Joint Committee on Statutes Amendment (Animal Welfare Reforms) Bill

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. T.A. Franks:

That the report of the committee be noted.

(Continued from 22 September 2021.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (16:52): I rise again to speak in support of the report to this chamber on the Hon. Tammy Franks' Statutes Amendment (Animal Welfare Reforms) Bill. In doing so, I would like to acknowledge the dedication and hard work of the Hon. Ms Franks on this issue over a number of years. I also wish to pay tribute to her advocacy for an improved legislative framework around animal welfare.

As you are well aware, Mr President, I was a veterinarian by profession prior to entering this place. Our clinic and our team often faced challenges relating to stray animals that were brought into the surgery. The inability to identify an animal is an ongoing problem for many veterinary clinics; however, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Dog and Cat Management Board in their role in practically delivering the Dog and Cat Management Act that has seen a greater proportion of dogs and cats microchipped, desexed and registered.

This in itself makes the role of veterinary clinics, shelters and rescues in identifying animals and reconnecting them with their owners less arduous. However, despite these significant changes, there are still many cats and dogs that remain unidentified or are surrendered to these organisations every year.

The question is: how do we go about reducing the number of dogs and cats euthanased each year, ensuring they have a good quality of life and balancing this with sustainable outcomes? Importantly, this bill looks at a code of practice and licensing requirements for animal rescues, shelters and rehousing organisations. In doing so, it provides practical guidance for people who have a duty of care to these animals and ensures there is a standard of care within these organisations.

During the course of the committee's deliberations, we received 18 written submissions and heard evidence from 25 different witnesses. The committee worked diligently and collaboratively through these witnesses and submissions to finalise this report, which makes 21 recommendations that aim to improve the bill. As our Chairperson pointed out, the aim of the bill is to amend the Animal Welfare Act 1985 and the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995.

Primarily, it (a) seeks to reduce the number of dogs and cats needlessly euthanased by rescues and shelters; (b) creates a code of practice and licensing requirements for animal rescues, shelters and rehousing organisations; (c) inserts civil provisions to enable proactive actions to better protect the welfare of animals; and (d) creates provisions relating to transparency around the reporting of data on greyhounds in South Australia.

It is important to note that, as stakeholders pointed out, stray or lost cats and dogs fall into different categories: undomesticated or feral, unidentified but potentially owned, and identified. Further complications can arise when these three categories of cats and dogs may behave similarly in an unfamiliar environment, making it difficult for cats and dogs to be categorised by rescues or shelter workers and their suitability assessed to be rehomed.

With the aim of the bill in mind—that is, to reduce the number of animals unnecessarily killed each year—the committee reviewed the application of part 3A, section 15C(2) to unidentified dogs or cats. The committee found that part 3A applies neither to feral cats or dogs nor does it apply to community owned dogs in remote Aboriginal communities, and that further clarity should be added in the regulations. However, no amendment was required.

Submitters were strongly supportive of the bill, but raised concerns about some aspects of the bill in its current form, including a lack of clarity on some of the terms contained within the bill and that some of the terms were inconsistent between the bill, the Animal Welfare Act 1985 and the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995. This led to the committee recommending that clause 5 of the bill be amended to clarify the definition of 'owner' and provide some consistency and alignment between the Animal Welfare Act and the Dog and Cat Management Act.

There was some lengthy discussion and concern about the length of holding periods for both dogs and cats within animal rescues, shelters—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members should respect the member on her feet.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: —and rehousing organisations. Subsequently, the committee resolved to provide further clarity and nuance to the definition of holding periods for cats and dogs and to clarify within the code of practice that animals should not be permanently sheltered with a prescribed organisation except in exceptional circumstances.

Stakeholders raised a concern around the lack of provision to mandate the requirement to develop a code of practice. Stakeholders pointed out that it was a critical provision in the bill that should be mandated, and highlighted their interest in being involved in the development of a code of practice. The committee consequently resolved to include the requirement that the minister develop a code of practice consistent with stakeholders' requests.

Concerns were raised about the amount of the licensing fee and the ability for the regulators to carry out inspections, but most submitters were supportive of licensing arrangements for animal rescues, shelters and rehousing organisations. Regarding provisions for interim and intervention orders to protect animals, stakeholders, and particularly the regulators, were very supportive of civil provisions to proactively enable the better protection of the welfare of animals.

On methods of euthanasia, the committee was keen to ensure that the provision did not constrain veterinarians from carrying out the most appropriate practices when euthanasing animals and acknowledged that vets were best placed to determine the most appropriate way to euthanase an animal. The committee also recommended amending clause 16, section 15L(3)(a), because it felt the term 'experiencing irremediable physical or mental suffering' was too restricted to ensure that euthanasia remains an option available to vets faced with animals that they consider cannot be rehomed.

The committee also acknowledged the challenges that rural and remote communities often face due to the tyranny of distance and lack of resources. Consequently, the committee resolved to review clause 18 of the bill to provide some flexibility in allowing inspectors in regional and remote areas to humanely kill dogs and cats whilst in the process of detaining such animals but keeping the intent that only vets carry out euthanasia once an animal has been detained.

The committee also resolved to review clause 19 of the bill to ensure that, consistent with the original intent of the bill, officers authorised in accordance with the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 can undertake feral cat eradication programs in parks.

Finally, around provisions on the responsibility of providing publicly available data on greyhounds, Greyhound Racing SA told the committee that the publication of data on greyhounds in their annual reports negated the need for legislation to enforce the publication of data. The committee, although acknowledging the efforts of Greyhound Racing SA in this regard in recent years, found that the transparency and consistency of data provision would benefit from mandating its annual reporting to the minister.

I would like to specifically thank all stakeholders and interested parties for making time to prepare a submission and/or to provide a witness statement. I would also like to take time to thank all members of the committee: our astute Chairperson, the Hon. Tammy Franks MLC; the member for Port Adelaide, Dr Susan Close MP; the member for Newland, Dr Richard Harvey MP; and the committee secretary, Mr Philip Frensham, and research officer, Ms Merry Brown. I commend this report to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.