Bills

Dog and Cat Management (Breeder Reforms) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 June 2025.)

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (11:03): The government made an election commitment to ban puppy factories and prevent any such operations from setting up in South Australia. The bill introduces a new breeder licensing scheme that will require breeders to adhere to strict standards for breeding, adhere to limits on the number of female animals per breeding program, and adhere to limits on the number of litters that may be bred by a licence holder.

Mandatory reporting of each litter will be introduced. We are banning large-scale inhumane puppy farms that increase the risk of animal cruelty. The provisions of this bill provide the ability to set up a cap on breeding animals, with numbers and conditions set by regulation and policy for issuing licences. This is in line with the government's commitment to being equal to the strictest in the nation to disincentivise unscrupulous breeders moving from states with stricter laws to establish puppy factories in South Australia.

Having the numbers set by regulation and policy enables flexibility to amend this number more easily in the future, ensuring that South Australia can respond effectively and address any changes adopted by other states. We have also, sadly, seen a number of dog attacks in recent times. There are examples from across the state of dogs that have attacked other dogs or people. This bill increases the fines and penalties for offences associated with dogs wandering at large, dog attacks and other safety offences.

If a dog attacks a person or another animal causing serious injury or death, the owner will face a maximum fine of $25,000 instead of the current $2,500 penalty. The fine would be up to $50,000 if the attacking dog was already the subject of a dangerous dog order—an increase from $10,000. All other fines and expiations for dog attacks will be increased under the changes. The bill also introduces subclauses regarding a new wandering dog order to manage dogs which continually escape. The new order will stipulate reasonable steps be taken by the owner to prevent the dog escaping and to attend training, where appropriate.

The changes also further allow for the recognition of certain interstate orders, allowing the minister, on application, to recognise interstate dangerous dog orders or prohibition orders. This amendment aims to manage the risk identified in other jurisdictions without having to wait for an attack or incident to occur in South Australia.

Since the bill passed the lower house, further engagement was undertaken with councils and the Local Government Association in response to a spate of prominent dog attacks. Further amendments have been launched to support councils in their compliance and enforcement actions under the act. The amendments are focused in particular on mechanisms to reduce dog attack risk and promote community safety.

Consultation in 2024 also identified that barriers exist to feral cat management in South Australia and should be addressed as soon as possible. The government amendments also include an amendment to section 63 of the Dog and Cat Management Act, to better enable feral cat management programs and support the implementation of the updated threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats and biodiversity in South Australia.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (11:06): I thank all members who have made contributions on this important piece of legislation. This bill takes significant steps towards preventing what are known as puppy farms from setting up in South Australia and will assist councils in their responsibilities to promote and enforce responsible dog ownership.

Several members have raised during their second reading speeches the issue of cat management, and I take this opportunity to highlight some of the action that the government has taken in this regard. Members may be aware that the government separately consulted on draft legislation this year on the Dog and Cat Management (Cat Management) Amendment Bill 2024. During the consultation on this separate piece of legislation, our responses strongly advocated first for the development of a statewide cat management strategy to provide a framework for the future management of owned, unowned and feral cats.

The Department for Environment and Water is leading the development of the cat management strategy. The department has brought together stakeholders with an interest in cat management, including the LGA and members from individual councils, the Dog and Cat Management Board, PIRSA, landscape boards, veterinarians, conservation organisations, the RSPCA, the AWL and other animal shelters and rescue organisations. These stakeholders have been contributing to the development of a statewide cat management strategy over the previous months, which is anticipated to be ready for public consultation in the third quarter of this year.

I thank honourable members for their contributions thus far to the debate and for their indication of support for this bill. I also thank the public servants who have supported the development of this bill, including extensive stakeholder and community management. As previously stated, the government will be introducing several further amendments, and I will expand on these further during the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In relation to the composition of the board, can the Attorney outline why they are reducing the number of board members from nine to seven and what benefit that will bring to the act?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is a recommendation of the department to increase the efficiency, and my advice is that it was not opposed by stakeholders.

Clause passed.

Clauses 6 to 19 passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Noting that there are increased penalties specifically for dog attacks laid out in this provision, what evidence is there that increased financial penalties deter offences of this nature?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can answer as a general proposition in the application of many areas in criminal law and offence provisions: the idea of deterrence is that a monetary penalty or, in some cases, jail time acts as a disincentive to commit offences but also assists in education and information about what sort of behaviours we expect from the community. Having particular penalties in terms of dollars or jail time can act as a useful way to educate the community about behaviours that are expected.

Clause passed.

Clause 21.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Noting that in this clause there is a new penalty for persons who own and are responsible for the control of a dog and are guilty of an offence if the dog defecates in a private place, is the Attorney able to indicate to the chamber how this will be policed and enforced?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that this was a request from the local government sector—there is already an offence for it occurring in a public place and the local government sector requested it in a private place. Of course, it necessarily means that those who enforce it become aware of it occurring.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Supplementary: is the Attorney indicating that local government will be the enforcement agent of that provision?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is correct.

Clause passed.

Clauses 22 to 24 passed.

New clauses 24A and 24B.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–1]—

Page 10, after line 25—Insert:

24A—Amendment of section 47—Court's power to make orders in criminal proceedings

Section 47(3), penalty provision—delete '$5,000.' and substitute '$10,000'

24B—Insertion of Part 5 Division 2

After section 47 insert:

Division 2—Directions relating to management of dogs

48—Authorised officers may give directions

(1) An authorised officer may, by notice in writing, give a person who owns or is responsible for the control of a dog or dogs such directions as the authorised officer considers necessary or appropriate—

(a) to prevent the commission of an offence against Division 1, or any other offence prescribed by the regulations; or

(b) to prevent or manage behaviour of the dog or dogs that would, if the behaviour continues or is repeated, constitute grounds on which an order under Division 3 may be made.

(2) Without limiting the matters that may be the subject of a direction under this section, a direction may require a person to take, or to cease, such action as may be specified in the direction.

(3) A direction under this section—

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

(b) must be recorded by the authorised officer in a manner and form approved by the Board; and

(c) takes effect when the authorised officer first gives the written notice to the person; and

(d) may be conditional or unconditional; and

(e) may relate to 1 or more dogs; and

(f) must comply with any other requirements set out in the regulations.

(4) A direction under this section may be revoked by an authorised officer by written notice to the person to whom the direction was given.

(5) A person who contravenes a direction under this section is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

Expiation fee: $500.

(6) If a direction under this section is contravened, an authorised officer, or a person authorised by the relevant council for the purpose, may take any action required under the direction.

(7) The reasonable costs and expenses incurred in taking action under subsection (6) may be recovered by the relevant council as a debt from the person who contravened the direction.

Following a spate of separate dog attacks, the government committed to undertaking additional engagement with councils and the Local Government Association. We sought feedback on further amendments that would support councils in their compliance with and enforcement of the act to reduce dog attack risk and promote community safety, and that is what these amendments aim to do.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Attorney-General's amendments. They are sensible amendments that, in my understanding, are in response to the Local Government Association and landscape boards consultation.

I would like to ask the Attorney a question in regard to the amendment, around adequate support and training and potential reimbursement costs for authorised officers specifically employed by councils, particularly in regional areas.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Well, will there be any government reimbursement for reasonable costs that are borne out through training and adequate support for the authorised officers who are employed by the council?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the Dog and Cat Management Board have a significant role in providing advice, policy guidelines and training in relation to these laws. This is a function that is, to an extent, already undertaken by local councils, and this is something they have requested further to their functions.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Perhaps as a supplementary to that: so there will not be any additional training costs that will be put on councils in terms of additional requirements that they need?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We are not aware of any, but my advice is that the Dog and Cat Management Board provide significant advice and support.

New clauses inserted.

Clause 25 passed.

Clause 26.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [AG–1]—

Page 10, line 36 to page 11, line 5—Delete clause 26 and substitute:

26—Amendment of section 51—Grounds on which orders may be made

(1) Section 51(a)(ii)—delete 'in circumstances that would constitute an offence against this Act' and substitute:

(whether or not actual injury is caused)

(2) Section 51(b)(i)(B)—delete ', in circumstances that would constitute an offence against this or any other Act' and substitute:

(whether or not actual injury is caused)

(3) Section 51(c)(i)(B)—delete ', in circumstances that would constitute an offence against this or any other Act' and substitute:

(whether or not actual injury is caused)

(4) Section 51(d)(i)(B)—delete ', in circumstances that would constitute an offence against this or any other Act' and substitute:

(whether or not actual injury is caused)

(5) Section 51(e)(ii)—delete 'noise by barking or otherwise in circumstances that would constitute an offence against this or any other Act' and substitute:

an unreasonable amount of noise by barking

(6) Section 51—after paragraph (e) insert:

or

(f) in the case of a Control (Wandering Dog) Order—

(i) the dog has, on at least 3 occasions, wandered at large; or

(ii) the dog is subject to an order made under a law of another jurisdiction that corresponds with a Control (Wandering Dog) Order.

(7) Section 51—after its present contents (now to be designated as subsection (1)) insert:

(2) To avoid doubt, a council or the Board may make an order in relation to a dog under this Division—

(a) whether or not a person has been charged with an offence against this or any other Act in relation to the behaviour of the dog to which the order relates; or

(b) in circumstances where a person has been charged with an offence against this or any other Act in relation to the behaviour of the dog to which the order relates but is found not guilty of the offence (except where the court has made a finding that the dog did not, in fact, engage in the behaviour to which the order relates).

This amendment further supports councils in their compliance and enforcement to reduce dog attack risk and promote community safety, for the reasons that I explained in speaking to the aforementioned amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clauses 26A and 26B.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [AG–1]—

Page 11, after line 5—Insert:

26A—Repeal of section 53

Section 53—delete the section

26B—Amendment of section 54—Application of orders and directions

(1) Heading to section 54—delete 'and directions'

(2) Section 54(3)—delete subsection (3)

These amendments are consequential to amendment No. 1 [AG-1].

New clauses inserted.

Clauses 27 to 29 passed.

New clause 29A.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [AG–1]—

Page 11, after line 23—Insert:

29A—Insertion of Part 5 Division 3AA

After section 59 insert:

Division 3AA—Control (Barking Dogs on Premises) Order

59AA—Control (Barking Dogs on Premises) Order

(1) A council or the Board may, in accordance with this Division, make a Control (Barking Dogs on Premises) Order in relation to specified premises.

(2) A Control (Barking Dogs on Premises) Order requires—

(a) all reasonable steps to be taken to prevent any dogs on the premises repeating the behaviour that gave rise to the order; and

(b) any dogs on the premises or each occupier of the premises or both to undertake such approved training courses as may be specified in the order.

(3) A council or the Board may make a Control (Barking Dogs on Premises) Order if satisfied that—

(a) 1 or more dogs on the premises are a nuisance; and

(b) 1 or more dogs on the premises has created noise by barking or otherwise in circumstances that would constitute an offence against this or any other Act.

(4) In making a Control (Barking Dogs on Premises) Order, it is not necessary for the council or Board to—

(a) be satisfied that more than 1 dog on the relevant premises is creating or has created the noise; or

(b) identify a particular dog on the relevant premises that is creating or has created the noise; or

(c) if more than 1 dog on the relevant premises is creating or has created the noise—apportion an amount of noise to each dog.

(5) A Control (Barking Dogs on Premises) Order binds each occupier of the premises subject to the order.

59AB—Procedure for making and revoking orders

(1) A council or the Board may make an order under this Division on its own initiative or on an application made in a manner and form determined by the council or the Board (as the case requires).

(2) Before making an order under this Division, the council or the Board (as the case requires) must give the occupier of the premises at least 7 days written notice—

(a) setting out the terms of the proposed order; and

(b) inviting the occupier to make submissions to the council or the Board in respect of the matter within 7 days or such longer period as is allowed by the council or the Board (as the case requires).

(3) An order made by a council—

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

(b) must be recorded by the council in a manner and form approved by the Board; and

(c) takes effect when the council first gives a copy of the order to the occupier of the premises to which the order relates.

(4) An order made by a council may be revoked by the council by written notice to the occupier of the premises to which the order relates.

(5) A note of the revocation must be entered in the register kept by the council under this Act.

(6) An order made by the Board—

(a) takes effect when the Board first gives a copy of the order to the occupier of the premises to which the order relates; and

(b) may be revoked by the Board by written notice to the occupier of the premises to which the order relates; and

(c) must be recorded in a manner and form determined by the Board.

59AC—Contravention of order

(1) If a Control (Barking Dogs on Premises) Order is contravened, each occupier of the premises subject to the order is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

Expiation fee: $500.

(2) It is a defence to a charge of an offence against this section if it is proved that the defendant was not, at the time of the alleged offence, aware that the order was in force.

This amendment is included following suggestions made by the local government sector to defer the support compliance activities undertaken by councils. It introduces a new order-making power where barking is arising from multiple dogs on the property.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 30 and 31 passed.

Clause 32.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 6 [AG–1]—

Page 13, after line 7 [clause 32, after inserted paragraph (g)]—Insert:

(ga) if the dog is kept at premises that are the subject of a Control (Barking Dogs on Premises) Order under Part 5 Division 3AA and the authorised person reasonably suspects that an occupier of the premises has contravened the order;

This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 4 [AG-1] in relation to barking.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 33 and 34 passed.

Clause 35.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 5 [AG–1]—

Page 13, lines 34 to 37—Delete clause 35 and substitute:

35—Substitution of section 63

Section 63—delete section 63 and substitute:

63—Power to destroy cats

(1) A person may lawfully destroy or injure a cat in the following circumstances:

(a) if the person is performing functions under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 or the Wilderness Protection Act 1992 and the cat is in a reserve or sanctuary (within the meaning of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972) or a wilderness protection area or zone (within the meaning of the Wilderness Protection Act 1992);

(b) if the person is performing functions under the Crown Land Management Act 2009 and the cat is found in an area in respect of which the person is authorised to exercise powers under that Act;

(c) if the person is performing functions under the Landscape South Australia Act 2019 and the cat is found while the person is performing those functions;

(d) if the person is the owner or occupier of a designated area, or a person authorised for the purpose by the owner or occupier of a designated area and the cat is found in the designated area;

(e) if the cat is found in a place that is more than the prescribed distance from any genuine place of residence (not including a place owned or occupied by the person);

(f) if—

(i) the cat is unidentified; and

(ii) the person—

(A) is a veterinarian acting in the ordinary course of their profession; or

(B) is acting for or on behalf of 1 of the following bodies or persons in respect of a cat that has been delivered to a facility operated by the person or body:

the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (South Australia) Incorporated;

the Animal Welfare League of South Australia, Incorporated;

a body or person specified by the regulations;

(g) any other circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), an authorised person may lawfully destroy or injure a cat in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

(3) Nothing in this section limits the operation of section 65 of the Animal Welfare Act 2025.

(4) The Governor may, by proclamation made on the recommendation of the Board, declare land to be a designated area for the purposes of this section.

(5) A proclamation under this section may be varied or revoked by further proclamation made on the recommendation of the Board.

(6) In this section—

prescribed distance, from a place of residence, means—

(a) if the regulations prescribe a distance for the purposes of this paragraph—that distance; or

(b) if the regulations do not prescribe a distance for the purposes of this paragraph—1 kilometre.

This amendment came about as a result of consultation on the cat management amendment bill 2024 that occurred in July 2024. Stakeholder and public feedback raised two main points. Firstly, key industry stakeholders advocated for a statewide cat management strategy, which I referred to in my second reading speech.

Secondly, feedback highlighted the urgent need for legislative amendment to better support feral cat management programs to protect biodiversity in South Australia and the implementation of the updated threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats to address concerns, particularly by landscape boards but also by other stakeholders. These amendments clarify the powers and circumstances where such cats may be lawfully destroyed.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 36 passed.

Clause 37.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 7 [AG–1]—

Page 14, lines 4 to 8—Delete clause 37 and substitute:

8—Amendment of section 64D—Notification to owner of dog or cat destroyed etc under Part

(1) Section 64D(3), definition of prescribed person, (b), (c) and (d)—delete the paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) and substitute:

(b) a person performing functions under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, the Wilderness Protection Act 1992, the Crown Land Management Act 2009 or the Landscape South Australia Act 2019; or

(2) Section 64D(3), definition of prescribed person, (f)—delete 'registered veterinary surgeon' and substitute 'veterinarian'

We consider this amendment consequential on the update of the previous amendments in relation to feral cats.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 38.

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

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 15, after line 12 [clause 38, inserted section 69]—Insert:

(1a) The Board must, before publishing or adopting, or varying or revoking, standards and guidelines under subsection (1)—

(a) call for public submissions in accordance with a scheme determined by the Board; and

(b) have regard to any submissions received during the period specified in the scheme; and

(c) undertake such other consultation as may be required by the regulations.

(1b) The Board must, at least once in each 5 year period, undertake a complete review of any standards and guidelines published or adopted under subsection (1) to ensure they satisfy community expectations in relation to the breeding of dogs and cats.

This is quite simply a clause pushing for more community consultation and transparency around ensuring that the act is kept up to date. I understand the government has some nuance to their position.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We do, and I might explain it for the benefit of the committee. We broadly support what the honourable member's intent here is, as we do with a number of things in here. In particular, we are supportive and will be supporting the first part, that is (1a), of the amendment, that the board must, before publishing or adopting or varying or revoking standards and guidelines, do certain things like call for public submissions, have regard to those submissions and undertake any other consultation prescribed by regulations, but we are not supportive of the second part of it, that is (1b), that the board must, at least once in each five-year period, undertake a complete review of any standards and guidelines.

It is our view that that is unnecessary and that the board regularly reviews its current policies to ensure they are fit for purpose. I seek your guidance, sir. Are we capable, from the floor, of seeking to amend the amendment to remove (1b)?

The CHAIR: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In that case, I move:

That amendment No. 1. [Franks-1] be amended to remove subsection (1b).

Subsection (1b) provides:

The Board must, at least once in each 5 year period, undertake a complete review of any standards and guidelines published or adopted under subsection (1) to ensure they satisfy community expectations in relation to the breeding of dogs and cats.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Just to clarify for the sake of the committee, this was negotiated with myself by the government some weeks ago now. I understand their concerns about the overburden, if you like, of including (1b) and I was happy to drop (1b), and also about the lack of definition around community expectations. I did take on board their feedback on that. I am certainly happy to proceed, noting that (1b) will most likely be removed.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Despite in my second reading speech saying that we will not be supporting the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendments, certainly the opposition is happy to not oppose this amendment. I think it is fairly reasonable.

Amendment to amendment carried; amendment as amended carried.

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

Amendment No 2 [Franks–1]—

Page 16, line 33 [clause 38, inserted section 71A(2)(b)]—After 'number' insert '(not exceeding 10)'

This, after 'number', inserts 'not exceeding 10' instead of 50. I think most members of the community would be horrified to discover that this bill that purports to ban puppy factories allows puppy factories of up to 50 breeding dogs at any one time. That, by anyone's definition in the community, is a puppy factory. To limit that highest level number to 10 dogs I think would satisfy community expectations about this Malinauskas government actually banning puppy factories in this state.

It is a little bit of a sleight of hand, because the government promise that was made in opposition was to have the least worst laws in the country. We could have the best laws in the country and actually ban puppy factories by supporting a cap on the limit of breeding dogs here to 10 rather than the government's proposed 50.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her amendment. Again, I acknowledge the honourable member's very longstanding advocacy, not just for this particular area but in terms of animal welfare very generally, but the government will not be supporting the amendment and I will briefly outline why.

The bill has been drafted to allow a limit of females to be set in regulations or board policy. This will allow the limit to be adjusted easily if required, such as where other jurisdictions may change their limits. The bill does not propose a particular limit. It does not propose 50; it does not propose 10; it does not propose anything else. Instead, it would be a limit that would be considered by the public, with the matter to be consulted upon, and in the drafting of regulations.

The bill does not specify an amount in the legislation itself. It anticipates there will be further consultation, and that will be done by regulation. So whilst I absolutely understand the intent of the honourable member's desire to put a number into legislation, it is the government's view that this is better done after consultation and in regulation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does the government legislation as it stands in this bill being debated before us allow 60 dogs to be bred by a breeder at any one stage?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the intention is that in the lead-up to this act coming into force there will be that consultation and, by regulation, a limit set.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does the bill that we are debating before us today allow 60 dogs to be bred at any one time by a breeder in South Australia?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. My advice is the bill does not prescribe any amount in the bill itself but anticipates that will be done in consultation by regulation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the government explain how this bill keeps their election promise to ban puppy factories then?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to repeat that it is anticipated there will be consultation before this bill comes into effect to set that limit.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just for the record, the opposition will not be supporting the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 3 [Franks–1]—

Page 16, line 36 [clause 38, inserted section 71A(2)(c)]—After 'number' insert '(not exceeding 4)'

This amendment—after 'number' insert '(not exceeding 4)'—limits the number of litters a breeding dog or other animal may have from five down to four. According to animal welfare advice and those in the sector, the cruelty of puppy factories is in the lack of socialisation of the puppies but also the treatment of the animal being bred. To force an animal to have multiple litters over their lifetime and to be designed to be used simply for breeding is something that this bill purports to address. So limiting those litters to four would seem a good way forward in actually banning puppy factories.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Once again the government appreciates the intent of this amendment and acknowledges the desire, which I think the Hon. Tammy Franks has had since she has been a member of this place, to protect the welfare of animals. It is the government's view that some nuances is likely to be required when setting breeding parameters—maximum age, veterinary input, caesarean section limits and so forth—and it is the intention that there will be, very similar to the last amendment, consultation on this before it is set down and before this comes into operation.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate the opposition will not be supporting this amendment. Although I acknowledge where the honourable member is coming from, certainly my experience working with many breeders over a number of years is that the vast majority of breeders manage their bitches well during their lifetime of breeding capacity. We therefore do not feel that this amendment is required.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 4 [Franks–1]—

Page 16, after line 39 [clause 38, inserted section 71A(2)]—After paragraph (c) insert:

(d) a condition prohibiting the use of surgical artificial insemination in breeding dogs or cats pursuant to the licence,

This amendment seeks to prohibit the use of surgical artificial insemination in breeding dogs or cats pursuant to the licence. In my second reading contribution I did go over the cruelty of surgical artificial insemination, used purportedly because people believe it will create greater numbers of puppies or kittens in the litter. It is a cruel practice and, under the Ashton review, there has been a recommendation for its banning in the greyhound industry.

I understand the greyhound industry is looking pretty positively to banning this. I also understand that it is used in certain other areas, particularly dogs that are commonly known to be the types of dogs that are bred for puppy factories. It would seem an appropriate point, if the government is seeking to ban puppy factories, to ban a cruel practice that seeks to actually create puppy factories.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Whilst the government will not be supporting this amendment, the government will commit to looking further into the management of surgical artificial insemination, whether through this or through other legislative framework or, alternatively, non-legislative mechanisms through standards and guidelines.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate that the opposition will not be supporting this amendment. Echoing the comments of the Attorney-General, we feel that surgical artificial insemination fits probably more appropriately under the Veterinary Services Act 2023 and should be addressed by that piece of legislation.

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

Clause 39.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 8 [AG–1]—

Page 21, after line 15—Insert:

(1) Section 72(4), definition of reviewable decision, (a)—delete 'or 3A' and substitute ', 3AA or 3A'

This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 4 [AG-1].

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 40 passed.

New clause 40A.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 9 [AG–1]—

Page 22, after line 14—Insert:

40A—Amendment of section 81A—Interference with dog or cat in lawful custody

Section 81A, penalty provision—delete '$5,000.' and substitute '$10,000'

By way of explanation, this amendment is included following suggestions made by local government to further support compliance activities undertaken by councils. The amendment increases the maximum penalty for interference with dogs or cats in lawful custody to $10,000, consistent with other penalty increases in this legislation.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 41 to 44 passed.

Clause 45.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 10 [AG–1]—

Page 23, after line 24 [clause 45, inserted section 88]—Insert:

(aa) a specified animal was a dog or cat (as the case requires); or

This amendment is also included following engagement with councils and the Local Government Association. This clause amends the evidentiary provisions to provide that, in proceedings for an offence against this act where it is alleged that a specified animal is a cat or a dog, this will be accepted as proved in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 46 to 48 passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the Attorney indicate what sort of community education will be undertaken to ensure breeders and prospective breeders are aware of the changes to licensing?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that will be done by the Dog and Cat Management Board, but my advice is there will be significant consultation, particularly in relation to a number of things we have traversed during the committee stage that will need consultation before regulations are promulgated. My advice is that there will be significant education consultation with the sector after that is done to make sure, as best as we can, that people know their responsibilities.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Perhaps as a follow-on, does the Attorney think that the prescribed day for a category A breeder is realistic for that education process to have occurred, that being 31 January 2026?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, although that is the prescribed day set down there, it can specify a different day if there is notice in the Gazette. The 31 January 2026 date, I am advised, is likely to change to something later to do exactly what the honourable member is suggesting.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I understand that currently a mum-and-dad owner can apply for a breeder's licence, if they find that their animal is pregnant, to allow the litter to be registered and transferred to a new owner. For a mum-and-dad owner not necessarily intending to breed, what will the cost be to them and how can they deal with the impending litter under these new amendments?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that will be a matter for the Dog and Cat Management Board to set down the fees. My further advice is there is scope for different fees, depending on the purpose and whether it is essentially for profit—I think as the honourable member has talked about, a mum-and-dad owner with perhaps an accidental litter. So there is that scope and expectation that will be recognised in the fees that the Dog and Cat Management Board set.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (11:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.