HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-11-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ANIMAL WELFARE (COMMERCIAL BREEDING OF COMPANION ANIMALS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 November 2012.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (10:52): I wish to speak to the Animal Welfare (Commercial Breeding of Companion Animals) Amendment Bill, which was introduced by Dr Bob Such. In my opening remarks, I want to say that the Liberal Party is very sympathetic to the intent of this bill, but we think it needs considerable improvement to make sure that we get the right outcomes so that we do not have so-called puppy farms in operation but also so that purpose-bred dogs and their breeders are protected from the potential impacts of the legislation in terms of how it was initially drafted.

There are complexities, as I have indicated, that surround the Animal Welfare (Commercial Breeding of Companion Animals) Amendment Bill 2012. Simply, the bill provides that 'a person must not breed a dog or other prescribed companion animal for a commercial purpose except in accordance with an authorisation of the minister' and they 'must not sell a dog or other prescribed companion animal that has been bred' in contravention of the minister's authorisation.

The bill is designed to target people who are not legitimate breeders. However, as I indicated before, in its current form it does not account for any exemptions, in particular, for purpose-bred dogs and, for example, livestock working dogs, skilled guide dogs, Customs detector or border protection dogs, police dogs, dogs bred for competition or show purposes and, in some cases, pure-bred dogs.

The bill also does not make clear the following: how one would be deemed a puppy farmer; how many litters a year are acceptable not to be considered a puppy farmer; who will police the activities; how licences will be applied for, administered and maintained; how often authorisation is needed or the duration of those licences; the conditions in which companion animals are bred; and also the compliance necessary in order to sell a companion animal for commercial purposes.

I want to note what happens in Victoria, noting that all states are currently reviewing their legislation to control puppy farms. Victoria has in place the Domestic Animals Act 1994, which was recently amended in 2011, and it is a strict piece of legislation that has caused some angst with canine representative organisations, such as the Working Kelpie Council of Australia. The Victorian legislation states how many dogs per enterprise for a domestic animal business, how domestic animals should be bred for commercial purposes, and it currently applies to breeders of livestock working dogs.

I note that the Victorian legislation is complex and considerably strict and, for the house's information, it has 188 pages. We have consulted various groups and people on this including Mrs Barbara Cooper AM, the Vice President of the Working Kelpie Council of Australia. We are concerned that this bill is too broad, and it is having some effects in Victoria where they restrict the number of dogs you can have and, from memory, on some bigger properties I think you can have three working dogs, and they can get overworked, so they do not have enough dogs to do the job.

We think, on this side of the house, that there is a place for a bill like this. We think the intent is there and we think the intent is right. I want to read from clause 4 in the bill, which provides:

After section 15A insert:

15B—Commercial breeding of dogs and certain companion animals to be authorised

(1) A person must not breed a dog or other prescribed companion animal for a commercial purpose except in accordance with an authorisation of the Minister under this section.

Maximum penalty: $20,000 or imprisonment for 4 years.

I guess you could go really broad and sort out what is a companion animal. Is it your budgerigar? Is it a pet pig? I do not know; I am just asking those questions. I think it is fairly broad and, from my farming background, the way in which this bill is worded at the moment it is my belief that anyone who breeds pups—for example, if one of their bitches has a litter, which might only happen once a year, they might want to sell one or some of those pups to the neighbours—could be hit with a $20,000 fine or four years' imprisonment. I certainly do not think that that is just and right, and I think this bill is too broad.

I note a document the Hon. Bob Such has just provided me with from the Law Society and, although I have not had a chance to go through it, I believe the Law Society is saying that the intent is there but that it certainly needs some more work so that we can come to the right outcome for purpose-bred dogs in this state, and also the right outcome in regard to these factory puppy farms, and so that we can get the intent of the legislation in place without affecting those legitimate processes.

We want to make sure that those people are protected who could get caught up in this quite innocently through not knowing that the legislation is even in place—for instance, people who may be breeding guide dogs and do not have an authorisation or, as I indicated, just breeding their farm dogs, kelpies or border collies, which are obviously bred as working dogs—and do not come under any wrongful intent from any legislation in regard to puppy farming that could come through this place. We certainly support the intent of the bill, and I would certainly support working with the Hon. Bob Such and any other members of this place in getting a better outcome for dog breeders throughout the state, but also with the intent of clamping down on puppy farmers in this state.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (10:59): I will be very brief. The member for Hammond, the shadow minister for agriculture, covering many animal-related matters has already put some very clear points on record. I would just like to say quickly that I certainly do support very strongly the intent of the member for Fisher's bill. I do not think that there would be anyone in this house who has not walked past a pet shop window and seen cute, cuddly little animals in there and just thought to themselves, first, 'Aren't they cute and cuddly looking', but, secondly, 'Gee, what kind of life is ahead for those animals? Where are they going to go?'

The intent of his bill certainly is supported by me, but I say with respect that what is actually on paper for consideration at the moment I think is a long way short of what I could support and that is because of a lot of unintended consequences. I have certainly been approached by constituents very concerned about the unintended negative impact upon very responsible yet non-accredited, if you like, working dog breeders.

There is a very large number of people out there, right from someone who might have a good line, breed a litter once a year and sell or even give away their dogs to neighbours or family members, all the way through to people who do it in a far more structured way and even run working dog schools, and things like that, but who would be caught out by what is proposed for us here today.

I have also been approached by people representing other animal groups, and most recently birds, and the issue here is: what is a prescribed companion animal? Their concern is that an unintended negative consequence could flow all the way right through to making some of their activities illegal, inappropriate on paper, when in actual fact they are not.

I met with a man the other day in Port Augusta who told me that he actually had 82 or 83 aviaries in his backyard. I know that the member for Fisher does not intend to include a responsible person like that, who is actually retired, and really his full-time hobby is doing this in a responsible way and he holds a position on a state body. However, there is the scope for him and many others to get caught up accidentally by the broader description of 'prescribed companion animal' and what that might turn into or be adjusted and what that might become over time.

I say that, certainly, I support the intent of the member for Fisher. I am opposed to puppy farms per se, but I think that this legislation needs more work before it can have my support.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT