Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 March.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (12:02): I rise to be the lead speaker on behalf of the Liberal opposition in relation to the Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2015. In the absence of the Hon. Michelle Lensink, I have carriage of this bill on behalf of the Liberal Party.

Irresponsible pet ownership is a broad risk 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 that 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.

Some may argue that this bill is a paternalistic measure which impedes the rights of pet owners. It is the Liberal Party view, on the other hand, that it puts in place necessary and appropriate controls which manage the risk of irresponsible pet ownership without unnecessarily impeding the enjoyment of pet owners. Our view is that this bill is well overdue, and I would like to recount some of the history. In that context, I am pleased to acknowledge the contribution of the late Hon. Dr Bob Such and pay tribute to his work in the area of animal welfare.

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. In 2008, Dr Such introduced the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Welfare) Amendment Bill 2008. He was also responsible for initiating the select committee after tabling the Animal Welfare (Commercial Breeding of Companion Animals) Amendment Bill in November 2012.

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 members of this committee.

Despite extensive calls from the community urging the Weatherill government to act on the recommendations to the select committee, no action has occurred at this time. In the context of the government's lack of action, the Hon. Michelle Lensink introduced the Animal Welfare (Companion Animals) Amendment Bill 2014 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; a centrally managed statewide database for microchip data for dogs and cats.

The proposed trial of a trap, neuter and 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 the 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 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 the 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 have made it an offence to breed or mate companion animals without a breeder's licence. The Hon. Michelle Lensink's bill was based on select committee recommendations. However, after her 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 a 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. Michelle Lensink's bill proposed to make it illegal to sell an animal unless it was vaccinated and wormed. The government will require by regulation for 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 2015. Following the release of the Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2015, the honourable member again sought feedback from interested parties. On behalf of the Liberal team, I thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink and Ms Staude, her adviser, for the diligent and intelligent work they have done in terms of both policy development and community engagement.

Often it is 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, '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.

The Liberal Party similarly supports the proposed amendments to sections 5 and 6 which amalgamate cat and dog management. The establishment of a single officer identification, and the subsequent abandonment of the requirement for 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 domestic animals 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. 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 by the amendments, it is important to remember that exemptions will apply. Through certification by a veterinary surgeon, 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 stain on our society. The government's bill makes it illegal to sell a dog or 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 efficiently, in turn alerting them to any emerging problems. This provision will enable the government and the community to be aware about 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, SA Working Sheep Dog Association and the South Australian Yard Dogs Association to determine an appropriate definition for 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 consulted 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, SA Working Sheep Dog 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 in 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 increases to expiations and penalties. The Dog and Cat Management Board is advocating, with support from 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 the 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 to increase the fine. The proposed increases to maximum fines for offences under the bill have increased substantially due to the bill not being reviewed for 20 years. The proposed increase in fines is on par with fines for similar offences in other states.

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 and that will allow the bill to be reviewed in five years' time, when any further fine increases are considered.

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

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (12:20): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill before us. This is possibly one of the more cross-party efforts, to see this legislation before us, but I do commend the work of minister Hunter in bringing this bill before us and in the long consultation processes that have happened in various formats, most notably the citizens' jury on this matter and also the late Dr Bob Such's involvement in establishing a select committee that was also supported, as a venture, by the then not-quite-to-be minister, the member for Mawson, Leon Bignell. He shortly thereafter became a minister and, in his elevation, was ably supported by Dr Susan Close, the member for Port Adelaide.

The Hon. Michelle Lensink has brought previous pieces of legislation to this place and, as I said, many members of parliament and also members of the community have pursued the public discussion on dogs and cats in our society. I think this piece of legislation, being an amendment to the Dog and Cat Management Act rather than to the Animal Welfare Act, is significant in the shift in public attitudes as well as in the ability to contemporise this area of law in our state. I commend those particular members of parliament but also the many members of parliament who have spoken about the various issues that we grapple with in this sphere.

One thing that came up time and time again in the citizens' jury and in the media around the citizens' jury, and certainly in the ministerial statements that accompanied it, was that in this state 10,000 dogs and cats are euthanased each year—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Possibly more, as the minister said, and that is certainly one of the areas of concern that the minister is well aware I have been most interested in with regard to this bill. At this point, I indicate that I will have some amendments that I will table this afternoon with regard to ensuring better transparency around euthanasia rates of dogs and cats in our state, not as anything other than a tool to ensure that we do better in the future.

This bill is a culmination of that select committee work on dogs and cats, a culmination of the citizens' jury and a culmination of the work of many members of this place. I note that the Hon. Michelle Lensink has put an enormous amount of effort into this area, but is currently on maternity leave. I also want to thank my staff member Lauren Zwaans, who has put a lot of effort into this area in terms of research and consultation with stakeholders, and who is also on maternity leave, unexpectedly early. However, she has certainly left me well equipped to progress this debate, and I thank her for that.

I also thank the minister for his briefings, and Andrew Lamb of the Dog and Cat Management Board, who I am sure eagerly anticipates the passage of this bill, as well as Tara Bates, specifically, for her willingness to ensure that we were provided with information and answers to our questions. Many of the answers to those questions have ensured that we are not seeking to move too many amendments; we will have a few, but many of those answers ensured that we did not have to pursue amendments to this bill because we were confident that the issues we were raising were going to be addressed by it.

I want to particularly thank the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League (AWL) for their contributions and continued conversations with my office. Certainly, the amendments that I will be putting forward on behalf of the Greens are informed by both the RSPCA and the AWL. I want to particularly commend the RSPCA for always having transparency around their euthanasia rates, but the AWL for being open to having discussions about transparency of euthanasia rates with their organisation into the future.

More recently, last Friday I hosted in this place a discussion with the Australian Veterinary Association of South Australia, which has some concerns and has made representations to members in this place about the bill. I will be raising one of its concerns in an amendment, which is about the language of 'spay' and 'neuter' specifically when we are talking about the desexing of animals. They raised the point that that in fact prohibits some forms of desexing and does not foresee new technologies where they may be more appropriate. I will be interested to have a discussion with the minister's office about that and, as I say, we will be circulating a form of words informed by the AVA's briefing in our amendments.

This bill, of course, has also had extensive consultation with groups such as the LGA and many in the community. It contemporises the Dog and Cat Management Act, and local councils will continue to have the task of administering and enforcing the act in the community, but the bill will provide councils with additional powers to investigate breaches of the act, such as dog attacks. It also introduces the first increase in expiations and penalties in some 10 years, to maintain adequate deterrents to reduce the number of irresponsible pet owners.

For example, councils are permitted to set a dog registration fee at $85, but the current expiation for failing to register is $80 and therefore an ineffective deterrent on the ground. It simplifies the disability dog accreditation processes and introduces the nationally consistent term of 'assistance dog', again to contemporise the legislation in our state. This bill introduces mandatory microchipping of all dogs and cats by an age set by regulation to commence from a date to be determined. Moving forward, dogs and cats in this state will be microchipped, but I note not the current cohort that is already in existence in terms of that mandatory expectation.

The bill also provides a framework for approval of microchip implanters by the Dog and Cat Management Board and addresses an issue that has been raised time and time again with me by groups such as the AWL and the RSPCA about ensuring that we reunite lost pets, lost companion animals, with either their owner or perhaps you might call it a slave sometimes in terms of some cats' attitudes. I think the old joke is that dogs have owners and cats have slaves, and certainly a few of us in this council can definitely relate to that.

However, whether we consider them our companion animal or our boss, we certainly want to be reunited with them if they go missing and to have an ability to track them that is more streamlined and allows more sharing across council jurisdictions. As we know, animals can travel merely across the street and be in a different council jurisdiction and perhaps not fall into the various ways that we seek to find our lost pets.

It seems like a no-brainer that you would indeed consolidate that information into a database. I am sure that it seemed like a simple proposition, and I am sure it will actually be reasonably difficult to implement, but I commend the minister for taking these steps. I look forward to seeing reports of more lost dogs and cats being reunited as a result of this particular measure for that database and microchip recording, transparency and streamlining of information.

It also, more controversially, introduces mandatory desexing of dogs and cats. It is not controversial for the Greens. We are certainly very strong supporters of this provision, but we are, as I say, cognisant of the words of the AVA with regard to the terms 'spay' and 'neuter' perhaps being too restrictive. The AVA has raised other concerns and has noted its strong opposition to some sections of the bill, including that mandatory desexing.

I take on board some of their concerns. I understand that they do not want to be in the position of policing such things. They fear that some people will be fearful of bringing their animals to them if this is the case. I think this cultural shift and community conversation that we will have will also support other measures to ensure that those who have companion animals are supported to ensure that they are desexed as appropriate.

We do not want to see animals overbred. We do not want to see the horrific instances of puppy farms in our state. We do not want to support that toxic industry, and this is one of the steps that will ensure that our beloved dogs and cats—our beloved companion animals—are more often loved than lost or unnecessarily euthanased. Desexing exemptions will of course apply to specific classes of dogs and also in specific instances.

This bill introduces a breeder registration program to improve the oversight of breeders. Again, I think there is strong community support for these measures as people see the horrors of puppy farms and puppy factories, and of unwanted animals reproducing. It also introduces a requirement that the breeder registration number be provided to consumers at the point of sale. This is a small measure that I am sure will have a significant impact.

The Greens, as I said, have had some consultations in this area, particularly with the RSPCA and the AWL. We will be seeking to increase transparency of euthanasia rates for dogs and cats. As the minister indicated in response to my noting that 10,000 dogs and cats are euthanased in this state per year, we would like to see that transparency record a fall in those numbers.

We will also be seeking to ensure that the definition of 'desexing' within the bill is not prohibitive to all forms of desexing, as has been raised with us by the AVA. We will not be supporting the Brokenshire amendment with regard to working dogs. The work of the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Liberal opposition in this area is a much more attractive way to go and certainly seems to have had more consideration given to it in terms of that approach. We look forward to that debate, and will certainly continue discussions with both the opposition and the government.

Finally, we note that the Liberal opposition has proposed an amendment in relation to reviews of the act, but we have concerns that it only addresses the penalties. Certainly, we would be seeking to ensure that there are ongoing reviews of this act—not constant, I am sure the minister will be relieved to hear—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Hallelujah!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —but we think, if there are going to be reviews of the act, we do actually want to see this act work, and we do need to provide those milestone opportunities—not just to look at the penalties, but to look at the operations and the success, and to identify ways in which we can work collaboratively to progress the way our state and community treat our companion animals with respect. With those few words, I commend the bill.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (12:33): I rise to speak in support of the government's Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2015. I especially commend the state government on its work in bringing the South Australian community, and importantly, stakeholders, along throughout the development of the bill. The government carried out a 10-week consultation period throughout April, May and June 2015. An online survey was hosted by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet's YourSAy website. Interested people could access the online survey to provide their views on key amendments to the draft bill.

As well as the online survey, the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) and the Dog and Cat Management Board received submissions through emails, post and phone. The Dog and Cat Management Board conducted a social media campaign during the consultation period, which included posts on Facebook and Twitter, to engage with the community. The social media campaign was very successful, with 50 per cent of the submissions to YourSAy due to the exposure on the information provided through the board's Facebook pages.

I was impressed that this consultation generated over 1,800 submissions. DEWNR and the Dog and Cat Management Board collaborated to analyse the feedback received during consultation and produced a report which is available on the YourSAy website and which outlines the main responses to the draft bill. I am advised that, of the online respondents to the draft bill, 82.25 per cent supported the mandatory microchipping proposal, 87.59 per cent supported the breeder registration proposal, 56.93 per cent supported the increase in expiation and penalties, 50.2 per cent supported the changes to dog registration and 84.78 per cent supported the assistance dog reforms.

Alongside this consultation, the government established a citizens' jury to explore ways to reduce the 100,000 unwanted dogs and cats euthanased every year in South Australia—a true tragedy, I must say. Citizens' juries provide an excellent way to involve communities in the deliberation about a difficult and controversial topic, and 35 South Australians participated in the citizens' jury. The jury met four times during June and July 2015 and was provided with information from experts. The jury provided the government with its report, which was tabled in parliament in October 2015 together with the government's response to the recommendations.

The government supported four of the jury's recommendations, that is, greater coordination and education programs about responsible dog ownership, compulsory desexing of new generations of dogs and cats, mandatory registration of dog and cat breeders, and a centrally managed statewide database for microchip data for dogs and cats. Throughout the public consultation and citizens' jury, the government carried out targeted consultations with specific stakeholders.

I understand the Dog and Cat Management Board consulted with local government groups, such as the Local Government Association and local councils; animal welfare groups, such as the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League of South Australia; breeder groups, like Dogs SA, the Feline Association of South Australia and the Governing Council of the Cat Fancy of South Australia; representative groups, such as the South Australian Yard Dog Association, the South Australian Working Sheepdog Association and Livestock SA; disability service groups, such as Lions Hearing Dogs, the Royal Society for the Blind and Guide Dogs of South Australia; and veterinarians and pet care associations, such as the Australian Veterinary Association (SA and NT) and the Pet Industry Association of Australia.

The bill's broad support from these organisations, along with the broader community, is a testament to the work of the government in engaging South Australians with the bill that positively affects the lives of many people, including pet owners and animal lovers, veterinarians, pet store owners and local government and, of course, possibly affects the lives of our dogs and cats. I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (12:39): I understand that I am the final speaker, so I will indeed conclude. I would like to thank all members for their contributions to this debate and their support, or their foreshadowed support, in amending the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995. The bill proposes a number of changes to the act, including mandatory desexing, mandatory microchipping and mandatory breeder registration.

We believe that these changes will help to improve the ability of shelters to return lost dogs and cats to their homes, reducing the number of lost dogs and cats that end up in shelters; provide comfort to people that the puppy or kitten they are buying comes from a reputable breeder; enhance the ability of authorities to detect and prosecute puppy and kitten farms; and enhance local councils' capacity to manage cats and dogs.

The development of this bill has come through extensive public and targeted stakeholder engagement. A 10-week consultation period received over 1,800 submissions from the public, and we also carried out a citizens' jury, as has been noted by previous speakers, which 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 amongst stakeholders, including with local government groups, animal welfare groups (like the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League, breeding groups, the SA Yard Dog Association, the SA Working Sheepdog Association and Livestock SA), disability service groups and veterinarian and pet care associations, such as the Australian Veterinary Association and the Pet Industry Association of Australia.

I point out these consultations so that honourable members are aware of the significant engagement the government has undertaken throughout the development and presentation of this bill to the council. Some members have raised concerns about how working livestock dogs will be treated under this bill, particularly with regard to the need for working livestock dogs to be entire (that is, not desexed) to carry out their work.

The government supports specific desexing exemptions for these dogs, recognising the importance of the hormone-driven behaviour of working livestock dogs and the need for some exceptions from desexing. The government contends that the most appropriate place for these exemptions is in the regulations—and I will come to this again before I close—which allow for greater flexibility so that any changes in sector practices can be administered in a timely way.

I understand that the Hon. John Darley has asked specific questions about the proposed breeder registration scheme, particularly about how the scheme will work to reduce the number of puppy and kitten farms in South Australia. The key problem with these puppy and kitten farms is how you find and identify them so that you can seek compliance with legislation. The government's view is that a multidimensional approach is the best approach to reducing puppy and kitten farms. This is why the bill contains a range of revisions that collectively work together to enhance the ability of authorities to identify and prosecute puppy and kitten farms and for owners and prospective owners to have the assurance they want and need that the puppy or kitten they are buying comes from a reputable breeder.

First, mandatory microchipping identifies the animal and will be a requirement for all animals. Secondly, mandatory desexing of animals will restrict the capacity of ad hoc breeding and therefore reduce the supply of puppies and kittens. Thirdly, the introduction of a breeder registration scheme will allow the public and the RSPCA to access information about all breeders. It will be an offence to sell a dog or a cat unless registered as a breeder. The proposed definition for breeding and sale is broad and will encompass most operating models, I am advised.

It will also be compulsory for sellers to record the breeder registration number and microchip number in all advertisements for sale and for it to be provided to the purchaser. Requiring breeders to include their registration number in advertisements of dogs and cats for sale provides consumers and regulators with the ability to trace the origin of the animals—and that is crucial.

Breeders who advertise a high number of animals or offer sick or injured or genetically defective animals can be traced and their operations investigated by the authorities. In addition, consultation has occurred on the draft code of practice for the welfare of dogs and cats in breeding facilities to be regulated under the Animal Welfare Act 1985. This is anticipated to be finalised in 2016. Revisions to the code of practice for the care and management of animals in the pet trade under the Animal Welfare Act 1985 have also been consulted on and are anticipated to be finalised this year.

Breeder registration is thus a means for the RSPCA, councils and the public to identify breeders in the state, reducing the likelihood that a puppy or kitten farm can operate unnoticed in South Australia. Being able to identify breeders, shining a light on their practices and their location, will enable councils to better manage dog and cat management for planning health and safety. It is important to note again, as I said in my opening comments when we introduced the legislation, that most breeders in South Australia do absolutely the right thing. They love their animals, they treat them well, and they are not the targets of this legislation.

This will also enable inspection by the RSPCA for compliance with the Animal Welfare Act 1985. I think the Hon. Kelly Vincent raised a question about whether a disability dog must be accredited by both a prescribed accreditation body such as the Royal Society for the Blind, for example, and the Dog and Cat Management Board. As it stands, my advice is only the Dog and Cat Management Board can accredit a disability dog.

The bill additionally enables a prescribed accreditation body to accredit an assistance dog. No further approval will be required by the Dog and Cat Management Board; however, the prescribed accreditation body will need to provide the details of the dog to the board so that an essential record of all accredited dogs can be kept.

There was some reference in the debate to reviews. I draw honourable members' attention to division 3—Operations of the Board, and section 21—Functions of Board, subsection (1)(G). Of course, one of the functions of a board is to keep this act under review and make recommendations to the minister with respect to the act and regulations made under the act. Honourable members might care to have a think about that and whether or not that will satisfy their desire for a more pointed review at a point of time, but I bring that to your attention.

Also, the Hon. Mr Wade said in some of his remarks that I was not particularly fussed about whether some aspects of the regulatory approach that I brought into the legislation were dealt with by regulation, and that is relatively speaking right. However, I remind the council, and I think it bears keeping this in mind, that this is the first major review of this act in 20 years. There are reasons why it has taken that very long time.

If you consider the amount of time the government spent in returning this to the parliament, the amount of time the government spent in the long consultation process and the public discussion, you will probably understand why it is probably a good idea to give that flexibility and regulations to make changes, rather than expect that the government might open this bill up again and make changes to the legislation, rather than actually giving it flexibility. The two particular points I think that may be in contention, raised by the Hon. Mr Wade, are in relation to the definitions of working dogs and expiation offences.

I can see absolutely easily why the honourable member might want that in the legislation, but I just draw to the attention of the council that the ability to change, particularly the expiation offences by legislation, may well be limited in the future by the government's desire to pass legislation through or open up the act, understanding the great deal of public consultation as required to make any changes to this act whatsoever. I just put that on the record. I think it is worth reflecting on. If there is a huge degree of distrust, then maybe you do want it in the definitions in the legislation. But I would say: have a think again, particularly around the expiation, because if we need to increase expiation fees into the future you do not want to be waiting for 20 years before that happens, I would suggest.

In closing, I thank the many honourable members and their staff for engaging with my office on this legislation. It has been a very happy work of cooperation. It has avoided many points of contention and has built on considerable consensus. I look forward to the passage of the legislation.

Bill read a second time.