HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-12-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Animal Welfare (Companion Animals) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 September 2014.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (23:02): I rise to support the second reading of this bill brought to us by the Hon. Michelle Lensink, and I commend her for her work on this issue. This bill goes to issues of companion animal welfare that I have long brought before this house. I do remember that the Hon. Michelle Lensink has been standing at Oscar's Law rallies with me for many years now, almost since my first days in this place.

In my first year in this place I raised my concerns with the then minister for consumer affairs, the Hon. Gail Gago, who is now again in that portfolio, with regard to the presence of what are colloquially called puppy farms, puppy factories, or puppy mills in this state. I received an answer in 2010, which reads in Hansard:

There is currently only one large commercial puppy breeding establishment operating in South Australia. This establishment has been inspected by RSPCA officers who did not find any animal welfare concerns.

While the government considers that the current provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 1985 are adequate to address the welfare of animals in commercial dog breeding establishments…

I certainly was not satisfied with that answer. It has certainly been borne out, through the work not only of the RSPCA but of others, including the Paw Project and many other groups, that there are puppy factories, or puppy mills, or puppy farms operating in this state. The RSPCA has ramped up their campaign on this issue, as has Oscar's Law and other governments in Australia. I commend the work in Victoria, particularly the work in this area of Deb Tranter of Oscar's Law.

I also strongly disagree with the conclusion of the government back then that there were adequate provisions to address puppy farms under the current legislation. I think we can all agree in this place, almost without exception, some more than others, that South Australians and South Australian members of parliament do love their companion animals.

We have now spent the past 4½ years discussing and debating a solution to inhumane breeding practices; breeding that, in some cases, can see female dogs continually pregnant, never walked, badly socialised, malnourished, unloved and, in severe cases, never even seeing the sun. This is not the image that is publicly portrayed of rolling green pastures and jovial pups where people think that some of these animals come from.

The Animals Australia campaign describes the reality of puppy factories as no sky, no walks, no kindness and no bed. It is not what we want for animals here in South Australia, and we can do better. The RSPCA has estimated that up to 95 per cent of dogs sold in pet shops potentially come from puppy factories. That is a disturbing figure. A puppy factory is defined by the RSPCA as:

…an intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs' behavioural, social and/or physiological needs.

These puppy farms can be and often are large-scale commercial operations, but inadequate conditions may also exist in small volume breeding establishments which may or may not even be run for profit. Puppy farming is a major animal welfare issue in Australia and to Australians.

The main welfare problems associated with puppy factories include, but are not limited to, extreme confinement where, in some cases, breeding animals may never be allowed out of their cage to exercise, play, socialise, have companionship or even to go to the toilet; inadequate veterinary care and general care; grooming and parasite control; unhygienic living conditions; inadequate and overcrowded housing conditions; frequent long-term health and behavioural problems in breeding dogs and puppies born in these places as a result of the poor conditions they are bred in; and the lack of adequate socialisation.

However, I have seen this parliament in the last session make a great step forward with the formation of the Select Committee on Dogs and Cats as Companion Animals, and I certainly welcome that. However, that committee tabled its report almost 18 months ago and we are yet to see any movement on behalf of the government taking up the recommendations of that committee. I think it is to the Hon. Michelle Lensink's credit that she has brought this bill before this place, noting again that parliament is set to be prorogued and acknowledging the realities of how far we can go with this debate in this manner.

I believe this bill will need appropriate consultation, and I thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink not only for keeping the Greens in the loop but for sharing her consultations with various sectors and communities to be affected by this legislation, and with myself as she has progressed it. I also want to note that that select committee came about as a result of a private member's bill that was brought into the other place by the late Dr Bob Such on this issue.

He acknowledged in that private member's bill that he did not have all the answers and that it was a flawed bill. I remember the Law Society's feedback was not overly glowing, but it did put the issue on the agenda and that is exactly what this bill also does. We would not have seen a select committee without that bill being put forward by the former member for Fisher.

I also thank those who participated actively in the select committee, in particular the Hon. Susan Close (who is now minister Susan Close) and the member for Port Adelaide and also the Deputy Speaker, Frances Bedford, the member for Morphett, Dr Duncan McFetridge, the previous member, Mr Adrian Pederick and the previous member, Mr Alan Sibbons, for their contributions and deliberations on that matter where they heard from many witnesses, took submissions and did some of the hard grunt work to create the recommendations that have been the basis of a chunk of this bill.

This bill addresses the issue of the licensing of breeders. It is an issue that should have been addressed many years before this, but it is an issue that we should address now nevertheless. People deserve to know that the animal they are bringing into their homes has been raised in an environment that has had positive impacts, not only on its physical health but on its behavioural health as well.

Many animals from puppy factories have behavioural issues from being confined, malnourished and neglected. With the introduction of a transparent breeder licensing scheme, we will see those inhumane breeding factories diminish. The buyer will also be assured that the breeder has met, at the very least, some minimum standards for humane breeding.

To reduce the risk of backyard puppy factories which might otherwise fly under the radar, the desexing of all non-breeding animals will ensure that any animal sold for non-breeding purposes will not be used for reproduction. Put more simply, this bill ensures that desexing will occur pre-sale. For most, this means not having to find the time and the money to take a dog to a vet to have it desexed.

Having this cost, as well as vaccination and worming, included in the sale price will also mean that buyers will be more aware of the costs of owning that dog and it will, I believe, aid in deterring those impulse buyers so common around periods such as the one we are coming up to, the Christmas period.

Shelter reform will also play an important role in the companion animal debate, and I will be introducing a bill in the 54th parliament that I believe will be compatible with this bill we have before us tonight. That bill will certainly aid in the adopting and rehoming of animals that are unfortunately surrendered or without homes.

I am grateful to the RSPCA for working long and hard on this issue. I remember going up and seeing what I call the Paris Hilton puppies—the designer dogs, little white fluffy things—that have physical defects and terrible socialisation because they have been bred for a profit. They are taken into homes by people who are unable to cope with the multitude of health costs and the lack of socialisation, and they are surrendered into shelters and the shelters are left to pick up the pieces.

The provisions in this bill will also assist with that practice, and I hope we will not be seeing any more of those unfortunate instances also being unnecessarily taken on by shelters such as the Animal Welfare League and the RSPCA and, indeed, the many rescue centres and shelters we have across South Australia. They are fine people doing good work to support animals. With those few words, I commend the second reading of the bill.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (23:13): Cuddly puppies and kittens are not what most people think of when they think about the Hon. Mr Lucas, but he is a great lover of pets and all animals, I am sure. The opposition bill which proposes to amend the Animal Welfare Act addresses a number of recommendations made by the Select Committee on Dogs and Cats as Companion Animals which reported to parliament in July last year. I am advised that the government will be proposing an amendment bill to the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 that also addresses recommendations made by the select committee early in the new year.

Both the government's bill in development and the opposition bill before us today propose to address select committee recommendations to require mandatory microchipping and develop a breeding code of practice. It is widely acknowledged that microchipping is a very effective way of reuniting a lost pet with its owner. There is growing community concern about the number of cats and dogs that are impounded and subsequently euthanased each year. The inability to trace owners because dogs and cats are not microchipped is exacerbating the problem.

A breeding code of practice will set standards and guidelines for the breeding of dogs and cats and will enable inspectors to ensure animals are bred in a healthy and humane manner and conditions, and that potential purchasers can be confident their pet has not come from a puppy farm. However, there are significant differences between the bill the government will propose and the opposition's amendment bill. The opposition's bill is proposed to apply to all companion animals. This includes not only dogs and cats but, potentially, other animals such as horses, rabbits and reptiles. This was certainly not the intent of the select committee's recommendations, which looked at dogs and cats as companion animals.

The government's proposed amendments will target the management of dogs and cats, the focus of the select committee's recommendations and where the majority of community interest lies in this matter. The broad nature of the proposed amendments in the opposition's bill applying to all companion animals will make it problematic to consider requirements and adequately address the needs of such a wideranging group as companion animals.

The details around many of the opposition's proposed amendments is left to regulation, which is yet to be developed. Many of the proposed amendments have not been developed enough, and it is likely that in developing the regulations it will become clear that many of the proposed amendments could lead to significant unintended consequences. For example, the opposition bill proposes a breeder licensing scheme. This aims to improve breeding standards, stamp out puppy farms and allow RSPCA inspectors and council officers to inspect the breeding premises to ensure compliance with animal welfare laws.

The government is sympathetic to the idea behind this proposal, as many breeders operate outside of regulatory oversight. However, a licensing scheme is likely to impose an additional layer of red tape that would likely have little benefit beyond those provided by a mandatory breeding code of practice. Dogs SA estimates that there are over 10,000 commercial and hobby breeders of dogs and cats in South Australia. It needs to be considered who will conduct and pay for all these assessments, who will set the assessment criteria, and who will issue the licences. The bill says that the minister is to issue licences. It needs to be considered: from where will the resources come to do this?

The opposition bill proposes that every breeder of dogs and cats must stop their pets from breeding until they become licensed. It is difficult to see how people proposing to breed dogs and cats will stop the breeding until the licence arrives in the post. It might be needed that a consideration is given to an introductory period.

The proposal by the opposition is likely to create many more problems. It may well be a complicated and burdensome scheme that will achieve limited outcomes. The opposition bill also proposes a cooling-off period associated with the purchase of a pet. This cooling-off period is defined as 10 days, commencing on and including the day on which the contract is made. A contract for the sale of some puppies and kittens is made before the animal is even born, so it would need to be considered when practically does the 10 days start and end. This is another example of some of the details that will have to be thought through before a bill like this is voted on.

The government's proposed amendment bill is intended to provide a comprehensive and streamlined approach and an appropriate and enforceable regulatory environment that will address the most pressing community concerns around dog and cat management in South Australia. It is proposed that new provisions will be enforced by local councils through the existing registration process. The proposed amendments, including mandatory microchipping and a breeding code of practice, follow through on the government's response to the select committee, which indicated that it would put in place measures to support policy directions outlined in its final report.

They also considered joint recommendations of the Dog and Cat Management Board and the Local Government Association, and I am advised that they had the broad support of key stakeholders, including the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League and the Local Government Association. The public will be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments early next year. I encourage members to consider what is included in this bill, but ask that support be given to the government's bill when it is introduced in parliament early next year.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (23:19): Just for the assistance of the chamber, I support the bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (23:19): I will be brief in my summing up. I did make quite a number of comments in my second reading on 17 September, and I would like to reacknowledge the very keen interest in this topic and driving of this issue by the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Bob Such, as has been outlined, and also commend the work of the select committee. I outlined in my second reading the positions of a number of the stakeholders. I have since then, since 17 September, received a letter from the Local Government Association, which says as follows:

Although Councils have a limited role in animal welfare matters, the amendments are generally viewed as a positive step.

However the main issues raised by Councils were enforcement and resourcing issues. Councils are concerned to ensure that any new compliance requirements will not fall to Councils to enforce. In regional areas, in particular, there is concern that the RSPCA is not adequately resourced to carry out its enforcement functions and Councils do not have the resources to fill the void.

I just add that to complete the record. I would also like to thank again parliamentary counsel, who I think did a pretty good job of matching up the recommendations of the select committee to legislation. I do acknowledge that there are probably going to be some amendments required, and that is why I did want to take this to a second reading vote tonight rather than through all stages.

I would like to highlight some of the comments of the Hon. Tammy Franks in her contribution, where she stated, I think, that the RSPCA estimates that maybe some 95 per cent of puppies sold through pet shops have been brought into the world through puppy farms. I say that because some friends of mine recently have sought to purchase a puppy. They were not necessarily interested in a purebred, so they went on Gumtree. The first question that they asked of people was whether these animals had been bred on puppy farms, and they were quite surprised at the number of people who immediately hung up on them, so I think that there are probably a lot of hidden practices in the community that we would want to stamp out.

I would like to thank the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Kelly Vincent for their indications of support, and the Hon. Kyam Maher for placing the government's position on the record. I would like to take issue with a couple of the things that he raised. He stated specifically that the committee referred to dogs and cats and not other animals. That is true, but if the government would bother to read the legislation in detail they would find that in the definitions section this would apply only to dogs and cats.

It naturally leaves a lot of the detail to the regulations because, quite frankly, that is the government's job to do that sort of work. In opposition and as minor parties in this place we do not have the resources to do all that exhaustive consultation and round tables of meetings to get the fine details of codes of practice and those sorts of things; that is well and truly their job. I am surprised that it is indicated now that it opposes a breeder licensing scheme and a cooling-off period. I look forward to the debate. I would like to think that we can reach some sort of agreement between the parties in this place and look forward to the future debate in 2015.

Bill read a second time.

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