Bills

Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 22 March 2016.)

Clause 1 passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 5, line 27 [clause 5(8), inserted definition of desex]—Delete 'castrate or spay an animal so as to permanently render the' and substitute 'permanently render an'

This amendment is on advice of the Australian Veterinary Association, and I draw members' attention to the letter received by my office and circulated to other members of parliament from Graham Pratt, who is the executive officer of the SA/NT divisions of the AVA South Australia, which states:

While the vast majority of dog and cat desexings occurring are via spay and castration procedures, these are not the only permanent desexing procedures available to veterinarians. Further, just as in human medicine, the field of veterinary medicine is continuously developing. As new and effective desexing methods are developed, it is important that veterinarians are able to develop expertise in new techniques and to offer them to clients where they are in the best interests of the health and welfare of the animal.

It has been ten years since the last significant review of the Dog and Cat Management Act. The inclusion of a prescriptive definition in the Act will mean that it is likely in place for at least another decade (if not longer). By broadening the definition in the legislation it allows space for the natural development of veterinary practice.

The letter goes on to say:

NB: the government's opposition to the amendment is based on the perceived behavioural benefits of desexing. Spay in females and castration in males will result in changes in hormone production in the animal and there is evidence that desexing will have some effect on the animal's behaviour. Other methods of desexing, while they will prevent reproduction, may not have the same hormonal effect. However, having said that, behaviour is a very complex thing and there are many factors involved. The AVA doesn't consider that the 'behavioural benefit' will be as large as the government is expecting.

That is the section of the correspondence received from the AVA of South Australia. On advice and in a briefing from the AVA of South Australia the vets raised with both myself and other members of parliament from the opposition and the crossbenches their concern about the prescriptive language of 'spay' and 'castration' being in the act. So, to give the act more flexibility, the Greens have moved this motion simply to ensure that desexing is more broadly defined.

With those few words, I certainly commend the amendment to the committee, but I understand that we do not have the numbers, and I will not be seeking to divide in this particular amendment unless it is not clear what the numbers are.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank the honourable member for speaking to her amendment and, really, for her foresight—I can only commend that. I think it is useful to have a view about when the legislation might be amended into the future. If it were only just about prospective changes, we might be able to agree, but I understand that the amendment moved by the Hon. Ms Franks has been put in place following discussions with the Australian Veterinary Association. The bill states that desexing means to castrate or spay an animal, and these procedures, I am advised, prevent reproduction as well as prevent the secretion of hormones that influence behaviour such as wandering and aggression—and that is the nub of the matter, really, from our perspective.

I am advised that the AVA has confirmed that the definition proposed in this amendment allows for desexing procedures that prevent reproduction but would not reduce hormone-driven behaviour, and that would work to the detriment of one of our aims. We aim to reduce the wandering and impoundment of dogs and cats, reduce cat overpopulation and the recruitment of unwanted cats to the feral population, and reduce dog attacks. This amendment, I argue, would weaken the effectiveness of the bill in achieving these aims.

I am further advised that the Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery—which is not a scientific journal that I actually browse frequently, but I am sure it is very worthy—states that new veterinary procedures that impact on fertility and behaviour are at least 10 years away and, accordingly, a broader definition of 'desexing' is not required at this time.

I restate that putting some foresight into our acts is a good thing, but in this instance we are not just talking about preventing reproduction; we also want to prevent hormonal-induced behaviours, such as wandering and aggression, and that is why I think we should keep with the amendment that is present in the act.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition supports the Franks amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I had asked the AVA for additional rationale in support, and I have just received that documentation, so I would like to make it known for the record. As I said, I will not be seeking to divide unless we do have an indication of the numbers; at the moment, I will be seeking to divide on this amendment.

The AVA has written to me just today, noting:

The Government proposed definition restricts the procedure to castration or spay.

While this is currently the most common surgical procedure used at the moment, there are others that are currently used to permanently prevent reproduction without removing the testicles or ovaries. These include:

Hysterectomy in female dogs and cats—removal of the uterus while leaving the ovaries.

Tubal ligation in female dogs and cats.

Vasectomy in male dogs—a surgical procedure in which the tube used to carry sperm into the pelvis is removed.

There are also hormone-modifying implants (similar to those used in human health) currently in use that prevent reproduction. While these are currently temporary in effect (1-3 years), there is significant potential that permanent alternatives may be developed within the next decade.

Such permanent implants could offer significantly cheaper desexing alternatives and benefits to the health and welfare of animals.

Under the Government's proposed definition, these procedures would not be available for South Australian veterinarians to use with companion animals.

The Greens amendment to the Bill broadens the definition of desexing to allow for the use of existing permanent alternatives and the potential for the adoption of new techniques as they become available.

The information provided to me today by the AVA of South Australia goes on to give a description of castration and spay procedures, which I am sure all members will be intrigued to hear:

Spay procedure—first the patient is given a general anaesthetic, connected to an anaesthetic machine and monitoring and then given appropriate pain relief. Then the area for surgical approach is clipped and prepped for surgery. Most spays in Australia are done through the midline of the abdomen although some are done by a flank procedure (the side of the abdomen). The veterinary surgeon then makes a 5-10cm incision in the skin, connective tissue and then the ligament that holds the abdominal muscles together. Through this hole the surgeon then identifies the uterus and gently brings it to the surface of the hole. In dogs and cats the uterus is shaped like a Y with two ovaries, two uterine horns which join to become the uterine body. The uterus is connected to the vagina by a cervix. Once the uterus is identified and exteriorised, clamps and then suture ties are placed on the blood supply to each of the ovaries, the connective tissue attached to the uterine horns is removed and the whole body of the uterus is slowly brought out of the abdomen until the surgeon gets to where the uterus meets the cervix. Another clamp is placed here and then the body of the uterus and blood supplies are tied off. Both ovaries and all of the uterus is removed. The wound can then be closed, the muscle, connective tissue and skin layers are all stitched up separately. The dog is then woken up from its anaesthetic, given more pain relief and is normally ready to go home in a few hours.

Castration procedure—first the patient is given a general anaesthetic, connected to an anaesthetic machine and monitoring and then given appropriate pain relief. Then the area for surgical approach is clipped and prepped for surgery. The surgical approach for a castration is 2-3 cm in front of the scrotum, a single incision is made through the skin and the connective tissue layer under this. One by one the testicles are pushed forward and gently brought out of the body, this allows the surgeon access to the blood supply and spermatic tube. The blood supply and spermatic tube are both clamped and then tied off and each testicle is removed. The wound is closed with stitches and the dog is woken up from its anaesthetic, given more pain relief and is normally ready to go home in a few hours.

I state this because the AVA will be responsible. Their members will be responsible for much of the carriage of this legislation. They have raised this as a concern. They are the experts in their own practice.

While the government has in its responses referred to particular journals, it certainly has not successfully sought the support of the AVA for a good portion of some of the portions of this bill. Indeed, the AVA have great concerns about the fact that they will be policing a system that will mean, as they have indicated in their briefing to us, that they will somehow be seen as the police as well as the practitioner, and they fear that people will not bring their animals to them as a result of some of the heavy-handedness of this legislation.

They have pointed out that, in their practice, they would like a broader definition for desexing undertaken in this state. I think they are the experts in their practice and should be respected, not just by the government but by all members of this council.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: There are currently available procedures for desexing in addition to castration and spaying. Our advice is that desexing procedures that additionally impact on hormone-driven behaviour—and that is what the honourable member is ignoring in her contribution—are at least a decade away. We can trade information across the chamber, and that is a useful thing to do and I might do that in a minute, but the process that we are trying to put into the act addresses not only the issues of reproduction but the issues of aggression and wandering.

What the Hon. Tammy Franks wants to allow through her amendment is for procedures that will not address those ancillary issues of aggression and wandering. We think our proposal does that. The amendments offered by the Hon. Tammy Franks, I think, weaken that part of the legislation. I am advised that research undertaken by Dr Katina D'Onise, a public health physician, formerly of the Dog and Cat Management Board, concluded:

In summary, both the epidemiology literature and animal behaviour studies indicate that dog attacks are less likely among neutered dogs, and there is a suggestion that desexing dogs will reduce the most severe attacks on humans. Borrowing from what has been consistently proven to be the case in injury control, interventions that modify the environmental risk factors are more likely to be successful. In dog management, interventions that encourage the desexing of dogs are likely to directly reduce the risk of dog attacks.

This is affecting the hormonal aspects of dogs, not just aspects of medical intervention to change the reproductive ability, but also the hormonal aspects which require desexing or spaying. The Australian Veterinary Association states that aggression itself is not inherited; however, propensities to be reactive and aggressive are transmitted. A propensity to be reactive is also greater in entire male dogs and entire female dogs about the time of oestrus.

The Australian Institute of Animal Management supports desexing, as research evidence supports the hypothesis that intact male dogs are, on the whole, more aggressive than neutered male dogs and intact male dogs are the most common group of dogs displaying dominance aggression. Evidence from both epidemiology and animal behaviour research also demonstrates a direct correlation between desexing dogs and a reduced risk of dog attacks.

I put that on the record to try to convince the chamber that, in fact, if you are trying to have a multi-impact here, not just on the reproductive behaviour of animals but also on their propensity to wander and, indeed, their propensity towards aggressive behaviour, you need to actually remove the hormonal impulses that drive that sort of behaviour. The Hon. Tammy Franks's amendment will weaken that, I submit to the chamber, and I ask that you oppose her amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 10

Noes 7

Majority 3

Amendment thus carried.

The CHAIR: The next amendment is amendment [Brokenshire-2] 1, clause 5, page 5, after line 32. Is the Hon. Mr Brokenshire here?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Mr Brokenshire is paired, so I suspect that will not be moved.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Wade–1]—

Page 6, after line 14—Insert:

(17) Section 4—after definition of wandering at large insert:

working dog means a dog—

(a) usually kept, proposed to be kept or worked on rural land by a person who is—

(i) a primary producer; or

(ii) engaged or employed by a primary producer; and

(b) kept primarily for the purpose of herding, droving, protecting, tending or working stock, or training for herding, droving, protecting, tending or working stock.

The select committee of 2012 made the distinction between companion animals and working dogs, and members of the committee were of the understanding that working dogs would not be captured by such a regime. My understanding is that that is the government's intention under this bill also. My understanding is that the government would prefer the definition to be in regulation rather than in legislation. The opposition differs from the government in that we would prefer the definition to be in the legislation, but we do not differ from the definition itself.

We understand the Dog and Cat Management Board developed the definition following consultation with a range of relevant bodies, and we understand that this definition is used in both Queensland and New South Wales, and I think the minister might have said yesterday even in Tasmania. Anyway, it is not, shall we say, an invention.

If I understand it, the government's argument is that we need to allow for the evolution of working dogs' roles. With all due respect, we think working dogs is not an area that is likely to be subject to significant evolution in the short term, and in that sense we think it is appropriate to be in the legislation and would provide reassurance to the working dog community and their owners.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: As I said or expressed previously in this place, it is not an issue I will die in a ditch over, but it is something that I think is probably bad legislation to do this, and I will explain why. We oppose this amendment and subsequent amendments from the honourable member relating to working dogs, but we certainly recognise his intent for farm dogs to be exempt from certain provisions of the act. The government supports that.

We support specific exemptions for these dogs, but propose that these be set out in regulations. This is because the government considers that the definition needs to be specific enough to set out clearly current requirements, yet have the flexibility to be revised so that any changes in sector practices can be administered in a timely way without having to come back to parliament to effect changes in the act.

The honourable member's proposed definition of working dogs captures dogs other than working livestock dogs, which is the government's intention. This may result in dogs such as guard dogs used to protect property being perceived to be exempt from the provisions in the act. The Working Kelpie Council, the South Australian Working Sheepdog Association, the South Australian Yard Dogs Association and Livestock SA all support a definition that better recognises the role of working dogs across primary industries. I understand this definition is also used in legislative schemes in Queensland and New Zealand.

The government intends to include the industry-preferred definition of 'working livestock dog' in draft regulations and then consult further, as is appropriate. However, as I said, we will not die in a ditch; we can live with it. We would prefer the term 'working livestock dog', but we think better public policy is to set this definition in regulations rather than the act.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I seek clarification from the minister: I may have misunderstood, but my understanding was that our definition was the government's definition, but it is not?

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: No.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: You can confirm that? In what sense does it differ? Reading 'working dog' in my amendment I cannot see how it could bring in a guard dog, for example, because a guard dog would not come under paragraph (a), it would not be related to a primary producer and it would not be engaged or employed by a primary producer.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will not be supporting the Liberal amendment with regard to the definition. While we understand the intent, and we do not wish those who legitimately have working dogs to be adversely affected by this legislation, we are very keen to ensure that this legislation does have the effect of clamping down on people who unethically breed dogs and cats in our state. We are comfortable with the government's delegated legislation approach because we want to get this right.

We have seen a blunter instrument used in Victoria, and we have seen people able to continue to unethically breed animals in that state, even though they have worked towards clamping down on that in the legislation. There are holes in that legislation and I do not want to see those same mistakes made here in South Australia. So we will hold the government to its commitment on this to properly consult with the relevant stakeholders, but we will support the delegated legislation in this instance.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be supporting the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I indicate that the opposition is not seeking to be reckless in terms of the potential—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am sorry, I was not meaning that in a pejorative sense, but just let me address your issue. We certainly would not want any legislated exemption for working dogs to be an opportunity, if you like, to undermine the regime. However, I draw honourable members' attention to paragraph (b), that a working dog means a dog kept primarily for the purpose of herding, droving, etc. So if someone had a working dog on rural land which was actually a puppy farm it would not come under (b); it would not be primarily kept for breeding.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I just want to make it clear what my objections are. They are not, in fact, that the Hon. Mr Wade's terms are unworkable; it is just that they are not ideal. Our preferred definition is to align ourselves as closely as possible with the definitions used by our stakeholder associations. The definition we seek to use will closely align us with the preferred industry definition currently being discussed with relevant stakeholders.

As I said, the Hon. Mr Wade's definition is acceptable, but it is not ideal. If it is in the legislation it is even less ideal because we will not be able to change it, should those stakeholders change their definition, without going back to this chamber and opening up the act again. Again, and as I said a couple of sitting weeks ago, I am not overly fussed about it. I think it is probably poor legislation to do it that way and the better way is to put it into regulations.

The even better way is to use language that our major stakeholder associations use as well, to avoid any ambiguity, and also to use language that is used in other legislation in other jurisdictions. I think that is the best way forward but, as I say, I am not going to die in a ditch over this. We believe the Hon. Mr Wade's definition will work; it is just not the best definition.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Could I clarify that it is not the opposition's intention to have a different definition from the government. The opposition by this amendment is simply trying to suggest that it would be more important to have it in the legislation. I appreciate that the government's view is that it actually makes the legislation worse. In our view, it makes it better because it provides more assurance and more clarity. In terms of the definition, my understanding of my party's position is that if I had the government definition I would put it in there, because that is not the point.

In that regard, I would be suggesting to the government that in seeking support from the council—and I appreciate the government will not be giving us support—we would be indicating that we will not be insisting on any alternative amendments on the basis of the definition if it is actually what I would call the shared definition across other jurisdictions. Our point is simply where it lives. I would say to honourable members that, if you were to support the opposition amendment, we will be taking that as an indication of your support for it in the legislated form rather than the subdelegated form, and we can clarify what in fact is the shared definition.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Again, I think I read into Hansard at some stage the definition we propose, that is:

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.

As I say, we can live with the Hon. Mr Wade's amendment, but I do not think it is ideal. It is inflexible, it does not align ourselves as well as I think the government's approach to regulation will with the legislation in other jurisdictions and, indeed, with the definition used by major stakeholders. Nonetheless, it is not something I want to waste the chamber's time on particularly.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I indicate that Family First supports the Liberal amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 6 to 25 passed.

Clause 26.

The CHAIR: The next amendment is the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I will not be moving it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Wade–1]—

Page 17, after line 13 [clause 26, inserted Part 4B]—Insert:

42CA—Application of Part

This Part does not apply in relation to working dogs.

I suggest that this amendment is consequential to [Wade-1] 1.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire is not proceeding with [Brokenshire-2] 3.

Clause as amended carried.

Clauses 27 to 50 passed.

Clause 51.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Wade–1]—

Page 37, after line 4 [clause 51, inserted section 70]—Insert:

(3a) However, subsection (2) does not apply in relation to working dogs.

(2) The Minister must cause a report of each review to be prepared and must, within 6 sitting days after receiving a report, cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

I suggest that this amendment is consequential to [Wade-1] 1.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 51A.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–1]—

Page 38, after line 31—Insert:

51A—Insertion of Part 7B

After section 80 insert:

Part 7B—Reporting and other transparency measures

80AA—Interpretation

For the purposes of this Part, a reference to euthanasia, or to euthanasing a dog or cat, will be taken to be a reference to the lawful killing of a dog or cat (however described) in this State under this Act or any other Act or law.

80AB—Persons who euthanase dogs or cats to provide report

(1) A person who euthanases a dog or cat must provide a report to the Board in accordance with this section.

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

(2) A report under subsection (1)—

(a) must be made in a manner and form determined by the Board; and

(b) must be made not later than the date fixed by the Board for the purposes of this paragraph; and

(c) must set out—

(i) the date on which the dog or cat was euthanased; and

(ii) the location where the dog or cat was euthanased; and

(iii) the method by which the dog or cat was euthanased; and

(iv) the reason why the dog or cat was euthanased; and

(v) any other information reasonably required by the Board; and

(d) may be combined with reports relating to the euthanasia of 1 or more other dogs or cats during a specified period (whether or not the other dogs or cats were euthanased by the same person); and

(e) must comply with any other requirements set out in the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.

(3) In proceedings for an offence against subsection (1), it is a defence for the defendant to prove that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that a report relating to the euthanasia of the dog or cat had been provided to the Board by another person.

80AC—Greyhound Racing SA to provide report on euthanasia of greyhounds

(1) Greyhound Racing SA must, on or before 30 September in every year, provide to the Board a report on the euthanasia of greyhounds in the greyhound racing industry in this State during the preceding financial year.

Maximum penalty: $10,000.

(2) A report under subsection (1)—

(a) must be made in a manner and form determined by the Board; and

(b) must set out—

(i) the approximate number of greyhounds euthanased in this State; and

(ii) any other information reasonably required by the Board; and

(c) must comply with any other requirements set out in the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.

80AD—Board to report annually on euthanasia of dogs and cats

(1) The Board must, on or before 30 November in every year, forward to the Minister a report on the euthanasia of dogs and cats in this State during the preceding financial year.

(2) The report must contain—

(a) a summary of the information provided to the Board under this Part; and

(b) a report on the adequacy or otherwise of practices (including short and longer term trends) relating to the euthanasia of dogs and cats in this State; and

(c) any other information required by or under the provisions of this Act or any other Act.

(3) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days after receiving a report under this section, cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

I note that this amendment is designed to increase reporting and other transparency measures. As I outlined in my second reading speech, and explored yesterday in clause 1, this bill was announced with both media and a second reading speech that bemoaned the 10,000-plus dogs and cats euthanased in this state each year. Given that the express intent of the bill was to address this issue, the Greens' amendment simply seeks to measure the rates of euthanasia of dogs and cats in our state.

This amendment requires people who euthanase dogs or cats to provide a report and for that report to include information about the date, the location, the method and the reason why that dog or cat was euthanased and any other information reasonably required by the board. It also goes on specifically to address the issue of greyhound wastage in our state to ensure that there is more transparency around those greyhounds that are needlessly euthanased, to require that information also to be provided to the board, and for the board to report annually on the euthanasia of dogs and cats.

I drafted these amendments with a number of stakeholders, most specifically in conversation with both the Animal Welfare League and the RSPCA of South Australia. The RSPCA of South Australia has for some time provided these statistics in a transparent and public way. The Animal Welfare League (AWL) does provide these statistics to the board and was certainly supportive not only of the continuation of that but also of broadening those requirements for other professionals who are engaged in the euthanasia of cats and dogs.

If we do not count something, we risk that it will not count. I will admit that while I have been in conversation, particularly with those two groups, other stakeholders and certainly a range of other bodies including the AVA, there were some wording issues with the amendment as it stands. Certainly, the definition of 'location' was something that the Veterinary Association raised as a concern, as to how prescriptive that would be in terms of whether an individual veterinary clinic could be identified through this.

To isolate individual veterinary clinics is not the intent of what I am doing here. I want to put that on the record and note that I think that a further way to progress this would be, in fact, to have the reporting perhaps by council location. Given the discussion and debate yesterday, it seems reasonably clear that this amendment will not get the support of the committee, but I did want these issues put on the record.

I note that, in fact, the board has the power to do this without this amendment and, given the words of the minister yesterday encouraging me to bring forward further pieces of legislation should I require a debate on the wastage rates of greyhound racing, I certainly indicate that I will be bringing forward a private member's bill around this area and note that the RSPCA (and I imagine this would be supported by other groups) has today raised with me that they would like rehoming rates also reported on. There are ways and methods of doing this.

This amendment, in the format that it is, while it has been consulted on is not yet in a perfect state, so it will take some further time, which I understand we do not have, given the government's priority to progress this bill. I urge the government to give consideration to ensuring that we are actually counting the euthanasia rates of dogs and cats in this state because, as I say, if we do not count it, it will not count into the future. I will certainly also be progressing my amendment for a review of this act, and one of the yardsticks by which the success of this bill that we debate today is measured should be that we do indeed reduce the needless euthanasia rates of cats and dogs which are currently unacceptably high.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As the Hon. Tammy Franks said, this discussion in committee continues a discussion we were having last night. In the context of what has been a substantially bipartisan progression of this bill, I want to affirm the point that was made yesterday which is, as I understand it, all members of this council share an objective to reduce unnecessary euthanasia of dogs and cats.

The Liberal Party, though, has concerns with the particular model for improving accountability put forward by the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Greens. As I said yesterday, we particularly want to make sure that the board is getting information to assess its own performance in terms of delivering on its statutory functions. I think it is a conversation worth having. The Liberal Party has been an active participant in the development of this legislation over time, and we are happy to be part of that conversation going forward.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government also will be opposing this legislation, and I just want to take a moment to let people know why. I heartily concur with the Hon. Mr Wade and, indeed, the Hon. Ms Franks in the shared objectives that we are trying to put into this legislation. I do not think we differ too much on that. It is just a question of getting the best outcome. The Hon. Ms Franks, the real nub of the problem is, I think, at clause 80AA—Interpretation, which provides:

For the purposes of this Part, a reference to euthanasia, or to euthanasing a dog or cat, will be taken to be a reference to the lawful killing of a dog or cat (however described)…

That has to be broadest possible of statements which, I think, causes us terrible problems. This amendment proposes a significant reporting regime relating to euthanasia practices. After briefly consulting with relevant stakeholders, the government believes it will be inappropriate to impose this additional level of red tape and regulation on these organisations which could include, of course, government departments but also statutory authorities, local government, private businesses, individuals and not-for-profit community organisations. We are talking about vets, we are talking about park rangers and we are talking about landholders who are doing some feral pest eradication on their land.

The amendment, I think, aims to impose reporting requirements on animal welfare shelters, and will impact each of the 68 councils and Outback Communities Authority that lawfully seize, detain and destroy dogs and cats under the Dog and Cat Management Act. It would also place unprecedented reporting requirements on veterinarians, police, emergency services officers, wardens under the National Parks and Wildlife Act and the Wilderness Protection Act, and rangers under the Crown Land Management Act. I am not sure that there has been much consultation with any of those affected parties.

The government understands the honourable member's intention, as I said, but we think this probably will not do that. In fact, what will probably happen is there will be a great level of noncooperation, and we would not want to see that enshrined in legislation. Also, I understand I have had some information provided to me from other jurisdictions. Not that I tend to base our achievements on what other jurisdictions do, but I understand that no other jurisdiction has a requirement to report euthanasia in legislation. Instead, as we have, it is either the responsibility of their equivalent of the Dog and Management Board or some code of practice has that in place, but it does not exist, as far as I can tell, in the ACT, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria or WA.

As I say, notwithstanding the fact, it does not mean that we cannot do it better, but I do not believe this amendment will do that for us. I think it will impose greater regulation on a vast number of organisations and individuals, and the problem with that is I think there will be a large degree of noncompliance, and that is not good legislation.

New clause negatived.

Clauses 52 to 60 passed.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition is more attracted to the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment, so I will not be moving mine.

New clause 60A.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Franks–1]—

Page 41, after line 6—Insert:

60A—Insertion of section 90A

After section 90 insert:

90A—Review of Act

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of this Act (as amended by the Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2016) to be conducted within 6 months after the 5th anniversary of the commencement of this section.

(2) The Minister must cause a report of the review under subsection (1) to be prepared and must, within 6 sitting days after receiving a report, cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This inserts Review of Act and that the minister must cause a review of the operation of this act to be conducted within six months after the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this section, and then that the minister must cause a report of the review to be prepared and must, within six sitting days after receiving a report, cause a copy of the report to be laid before both houses of parliament. Simply put, it is an opportunity to ensure that we are heading in the right direction and to ensure that the parliament continues to keep these very important issues in the forefront of our minds into the future.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government will be supporting this amendment although, as I said earlier, it probably is not necessary because it is an ongoing function of the Dog and Cat Management Board to keep the act under continuous review and make recommendations to the minister with respect to the act and regulations; nonetheless, we are very happy to support this.

My speaking notes say that in accordance with the proposed provision 'I' will request that the Dog and Cat Management Board conducts a review of the operations of this act within six months after the fifth anniversary of the commencement of the bill, and 'I' undertake to table a review in both houses of parliament—that is rather presumptuous, I think, on my part for doing so. Perhaps I should just note that should this clause be supported the minister of the day will be required to do those things.

New clause inserted.

Remaining clause (61), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (11:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.