Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The first topic I wish to address is the topic of desexing. Regarding desexing, will precommitment to desexing be built into the purchase price of an animal, a dog or a cat?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I imagine that will be a decision of the person who is selling a dog or a cat. I know from personal experience that that is certainly built into the purchase price if you buy an animal from the RSPCA, in my case, and I assume that applies also to the Animal Welfare League. If it is a matter of a private breeder, I understand again that normally those animals are sold desexed anyway because, unless a person wants a dog for showing purposes for these breeds, then the owner, the breeder, normally does not want to have a large pool of fertile dogs out there from which others can breed. My advice is that they are usually sold desexed anyway, and that cost is built into the purchase price currently. I do not imagine anything in this bill will change that situation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the minister inform the committee which breeds of dogs will be exempt by regulation with regard to the exemptions on mandatory desexing?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that there will not be any breeds that will be exempted. There will be exemptions based on the function of the animal.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That then leads to my question: would the exemptions apply to working dogs, and what would be the definition of that? Obviously we have amendments to move to the bill with regard to this area. There may not be breeds, but will they be applied to working dogs?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government's intention is to include the definition of what is a working dog in the regulations, and the regulations, as I understand it, are being consulted on very broadly, particularly with those organisations representing people who use working dogs. The definition recommended by the Dog and Cat Management Board, in consultation with industry groups, is broadly consistent with definitions used in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania, I am advised.

A working livestock dog means a dog usually kept or proposed to be kept and/or worked on rural land and/or by an owner, breeder or lessee who is a primary producer, a person engaged or employed by a primary producer, and primarily for the purpose of herding, droving, protecting, tending or working stock.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you, minister. I am now moving on to a separate topic. On the topic of euthanasia of dogs and cats in this state, in the second reading speech of this bill and in the media release announcing this legislation, the opening lines were that 'at least 10,000 dogs and cats are euthanased in this state each year'. Can the minister detail where that figure comes from and what information we have specifically about the wastage rates of greyhounds each year in this state?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: In relation to the question about 'at least 10,000 dogs and cats are euthanased' every year, I am advised that information comes to me via the Dog and Cat Management Board which has collected information from various organisations, including the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League and other sources—presumably also councils—to arrive at that figure.

The estimate is just an estimate. It is believed that the euthanasia rate may be higher than 10,000, hence the phrase 'at least 10,000 animals'. In relation to the greyhounds my understanding is that greyhound racing is administered under a separate act, the Greyhound Racing Act I think it is called, and is the responsibility of another minister.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: So the number of 10,000 does not include greyhounds.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The Dog and Cat Management Board is now telling me that, no, it does not include greyhounds.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Could I seek clarification. The minister I think used words to the effect that it probably includes local government. Could we have more precision about the scope of the 10,000? We are wanting to get some sort of scientific estimate, shall we say, of the extent of the issue.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I can only reiterate my advice. It comes from the Dog and Cat Management Board. They collect figures, I understand, from the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League and other sources, which presumably include councils. It may also include veterinarians. I know they did a body of work in the lead-up to the citizens' jury which was conducted on these issues, and it may well be that they collated some information through that process as well. That is how that figure was arrived at is my understanding.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: So, in spite of the fact that this bill has been under consideration for a long time, we are not getting clarity about how this data is collected.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: You have all the clarity I can give you.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With all due respect, minister, 'probably local government' does not instil me with any confidence that we are being given clear advice.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am not seeking the honourable member's confidence. They are not my figures; they are figures that are relayed to me by the Dog and Cat Management Board. As I say, they collect statistics from the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League and, presumably, councils. I do not know if they collect them from all councils or the big councils; I do not have that information.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In asking this question, I remind the minister of his own words to this council in response to a question I raised in question time on the topic of greyhound wastage and this piece of legislation. I asked the minister whether or not this piece of legislation would address those issues. The minister replied that the establishment of an independent body is a racing issue and a matter for the Minister for Racing. However, he went on to say:

I am advised that Greyhound Racing SA requires licensed persons to establish and maintain records of all births, sales and deaths of greyhounds. Greyhounds are also microchipped at the breeding establishment to ensure that tampering of these records does not occur.

So I ask the minister why the Dog and Cat Management Board does not have the figures for the deaths of these greyhounds.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I do not know how much more simply I can explain to the honourable member that it is because they are not administered under the act we are dealing with. They are administered under a separate act. There is no requirement in South Australia to report euthanasia statistics—I think we all understand that.

In South Australia, euthanasia statistics are not provided by others involved in euthanasing dogs and cats, such as police officers, emergency services personnel, dog or cat breeders, farmers, veterinarians and those involved in the culling of wild dogs and feral cats, such as park rangers, for example. Those people do not report on euthanasia rates.

The Dog and Cat Management Board currently receives euthanasia statistics from the RSPCA and the AWL pursuant to confidential agreements with those bodies. The board has asked councils to provide their euthanasia statistics in preparation for the citizens' jury—I alluded to that. Councils do not systematically disclose euthanasia statistics, I am advised.

The board has some existing powers to have statistics and other information provided to them should it choose to use them. Further investigation is required to determine if this would ever cover all circumstances of euthanasia. My view on that is it probably does not. If we refer back to those people I referred to in the first paragraph—i.e. police officers, emergency services personnel, dog and cat breeders, park rangers, veterinarians, farmers and those involved in the culling of wild dogs—I am pretty sure the Dog and Cat Management Board would not be able to get information out of most of those, even if they asked to.

Again, we come back to the information that is available to me through the Dog and Cat Management Board. We have information from the RSPCA and AWL. Some councils provided information to the Dog and Cat Management Board through their citizens' jury approach; that is how they have come up with a figure of at least 10,000. We have never claimed it to be the top limit, we have never claimed it to be precisely accurate; that is why I have used the phrase 'at least 10,000 animals'.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am glad the minister has suddenly found some information to—

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: It is exactly the same as what I told you before.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, the previous comment, minister, was 'probably local government'. To tell us now that councils are approached in the context of the citizens' jury is information that you did not provide to us before. I ask the minister: what proportion of councils provided information in relation to the citizens' jury process and—

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I do not have the advice.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I can be given the courtesy of finishing my question, then the minister might choose to answer it. What proportion of councils provided responses to the citizens' jury, and was the 10,000 figure extrapolated for, shall we say, the non-responding councils, or is it a response-only figure?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the Dog and Cat Management Board asked for information from all councils, and my advice is approximately 90 per cent of them responded.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: To clarify for the record, what the minister was saying on this clause about euthanased cats and dogs, I support and understand the fact that the minister is saying that farmers, as an example, need to euthanase feral cats. I would love to see 10,000 feral cats, out where they are getting into the environment and causing damage, taken out as often as possible because there are tens of thousands out there. My question is: can the minister assure the house that farmers will not have any reporting processes into the future with this legislation in regard to them destroying feral cats on their farms?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: It is not the government's intention to bring such reporting arrangements into this legislation, but I understand some amendments standing in the name of the Hon. Tammy Franks may in fact do that, and we will deal with those as we get through the bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Returning to the greyhound issue and the lack of information held by the Dog and Cat Management Board with regard to those wastage numbers, the minister has previously informed this council that those deaths are recorded but held—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: You informed this council in an answer to a question I raised with you with regard to greyhounds and this piece of legislation:

I am advised that Greyhound Racing SA requires licensed persons to establish and maintain records of all births, sales and deaths of greyhounds. Greyhounds are also microchipped at the breeding establishment to ensure that tampering of these records does not occur.

So this information exists, but the Dog and Cat Management Board currently does not have access to it; that would be my understanding. My question is: given that we are reforming this legislation, and given that there has been a commitment to reduce the euthanasia rate of dogs and cats in this state, why does this bill not consider ensuring that the Dog and Cat Management Board actually receives information about the death of those greyhounds?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: They have their own legislation. It is not appropriate to put instruments in this bill to impact on an industry that is being regulated through its own legislation. If that is what the honourable member wants to do—and good on her for trying, I absolutely support her right to do that—she should be opening up that bill and imposing the changes into that bill, not into this one.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Why then does this legislation have a specific section on greyhounds? If the minister is not willing to look at the desexing and microchipping of greyhounds, why doesn't the minister also collate that same information that is provided by the AWL, the RSPCA and, as he has said, some councils to the Dog and Cat Management Board and which was provided for the purposes of the citizens' jury? Why is the greyhound industry not also required to provide that information that it is already required to collect? Why are the citizens of this state not entitled to know those numbers, and why does the government seem to not care that those numbers are kept hidden from the people of South Australia?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The section on greyhounds is about public safety. It is about ensuring the safety of greyhounds in the community. It goes to issues about the muzzling of greyhounds and how greyhounds are exempted, for example, from wearing muzzles in public. That is the intention of that, and because we actually want to rehome these greyhounds as well. By actually having them rehomed—as I am told, that happens particularly well here in South Australia compared with other states—the intention in the act is to talk about community safety, public safety. That is what the act is about, as well as animal welfare. The greyhound racing industry is managed through a separate entity, a separate instrument, and if the honourable member wants to go to that, she should open up that bill, not this one.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I think it is very disappointing to hear the minister wash his hands of any responsibility for the wastage, the unnecessary euthanasia of greyhounds, and to argue in this place that somehow we as a council, and as a state government leading this legislation about the euthanasia rate of dogs and cats, are concerned but somehow do not consider greyhounds to be dogs. Does the minister have any commitment to this government progressing any legislation that reduces the wastage rate of greyhounds in this state?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I must say that I take a little bit of offence at the tone of the honourable member in asserting that I have no interest in the welfare of these animals. It was me and my colleague in the lower house who changed the Animal Welfare Act and brought those changes into this chamber for debate, creating new offences for participating in live baiting, for example, and increasing the maximum penalties up to $50,000 and imprisonment for up to four years.

It was minister Bignell and myself who sat down with the RSPCA and Greyhound Racing SA to talk them through a suite of changes to the guidelines, which are not a part of this act; they are part of another act, and a part of the guidelines that Greyhound Racing insisted that its own members operate under.

Greyhound Racing advises that the industry is working towards improving the welfare of their greyhounds. The Dog and Cat Management Board and Greyhound Racing SA, I am advised, do not object to the disclosure of statistics in principle. However, they seek that such disclosure is undertaken responsibly, probably in the very same manner that those disclosures are made by the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League to the Dog and Cat Management Board.

I have to say that the Hon. Tammy Franks wants to single out this organisation. I understand why she is doing that, but I just say to her: this is not the right bill to do that in. If you want to prosecute these arguments, absolutely, all power to you, go off and do it; that is your right, but do it in the right legislation.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am acting shadow for the Hon. Michelle Lensink—who I know has worked with the minister for some time to progress these issues—and if I can I would like to get a bit of late education.

My very quick reading of the act is that greyhounds, as dogs, are part of the responsibility of the board in terms its function being 'to plan for, promote and provide advice about, the effective management of dogs and cats throughout South Australia', but the reason euthanasia of greyhounds would not be a matter for the board is that section 21(1)(b) provides that it oversees the administration and enforcement of the provisions of the act relating to dogs and cats. It is not responsible for enforcing greyhounds.

If that is not the case, I seek clarification on the Hon. Ms Franks' point that, if greyhounds are dogs, is the exclusion of greyhounds because they do not come within the provisions of the Dog and Cat Management Board as of now, and the honourable member's amendments would bring them within that scope?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank the Hon. Mr Wade for his remarks. I do not have much to say about those; I do not have that advice in front of me. I could turn to the act, I suppose, but he, being a lawyer, would have a better ability to read that than I would, without getting advice.

In terms of euthanasia, I understand completely where the Hon. Ms Tammy Franks is coming from; I have had discussions with her several times. However, this act, these amendments, are about trying to drive down the euthanasia rate at source. They are about trying to drive down the operations of puppy farms which just churn through births of dogs and cats and turn them out into the system, and it is about microchipping and desexing.

Again, these are aimed at making dogs much easier to identify and return to the owners when they are lost, as well as being traced through the system so that people can find out who the breeders are and people can make sure they are getting an animal from a reputable breeder. The desexing part of it is also about making sure that we put downward pressure on those unwanted litters that flood in time and time again throughout the year, which obviously increase the euthanasia rate.

This is how were trying to do it, at source. We are trying to attack the issue in this bill through that process. If the Hon. Tammy Franks wants to go off and do some work on euthanasia being reported on I commend her for that, but I have concern about her amendments, which we will get to when we come to those clauses—and I should say, in advance, that the government will not be supporting her amendments.

However, this legislation and the amendments to this bill are about trying to drive down the euthanasia rate by putting downward pressure on litters, on unscrupulous breeders, making sure that we keep the operators of these wonderful organisations—the Animal Welfare League and the RSPCA—putting down as few animals as possible. That is ultimately the key ambition of the amendments to this bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I respect the sincerity of what the minister is saying. I think there are two issues that we will be discussing in this bill: the transparency of the processes to monitor euthanasia and the public transparency in terms of the reporting of that monitoring. If a function of the board is to plan, promote and provide advice about the effective management of dogs and cats throughout South Australia, it cannot do its job without collecting relevant data, and I think the parliament has a right to know what processes the board has in place to make sure it is doing its job.

The minister was irritated when I was exploring that element of compliance with the roles and functions of the board which is in the act, but I make the point that the parliament is not just in the business of putting laws in place, we also want to make sure they work effectively. The whole parliament shares the minister's desire to reduce euthanasia rates. We want to make sure that the board is fulfilling the functions that this parliament has given it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I wish to make an observation that when I was asking if the minister had the intention of bringing forth legislation with regard to greyhound wastage, it was a genuine question: it was not a reflection on his intent, which of course would be unparliamentary. I move:

That progress be reported.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.