Thursday, 24 February 2022

Bills

Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Pets and Other Matters) Bill 2021

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms PULFORD:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10:23): I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Liberals and The Nationals to make some comments as lead speaker on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Pets and Other Matters) Bill 2021, and from the outset The Nationals and the Liberals will not be opposing this legislation.

The bill amends the Domestic Animals Act 1994 to allow shelters and vet clinics to make inquiries in relation to the ownership of pets, specifically dogs and cats, in an effort to more expeditiously and more successfully rehome them. The aim is to reduce that reliance on council pounds in relation to this task. Under the existing laws, as it stands at the moment, a lost dog or cat must be taken to the local council, handed over to the authorised officer and kept for the council to organise to have it rehomed and go back to its original owner.

Now, there is an exception to this that has been operating for some time, and that is an 84Y agreement. They are for vets and for animal shelters that are authorised to directly do that rehoming procedure. But what we know from our conversations and investigations is that under one-quarter of vet clinics actually have adopted this section 84 agreement. That relationship works very well, and this is really going to be expanded in terms of returning those pets home to their original owners.

What will happen is that the main purpose of this bill will certainly allow those shelters without an 84Y agreement to opt in. I think this is the key factor, that it is an opt-in agreement in relation to reuniting pets with owners. There has been a significant load of course on our council pounds and our council by-laws officers et cetera. Certainly in relation to this bill it is about expeditiously returning those pets home with less cost to the councils. Certainly there may be additional costs for the vet clinics and animal shelters, but many of them are quite prepared to do that and are already doing that under that old 84Y.

In relation to pets, we cannot go through this bill without making some comments about the importance of pets in our lives: cats and dogs and other pets, but this relates specifically to companion animals in terms of cats and dogs. What I have been speaking about with my local vet clinic is that during lockdown pets have been very much a primary focus. Indeed we know that more pets have been purchased or adopted out during this time, and vet clinics have actually experienced a peak in demand. I guess we have been home more often, and certainly we have been tending to our animals more often as well. That shows a slightly alarming trigger there for when we return to normal, and we need to return to normal. As a guide we also still need people to understand that a pet should be a pet for life. In my own case our family pet is certainly a beloved animal. He was adopted at a very young age by us. We went to the Keysborough animal shelter. Again, many of our shelters do an amazing job right across our fine state, and particularly also in Gippsland. The thing that happens there of course is that a microchip is inserted into those dogs and cats so that they can be traced adequately. That is a really key focus of being able to rehome and reunite these pets.

When we think about this bill, we are in the fourth year of a four-year term. Back in 2018 there was quite a consensus on this by many of the welfare groups, and I will list them here: RSPCA, the Australian Veterinary Association, Lost Dogs Home, the Australian Institute of Animal Management and the Municipal Association of Victoria. Many of them had already provided some commentary and were endorsing this sort of legislation. Indeed maybe the Labor Party really has form on this for delaying it until now—we are reading it in the upper house in February 2022, and it will not come into operation until just prior to the election. So the question is: why are there these delays? I can ask the same on this point: why is there a delay in relation to the agriculture bill and the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021? That will be debated, I hope, in the next sitting week.

In terms of the delay there are still some important things to be said about this. I note the comments of a gentleman called Mark Menze from Animal Aid. Animal Aid do an amazing job right across the state. There are two Animal Aid facilities, one in Sale and one in Bairnsdale, in my electorate. They operate as both vet clinics and animal shelters. He has made some comments of disappointment. He feels that many councils were not consulted. He mentioned that eight councils that Animal Aid clients work in were not aware of this legislation before it came into the Legislative Assembly last year. So whilst there has been consultation with some peak bodies, there are also some very big players in this space that have not actually felt that they were adequately consulted, and I would be very happy to raise some questions on behalf of Animal Aid in the committee stage.

The other thing, from speaking to some of my local councils, is that the whole facility in relation to the pound—its operation, its feeding of animals, housing and also wages—roughly equates to $1 million a year for the councils that I have spoken with. Now, there will be some variation, but if we use that as a benchmark—and I know that the Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Mr Walsh, the Leader of The Nationals in the lower house, spoke about the Echuca council also having that $1 million as a base rate for the cost. We need to try and keep costs down, and this will be one way of facilitating, as I said, a more expeditious way of getting animals home to their owners.

The key factor in this is an opt-in, opt-out option. Certainly vet clinics do not need to go into this, but anecdotally I understand that many of them do this if they can. But the precedent now is set through this. If I go to the main issues and the main provisions in the bill, in clause 5, in terms of new section 84DA being inserted in the Domestic Animals Act 1994, it requires that vet practitioners and animal shelters opt in and make reasonable efforts to identify the home within 24 hours. Again I say that the microchip is a really important part of this, and one of the key things that I have had discussions with council representatives about is that there can be a case sometimes where the microchip is designated to one person, but through various changes of ownership the council has the dog registered to another. These are some of the issues that will need to be addressed.

The other comment that I would like to put on the record in terms of local laws and local councils is that the pound has eight days to find the original owner prior to either finding a new owner or euthanising as a last resort. Again, from speaking to one of my council by-laws officers, in pounds they often see that 20 per cent are recidivist dogs—we will call them habitual escapees—and a portion of those are involved in either a human attack or a domestic animal attack. It is really important that these sorts of animals, unfortunately, are found and then dealt with in whichever way is deemed to be required.

Going back to my own case with our family dog, two years into our devotion to him I went walking around my normal track in my community and a dog came and attacked him to the point where he nearly died. Unfortunately that dog had slipped off its lead. It was a massive dog and was known to attack white things, so the owner said. We were really distressed for that owner and that dog, but unfortunately some dogs do need to be put down. That was the choice of the owner. I was not going to pursue that, but the dog had certainly traumatised dogs. And that can happen. The key thing that we have to be careful of with this is that it does not happen to children. But we know it does, and that is a real concern. I guess I will use this as a platform to say to everybody that when you are out walking your pets, make sure you have them secured on a lead and safe, certainly in a built-up environment, so that they cannot attack other dogs. Again, these are always in the minority, but it is important that both dogs and humans—and small children—are protected.

In terms of other clauses within the bill that are of interest, clause 5 inserts new section 84DC, which allows a vet to request that the owner pay for expenses incurred with the reunification. Sometimes animals come into vets injured and the vets—and I certainly understand this—support that animal and provide medical procedures et cetera. Now with this bill payment of those costs will be able to be requested of the owner but not compelled, and that is one thing that I think we probably need to drill down to in committee of the whole just to see what that looks like, indeed even the type of cost or if there are some benchmark costs on that.

New section 84DD requires record keeping and reporting to local councils of the prescribed details of all received lost pets and owners or agents who recover those pets if an 84Y agreement is not held. Again, I will raise some questions in committee of the whole, but one of the compliance officers at my local council wants to drill down and understand that further. Under this legislation, under the act, councils are very highly prescribed on their sorts of recording and reporting, and this compliance officer wants to understand who audits that, when it is going to be conducted by the animal shelters, what the ramifications are and how that will be explained in the regulations. So that is the position that we would like to pursue, The Nationals and the Liberals.

The next set of clauses, clauses 10 to 40, really talk about compliance and clarity around the administration of the act, particularly in relation to past legislation, and also clause 10 looks at correcting name changes, so referring to the correct department. What we do know that happens in Parliament, and the Andrews government is good at it as well, is changing those megadepartments that many of us have concerns over. This, though, rectifies it in terms of nomenclature within the act. Clauses 14, 15 and 17 make amendments that are specific to tracking of racing greyhounds, in recognising that they are tracked by Greyhound Racing Victoria across their racing lifetime, and they also clarify laws around muzzling.

Now, I cannot go past without having a conversation about the Greyhound Adoption Program. I have met some amazing people who both are part of the program and have adopted greyhounds. Indeed my good friend and Gippsland South member, Danny O’Brien, certainly has Maisy, and we regularly see Maisy featuring on his social media, as we all should, because it is great to promote the GAP. But we also see when Maisy has been able to fossick and find her own food on their property, so we sometimes see some interesting photos there.

Mr Finn: Maybe sheep?

Ms BATH: No, usually just errant bunny rabbits that are running around the property, and animals provide their normal habits. But certainly Maisy, like other GAP greyhounds, is really fantastic. They have been trained and re-skilled so that they are purpose ready to go into people’s homes, so please think about adopting a greyhound.

There are concerns around the bill, predominantly encompassing privacy risks, the risk of handing over an animal to the wrong person and burdens on vet clinics, and I will probably keep some of those conversations to the committee stage. There are an enormous amount of companion rescue groups. I have mentioned just a couple of them, but there are over 300 in Victoria listed on petrescue.com.au. Again, most of them—all of them, I would think—are not-for-profits and are run by volunteers, and it is amazing the number of people that you would not expect who often volunteer in these sorts of centres. I asked one lady, who is a high-profile businesswoman in the Latrobe Valley, ‘How are you going?’, and she said, ‘Well, every X day of the week I actually go and volunteer in one of these clinics, and it’s a really rewarding venture’. So I congratulate them. I would like to congratulate, as I said, Animal Aid in my patch, but also Grounded Paws Animal Rescue and Forever Friends Animal Rescue in Latrobe, who all work with our councils and foster carers to facilitate the adoption process of getting these into normal, permanent homes.

With one final comment I would like also to talk about briefly the rehoming of kelpies. Kelpies are a really iconic species for rural and regional Victoria. They have rounded up our sheep, cattle et cetera—and sheepdogs as well—and one of my staffers has for a very long time been a passionate rehomer of kelpies. She is known to travel interstate and save kelpies, and on her property she re-skills them, re-educates them and then works through to find a home for them. She also has about four kelpies, all of which are most beloved. I just think there are many people in our community that do an amazing job.

But back to the bill, the industry is supportive of this. I do have some concerns that I would like to raise in the committee of the whole. So The Nationals and Liberals will not be opposing this bill’s passage through the house.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (10:40): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Pets and Other Matters) Bill 2021. The previous speaker, Ms Bath, has gone through many facets of the bill, and I think it is important for the government, and me as its lead speaker, to also cover some of that ground. We know that here in Victoria there are some 665 000 dogs and 215 000 cats that are registered with councils across Victoria, and that illustrates the importance of these reforms. I should add right from the outset that, as Ms Bath kindly pointed out, this was an election commitment from the Andrews Labor government in 2018, and once again we acquit another election promise. We say what we mean and we do as we say absolutely each and every time.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr GEPP: Well, Mr Finn interjects, and perhaps I will just dispatch that quickly over the fence if I can. Mr Finn and Ms Bath are critical of the length of time that it has taken the government to bring this bill before the house. I remind the house that—and I am sure The Nationals and Liberals have conveniently forgotten—in 2010 the then opposition leader, Mr Baillieu, promised to stamp out puppy farms. He told the Age on 19 September 2010, ‘We want to shut them down, that’s the bottom line’. That is what he took to the election. He won the election, and guess what he did for four years? Zilch, nada, nothing. He did not move on it.

Mr Finn: He wasn’t there for four years.

Mr GEPP: No, but he was there, Mr Finn. I will take that interjection up, because do you know who was there? It was none other than the current member for Murray Plains, who was the then Minister for Agriculture and Food Security. He had in his purview the capacity to put to bed that election commitment from Mr Baillieu, but guess what the member for Murray Plains did as the minister? Nothing, nada, zilch. Yet again we hear lots of criticism come from those opposite. What I would say to them is: what you should do is perhaps look in the mirror before you throw some of these barbs, and just check your facts to see what you did. But I do not want to get into a tit for tat with the Liberals and Nationals, because—it would seem, one would hope—how could you not have support for this bill? I am not sure why it would be contentious. But then again, I do not always profess to understand exactly what is going on across the road.

I should also declare up-front that I have a vested interest in this—it is not a conflict of interest but a vested interest—because like many people in Victoria I am a dog owner. I have got a little dog, Archie, and Archie—

Mr Ondarchie: Named after me—Ondarchie?

Mr GEPP: No, it was not named after you, Mr Ondarchie, but I can see how you might draw that inference. If it comforts you, then I am happy for Archie to be associated with you. He is a little—

Mr Bourman: They say dogs look like their owners, Mr Gepp.

Mr GEPP: Well, yes, he does look like his owner, Mr Bourman. He is a little bit rotund. He is a little pug—you know, he has got a bit of a squashed-on face. Archie has got a bit more hair, but his and mine both fall out equally quickly. So Archie and I do have a lot of similarities.

I also have another vested interest. A little boy—I will not name him, but he will know who he is—is doing a school project, and he proudly talked to me about it on the weekend in fact, and he has chosen the Lost Dogs Home. I now know courtesy of that visit from this special little boy in my life that the Lost Dogs Home was established by a group of concerned citizens in 1910. It was in North Melbourne, and they were concerned at the time with then council practices, which are, thank goodness, long gone. They were concerned about lost and starving dogs and the prevalence of them around metropolitan Melbourne. So they set about over the next 18 months finding some land to establish the Lost Dogs Home for lost and starving dogs, and they found a site in 1912, right next to Macaulay railway station in North Melbourne. In 1913 they opened the first iteration of the lost and starving dogs home here in Victoria. It had six buildings and a main administration building—six buildings for the residents, as they called them at the time, which of course were dogs; the cats were not part of the process. And, guess what, that organisation still exists today—and on the same site.

So thank you to my special little friend who came around on the weekend and told me about his project and told me about the facts that he had been able to gather to support his project. He will be chuffed when I tell him about this bill and how this bill is going towards supporting those animals, particularly dogs and cats, that get waylaid for whatever reason.

Before I talk about some of the key elements of the bill, Ms Bath talked about consultation. I just want to clarify and put on the record that in fact there has been extensive consultation about this bill, and to suggest otherwise is just not the case. There have been over 1066 submissions. There is always somebody out there who says that they were not consulted with, but there were 1066 submissions from the community, from veterinarians, from councils, from shelters, from rescue groups, from community foster care networks, from animal registry services and from peak representative organisations. And we will continue consulting with key stakeholders in developing consequential regulatory amendments to support these bill amendments. So to suggest that there has not been consultation in this space is just incorrect. It is just plainly incorrect. You may well, Ms Bath, have one, someone who is—

Ms Bath interjected.

Mr GEPP: I cannot believe that this bill has got them so riled. I mean, it is staggering. I know they have had a poor week and they are looking to finish on a high, but goodness, this is not the bill that we should be having a barney about, for goodness sake.

Going to some of the aspects of the bill which I am keen to place on the record, when a pet is lost the situation is stressful for the animal and its owners, and this reform will bring about the reuniting of pets with their owners far more easily and more quickly, improving the welfare of all involved.

I should say also that if Ms Shing were here I am certain that Ms Shing would be the lead speaker on this bill.

Mr Bourman: You are the B team.

Mr GEPP: Yes, I am the B team. I am always the B team, Mr Bourman, but that is all right. I am happy to know my place in the world. That is okay. I am not uncomfortable with that. I am very happy deferring to somebody. We all love animals, but I think Ms Shing’s passion for the animal world is well known. Ms Bath talked about greyhound adoption, and I think Ms Shing was certainly talking about that in this place long before it was fashionable. So we hope, Ms Shing, you are on the road to recovery and we acquit this bill, which we know that you support so very deeply.

Under current arrangements lost pets are required to first be delivered to the local council before they are reunited with their owner unless a vet, as Ms Bath pointed out, has a contract in place called an 84Y agreement. An 84Y agreement enables these local councils to make written agreements with a person or body, mainly shelters, vet practices and community foster care networks et cetera, and those agreements allow certain people and organisations other than councils to receive and manage lost pets and/or stray animals. What this bill does is it expands on this current process by allowing participating vets and registered animal shelters to accept and reunite lost pets directly with their owners without the need for an agreement with the council. And you would say that that is pretty common sense, wouldn’t you—that that is just basic common sense? It is basic common sense that a veterinarian who is in possession of a lost animal certainly would be well equipped to provide care for that animal and to then reunite that animal with their owner. And we know that for many people when they come across a stray the first thing they do if there is a nearby vet—that would be the inclination, wouldn’t it?—is take that pet or that animal to the veterinarian. We think this is good common sense and supported by the industry and all of its participants.

Vets of course have the capacity to scan a pet’s microchip. They will now be able to, under this bill, contact the owner immediately and reunite them, and that will significantly streamline the process. Our friends from the Liberal Democrats are not here, but that removes red tape, and I would think that everybody would be supportive of any removal of red tape. Certainly they, I would imagine, without putting words in their mouth, would be supportive. It has been a weird and wacky week, hasn’t it? Here I am on the record indicating that I might be in the same space as the Liberal Democrats on something. Yesterday in a debate I actually called a point of order on myself. Mr Leane, when a point of order was called on him, actually upheld it as a speaker. And then of course we had Dr Ratnam this morning indicating support for the New South Wales government. I do not know whether it is a full moon out there, but there is something weird in the water this week. But I do digress.

I will come back to a couple of other amendments that are also part of this bill, because I want to leave just a minute to talk about my favourite animal in the world—of course the Tetley Tiger—but I will come to that. In addition to reuniting pets, the bill also introduces a number of other administrative changes to the Domestic Animals Act 1994. For example, the changes will include incorporating into legislation the exemption allowing retired greyhounds to be walked in public without a muzzle. They are currently able to do that under a Governor in Council order, but this puts it into the legislation and clarifies that for all. There will also be other amendments that include assisting compliance activities by requiring additional information for pet exchange register enrolments; allowing an authorised officer to require a person to produce a document or record that could assist in determining compliance with the act; amending the circumstances in which an identity card needs to be produced by an authorised officer so that they can continue to conduct compliance activities remotely, including during emergencies; and extending the exemption order power in the act to allow the Governor in Council to exempt a person or class of persons from provisions of the act or regulations—the exemption can apply, adopt or incorporate any standard, code of practice or other document. The bill also exempts Greyhound Racing Victoria greyhound owners from the need to obtain a source number or include it in an advertisement, as GRV administers its own traceability system for racing greyhounds. We think the removal of that duplication again is just good common sense. If the governing body has that capability and they exercise that capability, then we agree that that is a very worthwhile reform.

There are many other things in the bill. It is not an overly complicated bill, but nonetheless it is an important one, something that will give animals like Archie and importantly their owners the comfort that should ever Archie wander off the reservation and somebody finds him and he is microchipped, hopefully Archie is returned to the nearest vet and the vet, simply by scanning, will be able to reach out to Archie’s humans—in this instance me or a member of my family—and say, ‘We’ve got that dog named after Craig sitting in our waiting room, ready to be collected’. So with that, I commend this bill to the house.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (10:55): I rise to speak on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Pets and Other Matters) Bill 2021. Most of us regard our pets as family members. They give us unconditional love and affection, and for so many community members their pets are their only companion. For me, I have always had little dogs. Maybe it is because I barrack for the Bulldogs, I am not quite sure, but I am not a cat person, I am a dog person.

On Valentine’s Day this year my son came into my room at 1 o’clock in the morning—my 22-year-old son, Willem. He woke me up because our family dog of 17 years was dead in his arms. I revived little Clarabel at 1 o’clock in the morning, with Willem, who is 6 foot something, crying and my eight-year-old son, James, at the foot of my bed, doing heart compressions. She came back to life and walked around after our other dog, Pepper, jumped over her. That day Clarabel walked around, a bit old, a bit staggery. Then later that evening, on Valentine’s Day, my children went on their dates with their boyfriends and girlfriends, and that night at 10 o’clock my son again came in, with his girlfriend at that stage, woke me up, and Clarabel had passed again. Again I did heart compressions, and Clarabel came back to life. The next day I took her to my family vet, Dr Burns on Williamstown Road, who has been my family vet ever since I was a little girl. Dr Burns gave us some heart medication and some anti-inflammatories.

Clarabel over the next couple of days looked okay, but on Saturday morning after I came back from soccer with James, Clarabel was just sitting there looking at her food, not really moving quite well. It was a beautiful day, and I called up all of my children and anyone who had any connection to Clarabel, saying that I thought today was going to be the day. Sure enough, we put Clarabel outside, and my daughter Violet came over and played some music in the backyard and my son Xavier walked around crying and cuddled her and spoke to her about how much he just loved her. I guess the most wonderful thing to witness that day, which was only Saturday for me, so this is quite recent—

A member interjected.

Dr CUMMING: I knew this might happen. I witnessed my five children that day cuddling her and telling her stories as well as how much they loved her for protecting them and how when they were sad she was there to cuddle them and when they were cold she jumped in their beds. I watched that all day. Clarabel was my son Willem’s dog. When he was five I brought her home for Christmas. He wanted a dog for Christmas. She came in a box, and my daughter Violet thought I had bought a pig because she could only see the nose. And when Willem opened up the box that Christmas morning, he was so happy. At that time he liked Thomas the Tank Engine and wanted to call Clarabel Thomas, and I had to explain that Clarabel was a girl. So then it had to be one of the carriages, either Lily or Clarabel, and that is how Clarabel got her name.

But good old Clarabel, to tell you her life story, was an escape artist. She bit a person who was delivering junk mail and was in doggy jail for a while. Even during lockdown she escaped at one stage and ended up at the Lost Dogs Home. If somebody came over she would jump in their car, wanting to go somewhere. She was what we all called ‘the escape artist’. We were constantly making sure the gate, the door or whatever was shut.

Good old Clarabel had 17 years as our family pet. When she passed on Saturday she waited. She waited for Willem to come home. She was on her last legs, and as soon as he walked through that door he gave her the last cuddle. The image of him—such a big, big boy—in the backyard giving her the last cuddles was absolutely magic for me. It is going to be a memory for me to see how dear my children are and how the love that I could see was created due to little Clarabel. That unconditional love and affection that we have for our family pets is something that we should protect.

For me, with all my years in local government, this was something that all councils actually had to look after. It is not unusual that in 2019 it was one of the first motions that I actually brought to this place. I could never understand why we have 79 councils doing 79 ways of pet registration, especially when our animals are microchipped and there is national registration. So I moved a motion, and the motion that I moved, and I will read it through, was:

That this house calls on the government to develop and launch a statewide system for the administration and distribution of pet registrations, and in doing so:

(1) consider:

(a) a centralised and standardised system to reduce confusion within the community in relation to the local, state and federal governments’ expectations;

(b) the cost to owners;

(c) an education and information program that aims at improving access and compliance;

(d) the removal of excessively complicated administrative procedures that are currently in place;

(e) funding to local councils so that they may comply with duties under the Domestic Animals Act 1994; and

(2) ensure that the system complies with the Domestic Animals Act 1994 and complements the national microchipping registration process.

I did that on 14 August 2019, here in this Council. At that time our now Attorney-General, Ms Symes, was the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Resources. She got up, and the first thing that she said was:

I am honoured to stand and respond in relation to Dr Cumming’s notice of motion 118 …

And this government agreed to the motion at that time. This government, as you have heard, professes to be all about our animals, but after the last two years plus I have only received a response this morning. Not to say that what we are doing today in this reuniting pets and other matters bill does not go some way towards what I am wanting, but it does not go all the way in the way of what the community expects.

I might read you the response that I received this morning, seeing that I have only had it in my hands and I have not read it myself:

Dear Dr Cumming

Thank you for the email from your office regarding pet registrations and your motion calling for the development of a statewide system for the administration and distribution of pet registrations.

As the then Minister for Agriculture, Jaclyn Symes, agreed at the time, it may be beneficial to examine the possibility of a state-wide registration system, improve registration and microchipping processes and further promote education initiatives. Minister Symes also noted that development of a statewide pet registration system requires careful consideration of current arrangements, in collaboration with local governments and other stakeholders.

Attempts to implement a statewide system have been undertaken in other jurisdictions, namely New South Wales and South Australia. Both states have experienced significant issues in their implementation, resulting in budget overruns and systems that have not delivered on community expectations. In light of these precedents, any changes in Victoria would need to be carefully developed to avoid similar difficulties.

While the Government acknowledges the scope for improvements to be made to pet registration systems, a breadth of work is already underway on other animal welfare and domestic animal policy priorities.

These priorities have included the Government’s commitment to allow vets to directly reunite

which is here today—

lost pets with their owners, which will be delivered by the Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Lost Pets) Bill 2021 …

currently in this place now.

Our Reuniting … Pet reforms will enable animal shelters and participating vets to directly reunite lost pets with their owners using microchip and council registration data. These reforms will be supported through an advertising and education campaign that will remind owners to keep their details up to date on both microchip registries and council databases.

The Government is additionally undertaking a significant reform project to modernise Victoria’s animal welfare legislation by replacing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986.

Thank you for your interest in improving … pet registration systems. If you would like to further discuss this or other domestic animal policy issues, please contact …

their office. As I have said, this goes some of the way but not all of the way, and I believe that as a Victorian community we should go all the way, have the best system here in Victoria—learn from New South Wales’s mistakes and learn from South Australia’s mistakes but have a system that reunites animals across Australia, across the whole of Victoria, not just in local councils one by one. Most people would realise that when I brought this into this chamber, as a renter moving from Maribyrnong to Hobsons Bay you had to actually change your registration. If you had a statewide system, that would not occur. Your dog or cat would be registered statewide. It would link into the national database. So say if you had your dog in the car and you were living on the New South Wales-Victorian border, your dog would be reunited with you—or your cat.

This is the reason why in 2019 I brought this to this Parliament: it is so that we have the system that the community wants. We cannot expect that people will actually be in situ or that they will live in the family home for 10, 20 years. We have to understand that we have a population that moves from municipality to municipality and that the varying costs of pet registration are quite enormous. It is not uniform. It is uniform, the amount of money that comes back from a local council to the state, but in reverse it is not. So we need a system. But then the state government would need to look at a system that actually makes sure that each area or each council has the right resourcing for the animals within that area and its demand. Say, in a particular area in Western Metro there are some municipalities that have huge or very high animal registration, but then there are others that do not have the same demand.

For me, our animals have obviously—and throughout this pandemic there has been an increase in purchasing of animals—kept us sane through the last two years of COVID and isolation. This bill amends the Domestic Animals Act 1994 to allow all participating vet clinics and shelters to reunite pets with their owners to streamline the current process. I am all for this—simplifying the process and reuniting pets with their owners as quickly as possible. However, I understand that a number of organisations, including the RSPCA, the Lost Dogs Home, the Australian Veterinary Association and the Municipal Association of Victoria, which is the councils peak body, all lobbied for this before the last election. So I cannot see how it took two years before there was any consultation on this bill and another year for its introduction.

Again, the devil will be in the detail—in the regs that are yet to be developed. Until those regulations are drafted we will not really know the support for the bill from the councils and those organisations. I strongly hope that the government will make the development of these guidelines a priority so people can be reunited with their pets as quickly as possible and avoid the pain and suffering that it normally causes.

I am more than happy to support this bill. I believe in and I will continue to fight for a centralised and standardised system for pet registration. I would hope that, as I have heard earlier today, when this Andrews government makes promises it keeps them. Well, could you please keep the promise that you made to this house in August 2019 before this year’s election? You have had three years to do what was intended in my motion, which was agreed upon by this government, and it is not good enough to say that it was too complicated, too difficult to actually achieve. If you are a can-do government, then do it, but please do not come into this place and act like you have done everything that has been requested by this Parliament. So I commend this bill, but I know that it needs to be improved, and I would hope to see genuine community consultation with local government and a genuine outcome for the animals of Victoria, making it a much better system. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:14): I too support this bill. I am not going to run through the various pets that I have had, but like everyone else that is normal, when you lose a pet and a companion animal it is no fun and it hurts for a while. One opportunity I did think was missed in this initial draft of the bill was the ability to reunite animals that are deceased with their owners. It came to my attention that a number of people, me included, lost animals over time and no-one knew what had happened to them. Someone contacted me recently, not about this bill, and said basically that their animal had disappeared and they found out later that the council had had it and disposed of it. I do have an amendment, which I will not move at the moment, which will require the councils to at least scan for a microchip and if possible reunite the deceased animals with the owners. But I am going to wait for the summing up to see if that satisfies me, and if it gets through, if the government says what I ask it to say, then I will not move it; otherwise we will find out in the committee stage.

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:16): I rise to speak to the Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Pets and Other Matters) Bill 2021. Before I present the arguments for supporting this bill, I will follow my colleague Mr Gepp in declaring a vested interest as a dog owner and also confess that even though, like many people, I love my pets—my dogs—as human beings we are too busy and distracted by many things in life, so I do not think I have done sufficient in return for the unconditional love that my pets have given to me and my family. In fact they are and have been regarded as family members. The pets that many people have in their families and in their homes are treated as family members. Our government knows that animal welfare is a priority, and it has had a very strong record regarding the treatment and also the keeping of those pet animals.

I just want to go to some of the things we have done in the past—the government’s record. We have legislated to ban puppy farms. It can be said that there is no more significant or important reform than that legislation. We also made sure that every tenant who has to rent, for work or for other reasons, has the right to own a pet through our rental reforms. We also have many grants. There is over $1.5 million in the Animal Welfare Fund, which includes provision for free and low-cost desexing of cats and dogs for vulnerable and disadvantaged Victorians. There are also grants for horse and pony rescue, support for equipment upgrades and the expansion of services for animal shelters, for community foster carers and for vet clinics. And this bill is a further step in that direction.

A lot of people in Victoria have pets. In fact 665 000 dogs and more than 200 000 cats have been registered in our state. This bill will simplify the process that will help to ensure that cats and dogs—or pets—that have been lost, once found, can be reunited with their owners sooner and more efficiently.

I can tell you my personal story. In October last year, if you remember, there was a huge storm that lashed across Melbourne, and as a result in my backyard there was a big, big tree that was felled by the wind and the storm, and it fell across the fence between our home and the neighbours’. The next morning the big tree and the fence were destroyed in parts. I did what I could just to try and cover that, but a few hours later when I came home from work one of my two dogs was missing. What an anxious time we had as a whole family. I remember walking up the blocks surrounding our house and pinning to the trees and to the lampposts some posters of a photo of my dog—after cutting myself out of the photograph; I mean, the dog was the focus, not me—and my phone number, and luckily we then were contacted by someone who had seen and actually taken the dog in after the dog escaped because of the broken fence. She took it to a vet. Then, by the time we got the message and went to the vet, it had already been taken to the council. By the time we went to the council it had been taken to a sanctuary for lost dogs. So after days of anxiously waiting we were eventually reunited with our dog, but the dog must have been very frightened and traumatised by the experience.

This bill is to simplify this process and help reunite lost pets with their owners in case the dog, the cat or some pet decides on their own to wander around. So what in particular will this bill do? At present when a pet is found wandering the streets or otherwise they must first be delivered to the local council before they can be reunited with their owners, unless a vet or a shelter has a contract with the council to accept them directly and reunite lost pets with their owners. This requirement can lead—

Mr Ondarchie: Acting President, this is a very important bill, and I draw your attention to the state of the house.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Thank you, Mr Ondarchie, but I am satisfied in accordance with our temporary orders that there is a quorum in the precinct.

Dr KIEU: The present arrangements and requirements can lead to confusion, frustration and also inefficiencies and in some cases unwanted outcomes for both the owners and their pets. This includes high reclaim costs—it did in fact cost us some money to get our dog back—but, more importantly, it can lead to long wait times for reunion or longer amounts of time spent in a stressful environment for pets, and also in some cases, when the owner cannot be found, it may lead to euthanasia.

The bill expands on this current arrangement by allowing participating vets and registered animal shelters to accept and reunite lost pets directly with their owners without the need for an agreement with the council in the first place. Of course the vets and registered animal shelters also retain the flexibility to not accept dogs, cats or lost pets if they do not want to participate. In some circumstances the vet will also be required to provide lost pets to council when they are considered a dangerous or menacing species—particularly dogs, because we know some dog species are under controls and considered dangerous and menacing. In presenting this bill to the house we are acquitting our election commitment, because this is a very simple but very important and very necessary bill to simplify and make life easier for owners and also for their pets.

There were mentions of some delay. Well, I do not want to delve into that, but my colleague already pointed out some broken promises on the other side of the house. Also I would just like to mention that we have not forgotten that we are still in a pandemic, and a lot of matters have needed to be dealt with urgently and efficiently.

I would like to conclude by saying that this is a very important reform bill which will make the lives of pets, pet owners and also vets and animal shelters better by more efficiently reuniting lost pets with their owners. It will also help to minimise trauma. Particularly, for example, in my case the dog had to spend night after night in a strange environment, traumatised and anxious because as an animal they may not understand what is going on around them. This is not all. There is more to come. As the Andrews Labor government we continue to work to modernise animal welfare legislation to support pets and other animals, big or small.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (11:27): I rise today to speak on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Pets and Other Matters) Bill 2021 in a house that does not have very many members in it. If I do the mathematics, it suggests to me that a quorum does not exist right now, but we will proceed anyway.

I commend my colleague Ms Bath on her contribution to this bill today. She has gone right through the elements of the bill, and for the efficiency of the house I will not take up my full 15 minutes today, as others have done, because I think Ms Bath did a great job in acquitting our views on this. The Liberal-Nationals coalition will not be opposing this bill today, a bill to amend the Domestic Animals Act 1994 to allow vet clinics and registered shelters to reunite lost pets, cats and dogs, to their owners and streamline the process, lowering the burden on local councils. I am hopeful that when this bill passes, should Archie ever go missing from the Gepp household, that Archie can be returned to Mr Gepp very quickly. It is also designed to make other changes to improve clarity, compliance with and administration of the act, including in relation to the previously passed puppy farm legislation. This bill was committed to by the Liberal-Nationals in 2018 prior to the state election, and therefore it is somewhat pleasing to pet owners that the government have followed the Liberal-Nationals lead on this and committed to the same policy which they are bringing to the house today.

Under the current act any lost dog or cat must be taken to the local council authorised officer and only vets or animal shelters holding a special agreement with their local councils—what is called an 84Y agreement—are allowed to contact an owner to reunite them with their pets. Only about 23 per cent of vets have that agreement in place at the moment, and often it is very hard to identify for the public those that have an 84Y agreement and those that do not, and to get lost pets back quickly.

I just want to touch on the contribution from Dr Kieu today, when he said this is part of acquitting election commitments. Well, if you acquit election commitments, there should be no new taxes or increased taxes in this state, because that was an election commitment that the Premier, the then opposition leader, made to the people of Victoria.

Mr Finn: When did he do that?

Mr ONDARCHIE: He did that just prior to the 2014 state election, in fact the night before, when he looked down the barrel of the Channel 7 camera and said to Peter Mitchell, who was sitting at the 7 desk, ‘Peter, I give this commitment to Victorians. There will be no new or increased taxes’ under any government he leads.

Mr Finn: He said that in front of this building, didn’t he?

Mr ONDARCHIE: I am not quite sure, Mr Finn, exactly where it was he said that, but he did say that. So if they are genuine about acquitting election commitments, why haven’t they done that? Because I think we are up to 41 new or increased taxes in this state already.

The other thing that Dr Kieu touched on was the question around how long this has taken to become legislation and get to the chamber—the delays. He did remind us that we are in a pandemic and there are other priorities. There certainly must be other priorities because if we look at order of the day 9 on the notice paper today, that is the Statute Law Revision Bill 2018. The Statute Law Revision Bill 2018 is order of the day 9. Here we are in 2022 and the government still have not got to that. I am not sure that the pandemic started in 2018. I suspect it did not. So I am wondering what the delay is on that one. If we follow that, the budget papers of 2020–21, order of the day 8 on the notice paper today, have still not been dealt with—the budget from last year. I suspect we are not far away from the budget for the next financial year.

Anyway, in saying that, the main provisions of this bill allow for clinics and animal shelters to opt in directly to reuniting lost pets—cats and dogs—with their owners. That is dealt with in clauses 3 to 9 of the bill. Clauses 10 to 40 of the bill make other changes to improve the clarity, compliance with and administration of the act, particularly in relation to the previously passed puppy farm legislation.

There are some challenges in the bill, which I am hopeful—apropos of Mr Bourman’s contribution—the minister will deal with in the summing up today. There is some risk that owners’ privacy might be breached with the legislation allowing for animal registry services to automatically transfer personal information. There is a risk here if we do not get it right, especially related to incorrect and outdated information on microchips, that we might well hand over to the wrong person. There is an added cost burden to veterinary clinics and the record keeping that is required. I am wondering how the government will support small businesses like veterinary clinics. Whilst the Liberal-Nationals committed to this in 2018 prior to the state election and it has only been copied by the government now, I wonder why it took until 2022 to be introduced.

The RSPCA, the Australian Veterinary Association, the Lost Dogs Home, the Australian Institute of Animal Management and the Municipal Association of Victoria have all been consulted on this. Some local councils have welcomed the bill and said it reduces their burden in assisting owners and pets to get back together. Vets have expressed some concerns about the costs and the resources they will require, and hopefully the government will find some way of supporting them as well.

Given others have talked about pets that are near and dear to them, as an ambassador for Guide Dogs Victoria, it is a great opportunity today for me to continue to commend the great work that Guide Dogs Victoria do for vision-impaired and blind Australians. As members know, I have my own guide dog in my home, Nala, who is an official Guide Dogs ambassadog, and Nala just goes everywhere, including here to the Parliament, sending a very clear message that guide dogs and their handlers can go anywhere. There have been many occasions where blind or vision-impaired Australians with their guide dogs as assistance dogs have been refused entry. I have seen untrained or semitrained people preclude entry to blind or vision-impaired Australians with their guide dogs into places like shopping centres and into commercial passenger vehicles, which I know annoys Mr Barton because they should be allowed to do that. We are trying to resolve that through our messaging.

Can I then also pay tribute to the chief executive of Guide Dogs Victoria, Karen Hayes, and her wonderful team right across the GDV organisation. They do such a great job in helping vision-impaired or blind Australians. Guide Dogs Victoria is getting a refreshed campus out at Kew. It is underway at the moment. It is going to be very much a sensory campus, and we thank the federal government for their support in providing for that new campus. Can I say to Victorians, if you see a vision-impaired person with a guide dog, please do not pat the guide dog. The guide dog is working. We have to remind people every now and again when we are walking through a shopping centre or a retail space or anywhere with our ambassadog, Nala, ‘Please don’t pat her. She’s working’. When we take her jacket off and her leads and all that off, she is just a normal dog. She runs around and has fun. But guide dogs are working animals. Please do not pat them. Please treat them with respect. And if you can afford any support to vision-impaired or blind Victorians, on behalf of Guide Dogs Victoria, we would most welcome that. The state opposition today will not be opposing this bill.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:35): I too am a dog person. I have always had large dogs, and our home has a golden retriever and a German shepherd, which keeps the house hairy. I rise to speak on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Pets and Other Matters) Bill 2021. This bill will allow vets to return pets to their owners, which will be critical in reducing the period of separation and stress and avoiding additional transfers of the pets. The bill will allow vets to access the microchip register to make this process easier.

Currently lost cats and dogs can only be brought to council-authorised officers or vets and shelters under an agreement with the council. As our colleague has just mentioned, only 23 per cent of vets have such an agreement. In speaking with the Australian Veterinary Association I heard lots of support from those in the veterinary profession for this bill. In particular, an important aspect of this new reform is that it is an opt-in system. If vets do not have the capacity or time to offer the service, they do not need to.

We know how stressed and overworked and underpaid our vets are. Underinvestment in this profession has resulted in a veterinary workforce shortage. This has had severe implications for the mental health of the workforce and risks the quality of animal health. In fact some researchers reported that veterinarians are four times more likely to die from suicide than the general population and two times more likely than any other healthcare professionals, and just over 66 per cent of veterinary respondents said that they have experienced mental health conditions at some stage. Left unchecked, these issues have the potential to lead to the collapse of the sector, which poses a significant risk to the community at large.

I am wary that this bill adds yet another responsibility and burden to vets. Yes, this is an opt-in system, but we know already that those in this profession will push themselves to the limits to protect and assist our beloved pets. Lower rates of pay in this sector when compared to other professions such as medicine, engineering and dentistry combined with high levels of HECS debt and difficult working conditions paint a stark future for the industry. I want vets to be able to return lost pets to their owners, but I also want those in the industry to be paid sufficiently in return for the service that they provide to our communities. We should be encouraging more to enter the sector. We need to top up our investment in this area. If we do not do something, I expect only more and more of the veterinary workforce will leave the profession, seeking higher pay, normal hours and less stress.

Minister Leane would not be aware of this, so before I conclude my contribution I would like to raise that today is actually national war animal day, which recognises the important roles that animals have had and continue to play in the Australian Defence Force. As well, we must give thought to those animals that serve in roles in law enforcement. This is a good bill. I commend this bill to the house.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:38): I rise to make a contribution on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Pets and Other Matters) Bill 2021. I want to commend Mr Barton for his comments in regard to this bill but also highlighting the challenges that workers face in this particular industry. I know there have been programs, both Insight and I think the ABC ran a program, talking about the high suicide rates of vets in this sector. I just want to give a shout-out to all those hardworking vets who work in that industry and do so much for people with pets. You can be a vet that looks after domestic animals, but you can also be a vet that looks after farm animals like cows and horses. I was having a conversation with Minister Leane just earlier about this. I know so many of us here in this chamber are pet owners, so a shout-out to all the people who own canines and felines. And of course my daughter owns a reptile, so reptiles can also be very important pets as well, not that you would want to necessarily put a microchip into a reptile.

I think we have seen stories where someone has pulled up at a petrol bowser and there was a snake wrapped around the petrol bowser, so it could in fact be someone’s pet snake that has escaped.

Mr Leane: Alligators in America.

Ms TERPSTRA: Alligators in America, turtles, whatever—there can be lots and lots of pets that can escape.

I am sure, in speaking about dogs, for example, we have all had experiences where we have been somewhere and there has been a stray dog and you can see that the dog has gotten out from somewhere. They are scared, they are running around and you do not want them to run onto the road, so you try and get them and bring them home and then try and track down the owners. Just the other week I had a situation at my house where I just happened to look out into the front yard and there was a dog in our front yard. I did not know where it came from, but fortunately this dog had a mobile phone number on its collar. I rang the mobile phone and I was able to find the owner, who was actually probably halfway up our street. The dog thankfully had run down the road—if it had gone down the other way, where there was a very, very busy road not so far away from us, the outcome could have been terrible.

What I know—and I know others have made these sorts of contributions in here today—is that when we lose a pet it is stressful for the owners and it is stressful for the animal, but the death of a pet is quite devastating. Our pets give us unconditional love. They are sentient beings. They also feel things just like we do—not in the same way, of course, but they know when something is up. One of the things that my family and I decided to do when having pets, and particularly dogs, was if we get a dog we always opt to get it from a shelter, not from a pet store, wanting to give a dog a forever home if it has been surrendered or abandoned. We thought that was something that was really important. My dog, Skye—some of you may have seen her on social media; I do some tweets about Skye occasionally—has got a little bent paw, so I wanted to call her Nemo because she has got the gimpy fin, you know. But my kids did not want that to happen. She has got the gimpy paw, but we love her. We love everything about her.

One thing I notice about Skye is that because she has come from another home—our Skye is a gorgeous staffy-cross and staffies are the clowns of the dog world and give big love; staffies always give big love to everybody and want big love in return—I know Skye is fearful of men in hi-vis, I know Skye is fearful of people bearing brooms and Skye does not like it when people carry or use a hose. When you get a pet that is rehomed you realise that there is a bit of extra work that needs to go into it, but given lots of love, affection, attention, consistency and predictability, that pet can be the best thing for your family. And Skye really gives us lots and lots of love. We do not know where we would be without her actually. When we went to get her—I will not mention the place—she was kind of at the end of the road in the last kennel holding before the end of the road. Looking at her and seeing her little gimpy paw I could understand why that was the case, but I looked at her and said, ‘You’re coming with us’. Consequently she did come with us, and she made herself at home by remodelling different parts of the house and getting acquainted with our cat as well. That was kind of interesting—we had to replace carpet and all that sort of stuff, and that was a bit hectic, but as I said, she is part of our family now. And yes, she is microchipped.

But one thing I do know—and I said this before—is that animals can escape for a range of reasons. They can escape in a storm. They get frightened of loud noises—not all dogs, but some do—like fireworks, for example. I will never forget one time when I was living in New South Wales. I was driving down the road and had the windows down in my car. A storm had just happened, and this dog literally ran alongside my car and jumped through the window of the passenger seat.

A member interjected.

Ms TERPSTRA: Exactly. That was my reaction. I have gone, ‘Far out. How did that dog actually make it through the window?’, but it did. It was petrified and it was terrified. And this is the thing: when animals are so scared, they can just be—you know. I was grateful that it was now in my car, because I wound the window up and made sure that I could then try and find the owner and call them. It turned out to be my neighbour’s dog, so they were very grateful to get it back. But again, the last thing you want is for it to run under a car and be killed or really badly injured.

Previously I have talked about reptiles and kind of laughed about snakes and all that sort of stuff, but these are pets. People are looking to animals, and a broader range of animals, for companionship and for a whole range of things. But one of the things that this bill will do is it will make it easier for people to find their lost pets. I will just quote some data here from the RSPCA, and these are staggering numbers. Data from the RSPCA shows that more than 53 000 stray animals are impounded in Victoria each year, and of these approximately 21 600 are reclaimed, so less than half. Less than one in two are actually reclaimed, and that is 17 885 dogs and 3734 cats. That is why I support the system of people actually going to the pound or going to a shelter and getting an animal that has been surrendered or been lost, because otherwise then these pets are just being euthanised and it is an unnecessary destruction of life.

Back to the point of this bill: the bill will amend legislation to make it so—and Mr Barton’s contribution was accurate and spot on before—vets can have an agreement so that rather than a pet having to go to the council and the council having to do that work, the vet can actually contact the owners and the like. I know it is an opt-in kind of situation, but I know one thing: whenever I find an animal I take it to the vet if I cannot get the owner. Another good thing I just might mention is often on Facebook there are ‘lost dogs of whatever suburb’ kinds of pages, and people will post photos of lost dogs, so people know that if you are looking for a lost pet you might look on Facebook to see if there are any postings. But then you ring the local vets and you ring the RSPCA pound, and of course sometimes the RSPCA pound might not be near you. There have been some amazing stories of dogs being hundreds of kilometres away from where they live. Who knows how they got there, but there they are.

I think this is a very welcome reform. Again, it will make it easier for people to be reunited with their pets, and that is the critically important thing. As I said, people love their pets. I do, as I said earlier, want to give a really big shout-out to and thank everybody who works in the veterinary industry, whether it is a vet or even the vet nurses. I know we have got a free TAFE initiative at the moment, certificate IV in vet nursing—how popular has that been—because we need more vet nurses to work back in the sector. I know that has been really popular with women, particularly the over-50s but also the 18-to-24 age bracket, and it has sparked a lot of interest. I want to commend Mr Meddick for his work in that area as well on that. It is an important reform and we need to get more workers in, but I also acknowledge Mr Barton’s comments that more needs to be done to support workers in that sector.

Also I was quite surprised, before I became a lawyer, years ago, when I was interested in becoming a vet myself and I looked into the requirements to study for a vet, that it is six years of study. It is actually a really big commitment to study veterinary science, and I thought after doing a law degree I just did not have it in me to do another six years of full-time study. Nevertheless it is an amazing commitment that people make to work with animals and care for them. I note Mr Barton’s earlier comments about the suicide rates in the sector, and that is unacceptable. Something really needs to happen there to support workers getting the help they need and the mental support that they need, because—and we say this all the time in the union movement—workers need to come home safely, not go to work and either be injured or struggle with the mental load that often comes with working in a particular sector. There is always more work to do, and hopefully this sector will get the support it needs.

This bill is just a small step in helping people be reunited with their much-loved pets. As I said, and Mr Barton touched on this, it is called an 84Y agreement, and again it is an opt-in agreement. It is named after the section of the act which will enable vets to do this work, but 84Y will not mean anything to people—it will mean nothing. But what people want to know is: if I take that dog to the vet, can owners then make direct contact, so it is not circuitous in terms of having to go to a pound or whatever else? Again, that section of the act enables local councils to make written agreements with a person or body—namely, shelters, vet practices, community foster care networks and foster carers—to support the capture, holding, rehoming or disposal of dogs and cats, and those are the 84Y agreements, which allow certain people in organisations other than local councils to receive and manage lost pets and/or stray animals.

It is just going to make it so much easier and more streamlined, less circuitous and more direct, because we know when an animal is in a pound they are stressed and distressed. I was talking about Skye before. I know she had been in the pound for a while, and I could see that she was depressed. With staffies you can read their emotions on their faces; they are very expressive. Her ears were down and she looked pretty sad, but as soon as she came out of that kennel she was jumping all over the place. They know what it is like to be separated from their owners or to not be around humans, and particularly with staffies they need that human connection and interaction, and they actually feel quite lonely. So, yes—staffies, big love always from anywhere and anyone. I know it took her a while to recover from being in that pound situation for a while. Of course there were attempts made to locate her previous owners, but again, that was to no avail, and she suffered. You could see it; she suffered as a consequence of being in that pound. When she came out we had to teach her where to go to the toilet again, where to eat, not to go to the toilet where she ate—there was a whole bunch of stuff that came with that, but she has moved on from there and gone from strength to strength.

As I touched on earlier, the current requirements can be circuitous but can also lead to confusion, frustration, inefficiencies and unwanted outcomes for both pets and owners, and of course there are the high reclaim costs. Sometimes when a dog ends up in the council pound then you have got to pay a fine and sometimes people cannot afford to pay the fine or there are pound fees and the like, so that is something that could be avoided. And as I said, long wait times for lost pets—if people are not at the pound over the weekend or whatever, that can cause longer delays in pets and their owners being reunited. It is a stressful environment in the pound, with pets not being returned to their correct owners and the like.

I must say, I give a shout-out to the RSPCA at Burwood. I often have a look at their social media posts. They have a whole range of animals there at the moment. They have got chickens and ponies and all sorts of things, so again it is not just about looking for homes for different dogs or cats, those usual domestic animals that we think about. I am the proud owner of chickens. Like I said, we have got chickens, a reptile—a blue-tongue lizard—a cat, a dog—

Mr Barton: I love chickens.

Ms TERPSTRA: Good on you, Mr Barton. People do have a much broader array of domestic pets these days. I think I will leave my contribution there. It is a good reform. It will definitely make it easier for people to be reunited with their pets if they become lost. It is a good reform, and I commend this bill to the house.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (11:53): I will be brief. The Liberal Democrats do indeed support the cutting of red tape. This bill does a reasonable thing, but it is somewhat of an indictment of government red tape that this bill is necessary at all. Let me explain. Let us say you find a lost dog. It has a collar but no ID tags. You take the pet to the nearby vet to see if someone can scan its microchip and find out who the owner is. The vet tells you that they would be happy to help but the law says they are not allowed to do that. The law says they must send the dog to the pound in the next town over. This vet is one of the vast majority of vets in Victoria that do not have an 84Y agreement with the council that would allow them to fulfil this service. Many councils refuse to issue these permits at all.

This is an excellent example of government stuffing things up. The reason we microchip animals is that they can slip their collars and lose their tags. Their whole purpose is to identify the owner so the pet can be reunited with them, but the government makes it illegal to do this. The only reason councils have to do this is that they make money when animals are claimed from the pound. If a lost animal is taken to the vet or to an animal shelter, the council loses out on the revenue from the penalties that one pays when claiming their animal from the pound. They do this even though allowing vets and rescue groups to offer this service would reduce the burden on council services. Another way to think about that is the government actively bans the use of technological innovation so it can maintain a monopoly on petty thieves.

Back to the bill, the key areas of change in this bill are to allow pets and rescue groups to legally scan the microchips of lost pets and to reunite those lost pets with their families. I will not spend 10 minutes talking about my pets; I will keep it brief. While I was on Wodonga council I managed to keep—

Ms Symes: I so want to know what your pets’ names are. Please, come on. I do. I’m really interested.

Mr QUILTY: We have a very old cat called Yoshka; it has got a Russian background. When I was on Wodonga council I managed to keep the councillors entertained with the stories of our cat and its adventures through the pound when it somehow got picked up. Dealing with it all was an annoying, time-consuming and expensive process, and it is something we inflict on pet owners every day all across this state. The Liberal Democrats will support this bill. It is a good change, even if it does not go far enough. We need far less restriction on vets and rescue groups, and this bill will deliver. It should never have been illegal to read the ID tag on a dog or a cat and use that information to reunite that pet with its owner, regardless of whether the ID tag is below the skin or attached to the collar. I am glad we are doing this—one piece of red tape down, a few hundred thousand to go.

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (11:56): I am going to talk about Pickles. Pickles is the delightful orange kitten that has come into my life recently. Pickles or Pick Pick or That One—depending on what my attitude is at the time—is a delight and a joy in my life, and that is why I am really happy to speak, although I know I do not have long. Can I say, I have taught Pickles how to run through the tunnel, I have taught Pickles—

Mr Ondarchie: Not the West Gate Tunnel.

Ms WATT: No, not the West Gate Tunnel, Mr Ondarchie. Honestly. It is a $4.99 tunnel from Kmart. Can I recommend it highly to any pet lovers out there. It is fantastic. She loves it. In fact when I told Pickles that I was visiting a tunnel on Tuesday morning with the Premier, little Pick got a little bit jealous. Old Pick Pick got a little bit jealous because Pickles indeed wanted to be running free through the tunnels. Fantastic. I loved every minute of it.

Pickles is a delight and a joy in my life, and I have so much more to say after we get to question time. But let me say Pickles came to us because Mum loves to have pets about. She likes the joy and the happiness and the laughs that Pickles brings. We have a favourite family tradition in our family, which is to take the ring off a Vegemite jar and throw it about. So this is just to say that Pickles chases Vegemite jar rings up and down the tunnel at Mamma’s place out the back. What a complete joy it is to play again with young Pickles, who has come into our life during COVID, so thank you very, very much. I am very happy that Pickles was in my 5-kilometre region, because I definitely needed some time with Pickles in the last—how many months have I been here?—15 months. So it has been a complete delight and joy to welcome Pickles to my family. I have got so much more to say about this, President, but I do know that you will be interrupting me in just a short, short moment.

Members interjecting.

Ms WATT: Do you want another minute? Okay, I am going to talk about how Pickles loves Big M chocolate milk. Big M: love it, love it, love it. A Big M and a Vegemite ring, with the $4.99 Kmart tunnel, it is all a big win.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.