Motions

Cat Management

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

That this council—

1. Recognises that free cat desexing programs will improve population control and welfare outcomes for cats and shelter and rescue staff and volunteers; and

2. Calls on the South Australian government to expand free desexing programs for cats to reduce shelter intake, overpopulation and strain on shelter and rescue workers and volunteers.

(Continued from 17 May 2023.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (16:31): I rise as the lead speaker for the opposition on this motion moved by the honourable member. The issue of feral cats in South Australia is a matter of serious concern, particularly with respect to their impact on the environment. The first clause of the motion recognises the potential benefits of free desexing programs. Feral cats are a significant environmental pest in South Australia. Feral cats have been implicated in the extinction of numerous native species and continue to pose a threat to many more. They are estimated to eat tens of millions of native animals each night across Australia.

The environmental repercussions are profound, with these invasive predators disrupting the natural balance of ecosystems. The welfare outcomes of such desexing programs are also noted. By controlling the population of feral cats, we can reduce the strain on shelters and their dedicated staff and volunteers. Overcrowded shelters face challenges in providing adequate care to each animal, and can logically lead to stress among workers. Furthermore, the animals themselves, when in overcrowded conditions, can suffer from increased disease transmission, stress and decreased overall welfare.

I would like to thank the honourable member for her motion but I will be indicating that whilst the opposition clearly certainly supports and appreciates the benefits of cat desexing programs to improve population control and consequently improve welfare outcomes for cats as well as shelter staff, we cannot support the motion in its current form as we do not support the blanket call on the government to fund free cat desexing programs.

While the intent behind the motion is commendable, the proposal to utilise taxpayer funds as is suggested in the second clause for this initiative during a cost-of-living crisis is not. With many families grappling with financial hardship, it is crucial that taxpayer funds are judiciously allocated and I will go into that in a bit more detail later.

The motion itself does not define whether it includes feral cat population control. Given the general intent of desexing, one would expect that it would help reduce the number of feral cats or at least stray cats, or semi-feral cats as I liked to term them in my previous profession. But I think the point needs to be made that if this is the ultimate goal—that is, to reduce the population of all cats stray and feral—I think we do need to be realistic that desexing these cats is not the only answer but it can certainly be part of the solution. It is a sheer case of numbers.

Feral cat populations are immense and, as I said, desexing is certainly one approach to managing the feral cat population. However, research suggests that there might be more effective and targeted methods. For example, the use of targeted poisoning, traps and chemical sterilisations have been explored as potential solutions.

A study by the Threatened Species Recovery Hub highlighted that a combination of baiting, trapping and shooting can be more effective in reducing feral cat populations in specific areas. Chemical sterilisation, on the other hand, offers a nonlethal alternative that can control populations over large areas without the need for continuous intervention. I would like to reiterate that the methods mentioned are for feral cats, whose environmental impact cannot be disputed.

I would like to steer us back to key issues relating to stray cats and pet ownership. Without addressing the root causes of overpopulation, such as irresponsible breeding or pet ownership, free desexing programs may only offer temporary relief without a long-term solution. Offering free desexing could actually discourage some pet owners from taking responsibility for their pets. When the cost is eliminated, some people may be less inclined to provide proper care, as they do not have a financial investment in their animals.

We have anecdotal evidence of this with free and discounted pet microchipping programs. There is often an expectation from some breeders—not all but some—whether intentionally fostering a litter or not, that someone will take care of these key health and pet identity issues and that it is a right to be provided with these services.

We must also remember that governments have, and are accountable for, budgets. There are limited resources, therefore the proposal to utilise taxpayer funds, as indicated in the second clause of this motion, during a cost-of-living crisis is something that the Liberal Party cannot support. With many families grappling with financial hardship, it is crucial that taxpayer funds are judiciously allocated, as I have previously mentioned. The cost-of-living crisis has seen a surge in the prices of essential goods and services, making it challenging for many households to make ends meet. In such trying times, the priority should be to direct funds towards initiatives that clearly alleviate the financial burden faced by struggling families.

Although there are good examples of limited and targeted free cat desexing programs that are working well, they are just that: limited and targeted. They also tend to target low socio-economic individuals and families, which I think is sensible. For example, the City of Onkaparinga held the largest free cat desexing program of its kind in Australia. It was open to all residents, with an aim to neuter or spay, as well as microchip, 2,000 cats over two years in conjunction with the local RSPCA. While I applaud the work previously done, that service is no longer offered. Local governments need to be able to balance their books responsibly for all citizens in their jurisdiction.

Finally, supporting government-funded desexing of cats sets a precarious precedent. If the government begins covering the desexing costs for cats, where does this fiscal responsibility end? If adopted, it could be argued by some that taxpayer funds should also be diverted to cover the desexing and other veterinary bills for other species.

I want to again acknowledge the mover of the motion on her bid to raise this important issue in the chamber. I note that the government has been very slow in cat management since its election in March last year. We saw a legislative review of the Dog and Cat Management Act under the current minister, the member for Port Adelaide, back in December last year, so almost 11 months ago. It was incredibly thin, but it did recommend a statewide approach to cat management. Unfortunately, we have not seen anything since from the minister, so I can absolutely understand and share the honourable member's frustration about the lack of progress when it comes to cat management in this state.

In conclusion, while free cat desexing may seem like a quick and simple fix, it does not address all the underlying issues that contribute to feline overpopulation, and it can potentially lead to unintended negative consequences, such as reduced responsibility. A more comprehensive approach, including education and responsible pet ownership, may be a more effective solution. But it is absolutely incumbent on this government to step-up and work towards a statewide approach to cat management.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:39): I briefly rise on behalf of the government to support the honourable member's motion. Desexing cats is a mandatory requirement for pet owners in South Australia. Desexing cats reduces their territorial behaviour, helps control urges to wander, reduces the likelihood of cancer and other diseases, increases the likelihood of longer life, and eliminates unwanted litters of kittens.

The Dog and Cat Management Board supports local councils and the National Desexing Network to provide stabilised cat desexing programs in South Australia. Over the past three financial years, between 2021 and 2024, the board has offered a grant pool of $160,000 to councils, who must match spending dollar for dollar. The board has this year, in 2023-24, also provided a separate grant pool of up to $50,000 to help councils and fund cat management initiatives.

Councils are increasingly also responding to cat management related issues in their communities by developing by-laws to support local cat management. As previously outlined, desexing is a critical part of cat management, and the board will continue to grow their existing council partnerships in the future to ensure that subsidised services continue to be available. I commend the motion to the council.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:40): I thank those who have made a contribution today: the Hon. Dr Nicola Centofanti and the Hon. Russell Wortley. I will start with what I think is possibly a misunderstanding by the opposition, and I will draw their attention to the definitions in the FAQs in the RSPCA and the AWL's document in regard to a proposed South Australian cat management plan. One of the FAQs is: does the plan propose changes to feral cat management? The answer is:

No, feral cats are very different from urban stray cats. Ferals, unlike urban strays, have no reliance on humans directly or indirectly for food or shelter, but rather hunt and survive on their own. They are typically found in the wild…

It goes on. I will note that in speaking to this motion, I brought to the attention the 11,000-plus signatures of many in the South Australian community—handwritten signatures—tabled in this place, which, of course, then necessitates a parliamentary debate.

Those signatures were gathered largely through the resources, the stretched resources, of rescues and shelters, including Adelaide Kitten Rescue, Cats in Crisis, Cat Adoption Foundation, Ginger Ninja, Help Save the Kitties, Hisses to Purrs, Making a Difference Cat Rescue and Adoptions, Paws and Claws Adoptions Incorporated, Purrfect Paws Rescue, Rescue ME Whiskers and Paws, SA Cat Rescue, South Aussies for Animals, Tiny Tails Rescue Adelaide, Whiskers and Tails Adoptions, Wilde Cat Cottage, and more. In particular, I previously noted the work of Virginie Ducruc.

In the speech and in the petition, it was quite clear that these were semi-owned and unowned cats. They were not feral cats that we were talking about. In fact, I think you will not find that many feral cats in these rescues and shelters because, by their very nature, all of those organisations that I just read out are run by humans, not cats in the wild, so I think the opposition has the wrong end of the stick.

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti: Where do you mention the petition in the motion?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I did mention the petition in the motion. The motion had a speech that went through it. If you read the speech—

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti: But it is about the motion.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If you did not understand the difference between feral cats and unowned and urban stray cats then maybe you should have asked that question before you got up in this place and spoke against a very sensible idea to desex cats in response to over 11,000 people who have signed a petition, a petition sent to all of you. But, if you did not know the difference and you needed to be told by a member of the parliament, perhaps you should actually read the letter that was sent to you by the RSPCA in regard to support for this motion. That letter reads, and it was sent to all members of parliament:

Motion for government to fund desexing programs for cats—to reduce shelter intake, overpopulation and strain on shelter workers and volunteers

Thank you for considering this very urgent issue. At RSPCA we currently have over 300 cats in our care, and with two upcoming seizures and the beginning of kitten season underway—

this was October last year—

this number will rise again within weeks.

Effective cat management requires the collaborative effort of state and local government, animal welfare organisations and community volunteers, and the components of cat management plans must be adopted holistically.

Desexing is not a silver bullet to adopt in isolation of other cat management tools, but evidence from interstate shows that free desexing programs that microtarget high (cat) intake areas then conduct intensive low or no cost desexing programs in those areas—have substantially reduced cat numbers.

With most shelters and rescues currently over capacity we strongly support calls for government funding to facilitate free desexing.

Without state government assistance, nothing will change—animal shelters and volunteer cat rescues currently exceeding maximum capacity will remain closed to new intakes and the welfare of cats and of shelter workers (who have to turn cats away) will continue to spiral downwards.

Current outcomes do not meet community expectations and we must act now. We urge you to support the Motion—

being this motion that we are currently debating—

to:

I. Recognise that free desexing will improve population control and improve welfare outcomes for both cats and shelter staff.

Gosh, that was mentioning the shelter staff in the motion itself, wasn't it? Continuing:

II. Calls on the South Australian Government to fund free desexing programs for cats to reduce shelter intake, overpopulation and strain on shelter workers and volunteers.

Perhaps next time, I will underline or bold the appropriate parts of the motion so the opposition can actually digest and comprehend the debate before them. With that, I do thank the government for their support. It has been a long time coming, but it will have a big impact, and it is most welcome by those who support these cats in rescues and shelters who are overburdened, under stress, trying to do the best they can with few resources. It will go some way, I think, to showing the government's support for them and their fine work. With that, I commend the motion, and I will be calling a division.

The PRESIDENT: I am not sure you will need to divide. You cannot divide if I call in your favour.

Motion carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Divide.

The PRESIDENT: You cannot divide when I call in your favour.

At 16:48 the council adjourned until Tuesday 14 May 2024 at 14:15.