HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-03-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 November 2015.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (12:46): The Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill makes a number of amendments to the existing act. I will not speak to all the aspects of the bill but merely the main aspects.

I am supportive of compulsory microchipping of dogs and cats as I believe it is beneficial not only for the owners but for the animals as well. There are often instances where dogs and cats are separated from their owners, and obviously if the animal is microchipped that will ensure it is returned quickly. This reduces the stress on the animal as well as the anxious owners. An exemption exists for some animals, provided it is at the discretion of a veterinarian. I understand that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and the opposition have filed amendments which would exempt working farm dogs as well.

The bill also provides for compulsory desexing of dogs and cats. Again, the bill allows for veterinarian-approved exemptions; however, it also allows an additional exemption for registered breeders. Many councils have offered discounts on dog and cat registration for owners who have microchipped and/or desexed their animal. This is a positive move which encourages responsible pet ownership. However, I was recently contacted by a constituent who had gone to register their dog. I understand there is a requirement to register a dog within three months, and this person attended the council within three months and was advised that the registration could be further discounted if the dog were desexed.

However, for many dog breeds it is not recommended that they be desexed until they are at least six months old. I understand some councils offer to apply the discount retrospectively once owners are able to provide proof that the dog has been desexed, but in this particular case the council advised that no discount would apply. This matter was raised at the briefing with the Local Government Association and the minister's office, and I would be grateful if the minister could advise if he has any further information on this.

A new breeder registration scheme will be established under the bill, whereby registered breeders will have to abide by a code of practice. Only breeders who are registered will be allowed to sell dogs or cats, and a list of these breeders will be kept by the Dog and Cat Management Board. I understand that registration will be to the tune of about $100 or so per animal. Whilst I appreciate that the board would want to keep breeder registration low-cost, I am concerned that there is no regulation of the breeders: that is to say, I understand that there is a mandatory code of practice that breeders must abide by, but there is no-one who will check to ensure that this is being adhered to.

Can the minister provide further information about this? In particular, will councils and the RSPCA rely on information from the public to investigate breaches of the code? How will breaches of the code be dealt with? If a breeder is deregistered, will this be declared as a reviewable decision that can be reviewed by SACAT? Will deregistered breeders be named and shamed on the board's website?

The minister indicated that a breeder registration scheme would reduce or stamp out puppy farms. However, without regulation of the code of practice, I do not understand how this would occur, and I would be grateful for any further information on this.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (12:50): This bill aims to address the distressing alleged treatment of animals in puppy and kitten farms and the equally outrageous high rates of euthanasia of dogs and cats. It proposes a range of measures, including greater power for councils to manage dogs; additional powers to manage cats, subject to each council's discretion; mandatory microchipping of all cats and dogs; mandatory desexing of cats and dogs; greater evidence-collecting powers for councils; increased expiations and penalties; and registration of breeders.

Dignity for Disability certainly supports all these measures in principle and understands that, as it is appropriate, some specific measures, such as the prescribed ages for microchipping and desexing, are to be set by regulation, and I understand there are some further amendments to that which certainly are worth consideration, I believe. While I think the desexing of animals is important, we certainly do not want to create a situation where they are being subjected to that prior to the appropriate age or in a way that leads to any further complications.

A further measure proposed by the bill is worthy of particular support, namely, the proposal to amend section 21A relating to the accreditation of assistance dogs. The act now provides for accreditation of 'disability dogs, guide dogs or hearing dogs' to enable the dog to accompany their handler, a person with a disability, on public transport or in a shop or restaurant, for example. However, the act currently stipulates that the Dog and Cat Management Board must accredit such a dog, even if it has already been trained and accredited by a relevant body, such as the Royal Society for the Blind.

This bill proposes to make that easier and to improve this, first, by replacing the somewhat outdated terms 'disability dog, guide dog and hearing dog' with the overarching term 'assistance dog'. Secondly, it proposes that an assistance dog may be accredited by the Dog and Cat Management Board or another prescribed accreditation body where relevant, such as the Royal Society for the Blind, Guide Dogs, or Lions Hearing Dogs, for example. It needs to be accredited by one or the other, rather than both.

The bill provides that additional accreditation bodies be prescribed by regulation. It appears that the proposed amendments to the process for accrediting dogs could cut down the time and cost of the process of accrediting an assistance dog to a person with a relevant disability, and on that basis Dignity for Disability fully supports that measure. Nonetheless, I take the opportunity to point out that this reform could go much further.

More than one constituent has informed my office of issues relating to assistance and/or therapy animals, that is, dogs, cats or other animals used as aides to physical, emotional or psychological support or therapy. Such animal-assisted therapy, animal-assisted intervention or animal-assisted activity or companion animals, is recognised to varying extents by some interstate and overseas jurisdictions, including New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT, the commonwealth, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America, as well as New Zealand.

I appreciate that the Dog and Cat Management Act may or may not be the best vehicle for legislating for greater recognition of companion and therapy animals; nevertheless, with these few words I wish to flag that there is still ongoing work to be done beyond recognised assistance animals, and I am very happy to be a part of those discussions to enable people with disabilities and other conditions to take full advantage of the many therapeutic qualities of having animals in their lives, which may or may not fit under the term 'assistance animals'.

I hope that we can continue to see that those benefits are increasingly recognised, and I am happy to work on that alongside any member in coming times. With those words, on behalf of Dignity for Disability, I support the bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (12:55): Unlike the Hon. Rob Lucas at times, I will be very brief commenting on this bill, but that does not mean that Family First is not absolutely committed to achieving the best outcomes in regard to the intent of this bill. In summary, the bill is overdue, and I congratulate the minister on this occasion for getting this legislation into the house because pretty much for as long as I have been in parliament there has been debate about the issues around dog and cat management and control and about desexing and microchipping.

When driving around Adelaide, you can see many dogs that look as if they are not being looked after and almost feral cats that claim the lives of our beautiful native birds. You also see them out through the farming areas where I live, and it is out of control. I understand that 10,000 dogs, or some huge number like that, are disowned every year. We cannot go on the way we have been in the past. From all the advice given to us, whilst I have pages and pages of notes, in summary it appears that the absolute majority of people (80 per cent) who responded to YourSAy supported the provisions of the bill.

I note that the Australian Veterinarian Association, whilst agreeing with mandatory desexing of animals, has made some qualifications that we can perhaps tease out in committee, but I am keen to see the second reading of this bill pass. I do have an amendment, as the Hon. John Darley and the Liberal Party have flagged. I would ask the government in a bipartisan way to have a close look at my amendment. It has been requested by people involved with working dogs, and I believe it is a sensible amendment for farmers and pastoralists. I will speak more about it in committee when I speak to my amendment.

In summary, I believe that this measure needs to be passed. I am pleased to see us finally bringing in some proactive and positive amendments to the Dog and Cat Management Act that I hope will augur well for the better management of dogs and cats into the future.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:18.

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