Tuesday, 9 September 2025

Domestic Animals Amendment (Rehoming Cats and Dogs and Other Matters) Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ros Spence:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Emma KEALY (Lowan) (18:20): I rise today to speak on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Rehoming Cats and Dogs and Other Matters) Bill 2025. I know that this is the place to be because no-one wants to go to the Spring Racing Carnival event tonight and nobody wants to go to the Italian dinner with food brought in by the consul general; people want to support our vital dog and cat rehoming sector and particularly the community foster carers out in the community.

I suspect that there will be many contributors to this debate who will talk about their own pets that they have adopted at some point in time, adopted pets within their family and perhaps even just any dog or cat, and the reason is because dogs, cats, pets and any animals make a huge difference to our emotional and mental wellbeing. I know we acknowledge family members a lot, but I have got a cavoodle, Archie, who is at home at the moment. My family are looking after him, I hope. I know that everyone will talk about their connection to different pets. However, there are aspects of this legislation that we will go into greater detail around. There are some concerns with this legislation, and I thank the minister’s office for our being able to speak to them on a regular basis to try and work through those. I will flag that we will pursue amendments in the other place to try and resolve some of the issues that have been raised.

But I think first and foremost we all need to thank the people in Victoria who do an incredible job of looking after abandoned and sometimes very cruelly treated dogs and cats. It is one thing to love animals; it is another thing to open up your heart and your home to animals that are in sometimes less than ideal condition, either physically or mentally. It is an incredible commitment by so many Victorians, who just put in so much time and effort. Many dedicate their entire lives to caring for abandoned animals or to, ideally, rehoming them. I think there is no greater reward for people who are community foster carers or who work in the rehoming sector when they not only save an animal that would otherwise be euthanised but also bring it back to a level of health. To find a loving and caring home to give an animal a second chance at life takes a good sort of human being, the sort of human being that we should listen to and we should support. We should make sure when we do have to work within regulation and legislation, as we do with the Domestic Animals Act 1994, that it is fair but it is also supporting the people who have to work within it.

I have my own story of a lovely dog that I adopted when I was living up in Darwin. I was doing vet pathology work up in Darwin. I met with a lot of veterinarians up there, and they just happened to mention they had had a lovely labradoodle named Charlie who had been abandoned. Charlie was one of the most gentle and kind animals, but he had been terribly mistreated. When he was given up to the veterinarian, he had fully matted fur. He was, as I said, a labradoodle. He had just a mat over him that they had shorn. He was full of fleas. I do not think he had ticks. He also had a black eye, but it was not just a black eye; it was a broken blood vessel, a cherry eye, so he could not see out of one eye at that stage. He was a broken dog. You would take him for a walk, and he would see another person, particularly a male, and he would just run. We would go down the beach, and he would see the tiniest little wave come in and he would just run. He was a dog who had been treated absolutely horrifically by the previous humans in his life.

It took years to gain the trust of Charlie in terms of just creating an environment where he knew he would be fed and loved and cared for. I remember the first night when he was sneaking in the back door, and then every night he would come a little bit closer to the couch and a little bit closer. Then one night he donned this cloak of invisibility and got up on the couch next to me, which was this huge leap forward for him, really, mentally. He had started to learn to trust again.

I learned so much from Charlie, from that dog. I brought him back to Hamilton but also to Edenhope when I was CEO of the hospital, and my mum actually ended up looking after him. She had lost her dog, and she needed a dog in her life. She always needs a dog in her life, and I think that they were a good match. They really did support one another, and my mother is one of those very, very caring humans – if she saw any sort of animal that was in distress or in trouble, she would give her heart and soul to that creature to be able to support them. She is a wonderful human. She is a good role model for me, and it really does help me to understand the types of people that are attracted to, particularly, community foster caring of dogs and cats.

This legislation seeks to make a number of amendments to the Domestic Animals Act 1994, and that is: to provide for an authorisation scheme for pet rehoming organisations to assist those organisations to rehome dogs and cats, to further provide for councils to be informed about animals in foster care in their municipal district, to provide for the collection of information about the outcome of efforts to rehome dogs and cats, to clarify powers of authorised officers in relation to entering premises for certain purposes and to provide for other minor and related matters.

This legislation has been developed over a long period of time. In 2016, for those that were in Parliament at that time, the Andrews Labor government introduced the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016. This is where the legislation was first amended to enable voluntary registration of community foster carers for dogs or cats through their local council, as described in the second-reading speech at the time. This was seeking to tighten up the rules and regulations, or the legislation, when it came to how dogs and cats in particular were treated. In some ways this was a way of dealing with what could be seen as a loophole, in that breeders could somehow look at then going through a rehoming body or going through a community foster carer as a guise, to basically be a puppy farm and to still breed dogs and distribute them through another means rather than for sale on Gumtree or eBay and other mechanisms that people were using at that time.

I think that the government made these amendments in good faith; however, it is fair to say that the tightening up of the rules and regulations, particularly around recognising community foster carers, has not had the uptake that was initially intended. My understanding is that about 50 community foster carers have voluntarily registered in Victoria, when we know there are thousands out there. And a consistent reason I have heard is that it is around that increasing burden of paperwork that people have to do in order to be a registered community foster carer. This is something that I can completely understand. The people who are community foster carers do it because they love dogs and cats and they want to do good for dogs and cats. They do not do it because they want to be lugged down with additional paperwork or additional costs, and I think that that is something that perhaps was not fully understood when this original piece of legislation, which is being amended today, was drafted.

It is interesting to look back on some of the contributions in Parliament at that time, because concerns were raised by community foster carers, the Municipal Association of Victoria and the wider community that this voluntary registration scheme was not based on consultation with the relevant stakeholders. They felt like they were not part of that decision. I think it was, as I said, legislation that was designed in good faith to close what the government thought would be a loophole for puppy farms. However, in doing that, the government of the day did not have that discussion with community foster carers, and because some of those transactions also involve municipal councils, through the pounds, they also were not involved in that. So in some ways this is good, that we have got an amendment coming through.

There was an upper house inquiry where these issues were first raised and gone over, and that was established by the Economy and Infrastructure Standing Committee to examine these types of issues but also other issues related to the impact of the bill.

The concerns of MAV and the foster care community were captured in the final report, and I recommend it to anybody who has got an interest in this sector. This debate will continue into tomorrow, so if anyone has not prepared their contribution, I recommend that they make the effort to read the inquiry into the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016. If you look at that, it does really capture what has not always been heard, and that is the views of the Municipal Association of Victoria and community foster carers.

I will note and pull out of that report that the committee recommended:

That the government withdraw the current Bill and immediately establish a stakeholder group of industry, municipal and community representatives to consult on the drafting of a new Bill.

In some way it was quite disappointing that I read that: the issues we are dealing with today in 2025 were identified by the Parliament back in 2016, and we could have had those changes at that point in time. We could have had the voices of community foster carers heard at that time back in 2016. Instead, nine years later we are having some of those amendments brought through.

However, I do have to note that there are many, many community foster carers who have reached out to me over the past couple of weeks. They have made an incredible effort, really. I do not think in my time as a shadow minister I have seen such a strong uplift of any organisation or any group of people across the state who have really been motivated to have their views heard with the relevant shadow minister when legislation is coming through the Parliament, and I really thank community foster carers for having their say. There are consistent themes that were raised by community foster carers. I do note that the minister’s office has been quite forthcoming in attempting to address those concerns. They are matters that I will refer to later on in debate. I also think there will be an opportunity to flesh some of that out further in the Legislative Council committee stage.

There is this disconnect between what the industry or the people who actually do the job understand the impacts of the legislation are and what the legislation actually does, and that again comes down to not just consultation in how you design legislation but also that vital step of working with people so that they understand the impacts. There may be elements in there that need to be amended. We will be putting forward some amendments in the upper house, as I have already foreshadowed, and that will be to try and attempt to ensure that nobody is disadvantaged inadvertently through the transfer in this amended legislation.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, given that feedback was heard from the community foster care sector back in 2016, the uptake of voluntary community foster care registrations has been critically low. As I said, only a few councils are offering the discounted registration, to approximately 50 registered community foster carers. This has left thousands of community foster carers unable to access all of the benefits of the registration scheme. They are not able to access discounted pet registration fees, for example, and that was a key feature of the commitment – that that would be unlocked as part of the legislation. But it is not being delivered, because people have not got the time, they have not got the interest perhaps, or they cannot see the benefit in going through a voluntary registration scheme.

Through this legislation we are looking at a transfer from voluntary registration of community foster carers to a system which is voluntary registration of a pet rehoming organisation, which would then encompass all of the community foster carers that sit underneath that. This can be problematic if a community foster carer is not directly associated with a certain pet rehoming organisation, but also we are just transferring the same issues that we saw with the voluntary registration of community foster carers in that pet rehoming organisations are run by volunteers, usually on the smell of an oily rag. There is very little funding available. I know in Horsham we have Paws, which is a fabulous organisation. They run an op shop. They do what they can to try and seek local donations and local support and volunteers who work within that.

They do not necessarily have the skills to provide the information to the government which is outlined within this legislation. They do not necessarily have the time to be able to do that, because their time is dedicated to caring for vulnerable dogs and cats in their care and trying desperately to find their new forever homes.

In some ways I can understand the theory behind this, but in some ways it is also same same but different. I think the same challenges will remain in that it is a voluntary registration scheme. We are still facing exactly the same challenges. We need to ensure that the carrot is there, and I am not convinced and the feedback from community foster carers is that they are not convinced that the carrot is sufficient to go through a registration process, particularly as it remains voluntary.

The amendments in this bill fulfil five of the 17 recommendations of the Taskforce on Rehoming Pets final report of December 2021. That was chaired by Andy Meddick, with two taskforce members –Maree Edwards and Gary Maas. Gary is in the chamber today. I should say the member is in the chamber today.

The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): Correct titles, please.

Emma KEALY: Correct title noted – and I thank them for their work. My understanding is – and I will note this – there are a number of emails that I am getting that raise concern that all of the matters that have been raised by that taskforce have not been delivered within this legislation. The minister’s office have assured me there are further commitments to make good on and fulfil the other 12 recommendations and that they are working upon those. This is not a one-stop shop; this is not one amendment that will tick all the boxes for fulfilling those 17 recommendations. There is more work to come, but there are concerns and perhaps elements that are being raised at the moment that could be dealt with in this legislation. It does not mean that we will not see this legislation come back through the Parliament at a later stage with those further amendments.

I know that there are particularly some concerns around the sector talking about the right to take undesexed dogs and cats from pounds, which was granted in 2011. The legislation does not reflect that that is actually the case, and the amendment bill does not reflect that that is the case. So there needs to be an education piece or a consultation piece to talk about what the impact is if that is not in the legislation. Certainly community foster carers are very, very concerned that if they cannot take undesexed and unmicrochipped dogs and cats from pounds, the council will take the cheaper option, which may be to euthanase the animal. On the other hand, I believe from speaking to the minister’s office that the government is hesitant to legislate that, because they do not want to see councils seeing that as an easy option – that they can just handball all of the dogs and cats that come into their care, in the pound, and automatically find someone else to deal with that additional cost. I think there has to be a balance in there, and there may be an opportunity to look at an amendment in the upper house in the journey of the bill through both chambers. If nothing else, this may be an opportunity for the committee stage in the upper house to pull that apart and for there to be more understanding on the pros and cons of that. But there are certainly still a lot of questions and concerns around the community. I have received hundreds of emails around this legislation. There would be at least 100 on that specific element, so it is certainly something that is of great concern.

I think we can look at a way that we can get a good balance in there, so that we can safeguard that councils have a role and a responsibility to have that cost burden if they take animals into their pound. But also I can understand that community foster carers do not want animals to be euthanased if there is an alternate pathway, and I think that is something that needs to be recognised. People are taking those undesexed and unmicrochipped animals at this point in time; it is a breach of the legislation to do that at this point in time. That needs to be clarified. We know that there is something going on that is unlawful. I do not want to see fines starting to be handed out for community foster carers who are trying to do the right thing, and they have a very strong understanding that they are allowed to do that. I do not want to see fines put out to councils, because we know it just ends up being passed on to ratepayers at the end of the day. So I would seek that there is further clarity on what the future is around that specific element.

On the aspect I have just spoken to I would like to be specific about the amendments that we will flag. There is such concern from community foster carers who are registered that they will no longer be able to access the benefits of being a registered community foster carer in the future and that they will have their registration taken away from them through this legislation, which means that they would lose those benefits as well if they are not associated with a rehoming organisation. In my view a simple solution for that – which would not hold up the passage of this legislation, because there are very good amendments in here as well – which we will seek, would be to ensure that the voluntary community foster carer registration system continues and that the clauses related to the revocation of the voluntary registration of community foster carers be removed from the bill. That would ensure that we can have both systems work in parallel. It means that we are listening to community foster carers who are very concerned about what this might look like in the future, but it also means that the benefits of the rehoming system can be understood. We can see whether there will be as strong of an uptake of the voluntary registration scheme for rehoming organisations as is expected – as we are hearing from the government, as they would hope for – or whether it has dwindling registration. We want to see an improvement and a lift in registration, so I think that is a sensible pathway forward.

Let us continue with the voluntary registration of community foster carers. There is no harm in doing that. They would be continuing to work anyway. For those that are registered, we should be looking after them and we should not abandon them, so I am hopeful that those amendments will be supported by all in the upper house. They are sensible, logical, very small amendments that will have no impact on the costs of the legislation. There might be a few other people involved who are community foster carers who would then be able to apply for certain grants and funding, but there is not a huge number of them. It is not going to make a huge difference to diminishing the pool. As I said, it is a sensible way forward. It is a small and very minor amendment, but I trust that it is a reasonable enough amendment that it gets support.

The other aspects of these that relate to this legislation are around the power of entry and registration fees. These amendments really refer to clarification because, the way that the legislation is drafted, different councils have interpreted the legislation in different ways. There is clarification that authorised officers can enter a residential backyard – for example, to seize a dangerous dog. This is something that has been problematic in that councils have interpreted this in different ways. They have known that there is a dangerous dog and they have known where it is, but they have interpreted it that they were not able to enter a residential area, being the backyard. This is in fact not the case. There is further clarity around that, which we welcome. In doing that it clearly sets out what is a residence. Obviously it is a house, but it clarifies that it could also be a mobile home of some description. It could be a caravan – anything that is used as a residence. This attempts to support councils and particularly people who are trying to make the community safe in finding dangerous dogs, and I think that they are sensible amendments that do make it clearer.

There is no change to the requirement for a warrant to enter residential premises, including a home or a vehicle used as a residence. You still need a warrant for that. There is also clarification that microchipped hounds registered with the Game Management Authority qualify for a reduced registration fee with councils via the prescription of a class of dog that is entitled to a reduced registration fee. This reflects a modernisation of nomenclature, as microchipping is now mandatory for all dogs. It is cleaning up some of the language and ensuring that that can continue. It will be much easier to interpret and read, which is always greatly appreciated when you are looking at legislation as a layperson.

There is a series of points, which I touched on earlier, that have been raised by community foster carers and pet rehoming organisations specifically related to limiting their current activities if they choose not to become an authorised pet rehoming organisation. I have raised these matters. It is really around four different areas. It is around the section 84Y agreements and receiving unmicrochipped and non-desexed animals from pounds, which I have spoken to earlier.

It is around adoption days and also around microchip records. There are aspects of this legislation that do require a lot of reporting through to the government so that there is clear tracking and traceability to understand the fate of an animal, and that is important for many reasons. However, it does place that additional burden on rehoming organisations, who are already, as I said earlier, running on the smell of an oily rag. They are volunteers, and they probably do not prioritise paperwork as the first thing that they want to set out to do on a day.

In regard to the section 84Y agreements:

The Bill establishes a head of power to prescribe –

and this is the response from the government –

the persons or bodies that a council may enter into an agreement with under section 84Y of the Act (colloquially referred to as Section 84Y agreements). Consideration may be given to limiting 84Y agreements to authorised pet rehoming organisations as well as other key local council partners including pounds, animal shelters and veterinary clinics. The persons or bodies a council may enter into agreements with would be prescribed in the Domestic Animals Regulations subject to passage of the Bill and following a period of community and stakeholder consultation with local councils and pet rehoming organisations.

I hope that that provides some solace to those that feel like they are not going to be able to continue doing what they are currently doing. There are future steps to be made. I take the government at their word that they will deliver upon that.

I have spoken already on receiving a microchipped or non-desexed animal from the pound. In regard to adoption days:

The Bill does not propose any changes to the requirements currently set out in the Act. There are no proposed changes to the animal sale permit process and any person or organisation may still apply for an animal sale permit to hold an adoption day.

• The Bill proposes that authorised pet rehoming organisations may hold adoption day events at select domestic animal businesses (DABs) to be prescribed in the regulations.

• DABs where adoption days can be held are anticipated to include pounds, shelters and registered pet shops –

so all of those places we seek animals from –

• Authorised pet rehoming organisations would not need a permit to do this but would have to notify state government and the local council where the DAB is located.

The fourth matter is around microchip records:

The Bill makes no changes to the identification information required on an animal’s microchip. This information is prescribed in the Domestic Animals Regulations. Currently, the regulations require an owner and the address where the animal is kept to be listed on an animal’s microchip. There is no current mechanism for an organisation to be listed on a microchip. However, we are aware that the pet rehoming sector has raised this issue as a concern. As such, policy work is taking place to capture authorised pet rehoming organisations, as well as pounds and shelters (which also place animals into foster care) on an animal’s microchip to ensure proper reunification can take place in the event the animal becomes lost or stolen. Subject to the Bill’s passage, further stakeholder and community consultation will take place on this topic.

I would like to thank the hundreds of people who have provided feedback to me, my colleagues, the minister and, I am sure, members opposite around their concerns around this legislation. It is clear in every single email that these people are putting their animals first, and for that they really should be commended. That is where their heart is and that is where their passion is, and they do an incredible job doing it. I would particularly like to thank Victorian Dog Rescue, who have done an enormous amount of work to support their members, the Australian Veterinary Association, RSPCA and the Municipal Association of Victoria. I have had a lot of feedback, and it has been very, very much appreciated.

Just in summary, there are good parts in this legislation. A lot of it is just clarifying matters. However, there is an opportunity to make sure we have both amendments in place, as discussed, to retain the voluntary registration of community foster carers in particular and perhaps to refine some of the language that is within the bill still so that we can ensure that we have clarity for everybody. In wrapping up, thank you so much to our community foster carers, thank you so much to our pet rehoming organisations and thank you to every family who has provided a forever home for a dog or cat that has had a difficult life and given them a second chance.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (18:50): I too rise to make a contribution today on the Victorian government’s commitment to implementing those recommendations from the Taskforce on Rehoming Pets with the Domestic Animals Amendment (Rehoming Cats and Dogs and Other Matters) Bill 2025. Well done to the member for Lowan for making 30 minutes there – very rare. You got there with all the thankyous. But it is good to see that both sides of the house are in furious agreement when it comes to the tremendous work that our pet rescuers are doing and that our foster care groups are doing in providing that important and essential animal care and rehabilitation that goes with rehoming services, particularly for vulnerable animals. To paraphrase someone – indeed alter the words – I would just like to say, ‘We’re rehoming the dogs. We’re rehoming the cats. We’re rehoming the pets that live there.’ This is a terrific bill because it delivers on and is the culmination of the hard work and extensive community consultation that has been undertaken.

As we know, pets are a really important part of our everyday lives. Many of us here own pets. My mad little bugger Louie is full of joy, full of energy – one of a handful of groodles, I think, around this place. I think the member for Footscray has one, Maggie, and I think there is a Larry who roams this place from time to time as well. But our pets are tremendous additions to not only our own lives but our families’ lives as well, and as we all know, our pets become very important members of the family. So it makes sense that when pets are abandoned, they are rehomed in the best possible way that is not only good for the family that that pet is going to but good for the foster carers and the rehoming groups where the pet is at and good for the animal as well. It is terrific that this bill is able to deliver on all of that.

Those organisations that have been previously mentioned often take care of dogs and cats that have been directly surrendered by owners who are no longer willing or able to take care for an animal. Those key services reduce the number of dogs and cats in Victoria’s shelter and pound system, and in doing so these groups save hundreds of animals’ lives every year.

Back in the last Parliament it was the then Minister for Agriculture, the member for Macedon, who established the Taskforce on Rehoming Pets with the directive to further improve rehoming outcomes and recognise the services of such organisations. It was a thrill to be on that taskforce with the then member for Western Victoria Andy Meddick, who served as the chair, and also the member for Bendigo West before her elevation to higher office as Speaker. The taskforce did a wide range of consultation with various groups through many different ways, including written submissions, round tables and surveys as well. The bill itself demonstrates the commitment of this government to implementing the recommendations that the taskforce made, starting with some five of the 17 that were made.

As well as the members of the taskforce, it would be remiss of me not to mention the hardworking secretariat that supported the taskforce. There was a power of work in collating all of the data that came together from that taskforce, and I would like to give a shout-out to Joe Wheeler and Maddy Denham who helped put together all of that data which came to fruition in the final report that was delivered in December 2021.

The bill itself delivers on five recommendations of that report and amends the Domestic Animals Act 1994 in doing so, and it implements an authorisation scheme to recognise pet rehoming organisations in the domestic animals legislative framework. The bill also repeals the current foster care registration scheme from the Domestic Animals Act, and it reflects the government’s commitment to the recognition of organisations managing all aspects of the pet rehoming process. It will enable scheme participants to access specific benefits and exemptions, such as being able to hold pet adoption days without the need for an animal sale permit and an exemption from registration of foster animals with local council. The bill also enables the development of regulations for the management of animals by authorised pet rehoming organisations. These are likely to include requirements for animals to be desexed and vaccinated before rehoming. The bill will require scheme participants to be registered as a charity with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission to apply for authorisation, and it includes an additional amendment to the Domestic Animals Act to clarify that authorised officers may enter the whole or part of any premises, excluding a building that is occupied as a residential home, and specifically, this amendment clarifies that authorised officers are able to do so and they can enter a residential backyard for the purposes of determining compliance with the Domestic Animals Act. The bill also includes an amendment to clarify that regulations can prescribe a class of dog that is entitled to a reduced registration fee.

The changes that have been brought about, as I said or alluded to previously, have been through significant consultation that the taskforce undertook with the pet rehoming sector and the broader community. The taskforce worked with rehoming groups, local councils, shelters, vets, animal welfare peak bodies, state government authorities and community to gain a wide scope of the sector. The consultation activities included a fairly wide remit. There was wide research into domestic and international best practice rehoming systems, written submissions from 25 organisations and individuals involved in the animal welfare sector, a community consultation survey to gather information on pet rehoming experiences which was completed by some 1262 members of the public – so wide consultation there. There were many round tables and community consultation webinars that were attended really well across different sections of the state, and there were site visits too and meetings with key organisations and industry representatives from the rehoming sector as well. Many of those in the rehoming sector provided written submissions to the taskforce as well.

I was really privileged to be on that taskforce, and I learned so much more about the sector. As I said, it was a privilege to learn and just find out exactly what so many foster carers and volunteers are doing for our pets in our community. And a shout-out to the RSPCA and the Lost Dogs Home in Cranbourne as well. On that note, I think I will close my contribution to this bill. Suffice to say that I am delighted to see this rehoming cats and dogs and other matters bill come before the Parliament today, and on that basis, I commend the bill to the house.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.