Summary Offences (Dog Theft) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 November 2022.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:33): I rise to make some remarks in relation to this very short piece of legislation, which provides a new penalty in the Summary Offences Act for dog theft, that being $50,000 as the maximum penalty or imprisonment for two years.

I do appreciate that we live in times where dogs, often called 'designer dogs', are incredibly expensive, and that provides an incentive to people to steal someone's beloved pets for the purposes of using them as breeding animals. A number of us in this parliament have taken a stand against puppy farming. I acknowledge the Hon. Tammy Franks on that front, and indeed we have passed legislation which has improved the laws in relation to puppy farming. So, along with everybody else in our community, we are always very concerned about people not treating animals with the due respect that they deserve.

I do note that these penalties are particularly high, and from the Labor Party's election policy in relation to—I assume it is their animal welfare policy. There was not actually a penalty that was publicised in that, so I will have some questions at clause 1 in relation to that. I also note that there are provisions that already exist in relation to theft of property, which could also be used to prosecute someone for these offences, but we support the bill overall.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:35): I rise today to indicate the Greens' support for this bill that will create separate penalties for the theft of dogs. Over recent years, as the Hon. Michelle Lensink has observed, the price of dogs has skyrocketed. People are regularly paying up to $5,000 for a dog. The new offence in this bill aims to be a deterrent for dog theft, given there is real potential for financial return in theft and then the resale of dogs.

The Greens have long been on the public record advocating for the welfare of animals. My colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks has been a leader in this space in the parliament and has been campaigning for many years to ban puppy farms in South Australia. Indeed, as far back as 2011, the Hon. Tammy Franks presented a petition requesting that this council stand up for South Australian puppy farm dogs and ban the sale of dogs and cats in pet shops, and in this place the Hon. Ms Franks has regularly called for reform to ban puppy farms.

Again, the Greens reiterate our calls for the Malinauskas government to urgently progress their election promise to ban puppy farms. Rather than pushing often piecemeal reform such as this, the government should be stepping up and taking real action on animal welfare, and we do hope to see urgent action on all of the reforms that they promised in their election policy document to ensure that animals are not needlessly suffering.

I do observe there is an inconsistency between the penalties that have been applied for dogs and other animals. I am reminded of that famous phrase in George Orwell's Animal Farm where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others, and it seems that there is a different penalty that is being applied to dogs that is not being applied to other animals, and I would like to delve into that a little bit further during the committee stage of the bill. But the Greens are supportive of this reform, and anything that sends a clear message to the community that exploitation of animals is not acceptable is something that we are supportive of.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:38): I rise today to speak briefly on this bill on behalf of SA-Best and note at the outset a theme we seem to be becoming familiar with, namely, Labor election commitments as the rationale for the bill. We are concerned about the consultation or lack thereof with relevant stakeholders, for the same reasons outlined in earlier debates. I understand the primary consideration of this bill and its targeted effect is to address longstanding issues of puppy farms, which of course should be stamped out.

The bill carves out dogs as a unique category of property, which will attract a new and significant financial penalty for theft but, unlike existing laws, it is to carry a lesser maximum imprisonment term of two years. The rationale for the hefty $50,000 financial penalty is to hit someone where it hurts: namely, their hip pocket. There seems to have been little to no consultation with the RSPCA or other relevant stakeholders, so for us our concerns are not so much a matter of substance but process. This, like some other bills—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Lame interjections are out of order.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: I thought it was good.

The PRESIDENT: Yes, you did.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Sorry, I am barking up the wrong tree with that.

The PRESIDENT: Two strikes. Three strikes and you are out. Sorry, the Hon. Mr Pangallo, please continue.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: This, like some of the other bills the government is rapidly advancing, is what it is: an election promise. It is not our job to endorse election promises but rather to scrutinise the substance of a bill and formulate support if we agree. We would have thought that a better approach to this issue would have been to consult on a range of measures all aimed at preventing puppy farms. That is what happens when you effectively try to rubberstamp election promises.

Do not get me wrong, we do not intend to oppose this bill because we do think it does have some merit in terms of its deterrent effect, but I expected the government to do a more thorough job addressing this issue, especially given the apparent lack of consultation. We can confirm a quick consultation undertaken by our office indicates the RSPCA for one were not aware of the legislation or where it comes from. I am pleased that we did reach out to them to confirm they are supportive of significant penalties associated with the offence because if dogs are stolen they are likely to end up in a puppy farm situation, subject to forced breeding until euthanised, and anything that avoids that is a good step.

The question remains, as we have been advised, breeder standards are currently being reviewed to make them tougher and more enforceable via changes to the Dog and Cat Management Act. Why are we not considering these changes together with further planned changes aimed at addressing the same issue as part of a package of reforms?

Is there a gap in those proposed changes this bill seeks to close, or is it just ticking off another election commitment? Can we expect to see changes in line with what we have just outlined, aimed at making breeding standards and registration more stringent and subject to greater enforceability powers? What are the changes? These are important questions that members ought to be aware of in the context of the current debate. We are hoping the Attorney will be in a position to respond to them as we proceed in the debate.

It is not our intention on this side to wade through Labor election commitments just for the sake of ticking a box, and that is not how it should work. Electric vehicle levies, car parks, dogs and bushfires all require appropriate levels of consultation. With those words, I look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:42): From my briefing on this bill, I understand there is a persistent and increasing issue with opportunistic theft of purebred dogs. I understand that dogs and puppies who sit unattended in backyards in our suburbs are an easy target. A jump over the fence and a little effort on Gumtree or Facebook Marketplace and a criminal has turned a quick buck.

I appreciate the high penalties instilled in this legislation, which will act as a deterrent for most of these thefts. I do question if the government is listening to other animal advocacy groups. Other purebred pets are worth thousands on the black market, such as koi fish, cats, rabbits and exotic reptiles.

I would welcome further investigation and expansion of section 47 in the legislation. Many pets are an expansion of the family unit and are well loved. I want to see those passionate about their animals feel secure that legislation dissuades criminals from stealing and exploiting animals. I would also welcome further investigation into the online marketplaces which host the sale of stolen animals.

I would like to take this opportunity to impress upon all the importance of microchipping your pet. Although not failsafe, it is a helpful way for authorities and vets to track the ownership and residence of an animal. Microchipping is very important for reunification with lost and stolen pets. Should a pet be stolen or go missing of their own accord, it is far more likely to be traced home if they are microchipped. Although this legislation could indeed be more complete, it is a good start with solid penalties and has my support.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:44): I wish to thank members for their contributions. I gather there will be a few questions at clause 1, which I look forward to discussing, and I look forward to the passage of this legislation.

I might foreshadow, too, that there have been some very good points raised during the course of the debate about other measures that can be taken. I do not want to create a false impression that this is the only measure that is being taken in relation to issues like puppy farming and the protection of animals. This is one discrete element. There is other work that is ongoing and underway and will be before us at some time in the future in relation to some of the other issues people have quite reasonably raised.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: Any contributions at clause 1? The Hon. Mr Simms, I would invite you to tell a couple more of your jokes, but I refuse to torture the rest of the chamber.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I could not possibly; it is a dog-eat-dog world in here. I do not want to go down that path.

The CHAIR: No; that's three strikes! Out you go!

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: One of the issues that I touched on in my second reading remarks related to the disparity between potential penalties for theft of dogs and other animals. Could the Attorney put on the public record what the rationale is for that disparity? I know lots of people will be concerned about the welfare of cats, for instance, and wonder why there is not the same—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Hear, hear!

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I know the Hon. Michelle Lensink is concerned about that, and there will be many others who would like to know why they are not being given the same protections.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I join the Hon. Michelle Lensink with her views on cats. We have two cats at home and no dogs. I am a dog person as well, but I quite like cats.

I think it was my colleague the now Deputy Premier who developed a suite of issues to do with animal protection. My understanding is this was one that was developed after representations that took into account a number of factors: the special place that dogs in particular have as companion animals, the roles they play as companion animals, and also the value in terms of the monetary value, the risk of offences being committed and the need for deterrence, as I understand it.

It is somewhere in the upper $40,000s. I think $48,000 or $49,000 is the recent record price for the sale of a dog. It is that combination of their place as a companion animal but also their value compared to other companion animals, which are no less loved—Zuma and Cleo, in my house, are no less loved—that relative value that some dog breeds are now obtaining in Australia.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: One final question: the minister indicated earlier that there are other reforms that the government are intending to pursue in this place. I note in particular their policy position around puppy farms. Can the minister provide an update on the status of those reforms and when we can expect to see them, given the government's zeal to implement their election commitments?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I was hoping, as I heard second reading contributions, to message the Deputy Premier, who has responsibility for these matters, who I think is probably in the air on the way home from Egypt after attending COP27. I do not have the exact details of those, but I am happy to bring replies back about the status of the work that is being undertaken. If my memory serves me correctly, there have been changes to regulation recently in relation to puppy farming, but there is substantially more work to be undertaken before reforms are brought before us here in parliament.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I note the maximum penalty is currently 10 years and this bill carries a penalty of two years. How is this not watering down the penalty?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. He is quite right. For general theft under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, the value can depend upon which court it is prosecuted in—the District Court or the Magistrates Court—but for basic theft the maximum penalty is up to 10 years in prison.

What this seeks to do is create a standalone offence under the Summary Offences Act rather than the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. The maximum is two years, not 10 years. In terms of general theft, there is a much wider variety of offences that could be considered and hence a greater maximum for the much greater variety of offences that could be considered.

The standalone dog theft provisions in the Summary Offences Act provide for a maximum of two years but, unlike the general theft, has specifically a maximum fine of $50,000, although it would be open to a judge to impose a monetary fine even though there is not one under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. The idea behind this is to create a standalone offence. Because it is a much narrower offence in terms of what it is about—that is, dog theft—the maximum is not as big as it does not take into account a whole range of different scenarios.

As members have talked about in second reading contributions, one of the things we anticipate this will do is create a deterrent by having a standalone offence that has a significant monetary penalty and also the possibility of jail time for anyone who might consider making a quick buck for resale, as people have pointed out, on Gumtree, or stealing a dog for sale into puppy farms or other areas. This will create that deterrent.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: For clarification, it would still be open to the authorities to pursue dog theft under the general Criminal Law Consolidation Act provisions?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The Hon. Stephen Wade is absolutely right. It is not uncommon for a certain factual scenario under our law to have a number of different ways that it could possibly be charged. The prosecuting authority would consider those and look at the most appropriate way to charge. If there was a particularly egregious circumstance in relation to a theft, it would still be open to prosecute under the general theft law under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act with the maximum for the basic offence of possibly 10 years, but this creates another avenue for a standalone offence and of course the deterrent effect that we would hope this has.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can I give you the example of Hoover the kelpie, who sold for $35,000 last year. If Hoover the kelpie was stolen and then the thief was caught, considering that stealing $35,000 of property is a major indictable, would this be considered a major indictable?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I think it is a specific example of the general question that the Hon. Stephen Wade asked before. If it were a value of $35,000 for a dog it would be open to the prosecuting authority to lay a charge under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act general theft provisions, which would be heard in the District Court and would have a possibility of a maximum of 10 years in jail.

There are things like the actual circumstances of the offence: the nature of the offending; what the circumstances were; and perhaps the views of the owners of the dog, who in this case are the victims of the offence. But it would also be open to be charged under the new provisions that we are speaking about here, which appear in the Summary Offences Act and which provide for the maximum fine of $50,000 or two years' imprisonment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Did the police or the DPP actually ask for this? Are they having problems with prosecuting dog thefts?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that for the police it is not an impediment to prosecute because, as we have canvassed, under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act there is that provision for general theft. I am advised that the police do not have any concerns particularly about having another avenue or another option of an offence to take into account.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The question was: did the police or the DPP consult with you and request this?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think the honourable member in his second reading contribution correctly noted that this was an election commitment. I will check but, if my memory serves me correctly, it was not when we were in opposition that the police or the DPP came to the opposition, which would be a highly unusual sort of thing to happen—that tends to happen in government. Rather, I suspect it was consultations with those involved in the industry—such as puppy farming, those who are involved in their care, and people who own dogs—that gave rise to the genesis of this.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can the Attorney-General outline the extent of consultation on this bill? Which parties were approached and were there any contributions from relevant stakeholders?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I have said, the original idea was formulated from an opposition election commitment. I do not have that information in front of me, but I am certainly happy to take on notice the consultation and the genesis of the idea, and also the development of the bill, and bring back a reply to the honourable member.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: A dog without a bone. I have just one more question for the Attorney-General. Do you have any statistics on dog thefts?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have any available to me now but, again, I am happy to take that on notice. I was trying to think of an appropriate pun—

The Hon. R.A. Simms: The dog ate your homework?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, I was not going to say that.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Simms, that is nearly enough from you. You might have to leave.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice and see if there are statistics that can be brought back for the honourable member.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think we all appreciate that the bill is going through this afternoon, but if any of those unanswered questions could be tabled in the House of Assembly it would be fantastic. Can the Attorney advise how the specific penalty provisions were arrived at?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that, as this is placed in the Summary Offences Act, two years is the maximum penalty for offences under the Summary Offences Act. In the discussion of the determination of the maximum penalty, it is a significant maximum penalty but I am advised that it was eventually settled upon as an appropriate amount, given the need for a deterrent value and given the very substantial value that dogs attract in South Australia and around Australia. As I said, in the recent past in Australia I think there was a record set somewhere around $48,000 for a dog.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am going to show my bias here but, as other honourable members have also referred to, there are other household pets, some of which are quite expensive in the cat domain, which is my preference. Breeds such as ragdolls, British shorthairs and chinchillas can be extremely expensive as well. Did the government give any consideration to extending this to other species or indeed to exotic animals that probably have quite a significant trade on the black market?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I appreciate that. I will check what other animals may have been considered and the reasons, if they were considered and not included in this bill. As I said earlier, I understand the genesis was the place that dogs particularly have as companion pets and the functions they provide as companion pets and the relative value of companion pets, but I do take into account the honourable member's very strong interest in cats. I do appreciate the cat jumpers the honourable member occasionally sports as an external sign of her very strong appreciation and fondness for that species of animal.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My question to the minister is: how is a dog defined and where? Is it the previous reference in the Summary Offences Act that this legislation relies upon?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised we are not aware of a definition that already appears in this piece of legislation. If there is not a definition of something in legislation, it is taken as the ordinary meaning of dog. If there was a concern about the canine species, I am sure there would be expert evidence called to determine to make sure that it was a dog within the ordinary meaning.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will refer the minister to the current definition under the Summary Offences Act with regard to eating dog or cat meat that does already define 'dog' as Canis familiaris, so it is defined currently in the legislation. My question was actually leading to another: given you have also given an answer that talks about companion pets, are greyhounds dogs under this law?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her questions in relation to this. My advice is that the definition that appears in the Summary Offences Act in relation to particularly section 10—Offence to consume etc dogs or cats, pertains specifically to that section. It is not a definition, on my advice, that would refer to other parts of the Summary Offences Act, which would include this new section about dogs. That is my advice, but it would fall back to the ordinary definition that it is a companion dog. We think it would include greyhound, but we are happy to check on that as it goes between the houses.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That goes very much to my concern. Previously in legislation in this place, we have sought to treat greyhounds as not dogs when it suited us to have lesser animal welfare standards for them. I would seek an assurance that greyhounds will be covered by this legislation and will be treated as dogs. Certainly, with the lack of definition that applies specifically to this dog theft, I would think that would be quite an oversight that should be corrected in the other house.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member. We will investigate that as it goes to the other house and certainly take that into account.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I appreciate that the house is wanting to facilitate the transfer to the other place but, considering that the Hon. Tammy Franks' concern is strong, can we actually have an assurance from the government that, if greyhounds are not covered by the bill as it stands, the government will move an amendment in the other place to include them?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, it is thought that a greyhound as a companion pet would be counted as a dog here, but if that is not the case we will have a look to see how that can be included in the other place.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Final one: I just put on the record that previously I have actually sought to amend other pieces of legislation, not the Summary Offences Act but other pieces of legislation, and it has been rejected by the parliament to consider a greyhound a dog, which is quite extraordinary, so I certainly seek in this that we get some clarity, perhaps in the second reading contribution by the minister in the other place, that in fact greyhounds will be treated as dogs.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will seek that from the minister in the other place and I will certainly draw her attention to the Hansard of this chamber and the desires of this chamber.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 and 3) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (17:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.