Motions

Town of Gawler By-laws

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:49): I move:

That by-law no. 6 of the Town of Gawler concerning cats, made under the Local Government Act 1999 and the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 on 24 August 2021 and laid on the table of this council on 12 October 2021, be disallowed.

This motion is similar to all the other motions I have moved in relation to cat by-laws in this place. This one deals with the Town of Gawler. We have had others in here, canvassing a number of council areas. I have made the point in relation to these before. My firm view, particularly given the outcome of the Legislative Review Committee's consideration, is that we need a consistent statewide approach to cat management, and I certainly urge whoever is in government next year to make that happen swiftly so that we can stop coming back here and considering these by-laws in an ad hoc and inconsistent way.

It is safe to assume that in developing their cat by-laws, the Campbelltown council by-laws, which we are going to consider later today, were replicated by the Gawler council, simply copying the definition of effective control by means of physical restraint from section 8 of the Dog and Cat Management Act and substituting the word 'cat' in place of 'dog'. I have said it before, and I will say it again: cats are not dogs.

These by-laws are inappropriate and unacceptable forms of control mechanisms for cats—namely, by way of tethering, which has given rise to serious animal welfare concerns. The RSPCA has expressed these concerns, and I am sure members have had this communicated to them. I have certainly tabled, for the benefit of all members, the correspondence that we have received from the RSPCA, specifically in relation to the issue of tethering.

We now have two councils whose by-laws are at odds with the other councils because they deal specifically with the issue of tethering, and they are the two that will be going to a vote today because they include tethering. I should just mention for the record, because I think it may assist members, that there is another by-law, and that is the City of Marion by-law, which currently has tethering provisions. You would be forgiven for thinking that we are allowing one council to continue that conduct and not others, but I am pointing that out because there are new regulations coming in for Marion council which do not include tethering provisions.

As I said, there are a number of these on the Notice Paper. I think I have made my point. This is not an effective way of dealing with cats and the issue that plagues us with cats wandering at large. But that aside and the requirement for a proper review of this act next year aside, we do have to deal with those councils that have seen fit to include tethering provisions in their regulations. Those provisions go against the grain of every piece of advice we have received from the RSPCA.

The RSPCA has signalled to me that they are comfortable with these two particular provisions being the subject of disallowance motions because of those provisions. It is a serious animal welfare concern. It simply should not be included in these regulations. As I said before, cats are not dogs. You cannot just replace those provisions that apply to dogs and expect them to apply equally to cats and off you go. With those words, I am urging all honourable members to support this motion.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (17:54): I rise today to indicate that Labor will be supporting the disallowance motion relating to by-law 6 2021 of the Town of Gawler, concerning cats, as we will on the similar motion regarding the Campbelltown City Council. These comments will be applicable to both of those disallowance motions.

Labor supports the efforts of local government and individual councils to curtail and minimise the damage done by wandering cats. As well as nuisance and noise, wandering cats have been known to cause damage to property, issues for other pets and are believed to be overwhelmingly responsible for the destruction of native wildlife, including birds, reptiles and small mammals.

However, while there is a need for laws to manage cats to prevent this nuisance and damage, these particular by-laws allow restraint of cats in the form of 'tethering to a fixed object'. The RSPCA has determined this form of restraint is considered to be animal cruelty, and I quote from the RSPCA:

RSPCA retains extreme concerns about the animal welfare implications of a council advocating a practice of chaining cats in back yards:

The nature of cats is that when threatened they will flee and hide. Leaving such animals exposed and unable to take flight will result in significantly increased risk of stress, injury or death.

For these reasons, Labor will be supporting the disallowance. In Victoria, this particular form of restraint or confinement has been legislated against for use with cats. The Code of Practice for the Tethering of Animals explicitly states that 'Cats must not be tethered under any circumstances.' Tethering of cats is also specifically banned in 13 US states and in the UK.

I and I am sure many of my parliamentary colleagues also have received communication from the CEO of the RSPCA outlining their concerns not only about animal welfare concerns caused by the inclusion of tethering in these particular by-laws. They have also expressed concern that if such language is to be used in one by-law, it will set a standard that will be replicated when drafting future cat management by-laws.

Across the state, multiple councils have drafted by-laws concerning cats and dogs. This is apparent when you look at the number of cat management by-laws on our Notice Paper. Of the numerous by-laws for consideration, only two use the following identical language when referring to effective control means of physical restraint with respect to a cat, specifically, 'tethering to a fixed object by means of a chain, cord or leash that does not exceed 2 metres in length'.

The remaining cat management by-laws, I am advised, allow for physical restraint measures but importantly exclude the means of tethering a cat to a fixed object. It is disappointing for all involved that one phrase could very well disallow these two by-laws, but alternatively the successful passage could result in an unacceptable use of wording that could be further replicated across other councils.

I agree with the Hon. Ms Bonaros that these laws should be coordinated in a statewide manner with input from the Dog and Cat Management Board, local councils, the LGA and other stakeholders to ensure a workable, effective and humane policy and framework is in place for councils to work with when drafting their own by-laws.

The shadow minister for environment, the member for Port Adelaide in the other place, has tabled a petition spearheaded by the fantastic Bev Langley at Minton Farm in the Adelaide Hills. Bev and her volunteers have seen firsthand the damage done by wandering cats and have collected more than 3,000 signatures calling on the Marshall Liberal government to address the damage and nuisance caused by cats wandering at large. The Dog and Cat Management Act is due for review and is the perfect opportunity to ensure that the balance is right.

This mix-and-match approach of individual council by-laws drafted without a supportive framework to work within is impractical and is unfair on councils, which invest a significant amount of time drafting and consulting on a set of words that are unknowingly not consistent with animal welfare practices. You only need to consider the very real impracticalities of the inconsistencies between council areas to realise why a statewide review is required.

For example, the owner of a cat in one council area which has no restraint by-laws in place may have their cat wander into another council area adjacent, one which has by-laws which include tethering, or even the destruction of wandering cats. That is the reality of the by-laws being considered by this motion.

For all these reasons, Labor supports this disallowance motion and looks to leadership by the Dog and Cat Management Board, in consultation with local government and other stakeholders, to find the right policy and framework to apply across the state, not just for the safety of our pets but for our neighbours, our environment and our native wildlife.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:58): The government does not support the disallowance motion. The Local Government Act allows a council to make by-laws for the good rule and government of the area, where they are permitted to do so under the act or another act. The Dog and Cat Management Act provides for circumstances in which councils can create by-laws, including requiring dogs and cats to be effectively controlled, secured or confined in a specified manner and specified circumstances.

Whilst the government understands the honourable member's concerns about tethering provisions for the Town of Gawler's by-law, it is the government's position that the by-law is consistent with the by-law making powers in the authorising legislation. Neither the Dog and Cat Management Board nor the Legislative Review Committee considered that it was appropriate to intervene with the process of the council's by-law.

It was also relevant to note that this parliament has previously allowed other councils to introduce by-laws with identical or similar tethering provisions, including the Yankalilla council, which has an identical provision, and the Mount Barker District Council and the Adelaide Hills Council, which have similar provisions. The government's view is that parliament should be consistent with their decision-making, particularly within the parliamentary session.

Whilst it may be preferable to have a consistent cat management policy across all council areas, the Dog and Cat Management Board is currently preparing for a comprehensive review of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995, which will formally occur during 2022, at which time consideration will be given to the cat management framework which is prescribed by the act. The government is supportive of the councils taking steps to improve cat management within their communities, which is allowed for by both the Local Government Act and the Dog and Cat Management Act. For those reasons, the government does not support the disallowance.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (18:00): We support the disallowance.

Motion carried.

Sitting suspended from 18:01 to 19:45