this legislation in attempting to tighten up on these farms, and I really hope that the appropriate legislative instruments are now in place to be able to target and deal with such farms. I look forward to seeing their eradication in South Australia because, unfortunately, they are present and they are a significant animal welfare issue in this state.

The other area which is a very important part of this bill, in my view, is the introduction of mandatory desexing of dogs and cats. That will not only look at reducing the aggression in many pets because we know that, particularly when dogs are desexed, we tend to see their aggression levels substantially reduced. We know from studies in recent times that the incidence of aggression by dogs is actually increasing across the Western World. I did quite a bit of reading on this when I was on the City of Marion council, and during my time in council there was an increase in aggression from dogs and dog attacks in our community and that is a problem.

We know that something that goes a long way to reducing that level of aggression in dogs is having them desexed, so mandatory desexing will assist significantly with that. Mandatory desexing will also, hopefully, significantly reduce the number of unwanted dogs and cats in our community. Unwanted dogs and cats can lead to not only mistreatment of those animals, but also the abandonment of those animals, and that is not good for the animals. It is not a great thing to be going on in our communities. It also has a significant environmental impact, particularly when it comes to cats.

We know about the abandonment of cats, and cats getting out into conservation areas, into rural areas, and into our Hills Face Zone. In my electorate, along the coastal zone, there is quite a problem with abandoned cats and feral cats living along Adelaide's coastline, living in the rocks and crevices along the coastline. There have been problems down at Somerton Park and at Brighton, in the rock walls there, and certainly from Marino through to Hallett Cove where the coast is a bit wilder with the two conservation parks at Marino and Hallett Cove.

There are real and significant problems in my community, but I know that problem extends into the Hills Face Zone, into the Hills, and into rural and regional South Australia, where cats which have been abandoned, which have gone feral, can become an even more significant environmental problem. It is no secret that one of the most significant environmental problems in Australia today is the existence of a substantial feral cat population which really is marauding through our countryside and causing huge environmental damage, particularly to native birdlife and native wildlife.

There is strong evidence to suggest that feral cats have resulted in the extinction of at least 20 Australian mammals, and they are only the ones we can directly attribute to the impact of feral cats. It is no doubt a problem that exists in our own environment at the moment and something that hopefully this bill will do something to reduce, in terms of unwanted cats being abandoned or tipped out into the community and into the countryside.

I believe there is also a need for our state government, for our local councils, and for our federal government to tackle the problem of feral cats out there in our Australian environment. I know there is federal money available for the control of feral cats, but that is perhaps not always on our radar. It is something that I think we should really be putting a lot of emphasis on, from an environmental perspective, to deal with it because there is an epidemic of feral cats out in the Australian environment.

In closing, I want to briefly touch on the opportunities that come from this bill moving forward, as I presume it will move into legislation very quickly from this afternoon. There are a number of opportunities for local government to take this act and really run with it and do good things with it. There is an opportunity, from talking to people on the Dog and Cat Management Board, for local government to look at an electronic implementation system that will see a whole-of-council approach to dog and cat management. This bill creates an opportunity for that, and would benefit hugely from councils getting on board as one rather than fragmented across 68 councils in South Australia and actually coming together and saying, 'How can we bring in an information management system that can help dog and cat management in South Australia?'

There are examples of this in other areas of local government at the moment, including the One Library system, so they have shown that they can do this sort of thing. It would be great to see them come together and have a single data management system for dog and cat management covering registration of dogs and cats and having a really good statewide database of what is happening with regard to dog and cat management.

The benefits of this would be broad. One of the most significant benefits would be if a dog or a cat happened to be lost, if it happened to wander off and cross council boundaries. If a dog was in Marino, say, in my electorate, and wandered a few hundred metres from its home and ended up in Kingston Park or Seacliff, and it was then picked up by the City of Holdfast Bay council, bearing in mind that it was registered in the City of Marion council, there is no guarantee that the City of Holdfast Bay council is going to be able to trace it back because it is not logged in their system. That dog might end up down in the RSPCA pound at Lonsdale or being held by the council, which just adds a whole layer of stress and potential cost to the process. It is a lot of stress for not only the animal but also the owners.

There is an opportunity for a whole-of-state management system to overcome that problem. It is not just a problem that happens within council boundaries. If you were living in metropolitan Adelaide, you might go down to Victor Harbor for Christmas. Again, if you took your dog with you and it were to go missing down there and was picked up by the Victor Harbor council, they would have an opportunity to easily trace it back to the metropolitan owner if there was a whole-of-state data management and registration system for dogs and cats.

I would really like to see local government, hopefully led by the Local Government Association of South Australia, actually take that on as a challenge because if they start developing their own systems in line with this new act there will be the problem of unscrambling the egg. We could end up with 68 different management systems all across the state and the opportunity will be lost because councils will not want to then, down the track, merge systems and move towards a whole-of-state system.

I think there is a really good opportunity now and in the coming months for the Local Government Association to say to councils, 'We are going to lead this project. Let's gather together some money and actually have a centralised process for dog and cat management.' The new act provides a catalyst for that opportunity, and it would be great to see them run with it. That is a challenge for the Local Government Association and hopefully councils will get on board with them. They are far better placed to manage 68 different jurisdictions than any other body, so I would definitely commend that as a challenge to the Local Government Association of South Australia.

In closing, I would like to thank all of those who have been involved in the development of this amendment bill, particularly the Dog and Cat Management Board itself and the staff of the Dog and Cat Management Board. To Andrew Lamb, who is here today, thank you for your work on this.

I would particularly like to pay tribute to my good friend and former colleague in the City of Marion council, Dr Felicity-ann Lewis, who is now the chair of the Dog and Cat Management Board. I would like to thank her for her work on this. Felicity-ann is always someone who, if you want something to happen, you can give it to her and she will drive it through. She has definitely had a lot of passion for the Dog and Cat Management Board reform and the legislative change they are now proposing through this act. I would like to thank Felicity-ann for her work and commend the Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2015 to the house.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (17:13): I rise to indicate my support for this bill and, in doing so, echo the sentiments of the many speakers who have spoken before me. This of course is an important piece of legislation that will significantly contribute to the welfare of our companion animals. With nearly 300,000 dogs registered in South Australia and more than two-thirds of us sharing our life with a dog or a cat, it is important that the government reforms dog and cat management in this state.

The reforms contained in this bill seek to improve the ability of pounds and shelters to return lost dogs and cats to their homes, to reduce the number of lost dogs and cats that end up in shelters, to provide assurances to people that the puppy or kitten they are buying comes from a reputable breeder, and of course to enhance the ability of authorities to detect and prosecute puppy and kitten farms. It is these last two objectives that I would particularly like to speak about today.

The problem of puppy farms is of course complex. A number of approaches and reforms are needed to achieve the government's aim of dealing with this problem and ultimately stamping out puppy farms. Firstly, the bill provides regulatory oversight of the breeding industry to ensure that dogs and cats are being bred in humane and healthy environments and not in puppy and kitten farms.

Under this amendment bill, anyone breeding a dog or a cat for sale will need to register as a breeder with the Dog and Cat Management Board. Breeder registration numbers and animal microchip numbers will be needed to be included in advertisements for sale and to be provided to purchasers to increase the traceability of breeders and animals. The amendment bill also proposes that a breeder registration number be required at the point of sale.

The other reforms in this bill work together to help stamp out puppy farms, and the introduction of a breeder registration scheme, which can be accessed by the public, local councils and RSPCA animal welfare inspectorates, will place greater scrutiny on dog and cat breeders. The proposed definition of breeding is also broad enough that it will encompass most operating models and unscrupulous breeders will not fall through the gaps. Moreover, mandatory microchipping will ensure the identification of all animals, and mandatory desexing of animals will restrict the capacity for ad hoc breeding.

It is in all of our interests to ensure that our family pets are taken care of and bred in humane conditions, and I therefore join with other members in strongly recommending this bill.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (17:15): I rise to make a contribution on what has been a very popular debate in this house to support the Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2015. As many on this side have suggested, it has been a long time coming. In fact, it was on 18 November that the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation finally introduced the state government's response to the Select Committee on Dogs and Cats as Companion Animals 2013 recommendations. That select committee has been mentioned a couple of times and, in fact, those members who sat on it have made contributions today.

There were extensive calls from the community urging the government to act on the recommendations made by that select committee in 2013. Unfortunately, it has taken until now, with some encouragement, I might add, from the Dog and Cat Management Board which has been very active in the consultation and promotion of this bill.

I guess the concern in all of this from our side, given that a lot of us represent regional and agricultural areas, was that we really needed our working dogs to be exempted from this legislation. We did not necessarily have a problem with the legislation itself; in fact, the bill is a good one and will enable management of dogs and cats right throughout the state, and the metropolitan and regional areas to be far better that it currently is.

Given the number and importance of working dogs to the agricultural industry, it was particularly important that we were able to gain an exemption from this bill for those dogs. This was particularly in regard to mandatory microchipping and sterilisation. That is not to say that some working dog owners will not take up that option, but it will actually be their choice whereas for the rest of the community, of course, it will become mandatory.

There has been some suggestion of government amendments. I will flag that the opposition will not be supporting the government's amendment regarding the definition of desexing. The government is looking to have that defined as being castrated or spayed. The member for Morphett gave Hansard a couple of options for the spelling of the word 'spayed', but his preference is for s-p-e-y-e-d. We believe, and certainly the member for Morphett believes, as a former veterinarian, that there are chemical options that are equally as effective and, of course, not as invasive. We will not be agreeing with that amendment, but the rest of the bill we are happy with.

As I said, it has created much interest. Most of us in this place have been lobbied by constituents with regard to this bill, and I would thank those constituents in the electorate of Flinders who have spoken to me about this. That includes not just owners of dogs and cats, but also a couple who bred cats and sold cats as a business and were very passionate about their business and also their cats. They love their cats very much and they were interested to see how they were going to be caught up in that. They were quite prepared to microchip their cats anyway and, in fact, from memory, I believe that that was a matter of course for their operation.

A breeder of kelpies at Streaky Bay also contacted me a couple of times. He had great concerns, and it was really from correspondence with compatriots of his in Victoria who had been caught up in the Victorian legislation. They were breeding working dogs and had inadvertently been caught up in the legislation in that jurisdiction. It pleases me to see that the government has recognised that that is an issue on its own and has dealt with it.

Having been an inaugural member of the Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Board, I was forever conscious of the problem of feral cats throughout the Australian landscape. The member for Morphett, in his contribution, mentioned that the number of feral cats across Australia at any one time, depending on seasonal conditions, can range anywhere between 10 million and 60 million. Of course, they almost fly under the radar, so to speak, but the impact on native fauna has been quite significant. It is so significant that the member for Bright suggested that the demise of at least 20 species of native marsupials can be attributed to feral cats.

I remember as a kid that we used to spend a little bit of time rabbit trapping. Of course, you are not allowed to do that any more because rabbit traps are illegal, but I remember a highlight one particular day was when we actually caught a feral cat in amongst the scrub, the size of which was extraordinary. This would have begun as a domestic cat, as a kitten probably that went feral, and it grew to at least double the size of a household cat. It no doubt had a very enjoyable diet of birds and rabbits, but that is the sort of thing that can happen when cats go feral.

I am going to take my lead from the member for Bright. Again, he made mention of his house cat Snuggles. I think it was Snuggles.

Mr Pengilly: No, it was a rabbit. A house rabbit.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Called Pancakes.

Mr TRELOAR: Yes, a house rabbit called Pancakes. I was close, wasn't I?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Nowhere near it.

Mr TRELOAR: It was a house rabbit called Snuggles.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You weren't listening.

Ms Chapman: Four legs.

Mr TRELOAR: Yes, four legs. I must confess, the house rabbits that we had did not actually last very long at all, generally speaking, much to the disappointment of my children. We had much more luck with our cats and dogs. We have Maisy at the moment, who is the house cat, or the shed cat really. We are more than happy to leave her at home when we are away and she looks after the place.

Ms Chapman: Keeps the mice down.

Mr TRELOAR: She keeps the mice down and keeps the rats away, and lives between the house and the shed. I would like to regale the parliament with one story, my favourite dog story. In my 30 years as a farmer, I have had many working dogs, which of course will be exempt from this legislation. This particular dog that I want to talk about, although he did not have an Instagram account, unlike Snuggles—

Mr Pederick: Pancakes.

Mr TRELOAR: Pancakes—he did make the front page of the local newspaper. This particular dog was called Baldrick, after Baldrick in Blackadder—I kid you not, he was named after that character. Baldrick was out with me in the field one day and he had a cunning plan, but it went awry. On a particular day when he was out with me spraying, we had the agricultural spray planes in to spray a crop because we had some disease that was going around. It was in the days prior to GPS, so the owner or the farmer actually had to mark for the planes. You would walk along the edge of the paddock, the plane would go over, you would go another 22 yards and you would flag it again.

Baldrick, being the loyal companion that he was, was with me and, unbeknown to me, every time the plane flew over Baldrick was barking and jumping up at the plane. I was not taking a lot of notice, but the pilot called me up on the two-way and he said, 'I think I've hit your dog.' I turned around and, sure enough, there was Baldrick in the mud with his eyes popped out, and he was not looking too good. He had jumped so high or the plane was so low (one or the other) that Baldrick had been hit on the back of the head by the tyre of the spray plane. It is all good from here because Baldrick survived.

Mr Pederick: I was going to say, it wasn't sounding good then.

Mr TRELOAR: It was not sounding good; I feared the worst. We finished the run and I walked over and carefully picked up poor old Baldrick. I noticed he was breathing, but we were still thinking that it was probably the end of his days. I carried him over and laid him down on the ground next to the ute, and he stood up, shook himself and jumped into the back of the ute. And that was Baldrick.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And that made the front page?

Mr TRELOAR: It did, because it was—

Ms Chapman: A slow news day.

Mr TRELOAR: It was a quiet week in Port Lincoln. The headline was 'Dog fight over Wanilla skies', which I thought was great. Anyway, Baldrick went on to be a loyal companion for many more years and did a lot of good work for us and our sheep flock. I am really pleased that we have managed to exempt working livestock dogs—I am still not sure whether it is 'working livestock' or 'livestock working', but we will see when the wording comes through.

I, too, would like to thank all of those who have contributed to this bill, and the constituents right across the state who have taken an active interest in this. They have provided input and have got the bill to where it is today. With that, and my brief story of Baldrick, I will support the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the minister, I would just like to let the house know that I have bred dogs for 30 years and I have a lot of dog stories, but I am going to let the minister speak and close the debate.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Higher Education and Skills) (17:26): I would like to thank all members for their contributions to this debate—some in particular have been very entertaining and interesting. There are three key changes to dog and cat management in the bill: mandatory desexing, mandatory microchipping, and mandatory breeder registration.

There was a query raised by the member for Hammond about the role of working dogs. There have been some changes in the other place that have been accepted and have come down. This has meant that there are exemptions for working dogs from the requirement to be desexed, and also, as I understand it, in exempt trading. I will invite him, however, to ask further questions during the committee stage in order to make sure that he is reassured on that matter. The government has embarked on a reform package to dog and cat management to achieve a number of aims, including:

stamping out puppy and kitten farms by providing assurance to people that their new puppy or kitten comes from a reputable breeder, and enhancing the ability of authorities to detect and prosecute puppy and kitten farms;

reducing the number of lost dogs that end up in shelters; and

ensuring a safer and more social dog population and improving the management of cats in the broader community.

Mandatory desexing is a key priority of the government in achieving these aims. It is important to note that, throughout the government's extensive consultation on the bill, mandatory desexing has been strongly supported.

The development of this bill has come about through public and targeted stakeholder engagement. A 10-week consultation period received over 1,800 submissions from the public, and a citizens' jury was established to explore ways to reduce the over 10,000 unwanted dogs and cats that are euthanased every year in this state.

Along with this public consultation, the government has worked closely with stakeholders. The Dog and Cat Management Board has been instrumental in building support for the bill among stakeholders, including:

local government groups;

animal welfare groups like the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League SA;

breeder groups;

the SA Yard Dog Association, the SA Working Sheepdog Association and Livestock SA;

disability services; and

veterinarian and pet care associations like the Australian Veterinary Association and the Pet Industry Association of Australia.

The government maintains that to achieve the bill's aim of making a safer dog and cat population, the desexing of dog and cats requires procedures that prevent reproduction and diminish the secretion of hormones that influence behaviour.

Permanent desexing helps to reduce the tendency in dogs for aggressive behaviours towards people and other dogs; reduce territorial behaviours in dogs and cats; and help control the urge in dogs and cats to wander, thereby reducing the number of pets that arrive at shelters, and reducing the number of lost pets that are euthanased each year. There is an amendment to this effect that we will be discussing when we go into committee, about ensuring that the method used for desexing is one that results in behavioural change, not just in the contraceptive capability of other forms of tubal ligation and the use of chemicals.

The government's position on mandatory desexing has been supported by public health physician Dr Katina D'Onise in The Advertiser and on radio on Wednesday 18 May. Dr D'Onise's research shows that the desexing of dogs significantly reduces the risks of dog attacks and bites. She was quoted on 891 ABC yesterday morning as saying:

I would love to see it mandatory to desex dogs and cats…desexing dogs reduces the risk of aggression…that's been known for a number of years, veterinary behaviourists know this to be true, dog owners know this to be true so this is just…taking it one more step…that reduction of aggression does also lead to a reduction in dog bite risk.

That is why the government is committed to legislating for mandatory permanent desexing of dogs and cats and I look forward to exploring these issues more in committee.

I also would like to add, on a personal note, having chaired the latter part of the committee that led up to this legislation, and having clearly benefited from and been inspired by the contributions of the Hon. Dr Bob Such, I would like to pay tribute to the work he undertook in that area and hope that this will be a lasting legacy for him. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [EduChilDev–1]—

Page 5, lines 31 and 32 [clause 5(8), inserted definition of desex]—Delete the definition and substitute:

desex means to castrate or spay an animal so as to permanently render the animal incapable of reproducing (and desexed has a corresponding meaning);

Dr McFETRIDGE: Actually, I was going back a little bit further in the bill to 'Amendment of section 4—Interpretation', in regard to animal welfare organisation—

The CHAIR: Where are you?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Clause 5—Amendment of section 4—

The CHAIR: We're in clause 5.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Yes. I am looking at:

(1) Section 4—after the definition of accredited, insert:

animal welfare organisation

Paragraph (c) refers to any other person or body declared by regulation. When will we see the regulations, and who is envisaged as being 'any other person or body'? We have a myriad of pop-up welfare organisations and animal refuges, some of which are run by people who I think should not be in charge of a chook raffle, never mind an animal welfare organisation

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We will start drafting the regulations as soon as the legislation is through, but it is not anticipated for those organisations to be any other than the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League.

Dr McFETRIDGE: If that is the case, minister, why do we have 'any other body or person declared by the regulations'? I personally think we do really need to restrict this, because there are numerous examples where animal welfare organisations pop up. There is one particular fellow who runs an organisation who is a heavy social media user and, quite honestly, I do not think he should be in charge there. It would be nice to have some assurances that this is going to be really tight in the regulations.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The legislation is drafted so as to enable a response to changing circumstances. There are some 80 shelters, as I understand it. None of them, at this point in time, appears to be of the kind of heft, with the financial holding of assets or the employment of staff, that would warrant inclusion, but we have created the legislation in order to enable a further regulation, should that be necessary or considered useful in the future.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Can I just ask, then, that when those regulations are being drafted, they include that the staff will have to have some specific level of training and that perhaps there should be a consultant veterinarian. That does not mean to say they have to use a vet every day, but they should have a consultant veterinarian or access to veterinary services that they have contracted, so that we cannot have these people who are out there and find that we then play catch-up when we see that they are far from being a welfare organisation but are more of a self-interest charity that is more about the egos of the people than the welfare of the animals.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I appreciate the comments made by the member for Morphett and I am sure we will take those into account.

The CHAIR: You have had three questions. Is there anything you really have to ask? Three questions is usually what we have.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I do, and this is the whole crux of the amendment that is coming through to subclause (8):

Section 4—after the definition of...[desexing] means to permanently render an animal incapable of reproducing.

We know that 99 per cent of dogs and cats are going to be desexed, either by having been castrated or having an ovariohysterectomy, when the females have their ovaries and uterus removed. There is a lot of evidence that the reduction in the reproductive hormones, particularly testosterone in male dogs, does have a benefit in reducing levels of aggression. It cannot be guaranteed, though. In my mind, that is something we should be continually aware of. If we can reduce aggression, even a minor amount, we should be looking at desexing to include castration and spaying.

That is in here, but at the same time I owe it to my veterinary colleagues to voice their opinion that they still need to be able to make that professional judgement on those few occasions. They are the ones with the training, not the Dog and Cat Management Board or the people in this place, and they are the ones with the clinical decisions right in front of them. They should be able to make that decision about what is best for that animal's future, in regard to the animal's temperament, size and its potential to cause damage. That said, many bites that put kids in hospital are from little dogs in backyards. I think the veterinarians should be able to make that decision.

Having said that, I am well aware that 99.9 per cent of veterinarians will castrate or spay 99.9 per cent of dogs. I think that the government insisting on their amendment, that we go back to this, is a bit narrow-minded. I know evidence has been presented in the media today and there is evidence will be presented at the Australian Veterinary Association's national conference next week that does show a good correlation between reduction in aggression and dog bites as a result of the castration or spaying of dogs, but it is never a guarantee. In fact, the people who have done these studies say themselves that it is not a guarantee. If it helps, great, but that then opens it up. If there is no guarantee, surely the veterinarian who is examining the animal and who is in charge of that animal's health and welfare should be able to make that decision.

I think agreeing with the current definition, as in the bill that came down from the other place, is something that this government could do and could do with a clear conscience. There is enough scope in the regulations to control those people out there who want to have a dog for their ego—an ego on a lead, an aggressive dog. The penalties are now at last reflecting the fact that you need to be a responsible dog owner. I think the whole bill compounded could give the government that security they need to have an effective way of managing—this is not a dog and cat desexing bill: this is a dog and cat management bill—not only the animal population but also the aggression that we all want to reduce.

Having said that about desexing, a lot of it is about training the owners to have their dogs and cats (particularly dogs, obviously) socialised from the word 'go'. Vets are doing that; they are making these judgements. Let the vets make those judgements. I appeal to the government to just wear this one for now. It is not an onerous change. I think it is quite a reasonable change. The minister may insist on going to deadlock; I would be very disappointed if that were the case, particularly after other conversations we have had. There is a need to recognise the fact that we do have a very fine body of veterinarians out there making highly expert decisions.

The CHAIR: Could we just ask what the question is, member for Morphett?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Let's stick with the bill as it is and not move that amendment.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I understand the point that the honourable member is making, which is a concern about the latitude that we ought to be giving professionals such as vets. The reason that the government has brought this amendment to this place and therefore is insisting on the original version in the other place is that of a concern that the bill does not create an expectation that there might be other ways routinely to render an animal no longer capable of reproducing that does not have the desired effect on the behavioural changes, which is the main purpose for this desire for desexing, the subsidiary benefit being also not having a proliferation of dogs and cats who are not wanted and therefore are euthanased or go wild.

I think this may allay some of the member for Morphett's concerns, which is that we will be producing regulations under the act which will enable a veterinarian to make a decision on their professional judgement to do something slightly different than is expressed in this act. We are going to create that power, but it is important that the act itself articulates clearly what is currently understood to be necessary, which is the proper and complete and utter desexing of these animals in order to create that behavioural change. I hope that that allays his concern, that at this point we are insisting on bringing this amendment forward.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just to clarify that then, I understand where the minister is coming from, but if the regulations are going to give exemptions to castration and spaying of animals on veterinarians' advice, surely that means that veterinarians should be able to make that judgement about whether that dog or cat needs to be castrated or desexed or in some other way controlled through a chemical castration, when it becomes more readily available, or whether it needs a tubal ligation or vasectomy. That may be enough in this particular case with this particular animal. The regulations are the detail we have not seen yet, so I am still very concerned. While I have every faith in this particular minister, I do not trust this government, unfortunately. I am very concerned about that.

The CHAIR: You have asked the question; could we have an answer to the question?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is important that the legislation articulates what the government is seeking to achieve, which is that it is currently absolutely necessary to do the spaying or the castration. The importance of the regulation is to enable a vet to make a professional judgement that that might not be appropriate in some discrete and particular circumstances, not that it is routinely acceptable to use alternative methods which might not result in the main purpose of the act. We may have to agree to disagree at this point. We are going to maintain our desire to have this amendment considered by this house.

The CHAIR: I intend to ask if there is any further debate, otherwise I am going to put amendment No. 1 on schedule 1 in the minister's name, which deals with clause 5, page 5, lines 31 and 32. Do you have a question on that amendment?

Mr WHETSTONE: No; I would just like to indicate that we do not support the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [EduChilDev–1]—

Page 6, line 22 [clause 5(17), inserted definition of working dog]—After 'working' insert 'livestock'

This amendment makes sure that we understand that when we talk about working dogs we are talking about dogs who work with livestock.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 6 to 9 passed.

Clause 10.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It states in 21B that the 'Board may keep register relating to microchipped and desexed dogs and cats'. Why is it 'may' and not 'must'? Surely, the whole object of this is to have a database, have a record of the numbers of dogs and cats we have, so that we can manage them in a way that the whole bill is aimed at.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The advice I have is that it is in order to enable the database to be held by the Dog and Cat Management Board or by the Local Government Association.

The CHAIR: So it could be in either place.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Section 23A—Delegation provides 'Subject to this section, the Board may delegate functions or powers.' That is okay, but it then provides:

A function or power delegated under this section may, if the instrument of delegation so provides, be further delegated.

How extensive is that further delegation; will it be to dog trainers, to veterinarians, to who knows? How is it treated at the moment and what is envisaged there? Is that in the regulations again?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This is an enabling clause. There is no particular desire for delegating at this stage, other than perhaps to staff for some financial issues. It is to enable that to occur as and when necessary.

Clause passed.

Clause 12 passed.

Clause 13.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Can the minister tell the committee who is envisaged to be appointed as an authorised person under section 25A? It provides:

The Board or a council may appoint suitable persons (other than members of the council) to be authorised persons for the purposes of this Act.

I know that for a number of years veterinarians have been 'authorised persons' for the purposes of cat control; I am not sure whether this is intended to be part of that. Who are potentially other 'authorised persons'? Are veterinarians in there?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, it is not for veterinarians. The idea is that in emergency situations, say in a bushfire, when there is a need to go in and detain and seize animals, that we are able to employ someone and authorise them immediately.

Clause passed.

Clauses 14 to 25 passed.

Clause 26.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 3 [EduChilDev–1]—

Page 17, line 33 [clause 26, inserted section 42D]—After 'working' insert 'livestock'

Mr PEDERICK: Can we go back to—

The CHAIR: No, unfortunately we can't. Was it—

Mr PEDERICK: I just wanted to ask a question in regard to microchipping—and sorry, I should have picked it up as I was coming through. I know that an amendment was attempted to be moved in the other place in regard to whether working livestock dogs would need to be microchipped. I understand that in the realms of desexing, etc., working livestock dogs will be exempt, but I am just wondering about if, for instance, a farmer just wanted to sell a dog to a neighbour, even if they are breeding their own dogs. From my understanding, because that amendment did not get up they will need to be microchipped.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: They are not exempt from the requirement to have microchipping; that was discussed and debated in the other place, and it was determined that all dogs should be microchipped. However, they are exempt from the requirement to be desexed. So if a farmer wants to sell a non-desexed dog to a neighbour he is able to do that if he is registered as a working dog breeder, and, of course, if the purchaser were using it as a working dog. If the purpose of the dog is maintained then they are not required to be desexed.

Mr PEDERICK: So, just for clarification, did the minister say that they have to be registered as a working livestock dog breeder?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: They only need to be registered if they are breeding for sale. So, if they are not breeding for sale, and because they are not desexed dogs they might have puppies and they might be able to give them to the neighbour, that dog does not need to be desexed if they are going to be a working dog, but if they are breeding it in order to sell then they have to be registered as a working breeder.

Mr PEDERICK: So, that is the nub of the question: essentially, someone can give away a dog, because I am assuming there will be many livestock dog owners who may not be registered breeders, and a neighbour may want one of their pups, so they will need to give it away, because if there is a transaction they will be in breach?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is correct.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 27 and 28 passed.

Clause 29.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I just want to comment on this and ask: clause 29—Amendment of section 45—Transporting unrestrained dogs in vehicles, is there any contemplation of a penalty for transporting an unrestrained cat in a vehicle, other than having the penalty of urine and faeces sprayed all over the inside of the car, because cats normally do not travel very well? It does not have to be onerous; it can be as simple as putting the cat inside a pillowcase, which many of my clients have done—you can leave the head in or out, whatever you like. It can be a serious road hazard having a cat loose in a car.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, this act is not picking up that issue, although of course there is already the provision that one must not be cruel to animals, and there is the requirement to drive safely, so that may then result in some form of restraint for a cat, but it is not something we require under this legislation.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I just put on the record that putting a cat in a pillowcase is not cruel; the cat actually calms right down in there. But having some sort of lead or harness on cats is becoming quite commonplace now, so perhaps it is something the government may want to look at.

Clause passed.

Clauses 30 to 35 passed.

Clause 36.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 4 [EduChilDev–1]—

Page 22, after line 19—Insert:

(1) Section 47(1)—delete 'Division 1 or 1A' and substitute 'this Act'

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 37 to 50 passed.

Clause 51.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 5 [EduChilDev–1]—

Page 37, line 23 [clause 51, inserted section 70(4)]—After 'working' insert 'livestock'

Dr McFETRIDGE: A question on clause 51—Grounds on which orders may be made, destruction or control orders: does that include dangerous dog, menacing dog, nuisance dog and barking dog? My reading of it is that it is just a dangerous dog, but we also have barking dogs, nuisance dogs and menacing dogs. Can a destruction order be issued in those cases?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am wondering if the member for Morphett has the same clause that we are discussing.

The CHAIR: What page are you on, member for Morphett?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am on page 24.

The CHAIR: We are not on page 24, so that is going to make a big difference.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Mine is 'as received from the Legislative Council'.

The CHAIR: That is going to be a difficulty. What are you actually looking at? Could you tell us what it is called? What clause are we looking at?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Clause 40.

The CHAIR: Clause 40, and what is it called?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Where did you get up to?

The CHAIR: You tell us what you are looking at.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am looking at clause 40, the substitution of section 51.

The CHAIR: That is on our page 24, so which part of that are you looking at? The grounds on which an order may be made?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Yes, the grounds on which an order may be made—in the case of a destruction order, in the case of a control order. I am wondering whether destruction orders are envisaged to be made in other cases. If you cannot answer it now, it does not matter. I would just like you to get back to me on it.

The CHAIR: Okay. We are going to look at the amendment to clause 51 which adds the word 'livestock' after 'working'.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 52 to 60 passed.

Clause 61.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am conscious of the time, but I have one small question on this. As to the procedures following the seizure of a dog, it says if a dog is seized under the division, it must either be returned to the person or be detained in a facility approved by the board. Does the board actually inspect these facilities, and how regularly?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, at least once every three years.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (62), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Higher Education and Skills) (17:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.