HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-06-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Dog and Cat Management (Breeder Reforms) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 June 2025.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (12:19): I rise today to speak on behalf of the opposition in support of the Dog and Cat Management (Breeder Reforms) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill represents a timely and necessary update to South Australia's animal welfare and public safety laws, particularly in response to increasing community concern over irresponsible breeding practices, the rise in dangerous dog incidents, and inconsistencies with national approaches to companion animal management.

As legislators, we have a duty to strike the right balance between responsible pet ownership, public safety and the protection of animals from cruelty and exploitation. This bill makes progress towards that goal. One of the most important reforms in this bill is the significant increase in penalties for serious dog attacks. The current maximum fine of $2,500 is simply out of step with community expectations and the traumatic consequences these incidents can have on victims and their families, both human and animal.

This bill will raise the maximum penalty to $25,000 for serious attacks and up to $50,000 where a dog was already subject to a dangerous dog order. These reforms send a clear message that owners must take full responsibility for the control of their animals, especially when prior warnings have been issued. The opposition welcomes this much-needed strengthening of deterrents and the alignment of penalties with community standards.

We also support the introduction of a breeder licensing scheme designed to target unscrupulous large-scale breeding operations that put profit above animal welfare. The measures in this bill, including strict licensing conditions, limits on the number of female breeding animals and litters and mandatory reporting, represent a clear step towards stamping out puppy farming in this state. We are pleased to see provisions that allow for breeder licences to be suspended or cancelled and that prohibit those convicted of relevant animal welfare offences from operating breeding businesses. This scheme, when properly enforced, will improve welfare outcomes and give South Australians greater confidence that pets are being bred ethically, not in squalid conditions.

The opposition does not oppose the changes to the composition of the Dog and Cat Management Board from nine members to seven as long as the board retains the appropriate skills mix and experience to deliver its mandate effectively. The revised annual reporting date of 31 October is a pragmatic adjustment to improve alignment with departmental timelines. We also welcome reforms that give councils greater flexibility to incorporate dog and cat management plans into their broader operational strategies, reflecting a more integrated approach to local government planning.

The introduction of a new wandering dog order to better manage dogs that regularly escape from their properties is a logical and measured tool that complements existing control mechanisms. Removing the outdated requirement for muzzles on retired racing greyhounds is consistent with national trends and will help reduce barriers to adoption. As a veterinarian for 15 years, greyhounds are gentle, intelligent dogs, and this change aligns with our broader goal of promoting rehoming and responsible pet ownership.

The opposition has considered the amendments put forward by the Hon. Ms Franks and the Attorney-General. In regard to the Hon. Ms Franks' amendments, while we acknowledge the spirit of her proposals, particularly around public consultation and breeder limits, we hold the view that mandatory public consultation on all changes to standards and guidelines would overly constrain the board and limit its ability to respond flexibly to emerging issues. Prescribing exact breeding numbers in legislation is unnecessarily rigid. These are matters better left to regulations, guided by contemporary animal welfare advice and industry consultation.

The proposed prohibition of surgical artificial insemination is more appropriately dealt with under the Veterinary Services Act 2023, where such procedures can be evaluated by veterinary professionals within a scientific and ethical framework. Accordingly, the opposition does not support the Franks amendments in their current form, but we do leave room for discretion should the government support a modified approach to significant public consultation requirements.

In relation to the government's own amendments, we support their inclusion. They are informed by consultation with local government and the recent cat management review, and they offer sensible, measured improvements. Providing authorised officers the ability to issue directions without requiring an offence is a practical enforcement tool. Clarifying control order language, including for barking dogs, improves legal certainty. Updating cat control provisions to ensure unowned cats can be managed on Crown land and in national parks addresses longstanding concerns, particularly for environmental protection. Aligning penalty provisions nationally is a rational move that improves consistency across jurisdictions.

I do want to place on the record, though, that we, the opposition, were somewhat surprised that this bill did not go further on long overdue cat management reform. This was an opportunity for the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, the Hon. Susan Close, to put her money where her mouth is. As the then opposition, she was a vocal critic of the former Liberal government for not acting decisively enough on the issue of stray and feral cats, particularly regarding their environmental impact and the cost burden placed on councils. Yet, now in government, she has failed to deliver the bold reforms that she once called for.

This bill was a clear opportunity to implement a consistent and enforceable framework for cat control across South Australia, but particularly in metropolitan Adelaide, with things including containment policies and support for local government. Instead, we are left with a piecemeal amendment package that tinkers at the edges, whilst ignoring the broader problem.

In saying that, the Liberal opposition supports the Dog and Cat Management (Breeder Reforms) Amendment Bill 2024 and again, as I outlined earlier, the majority of the government amendments. As a party we remain committed to upholding public safety and promoting ethical science-based animal management policy in South Australia and we welcome the bill's focus on responsible ownership, stronger deterrence and improved animal welfare outcomes. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (12:26): I rise briefly to speak in support of this bill, but in doing so I have some good stuff to say and some not so good stuff to say about this proposal. The not so good stuff is the stuff that the Hon. Nicola Centofanti has just referred to around cat management. I have taken a cursory glance back in time to 2016, when the minister introduced a bill to amend the Dog and Cat Management Act, aiming to contemporise and implement solutions to dog and cat management that reflect communities' views. That was 2016, and the minister goes on to provide those. The issue of cats—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That was Minister Close at the time, 2016. I am going to get to the interim period in a moment. So in 2016, that was Minister Close who introduced that bill. Of course, in 2018 we had an election and so there was a four-year period in between where lots of commitments were stated about what we were going to do about cats in particular. We do not have the same problems around dogs. The dog stuff everyone supports, but the cats is where it gets challenging. There were a number of commitments when, four years later Labor came back into government.

From 2019 I have the cat management plan for South Australia, which talks through the sorts of things that we would like to see done, which is all the subject of consultation with the minister. In 2020, there was a debate in this place. I remember the Hon. Ms Bourke telling me not to bring it to a vote because there was an LGA meeting that night. I think she told me that in confidence, but we are here now amongst friends.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I do not remember what was happening, but there was an RSPCA piece of correspondence put to me in 2020 saying, 'Please don't disallow those cat by-laws.' We had lots of cat by-laws. Do members remember the Notice Paper? I am sure the Clerk remembers the Notice Paper being full of by-laws that were the subject of disallowance motions. In 2023, and this applies today as much as it did then—certainly we have been waiting some time now for these review outcomes—I said:

Anyone who knows anything about the Legislative Review Committee knows that I wholeheartedly welcome the Dog and Cat Management Act review—although I have not read it yet...

I had not read it. I had just received it and I had hoped that it addressed longstanding issues that the committee had had to deal with in terms of cat and dog management in this jurisdiction, something that had consumed way too much of the time of that committee because of by-law-making processes over many, many years.

I think everyone has been waiting patiently from 2023 for that review to come out in the hope that it does something to address this issue going forward. The Legislative Review Committee has received more correspondence and submissions on cats than any other single issue in this state. That is fact. Every single time we have a Legislative Review Committee, bar one or two exceptions, we consider the issue of cats. I am going to speak out of turn and say that at the last meeting I said, 'I'm not dealing with cats anymore because if Minister Close can't deal with cats, I don't see why we should.'

The whole idea of having a statewide review on cats was to ensure that we adopted a statewide solution on cats. Here we are now, fast-forward—and I do have a contribution from 2023 from the Hon. Justin Hanson, which again points to the government's position on this issue. We are talking about the reviews that are coming, we are talking about the commitments this government is giving, and we are dealing with cats. The good news is the dogs, the bad news is the cats. But here we are now in June 2025, and everything that I have said applies as much today as it applied then.

Sadly, we have missed this opportunity to deal with cats. I, for one, will not be dealing with cats in the Legislative Review Committee anymore. I refuse to do so because it is not that committee's function to find a solution to the issue of cats. The minister has gone on the record time and time again and said that we need a statewide solution, and I hasten to say that her own department is just as frustrated about this. It is taking too long.

Cats, just for the record, do not understand boundaries. They do not understand that if you are on this side of the street you are in one council area, but if you cross the road you are in another council area. They do not understand that if you are on this side of the street one set of rules applies to you, but if you cross the road, you silly cat, another set of rules applies to you. That is at the heart of the problem around cats.

I feel like I am going to die waiting for cat reforms. Luckily, I do not own cats, so I am not going to be eaten by a bunch of cats, feral or otherwise, that chew on the human remains of a lonely, old Connie who dies alone in her house. I am not suggesting that is what happens to lonely, old women with cats, but—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It could be a dog, but I am suggesting that the time has well and truly come. These changes, just from 2016, if we are going to be serious—we were having these discussions well before 2016, but 2016 was the year when we were really going to get things into line. It is 2025 and we have been through all the reviews we have had to. I know there are people in the department who are doing their level best. I understand that this is not an easy issue to address, but it cannot be that hard. We have resolved some pretty big issues in this place. We dealt with the Whyalla Steelworks, for God's sake, and we are still trying to figure out how to deal with cats.

That is the part of the bill that I am not happy with. I remain hopeful that I will not die alone in a home amongst cats before we see some meaningful reforms in this area. That is all I am going to say about cats. That is my whinge. To get onto something that I am happy about with this bill, though—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I do not like cats, for the record. I have said this; it is my disclaimer to every—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: There's 2.3 per cent of the vote gone.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: No, can I just say that I am allergic to cats. They give me hives, so that is why I do not like them. My son loves them.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Now he is making me speak a little bit more. I do have a disclaimer—

The PRESIDENT: Stop badgering the speaker.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will say that my inbox is full of emails from cat lovers all the time. Every time I meet them, I say to them, 'Do you realise I don't like cats that much because they give me hives and they make me itch?' and they say, 'For someone who dislikes cats you do a very good job of representing our views.' So I will keep those people on side, thank you, Attorney-General.

Now I move on to another animal that I do love, and that is dogs. In 2024, in relation to IGP (Internationale Gebrauchshundepruefung), I wrote to seek some meetings with the minister responsible. IGP is a form of dog sport training. Initially, it was included as one of the features of this bill. I have worked closely with the individuals who work in this area and tried very hard to ensure that they are indeed exempt from some of the provisions that are in here.

I will take this opportunity to mention Dr Sanne Pedersen of the Working German Shepherd & Dogsport Clubs of Australasia; Mr Phil Triantafillou, president of Working Dog Federation of Australia; and Mr Matthew Heyman, president of Adelaide Sportdog Club Inc., who first raised this issue with me and who I advocated with in relation to ensuring that these dogs were not included in the realm of issues that we are canvassing here.

I had the good fortune of going out and being allowed to see how this dog sport works in practice—I had one dog bite onto the leather grip on my arm. They are exceptionally talented animals, so I am very pleased that the minister, on 3 September 2024, wrote to me. I seek leave to table that letter, indicating that the dog sport in question, the IGP dog sport, will be excluded from the definition of an attack-trained dog, because they are not attack dogs.

Leave granted.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I note that instead we all agreed that there would obviously be guidelines for councils for consideration of the relevant history of dogs involved in attacks, which can be recorded. So if there is a dog attack and the dog in question happens to be an IGP-trained dog—we do not anticipate that it will be but if it happens to be—that will be duly recorded so that we can actually keep track of dog attacks and ensure that there is not an increased risk of IGP-trained dogs being involved in these sorts of attacks.

I have not had a single case raised with me in which one of these dogs has been involved in an attack. The bottom line is, as I said: people actually invest a lot of money in these dogs, a lot of money. They treat them as family members and they are very well looked after and very well trained, but they are certainly not trained to be attack dogs.

So I am pleased with that outcome, exceptionally pleased, and I am very thankful to the minister and her department for taking this issue on board, for sitting and listening to the representations that have been made and for ultimately excluding these dogs from the remit of this bill as it was originally drafted.

I do note that Victoria is also looking at this issue and, I think, patiently looking to this bill passing in South Australia before they consider similar reforms in their jurisdiction in relation to their animal welfare laws or their dog and cat management laws, or whatever they are debating at the moment, but specifically in relation to the treatment of IGP dogs and ensuring that they are appropriately labelled as what they are.

With those words, I thank the minister for all her collaboration and good work on this bill and, in my instance, particularly for the work on the IGP side of things. I hope she will not let me die alone in the house before the further cat reforms become a reality!

The Hon. J.S. LEE (12:39): I rise to speak in support of the Dog and Cat Management (Breeder Reforms) Amendment Bill 2024, a bill that represents a significant and commendable step forward in our state's approach to animal welfare and responsible pet ownership. This legislation responds to strong community expectations that we do more to prevent unethical breeding practices, eliminate so-called puppy factories and ensure that animals bred in this state are raised in humane, safe and regulated environments.

The introduction of mandatory breeder licensing, strengthened compliance measures and reinforced desexing requirements are all welcome reforms that reflect the values of a society that cares deeply about the welfare of its animals. I acknowledge the strong support this bill received in the other place. The government has tabled amendments that clarify key provisions and strengthen the bill's intent. These changes reflect the feedback of stakeholders and demonstrate a willingness to listen and refine the legislation to ensure it is both effective and enforceable.

I also wish to express my support for the amendments tabled by the Hon. Tammy Franks. These amendments, I believe, provide important additional safeguards by defining the number of breeding animals a person may keep under a licence, limiting the number of litters a breeding animal can produce and prohibiting the artificial insemination of dogs and cats for breeding purposes. These are thoughtful and principled amendments that reflect the concerns of animal welfare advocates and the broader community. They help ensure that breeding practices remain ethical, humane and focused on the wellbeing of the animals involved, not simply on maximising output or profit.

During the debate in the other place, many personal stories were shared. These stories are not just anecdotes, they are reflections of the bond between people and their pets, and they underscore the importance of ensuring that every animal has a chance to live a safe and cared-for life. I love dogs. I do not love cats as much as the Hon. Michelle Lensink, but all the animals that came into my family's life have provided a lot of joy, care, love and support that we all need a little bit more of sometimes.

While I support the bill and the amendments, I believe it is important to place on the record several broader concerns that remain relevant as we move towards implementation. There is a likelihood that increased compliance costs for breeders will be passed on to consumers, making pets less affordable and potentially driving some towards unregulated or unethical sources. This could, ironically, undermine the very welfare outcomes the bill seeks to achieve. The bill's reinforcement of mandatory desexing is a positive measure, but we must acknowledge that for some, particularly in rural and low income communities, this may present a financial or logistical burden.

Without accessible support or subsidies, we risk creating barriers to compliance for those who are otherwise responsible pet owners. These concerns are echoed by the Local Government Association of South Australia, which has made a detailed submission on this bill. The bill does not address the ongoing lack of a statewide framework for managing stray and unidentified cats, as was called for by the Local Government Association of South Australia.

Councils remain without adequate resources, and shelters such as the RSPCA and AWL are often only able to assist if the animal is injured. This leaves many healthy unidentifiable cats in a legal and welfare grey zone. Of particular concern is a provision allowing for the destruction of cats in prescribed areas without the need for identification, as detailed in the government's amendment No. 5 [AG-1]. While this may be intended to manage feral populations, the reality is that owned cats, particularly those not microchipped or whose details are not up to date, could be at risk of being destroyed. This is a deeply distressing prospect for pet owners and raises serious ethical questions about how we distinguish between feral, stray and domestic animals in practice.

Furthermore, local government authorities are being asked to take on expanded responsibilities under this bill, particularly in enforcement and community education, without any additional funding or structural support. This places councils in a difficult position. They are expected to deliver more with less while managing growing community expectations around animal welfare.

I also wish to acknowledge the concerns raised by the LGA. In its submission the LGA has rightly pointed out the need to maintain a clear distinction between animal management and animal welfare. Councils should not be expected to enforce welfare compliance without appropriate authority or funding. The LGA has also called for statewide cat management laws to ensure consistency and fairness, particularly for regional councils. Additionally, the submission highlights a loophole in microchipping and desexing regulations that undermines the integrity of the Dogs and Cats Online system, an issue that deserves urgent attention. These are practical, constructive recommendations that should inform the implementation phase of this legislation.

I support the intent and direction of this bill. I commend both the government and the Hon. Tammy Franks for their considered amendments. These reforms are necessary and welcome, and I also believe that it is our duty to ensure that their implementation is monitored closely and that the concerns raised by stakeholders and community today are not forgotten. I look forward to seeing these reforms implemented in a way that reflects the compassion and care our community expects. With those remarks, I commend the bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (12:46): I rise today to support the Dog and Cat Management (Breeder Reforms) Amendment Bill 2024 and to flag that I will also be introducing some amendments that give this bill some real teeth to stop what all sides of politics have acknowledged are the cruel and inhumane puppy factories, these kennels of shame that we all stand here and condemn.

However, while this bill has multiple aims and I agree with most if not all of them in spirit, I differ very much regarding the exact letter of the law that is being proposed here in the bill today. The bill proposes, of course, a breeder licensing scheme that requires adherence to a 'strict' set of standards—I am not sure how strict those standards are—to limit the number of fertile female dogs a breeder may own and cap the number of litters a mother dog may have across her life. I will have more to say about that later.

Mandatory reporting will be required for each litter and licensing requirements will be toughened. That is welcome. No longer will an interstate operator convicted of animal welfare offences be allowed to simply shift across a border and resume their vile operations—again, a welcome move. Fines will be increased to up to $10,000 for breeding animals without a licence or contravening the terms and conditions put on those licences.

Licences will also be able to be suspended or cancelled if and when required, another welcome change. Also, there is a significant strengthening of the penalties for dog attacks and for dogs who have been allowed to wander. While we all love our companion animals, we have a duty and responsibility to ensure that they are safe and protected from cars or attacks from other dogs and that they do not cause a menace and threaten or harm other animals, other species and indeed humans, especially children, who are often the most vulnerable to dog attacks purely because of their size and the fact that they are often at eye and teeth level.

Instead of a maximum $2,500 fine, serious injuries or death caused by dog attacks will now be up to $25,000 or up to $50,000 from $10,000 if that dog was already known to be dangerous and the subject of a dangerous dog order. There is simply no excuse for allowing your dog to roam and attack other dogs, animals or people.

New wandering dog orders will be introduced to address dogs that continually escape and wander, and these will impact on owners as well, including giving directions for steps to be taken to secure dogs and to attend training if required. These changes send a very strong message, and I applaud that message.

The bill makes amendments to some technical aspects of the act to provide new definitions and to streamline the operations of the act. The number of members of the Dog and Cat Management Board will be reduced from nine to seven, and the reporting deadline will be adjusted to line up with other reporting schedules as well.

The online registration scheme Dogs and Cats Online (DACO) will be enhanced, and a particular provision will be made to allow for information sharing from that database, especially when there is a risk of harm occurring. The bill will further allow councils to streamline their management of dog and cat management and integrate it into their ongoing planning undertaken to simplify matters and make things easier for consumers and companion animal owners.

One of the changes I certainly applaud, which is very long overdue, is the change in the requirement for retired ex-racing greyhounds to have to be muzzled in public. This is consistent with other states and is supported by the evidence that ex-racing greyhounds who have since been adopted and have a suitable temperament are not a risk to other dogs or to people. It will reduce some of those remaining barriers to the adoption of these beautiful animals.

I have no issue with those sensible and needed reforms, but I do take issue with the government's major election promise that is in this legislation, namely, prior to the election, when in opposition, the now Malinauskas government promised to take action to ban puppy factories. Two years after their election promise to shut down puppy farms or puppy factories, the government has finally brought legislation to this place. It is now well over three years since that promise was made that we debate it here in this house; however, what we have before us is a half-hearted attempt to prevent the scourge of puppy factories and intensive puppy breeding.

While I commend the government for making a commitment and so publicly consulting on the bill, it is important we critically evaluate the government's undertakings and call out the rhetoric when it is revealed. While on the surface the government's promises to take action on animal welfare issues within the dog breeding industry sound good, the devil is again in the detail. Labor's election promise noted:

A glaring example of intolerable cruelty is the puppy factories where female dogs are forced to breed year after year and are kept in cages all their lives, crammed in filthy conditions.

Labor will eradicate puppy factories and will prevent any such operations setting up in South Australia.

The promises went on:

A Malinauskas Labor government will:

Ensure standards governing commercial breeding of companion animals in South Australia are at least as strict as any jurisdiction in the nation so there is no incentive for unscrupulous operators to move here to establish their cruel operations.

Furthermore, they stated they would:

Introduce a cap on dog numbers in commercial breeding facilities and a limit on how many litters a dog can have.

Introduce a limit on the number of breeding females in commercial kennels to be no more than the most strict state in Australia.

Rather than being the strictest state in Australia, we have aspired to be average, and it is underwhelming when you look into the detail. It is interesting that these promises are no longer available online and they have been removed, although I do thank the Liberals for their website that keeps track of those promises. I printed them out at the time and have a folder in my office should anyone like a copy. But we do know the internet never forgets as well, and the Wayback Machine is a very useful thing.

I do acknowledge that a limit to the number of fertile female dogs was put in place in 2022, but the reality is that far from stopping intensive puppy breeding factories, that limit allows up to 50 fertile female mother dogs per breeder—50 per breeder. This is far and away beyond what is considered appropriate by the experts in animal welfare, including Animals Australia and the RSPCA, a hardworking charity that must time and time again be at the coalface of investigating and prosecuting those people who cruelly mistreat or neglect animals.

Sadly, far from stopping puppy factories, this bill actually gives the green light for unscrupulous and greedy breeders to exploit up to 50 dogs at any one time and profit from the misery they create as they pump out litter after litter until they are worn out or discarded. The government bill would see breeders allowed to have up to 50 female dogs, meaning that breeder could produce literally hundreds of puppies every year for profit. Puppies need love and puppies need care, and there is no way a breeder—a cottage rather than a factory breeder—can adequately care for and appropriately socialise that many dogs: literally hundreds of dogs each year under the current proposal in this bill. As Animals Australia CEO, Glenys Oogjes, noted in her correspondence of 19 March this year, 2025:

Dogs are unique in their need for positive social interaction, stimulation and exercise and young puppies are especially vulnerable if such interaction is not provided during their formative first months at a facility. What has become clear from the evidence gathered by animal welfare groups over recent years is that large scale puppy farms even when operating legally cannot provide for the individual needs of the dogs.

So this breeder reform legislation is important, and it is the best opportunity that we will have to really make a difference to the lives of those mother dogs, their puppies and their eventual owners and those families.

My amendments would make this legislation truly fit for purpose, truly keep the promise that was made to the South Australian people and force the government to get real about their promise to stop these cruel puppy factories. My amendments would limit the number of dogs an individual breeder can have down from 50 to 10. It will follow expert veterinarian opinion and limit the number of litters to four per dog instead of five and it will ensure the out-of-date standards and guidelines can be reviewed and publicly consulted on.

The breeder reform bill that we have here today before this council is a perfect opportunity to get the government to follow through on one of the Ashton inquiry key recommendations—that greyhound inquiry by Mr Ashton—to ban cruel surgical artificial insemination. It is highly invasive, unethical and causes significant pain to female dogs. It is illegal already in some EU countries, including Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, and it was banned in the UK way back in 2019.

Greyhounds Australasia has committed to its own ban by 2026, but we in South Australia should not be waiting that long. It was a review recommendation of the Ashton report, fully accepted by the government. I understand the government will have something to say with regard to the movements in South Australia of Greyhound Racing SA, but the dogs should not have to wait until people and organisations are doing this of their own volition when we have an opportunity here now in this debate, like those other parliaments have done, to ban this cruel practice.

The bill, of course, provides the perfect opportunity to take action now. While this is particularly pertinent to South Australia's greyhounds, it is not just confined to that breed. It is particularly problematic when used on flat-faced breeds, such as French bulldogs. These dogs face high risk for anaesthesia due to their constricted airways. The rationale—a belief that it generates large litters—has actually been debunked by studies, including a nine-year study from New Zealand of 1,146 dogs that showed no difference in the whelping rates of this process, while other studies confirm that risks to dogs are much higher than when conventional artificial insemination is utilised, a much more common and much safer procedure that is widely used worldwide, including, of course, in humans.

Surgical artificial insemination is a complex and potentially dangerous procedure that involves anaesthetising a female dog, cutting through the abdomen and into the uterus, to then inject semen directly into that uterus. The procedure is highly invasive and presents an unacceptable level of risk to dogs. Greyhounds are particularly at risk due to their enhanced susceptibility to the effects of anaesthetic and a breed-specific tendency to be at greater risk of blood clotting failures if they suffer a bleed related to that surgery. While the practice has become common, in part due to the belief that it leads to these larger litters, alternative measures, such as transcervical insemination, are widely used with a much lower risk of side effects or complications, and the dogs remain fully conscious and do not require surgery.

We have laws in this state that ban the eating of dogs and cats. We have privileged these particular companion animals, because that is the standard that the South Australian community expects. While perhaps the banning of eating the cats and eating the dogs was a portent of a rejection of Trump-style politics way back in the day by a former Attorney-General, I hope that we can lead the way again on this piece of legislation when it comes to cats and dogs.

Accordingly, I urge members of this council to consider and hopefully support the amendments that I put forward to the Dog and Cat Management (Breeder Reforms) Amendment Bill 2024 to guarantee that our South Australian laws do the job that we promised the public we would do: meet community expectations that animal welfare is first and foremost the priority, not maximising profits, not supporting greed when it comes to breed, and stopping puppy factories once and for all.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the minister's office and, in particular, Emily Gore, her adviser, as well as the Dog and Cat Management Board for their support and briefings, as well as stakeholders such as Animals Australia, the Coalition for Protection of Greyhounds and the RSPCA in particular, and my staff member Jamnes Danenberg, who has put a lot of work into both this bill and into consultation on the amendments that I put before this council.

This was a Malinauskas government election promise. We are making good on that promise now. At the time, the promise was to be at least the best in the country—equal to whatever was the best in the country. At the time of the promise, the debate in Victoria was in fact for a limit to 10 of those dogs. During the parliamentary process and during other political machinations, that number went up to 50. So here today we have a number of 50 that is presented in this piece of legislation as the least worst. We can do better; we can aspire higher.

Since that debate, New South Wales has now had a debate and has a number of 20. South Australia can lead here and go with the original Victorian aspiration of 10, which abides not only by animal welfare standards and the ability to have properly socialised and treated puppies, as well as less cruelty for their mothers, but indeed would fit the community expectation of what the Premier meant when he made that promise to truly ban puppy factories.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. M. El Dannawi.

Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:15.

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