Thursday, 24 February 2022

Bills

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

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (14:03): I am coming back after the lunchbreak to continue my remarks. Can I just thank all of you for joining with me as I shared some fun stories before we broke for the lunchbreak. I am now going to get to the serious business of what is before us.

As I rise to speak in support of this bill I would like to note that animal welfare is a priority for this government, and we have indeed a proud record of delivering on our promises to improve animal welfare and support pet owners to care for their beloved animals. I note that this simple reform will ensure that lost cats and dogs are reunited with their owners sooner and more efficiently. When a pet is lost, the situation is stressful for both the animal and its owners and sometimes even for the family of its owners. This reform will empower vets and animal shelters to more efficiently reunite lost pets with their owners whilst ensuring community safety standards are importantly not compromised, improving the welfare of all involved.

Under the current legislation lost pets are required to first be delivered to the local council before they are reunited with their owner unless a vet or shelter has a contract in place with the council to directly accept and reunite lost pets, called an 84Y agreement. A survey shows that just 23 per cent of vets have one of these contracts, meaning that in most circumstances pets are sent to the pound. When someone finds a lost dog in the street their first thought is often to take it to the nearest vet, but most people will not know whether or not this specific vet has an 84Y agreement in place or indeed what in fact an 84Y agreement is. So these changes will give vets the flexibility to accept lost pets even if they do not have this agreement in place, but it will also mean that they will retain the ability to refuse to accept them if they do not wish to participate, maintaining vets’ agency over their operations.

These requirements can lead to confusion, frustration, inefficiencies and unwanted outcomes for both pets and owners. It is neither cost effective nor time efficient and can mean long wait times for lost pets, who must be kept in stressful pounds. Unfortunately pounds are often distressing places for our pets to be kept in, and it is vital for the wellbeing of our cats and dogs that we are able to ensure that pets spend as little time as possible in there. Ideally they are reunited with their owners before they even get there in the first place. Sadly RSPCA research shows that more than 53 000 stray animals get impounded in Victoria each year. Of these, approximately 21 600 are reclaimed. It does not seem like enough to me. What this means is that thousands of unclaimed pets get left in pounds. According to the RSPCA that figure is estimated to be over 12 000 registered dogs and nearly 800 registered cats that are needlessly impounded each year. The RSPCA—and I cannot seem to get that song out of my head from All Creatures Great and Small—have also been great supporters of this bill. Just recently their CEO, Dr Liz Walker, called the legislation a great outcome for animal welfare and for pet owners in Victoria, as well as adding that it would lower operational costs for local councils and reduce the load on pounds, all of which can only mean good, good things.

In some cases this unfortunately results in pets not being returned to the correct owners, and in other cases it, sadly, means euthanasia. What this bill does is empower a vet or animal shelter to merely scan the pet’s microchip, which enables them to immediately contact the pet’s owner to organise a reunion with their pet, significantly streamlining the process. This bill also includes safeguards to ensure that vets will be required to verify pet ownership to confirm that pets are returned to their lawful owners. It also ensures that these incidents will always be reported to the council and accurate records are to be kept, ensuring councils retain oversight of animal movement and management.

We are also incorporating into legislation the exemption allowing retired greyhounds to be walked in public without a muzzle, which is currently in place under a Governor in Council order but will now be law, and I must say this is good news particularly for the many, many greyhounds I find in my local community. This is a reform that we promised at the last state election, and as always we are committed to delivering on our promise, which is why we are here today to make this bill law.

This pandemic has changed many aspects of society, and one thing it has done for so many families is highlight how important animals are in their lives. Indeed for many the extended period indoors was a motivating factor in finally taking that step to adopt a furry new friend, adding to the already high pet ownership in this state. We can count my family amongst that number.

We know that Victorians love and care about their pets, which is why the Andrews Labor government has a proud record in delivering on animal welfare. Our list of legislative achievements in animal welfare is long and significant. Most significantly we banned puppy farms, delivering nation-leading reforms which ended the cruel practice of lining up hundreds of dogs in a row with the sole purpose of pumping out puppies to sell them off. In addition we are supporting the RSPCA in fighting illegal breeders and funding $5 million for their dedicated special investigations unit to stamp out this practice for good. Our significant rental reforms have legislated that every tenant now has the right to own a pet, because everyone deserves to be able to own a pet, and this, to me, is so significant and so very close to my heart.

We have delivered Victoria’s first Animal Welfare Action Plan, which was developed by the former minister, Ms Pulford, alongside the member for Pascoe Vale, and we established Animal Welfare Victoria, bringing together all aspects of domestic animal and animal welfare research, policy, education and indeed compliance into one dedicated agency. We have reformed the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to ensure the government receives expert advice to support our busy animal welfare agenda, and it is a very busy animal agenda indeed because the Andrews Labor government is investing unprecedented amounts into ensuring that animal welfare in this state is protected and preserved.

As I am giving this speech there is currently over $1.5 million available in grants under the Animal Welfare Fund. Already the fund has awarded $3.2 million worth of grants since it was set up for not-for-profit and community organisations so they can continue on with the essential and important work that they do.

I take this moment to give a personal shout-out to the Lort Smith Animal Hospital in North Melbourne, which holds a special place in my heart. Indeed that is where my beloved Bootsy came from. Lort Smith is an absolutely iconic Melbourne institution and has been providing comprehensive treatment for animals since 1936—my goodness. I was delighted that through Animal Welfare Victoria this government was able to provide a $50 000 grant to Lort Smith for a new animal adoption centre in Campbellfield in my constituency of Northern Metropolitan Region. This purpose-built brand new animal adoption centre will take over from the services and facilities currently provided by the North Melbourne adoption hub. It will be a safe haven for surrendered animals who are already ready for adoption, where they can play freely and let their true personality shine. I like the sound of that.

At the last election we committed $3 million over four years to the Animal Welfare Fund for projects like this, and since then we have invested even further in this important program, with an additional $7.5 million in the 2020–21 Victorian budget to boost and expand this highly successful program. I have many more remarks to continue with, but being conscious of time and knowing that I have further colleagues—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): I interrupt to draw the house’s attention and to welcome Dr Ron Wells, who is a former member of the Legislative Council for the electorate of Eumemmerring from October 1992 to September 1999 and a former member for Dromana in the Legislative Assembly from 1985 to 1992. Dr Wells, lovely to see you. Welcome back to the house.

Ms WATT: I will leave my remarks at that, if I may, because I know my colleagues have so much more to say on this important matter. I commend this bill.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (14:13): I rise to speak on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Pets and Other Matters) Bill 2021. While you are in the chair, Acting President Gepp, having heard your earlier contribution, might I say I endorse your support for the Tetley Tigers, and I look forward to those particular Tigers roaring in September of this year. That is something that I am particularly looking forward to, as I know you are, Acting President.

This bill, as has been pointed out by both Mr Ondarchie and Ms Bath, will not be opposed by the opposition. In fact I think it is quite a good measure. Anything in fact that reunites lost animals with their owners surely has to be a good thing, and I could not imagine how I would feel if Bobbidog, for example, ran away or was lost in some way. She has been with our family now for 11 years. She is 13, and we got her from Lort Smith, an institution that Ms Watt mentioned. It is a remarkable institution. In fact at the Lort Smith hospital they look after animals quite remarkably. We had a cat a few years ago too that had a few problems with some flowers. There is a certain type of flower—and I am just trying to think what it is at the minute—where if a cat comes into contact with the pollen, the cat will die, and that is what happened to Kentucky. We were unaware of this of course, and we ended up in Lort Smith with Kentucky, who unfortunately later that day expired. He was just a little kitten, getting around like little kittens do, and he licked a flower—lilies, that is what they are. If anybody who is listening to this or anybody in the house has cats, keep them away from lilies, because lilies and cats do not mix. And if they do mix: one dead cat, and that is not something to bounce on the table about. That is my community service announcement for the day.

But as I say, we have at our place Bobbidog, who is just as much a part of the family as anybody else. She is 13 years of age, so she is getting on a bit now, but we are very hopeful that she will be with us for quite some time yet. She is just an extraordinary member of the family. She is a pugalier, and she has the patience of Job. She will put up with just about anything and has over the years—

Mr Melhem: She’d have to with you.

Mr FINN: Well, Mr Melhem, I doubt if even she would be able to put up with you. But I think that a pet in a home, in everybody’s home, should be almost mandatory—in fact for God’s sake, do not tell the Premier or it will be, because he is fond of that sort of thing. But I have to say if Bobbi was able to vote, Bobbidog would be voting Labor at the next election—she would—because she loved the lockdowns like nobody else. The lockdowns meant that we were all home and she would get two, three, maybe four walks a day, and she thought that was just sensational. She thought that was brilliant. She would support more lockdowns, so she would be voting Labor at the election if she got the chance.

But I am constantly amazed at the degree of love and affection that she gives everyone. It does not matter how difficult things are, she is always there wagging her tail and generally barking, as she has taken to in recent times—I would not say in her dotage, but it is getting there—barking at things that are not there, which is a tad annoying. But you work things out after a while. Perhaps she might have a touch of the Joe Bidens, and that is not something that is all that good for anyone. But she is, I suppose, representative of probably hundreds of thousands of animals that have come from Lort Smith, that have come from the Lost Dogs Home and that have come from numerous animal hostels and so forth that have found their way into people’s homes over the years. And I can only say to people if they are looking for a dog or cat, do not buy one from a shop—although I suppose you cannot anymore, really, can you? But do not go to extraordinary lengths, just go down to Lort Smith or go down to the Lost Dogs Home and get one there.

I remember—it is a very interesting story, and I am sure you will be fascinated by this—that one Sunday we went into the Lost Dogs Home to get ourselves a dog only to find that it was closed, so we went to Lort Smith. We walked in, my daughter and I, my eldest daughter. We walked into Lort Smith, and Bobbidog made a beeline for us. We did not pick Bobbidog, Bobbidog picked us, as I am told is often the case, and a few days later we were able to take her home. And that was one of the best days of my life, I have to say, the day that we got her from Lort Smith. But by way of saying that, I make the point that it is really important that people do go to Lort Smith, the Lost Dogs Home and the other animal shelters around the place, where animals in need of a home are in huge numbers.

Now, I know that the Lost Dogs Home, for example, looks after some 14 000 animals a year. That is a lot of homes that need to be found, and obviously not all are. I well remember at Lort Smith in the cage next to where Bobbidog was there was another dog that, well, seemed to be a bit nuts to tell you the truth. I called it the flying dog at the time because it was jumping around the cage. It was flying up all over the place. I did not like the chances of it finding a home, and I fear to think what might have happened. Just thinking about it, it was Bobbi’s last day in the cage. You know, she was due to be departed the following day. If we had not gone to Lort Smith after being rejected by a closed Lost Dogs Home, Bobbi would never have been a part of our family, so for that we are very, very grateful.

But again I just make the point that it is really important that people do make the first port of call at one of the homes—Lort Smith, the Lost Dogs Home, any of the animal shelters that are around the place—because the alternative to finding a home is them being put down, and that is something that I do not particularly want to see at all. In fact I find that quite heartbreaking. I have a friend in fact who works at the Lost Dogs Home, and she is constantly inviting me down to visit because she knows damn well that if I go in to see the animals I will bring half of them home. Now, I have resisted that temptation to this point in the interests of preserving my marriage, because I reckon if I brought home half the dogs that I would after a visit to the Lost Dogs Home I and the dogs would be out on the street very, very quickly.

But it is important that we remember that there are a lot of dogs and there are a lot of cats. I should point out that our cat Yoda—quite a mad cat—is a product of the Lost Dogs Home, which confuses the cat somewhat, it has to be said. He is a product of the Lost Dogs Home. I went in one day. I said, ‘Can I have a look at your kittens?’. She opened up the cage and Yoda wandered over to me, and I said, ‘I’ll have him, thank you very much’—a pure white cat; leaves hair everywhere. Wherever it goes it leaves hair. Bobbidog does that too, but there is something about cat hair that sticks like nothing else, and Yoda is certainly particularly good at that.

I think it is remarkable the job that they do at the Lost Dogs Home, at Lort Smith and at so many other animal charities and shelters around the state. It is God’s own work really, isn’t it, to help animals when they are in need and to find new homes for them. But new homes will not be found, as I say, if people do not go down and have a look. So I advise anybody, you know, if you have got kids in particular, it is really important that they have a pet. I have always had pets. Growing up on the farm we always had at least a couple of dogs and quite a few cats, I have to say, around the place. Where they came from I have no idea. Where they have gone I have no idea. At one stage I think we had dozens of cats. They just sort of materialised. I think they went from farmhouse to farmhouse while everybody fed them. I know a few blokes like that, actually, who will not be named. But a pet is a very important part of a family. The unbridled love, the devotion, that these animals show their owners is something that has to be seen to be believed.

They have quite a bit to teach us, because they love us unreservedly. That is something that I fully appreciate, and I love them in return, particularly Bobbi, who is just a dog from central casting—she really is. She is a ripper, and Yoda is as well when he is not climbing up the curtains or otherwise trying to destroy the internals of the house. But cats do that, don’t they? That is just the way it is.

Like Mr Quilty I shall be brief, because I have not got much longer to go anyway. I will be brief in just saying that the opposition does not oppose this legislation. We wish it a speedy passage, and I believe that Ms Bath will be cross-examining the minister during the committee of the whole, so I look forward to that. I will sit down now in anticipation of that occurring and once again urge members and those in the community who may be listening to this today: if you need a pet, get down to Lort Smith, get down to the Lost Dogs Home, get down to any of the animal shelters, because homes are needed and you just might have one of those homes.

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (14:26): I rise to also speak in favour of the Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Pets and Other Matters) Bill 2021. I shall begin by thanking some of the earlier speakers for their contributions, including Mr Gepp, Ms Watt and Ms Terpstra. And Mr Finn, thank you for sharing your touching story about Kentucky. Throughout the day we have heard the stories of other pet owners in this chamber, and there is a lot we can learn from our pets. I think that is one thing we have learned: the value of them—or the heightened the value of them since the global pandemic struck. I know where I reside almost all my neighbours have pets, and there are daily walks. For the pets it has probably been a contrast to the human lived experience. They have probably enjoyed the last couple of years, with all the extra attention they have been receiving during this time.

The connection between Victorians and their pets is quite large, and the impact of this bill is consequently quite large. I was interested, reading some of the bill papers in relation to this and looking at the impact, to discover that there are 665 000 dogs registered and 215 000 cats registered with councils across Victoria. That is amazing. There are almost a million domestic cats and dogs in our state, and it shows how important these reforms are.

Obviously it is delivering yet again on an election promise that our government made to Victorians, and it is about how we just get on and get things done. It is a continuation of that, and that is why I am proud to support this bill today. It is a bill that is focused on improving welfare and supporting pet owners as well by making improvements in that regard. It is implemented on the back of the commitment that we provided. Ms Watt touched upon our government’s record in addressing issues of animal welfare and especially the work that Minister Pulford and Lizzie Blandthorn did in delivering Victoria’s first animal welfare action plan after we were elected to government in 2014, and what an amazing body of work that was. I know that Mr Meddick is listening carefully. I am sure he is aware of it. He is aware of all the animal welfare initiatives of this government, and I look forward to his contribution a little later in this regard.

We are proud of our record when it comes to animal welfare, because we have made a number of reforms that have been initiated during this term—some of which have already been discussed, but I will remind the chamber—such as the ban on puppy farms. Obviously from time to time we still hear stories of the shocking conditions in puppy farms across our nation. But in Victoria, thankfully, with our implementation but also with our enforcement policies and our partnering with organisations such as the RSPCA and other animal welfare organisations, major steps have been taken to stop those bad practices, in particular in relation to the illegal breeding of puppies. This government has done a lot of work in this area.

The primary purpose is to allow vets and registered animal shelters, without council agreement, to reunite lost pets with their owners and to improve the administration and enforcement of the Domestic Animals Act 1994. There are a number of other factors and broad issues that are addressed in this bill as well that have not been touched upon, and I will get to them a little later. But there is one point that I think is worth addressing.

Dr Cumming in her contribution earlier asked why we have taken so long to implement this policy. That does need a response. It probably requires an understanding that fulsome policy and effective policy analysis are needed to bring this to fruition. It takes extensive research and extensive stakeholder management to make sure that the desired outcome comes to fruition. That is why, in terms of the broad consultation taking place, broad drafting is required to make sure that there are no unintended consequences and that the bill is effective in achieving its goals. But it is also worth noting that some of the departments responsible for this body of work have also been resourcing our emergency response and recovery activities for bushfires, avian influenza, COVID-19 and flooding in Victoria. That might give Dr Cumming some reassurance that to do fulsome, proper policy and draft legislation takes time. You cannot just do it off the cuff. You need to do it by going back, consulting stakeholders, getting the legal advice and drafting the documents in the proper way.

But it is now before us, and it is up to this chamber to approve it. That is why I was pleased to hear broad support across the chamber—bipartisan support but also the crossbench. So far all the speakers have been in support of this bill, and that is heartening to hear. Once the bill passes, hopefully today, it will need to be implemented by 1 October 2022. It is actually quite a quick turnaround for implementation. It is only a matter of months away, so it is important that we get on with the job today.

There are a number of other reforms that I want to discuss, because some of the other speakers thankfully shared their experiences with their pets. It was great to hear them share their love and their unique stories of their pets, because pets are part of the family. I think Mr Finn touched on the point about growing up with pets. That is an important point. It increases your empathy and understanding of the relationship between humans and other species on our planet. That is the way I look at it philosophically: it is important that we understand we all have our place in this ecosystem, and pets are part of the family.

Mr Finn, you might like to start to listen now because I am going to touch on the opposition’s record in relation to animal welfare and puppy farms, and I might note that you are supporting the bill today.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr ERDOGAN: I might get on with what the bill does. I will focus on that, and I will not focus on the past at this moment. Like I said, when a pet is lost it is obviously stressful, and we heard from a number of speakers how that can impact them. Ms Watt shared her story about that. But this reform is about reuniting pets with owners in an easier, faster and more efficient way. That is a positive and much-needed development. Part of this is about section 84Y of the act, which enables councils to make written agreements with a person—namely, a shelter or veterinary practice, community foster care networks and foster carers—to support the capture, holding, rehoming or disposal of dogs and cats. That is an 84Y agreement, which allows certain people and organisations other than local councils to receive and manage lost pets or stray animals. The bill expands on the 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 councils, so that is important. It just takes away one administrative hurdle to make the process more expedient and efficient. I think that is good. Mrs McArthur is not in the chamber or else I am sure she would be commenting on the removal of the red tape. This is an efficiency bill. It is about effectiveness, so I am pleased to have it here.

I did just want to touch upon some of the additional elements of this bill that have not been touched upon by some of the previous speakers. In addition to reuniting pets, the bill also introduces a number of administrative amendments to the Domestic Animals Act. These changes include incorporating into legislation the exemption allowing retired greyhounds to be walked in public without a muzzle, which is currently in place under a Governor in Council order. Additional Domestic Animals Act amendments include assisting compliance activities by requiring additional information for pet exchange register enrolments to the issue or renewal of source number and allowing an authorised officer to require a person to produce a document or record that could assist in determining compliance with the act. This has been developed to enable identification details to be requested from—

Members interjecting.

Mr ERDOGAN: Also elements of this bill include amending the circumstances in which an identity card needs to be produced by an authorised officer so they can continue to conduct compliance activities remotely, including during emergencies; extending the exemption order power in the act to allow the Governor in Council to exempt a person or class of person from some provisions of the act or regulations—the exemption can apply or be adopted to incorporate any standard code of practice or other document; exempting Greyhound Racing Victoria greyhound owners from the need to obtain a source number or include it in an advertisement, as Greyhound Racing Victoria administers its own traceability system for racing greyhounds; clarifying that the chief veterinary officer is allowed to recommend that specific conditions be imposed on a commercial dog breeder application or renewal; clarifying that the minister can specify the number of dogs for a commercial dog breeder up to a maximum of 50; removing ambiguity around existing authorised officer monitoring inspection powers on breeding domestic animal businesses; creating an offence that a person must not threaten, abuse or intimidate an authorised officer, consistent with similar offences in other legislation; allowing the secretary to issue source numbers via the pet exchange register for purposes other than advertising a pet for sale; and clarifying the provisions relating to the making of a court order against a person found guilty of certain breeding offences and to confirm that certain offenders are prevented from working as a microbreeder or recreational breeder. So they are some of the additional aspects of this bill that I feel are important to state on record.

In terms of consultation, like I said, I am proud of our government’s record of being open, transparent and consultative, and obviously before this bill came to this chamber I talked about the extensive stakeholder management and consultation. I can say that we have obviously worked in collaboration with local councils, Greyhound Racing Victoria, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, a number of animal shelters and vets, and a number of organisations and individuals that have expertise in this field. The extensive consultation occurred through Engage Victoria between July and August 2020. Engagement generated over a thousand submissions from all of the relevant stakeholder groups and found widespread support for direct pet reunification through vet clinics and animal shelters. Follow-up consultation with key stakeholders also occurred as the bill was drafted, ensuring the reforms were effective in achieving the goals it set out. Consultation on this important reform will continue with key stakeholders, and while considering the necessary supporting regulatory changes, obviously during the implementation stage we are always open to feedback as well. I am sure feedback will be provided by those participating in the program. As a government we have proven our record of always reviewing and making improvements and modernising laws where required, so I am sure in this regard this bill will be handled in exactly the same way.

As I move towards my conclusion, I just want to quote the RSPCA Victoria CEO, Dr Liz Walker, who called this legislation:

… a great outcome for animal welfare and … pet owners in Victoria.

I think that is one line that sums this up, and I think that says what needs to be said about this bill. Obviously the Premier is proud of his record and has also talked about the work that he and our government have done in this space. We are loud and proud about the work in this space. But obviously there is always more work to be done in terms of improving animal welfare outcomes in our state. As a government we are committed to animal welfare, and we will continue to review legislation, make amendments and make improvements where required to ensure that all animals across Victoria are treated as best as possible. In light of that, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (14:39): I also rise to speak on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Pets and Other Matters) Bill 2021. I will not go and repeat the aspects of the bill. I think that has been covered pretty well by all the speakers before me, but it is great to see the best in humanity, and today is a good example, where all members are talking about loved ones—our animals, our pets. They are like children. I think they are part of the family, and what this bill does is make life easier for owners and pets. It reduces their suffering if they are lost so that when they are found—particularly if someone hands them over to a vet clinic—vets are able to immediately get on the phone after they have done the scans, so they do not have to go to the council and do various other things, and reunite them with their owners.

As a matter of fact at my house we are going through a similar thing as we speak. A few months back my daughter came in—she works at a pet shop—and she said, ‘Oh, there’s a lovely cat, and the RSPCA would like that cat to be adopted by someone. It’s been sitting there for over a week and no-one has come forward to adopt that poor cat’. I made my view known that that probably was not a good idea, because we have got a few animals at home. We have got dogs, cats, birds, fish, horses and cows. We have got a large contingent of animals, and we did not need another one. I thought my daughter would actually take notice of my comment. Two days later: here we go, the cat arrived at home, yet another addition to the family. We decided to name her Willow. She is quite a terrorist, let me tell you. She was terrorising the birds. In fact she managed to actually open the cage and one of the birds disappeared—flew away, I think—–and a few weeks later the second bird disappeared and flew away. Unfortunately it is a cat who does not want to stay inside. A few weeks ago she disappeared, and we are still looking for her. Hopefully she is somewhere safe. Someone hopefully has picked her up and is looking after her. Anyway, she might come back. We are still hopeful.

The point I am making is: let us do whatever we can to make life easier for our best friends. Pets are our best friends, whether they are cats or dogs. My preferred animal? I love dogs, and my Stella is a 2½-year-old standard poodle. She is just so wonderful. Since she came into our lives she has brought us a lot of joy. We lost our dog of 15 years, Jasmine. After 15 years they are family; it is like you are losing one of your kids or a family member. But Stella came along and brought some joy to our lives.

This bill addresses some of the issues we have with the current legislation where the onus is on the council. If someone lost a pet then you would take it to a shelter and it would have to go to council, and some of them might be impounded for weeks and weeks and weeks and sometimes months. So as this is going to help to reduce the suffering of these animals, these pets, to speed up the process and reunite pets with their owners, I think it is a good reform. It is a commitment we gave in 2018 to further reform the Domestic Animals Act 1994. I will not talk about the puppy farms and all the changes we made over the years, but it is a great change and I welcome that. I know there are a few more speakers and we have got a few other bills this afternoon, so with these few comments I want to commend all the members who are supporting this bill. It is a great bill, and it is good to hear from various members about their love for animals. That is probably the good side of humans, that we care about animals. Mr Ondarchie comments about his beautiful dog. What was the name?

Mr Ondarchie: Nala, a guide dog.

Mr MELHEM: Nala, a guide dog, and I did see you with your dog here not long ago. It is great to see. With these comments I wholeheartedly commend the bill to the house.

Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:45): I do not intend to go into some of the matters that have been canvassed today, particularly the happy snaps of family dogs and cats and so forth. It is interesting—you know, this is important legislation. I certainly support it and think that it is good legislation. But it is interesting how much time we are spending on this compared with some other really serious issues confronting Victoria, and it seems to me we are padding out time on this legislation when in fact, as Mr Melhem said, there are even bills on the notice paper right now that we could deal with today, let alone other matters.

What I want to go to is a slight tangent, and I ask your forbearance in that respect, because I am also concerned about the companion animals or assistance animals that have been raised in the debate. I have a constituent who has come to me expressing some concern about the process of establishing the credibility, community wide, of assistance animals. She points out that it is fairly difficult to get registration of assistance animals. It is a fairly contorted process here in Victoria, whereas in other states, like Western Australia and Queensland, it is a simple and easy process to enable people who have disabilities to actually register their assistance animal so that members of the public can be assured that that animal is obviously going to be well behaved and is not a danger to the public but also is a very necessary support for that disabled person.

It may be that the matter needs to be addressed in the Disability Act 2006 and some of the amendments that have been framed in that act of recent date, or it may be in fact that there are some other areas that need to be considered. Certainly at this point in time to register an assistance animal under the Disability Act as it stands you simply need to get a note from the vet to say that the animal is healthy, get a note from the doctor who treats the human being that says that that support animal is required and then get a registered trainer to certify that the dog is not going to be a danger to anybody in public.

In the Melbourne metropolitan area there are only five of those registered trainers who in fact are able to provide the coats—the uniform, if you like, the jacket—that assistance dogs usually have when they are supporting somebody in a public setting. So whilst it sounds like a fairly easy process, people who are disabled tell me that it is a difficult process and it causes them some distress, and certainly in terms of even the welfare of those assistance animals, with public reaction to them, it is an important factor that does need to be taken into account. So I would be urging the government, given what it has done in animal welfare areas, including this very good legislation, to now turn its mind to the provision or the implementation of a revised set of policies or procedures, perhaps drawing on the experience of the Western Australia and Queensland governments, to ensure that it is made easier for people with a disability to have the recognition of their support animal.

With that, I thank you for your forbearance. I do, as I said, support the legislation. I do not diminish the importance of this legislation. I simply make the point that there are some other really serious issues that we could also be discussing today rather than talking about our pets.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:50): Well, pets are very important to many Victorians. I did not really appreciate the sledge. They help on so many levels—their humanity, their welfare is very important, they teach children to care as well and they can also help with loneliness. I think every minute that we discuss this bill is actually valuable, so I am going to beg to differ with the comments that have just been made across the chamber.

We do know the bill expands on the current process of reuniting lost pets in allowing participating vets and registered animal shelters to accept and reunite lost pets directly with their owners without the need for an agreement with council. Now, I am not going to go over ground that has already been well covered today, but surveys show that just 23 per cent of vets have one of these contracts, hence the imperative for this reform.

I did just want to take up a couple of matters that were raised a little bit earlier, one of them with regard to the immense pressure that vets work under and whether this might then impose more pressure on vets and be cumbersome or onerous. What I will say is that vets will retain the flexibility to not accept lost pets if they do not wish to participate. I just think that is a really important point to convey, because it is absolutely voluntary for vets to participate. And when it comes to safeguarding—I know there were some questions raised about the safeguarding of processes—vets will be required to verify pet ownership to confirm pets are returned to their lawful owners and will also follow a record-keeping and reporting process to ensure councils retain oversight of animal movement and management. I note in some circumstances vets will still be required to provide lost pets to councils, such as with dangerous or menacing dogs, when ownership is not clear or when there are welfare concerns for the animal. These provisions maintain an important balance to protect community safety.

Having returned the odd pet for a local neighbour here and there—I am not actually trying to ingratiate myself in saying that—I know I would very much appreciate a return of that favour. We see just how much pets mean, and we can see that by what has been conveyed in this chamber—and I have actually really appreciated hearing the various sentiments expressed by members here in the chamber. I think it is also a good signal to send to the community because it also conveys the importance of respecting animals. As members of Parliament, if we can convey that we actually appreciate appropriate mechanisms to protect the welfare of animals and we are taking good care of pets, then that also is in a way a sign of leadership on our part and also sends a good signal to the community. So again, I do think there is merit in talking about relationships with our pets because it reflects and can then be translated into community, and community can appreciate how important it is to all of us to keep reforming in the space.

I was only going to briefly just reflect on my two cats, Ruby and Sophie. I have had them for 14 years—British shorthairs. I remember lining up in a queue for Dr Chris Brown—you know, the vet; it was a very long queue because he is rather popular, I must say—because I could not decide whether these cats would be indoor or outdoor pets. You know, it is a pretty critical decision you have to make early in the life of a cat, because they are going to adapt. He said that with pets, particularly cats, up to a certain age if you had them outside there was a high probability they could get run over and so forth. Long story short, he convinced me to keep them indoors if I wanted them to have the longest life possible. So I followed his advice duly. I did enjoy the interaction—that is about as far as it went, but anyway. Suffice to say it was a good moment.

I am probably providing way too much information, but I do love my pets dearly. I love the zoomies. I love the morning rituals. They are non-judgemental. And I can relate to Mr Finn with regard to the hair—all over everything every day. But I tell you what, it is all worth it, isn’t it, because just about nothing on earth can replace that incredible love that they share with you. No matter what you look like, no matter what mood you are in, they are there. They are mostly considerate. Sometimes they get a little grumpy—no, they are not always considerate. But that is what we love, that unpredictability. It is a beautiful part of our world.

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (14:55): I am pleased to rise to speak to the Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Pets and Other Matters) Bill 2021. Before I move into the substantive part of what I would like to speak about this afternoon towards the bill, I do just also want to make some observations and recommendations, if I may, so I seek the house’s patience on that. This week in particular the house has shown just how terrible we can all be to each other. The interjections and the abuse that have flown across this chamber are an example of the reason why the general public have such low regard for what happens here and for our jobs and why there is such consternation around politicians in the broader arena today.

Just when you think there is no light at the end of the tunnel, along comes a bill like this, and here we are. Every single person has stood and they have related a story about companion animals, about what they have meant to them. Some of those stories have been wonderful and heartwarming, and others have been highly distressing. This is exactly what these animals mean. It is important for me to note that my raison d’être here is to raise the profile and the consciousness of every single member of this chamber, and then the broader public, about the lives of these animals—not what they mean to us but what they mean to them, because for every animal, be they a domestic cat or dog, horse, cow, pig, chicken, their life has value, not the value that we place on it but the value that is intrinsic to themselves, and it is high time that we recognise that. That is all I have been asking for since I came into this place.

I want to touch on puppy farms. Puppy farms and kitten mills are without doubt some of the most horrendous, horrific systemic abuse systems that we have created for our own indulgence, for our own purposes—to buy the perfect dog, the perfect cat, the ultimate fashion accessory; a living, breathing handbag. Yet practices that we abhor, that we have outlawed in this state, we ignore when they are perpetrated on other animals.

I will quote a man who I greatly admire, a man whose life’s work, along with his amazing wife, Trix, has been to elevate human consciousness in how we view all animals. He has been on a crusade to spend his personal fortune so that by the time he dies he is broke, and he has ploughed that into humanitarian projects around the world. He is one of the financiers of Sea Shepherd, and it speaks volumes of Philip Wollen OAM. He has this simple saying:

I discovered when we suffer, we suffer as equals.

And in their capacity to suffer, a dog is a pig is a bear … is a boy.

That is true, and that is all I ask—that we recognise those animals too.

This house passed a motion that I brought on 28 October 2020, where I noted the community concern about the treatment of companion animals in Victorian pounds and shelters. If I may divert for one second, I want to take up a point that Mr Finn made about how when he went to the pound it just so happened, by happenstance, that the dog that he was able to choose was one that was going to be killed the next day. There is no way to fluff this up. There is no way to make it sound okay, like ‘put him to sleep’ or anything like that. This dog was going to be killed. So I want to issue a challenge to every single Victorian. The comments I made about puppy farms and kitten mills before—please, it is quite often the case that when you go to a pound or shelter you are going to find that dog or cat that you are actually looking for, that you are looking to purchase elsewhere. But I want you to go to those places, and I want you to ask the question. If you are looking for a new companion animal to fulfil your family at home, ask them the question, ‘Who’s next? Who’s tomorrow?’, and adopt that dog or cat. And further, if you can find it in your heart, ask the question, ‘Who’s the oldest? Is there a dog or cat here that doesn’t have long to go?’, because those animals should not have to spend their last days in a strange place. It will not mean perhaps too much to us, but to them if we take them home and we make their last days full of love and care and attention, that is the greatest gift that we can give to them so that when they pass they are not scared and they are not alone.

In the passing of that motion I called on the government to, among other things, commit to implementing the immediate reuniting of missing companion animals through vet clinics to stop the unnecessary process of going through the pound system. And I know that the house, having passed my motion overwhelmingly, will be broadly pleased to see this bill brought to Parliament. When our beloved companion animals go missing it can be a terrible time, and they do go missing. A left-open gate, a hole in the fence, fireworks on New Year’s Eve—misadventure happens and worse. It is the worst that we most fear. Even in the best case we know our furry friends are probably scared, helpless and at the mercy of strangers, people hopefully with good intentions but people our companions do not know, heightening their anxiety.

Most people will do whatever they can to advertise their missing companions and track down where they might be. And sometimes community kindness delivers them to a local vet clinic or rescue group, especially so as vets are often open six or seven days a week, are often prominently positioned and will be familiar to most people. Right now three-quarters of vets will be unable to scan their microchip and deliver them back to their carer. It is illegal unless they have what is commonly known as an 84Y agreement, as has been said many times today, with their council. Even if they know the owner, who is a customer of the vet, they cannot legally return their dog or cat to them. Instead, for reasons that be once made sense but certainly do not now, they must deliver the animal into the pound system for them to be housed, fed and maintained until such time as their human companion can be contacted or calls in. In many cases this only prolongs the amount of time that both the animal and the carer might be in distress.

I note that veterinarians through the Australian Veterinary Association are highly supportive of this bill. They reminded me that in caring for our companion animals their relationship and insight into the carer and their family is critical. Sometimes to give an animal their best life it takes the whole family and their vet working together. This relationship can be harmed by the current arrangements. Where a vet is unable by law to return an animal, people can feel betrayed and let down even though the vet is simply complying with the imperfect law we have had to date and trying to avoid a fine of over $800. Some vets have received abuse and threats for complying with this current law. This abuse of vets, vet nurses and their practices is not only misguided but also adds to the burdens that they bear in their vocation and is a contributing factor to many leaving their profession, putting further pressure on those that stay and on the system itself.

This bill allows the straightforward and obvious use of identifying tags or chips on an animal to lead to its immediate return to its carer. This allows vets to maintain the bonds of trust with their clients that are essential to good practice. I also note that this service now to be provided by vets is often not financially rewarded. Along with their commitment to helping native wildlife, especially during emergencies, and many vets helping with the teaching of responsible pet ownership in schools, this is yet another community service obligation that they are expected to provide. Given that we know we currently have a crisis in the mental health of our veterinarians and consequently major attrition from the industry, something will need to be done to ensure this sector can continue to thrive.

The management of stray animals is a significant challenge for Victoria. Figures from 2018 indicate that more than 53 000 stray animals are impounded across our state each year. Of those, approximately 21 600 are reclaimed: 17 885 dogs and 3734 cats. If the proportion of reclaimed animals that are registered is representative of the overall rate of registration within the community—approximately 68 per cent of dogs and 21 per cent of cats—we can conclude that as many as 12 174 registered dogs and 791 registered cats are being needlessly impounded each year. I note that RSPCA Victoria advocated for this change in the lead-up to the 2018 Victorian state election and commitments were sought from all sides of politics. They tell me that they wholeheartedly support this bill as a very positive step for animal welfare.

The RSPCA also provided the following example that simply illustrates how this law can help. Recently a dog we will call by the code name ‘B’, a staffy, was found as a stray and taken to a vet in the north-eastern suburbs by a member of the public just last month, January. Due to legislative requirements the vet clinic had to send this poor staffy to the RSPCA’s Epping animal welfare facility. When she arrived, the staff found that while B’s microchip was up to date her council registration had lapsed. Furthermore, B’s carer’s wife was in hospital so he was unable to come and collect her straightaway. It would have been much better for B and much easier for her carer if the law had allowed B to be collected directly from the vet clinic. Instead, she had to spend a night at the vet and another night at the shelter.

The RSPCA provide care for many animals, but they also know that the shelter is never the ideal place for an animal. The RSPCA waived B’s reclaim fees due to the circumstances, but this all-too-common case highlights the inefficiency of the current system and the unnecessary stress for animals and their owners and the increased workload for shelters and pounds. In some cases, particularly in regional Victoria, the council pound is actually hundreds of kilometres from the council area. This means that a ranger must pick up and transport lost animals long distances unnecessarily when an owner is likely to be only minutes away from the vet clinic they were handed in to.

This bill is common sense. It streamlines a process in a way that most Victorians would applaud. Enabling vets and other animal shelters to legally return stray animals directly to their owners will reduce the period of separation, avoid additional transporting of the animal, reduce the load on pounds and potentially lower rates of euthanasia. This will have a significant positive welfare impact on animals found at large while also providing a further benefit of pet registration. Pet registration is compulsory but not universally complied with. This change will provide another excellent argument to convince people to get their companion animals registered. Companion animals and their carers, animal shelters and pounds, rescue and rehoming groups will all benefit from this positive change.

This bill also brings a number of refinements to other mechanisms associated with companion animals, and we note that the requirement for non-racing greyhounds to wear muzzles when on a lead is going. It is about time this breed-specific legislation went. We have long argued against it in my party, in particular when we lobbied the government to end the breed-specific legislation against other dogs that the government had implemented in the previous parliamentary term. And just to be clear: while we love to see greyhounds rehomed wherever possible, the source of this excess of dogs, a cruel racing industry carried on with government support, should be ended. Already this year—and it is only February—11 dogs have been killed on the track in Victoria and a great many more have been killed off it by this terrible industry.

This bill brings a number of other minor amendments to clarify, update and streamline the existing laws pertaining to domestic animals. We broadly speaking support them and thank the government for their consultation with us and a broad range of stakeholders on these matters. Correcting these imperfections in the law concerning companion animals is well and truly due. I applaud the government for understanding and undertaking this work and for providing the time of the Parliament to correct these legal flaws, and as such I commend the bill to the house.

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan)

Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 7 September 2021:

I am also pleased to contribute to the Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Pets and Other Matters) Bill 2021.

Losing a pet is an emotional and stressful experience for both them and those that take care of them.

As anyone who has been fortunate enough to have been blessed with a pet would know, it’s not simply about owning an object, it’s about accepting and welcoming another member into your family—or at least it should be!

Having had many and varied pets throughout my life, I understand the important role that pets play within our homes on a firsthand basis.

They are always there to comfort and support you when you’re feeling low, to provide companionship when you’re lonely and to make you smile and laugh as they trip over themselves trying to get to you as quickly as they can to greet you when you get home.

Our family has our own very special furry friend that we all love and cherish—her name is Bootsie.

Bootsie is our beloved dog, who has for many years been the centre of our family’s lives.

She is loved immensely by us all, so much so that she was part of our wedding party, and we advised the wedding reception venue that Bootsie had to be present during the ceremony or we would take our business elsewhere.

Clearly, she has taken up a very special place in our hearts and is well and truly considered a member of our family.

Bootsie is loved not only by us, but by the community around her.

She often accompanies my wife and her sister to work and has become a cherished mascot for their business, with customers at times coming in exclusively to pay Bootsie a visit.

It’s fair to say that Bootsie knows how to pose for a photo and is never shy about dressing up either—and has an extensive wardrobe.

Bootsie is just one of the hundreds of thousands of pets that are adored and cared for by Victorian households.

Whilst pets play varied roles within each home, their importance to those who love them the most is undeniable.

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a surge in pet ownership around the state, with our animals having kept us company during the most trying of times.

Now more than ever, it is important that we feel our pets can be kept safe, even in the event they go missing.

They are, for the most part, unable to protect themselves in these scenarios—and for this reason it is so important that we advocate for our pets on their behalf.

By supporting this bill, Labor is recognising just how important pets are to Victorians by taking the necessary steps forward to ensure their safety.

We have identified that the process of pet reunification needs to be reformed, and we are taking proactive steps forward to enable this.

The need for these reforms is undeniable, and the numbers prove it.

Data from the RSPCA estimates that 53 000 animals are lost every year and of these 53 000, only 21 600 are able to be reunited with their owners.

This leaves thousands of pets stranded in pounds and removed from their families.

We want to fix this and get pets out of shelters and back home to their loved ones.

The Andrews government made a commitment in 2018 to deliver for animal welfare, and deliver is what we are doing this year.

This Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Pets and Other Matters) Bill will deliver necessary reforms to the current pet reunification process.

Currently, lost domestic animals can be handed in only to local council officers or authorised veterinary clinics before they can be reunited with their caretakers.

However, the list of authorised vets is not easily accessible to the general public and only approximately 23 per cent of all Victorian veterinary clinics are authorised.

This results in a high number of pets spending time in pounds or shelters while waiting to be reunited with their families.

The current system is tedious and ineffective, creating significant barriers to all parties involved in the pet reunification process.

This reform will enable vets to be able to directly return pets to their owners, alleviating the burden that is currently placed on local councils to reunite pets.

Further, it will solidify the reunification process by adding a verification process that will ensure pets are united with the correct owners.

The extra verification process will allow us to identify when animals, in the interest of ensuring their welfare, should be returned to a local council instead of their owners.

This bill will allow the current gap that exists within animal welfare laws to be bridged, a sentiment that is mirrored by the community.

This change provides vets and animal shelters with a more streamlined and efficient process for reuniting lost pets, while maintaining important community safety standards.

As I said earlier, pets are cherished members of our family, and when they are lost it is a distressing and stressful experience for both the owner and the pet.

And pounds can be especially stressful for our cats and dogs, so it is important that we minimise the amount of time they spend there or, even better, reunite them with their owners before they get there in the first place.

The bill was formulated upon significant consultation with the community, which was then compiled in the reuniting lost pets review.

As part of the review, we surveyed those most central to this issue, including all 79 Victorian councils, animal rescue groups, registered animal shelters and the Municipal Association of Victoria.

We wanted to hear from those closely affected by this issue.

The interested groups provided us with invaluable feedback and suggestions that the government took on wholeheartedly.

We are proud to say that these reforms were drafted based on the firsthand, expert knowledge of such groups.

This bill is the product of direct consultation with the community, allowing us to ensure that we formulate relevant, effective reforms.

The bill before us today is a continuation of Labor’s dedication towards ensuring animal welfare.

It is with great pride that I can recount how Labor have worked towards optimising animal welfare in recent years:

• We established Animal Welfare Victoria, an agency that encompasses a multitude of animal-related areas of interest.

• We recognised the inhumane nature of puppy farms and passed landmark legislation to end their operation and existence.

• We have further invested significantly in Animal Welfare Victoria, with $1.5 million in grants currently available through the Animal Welfare Fund.

• This funding is part of the $3.2 million that the Andrews Labor government have invested into the fund since 2014, and we’ve committed a further $7.5 million towards the program in the 2021–22 Victorian budget.

Thanks to these investments, the Animal Welfare Fund is supporting a broad range of organisations and initiatives across different streams, including:

• grants for organisations to provide free or low-cost desexing of cats and dogs for vulnerable and/or disadvantaged Victorians

• grants for horse and pony rescue, rehabilitation and rehoming organisations, providing for the purchase of equipment or professional services, or to upgrade or expand their services

• grants to support equipment upgrades and expansion of services for animal shelters, community foster carers and veterinary clinics offering low-cost services, to support an improved quality of domestic dog and cat welfare across Victoria, and

• an exciting new program launched earlier this year to support community foster care networks and other rehoming organisations like the Lost Dogs Home and RSPCA which provides funding for each individual cat or dog rehomed—helping cover costs such as desexing, deworming, vaccinations and behavioural rehabilitation to get animals ready to be rehomed.

Through the fund, $200 000 in grants has allowed us to expand the Lort Smith Animal Hospital, a renowned animal welfare establishment that provides low-cost veterinary services.

And we’ve been able to build a second campus for the hospital in Campbellfield—providing the hospital’s fantastic services to northern Victoria.

This bill will have great benefits for not only pets and their families, but also the individuals and organisations that facilitate pet reunification.

It will help to ease the burden of responsibility currently placed on local councils and selected veterinary clinics and streamline the process to be timely and effective.

I am proud to support this bill because it will make a meaningful contribution to the lives of many members within my electorate and others around the state.

It will minimise the stress experienced when families and individuals lose their beloved pets and improve their chances of reunification.

This bill is a necessary step forward for Labor to continue our unwavering commitment to animal welfare for the state.

It will allow us to deliver on our promises and secure the safety of our beloved furry friends.

The essence of what this bill will deliver for Victorians is simple yet effective, and I look forward to the fantastic improvement it will make to the lives of hundreds of thousands of Victorians and their much-loved pets.

And that’s why it has been so widely supported and welcomed by the animal welfare sector and by my constituents.

The RSPCA has worked for many years to advocate for these reforms, including prior to the last election when Labor gave its commitment to implement them, so they were very pleased to welcome the introduction of this legislation.

In a media release, RSPCA Victoria’s CEO Dr Liz Walker called the legislation ‘a great outcome for animal welfare and for pet owners in Victoria’.

She also said:

Enabling vet clinics and animal shelters to directly reunite animals with their owners without the need for an 84Y agreement with local councils will reduce the period of separation, avoid additional transferring of the animal and reduce the load on pounds.

Allowing pets to be reunited with owners directly will have a positive welfare impact for animals found wandering, while also lowering operational costs for local councils.

This bill continues Labor’s proud and unwavering record of reform to protect and enhance animal welfare in this state.

And there’s plenty more to come as we continue to work to modernise animal welfare legislation and support our beloved pets and other animals—great and small.

And I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the final report handed down in December last year by the Taskforce on Rehoming Pets, comprising the member for Western Victoria Andy Meddick, who chaired the task force, and members in the other place; the member for Bendigo West, Maree Edwards; and the member for Narre Warren South, Garry Maas.

This comprehensive report makes 17 recommendations to support the welfare of dogs and cats requiring rehoming, including improvements to the regulatory framework for rehoming pets. The report recommends increased transparency in the movement of animals, better reporting of data and further grants to support the pet rehoming sector.

The Labor government will consider the task force’s recommendations to inform future reforms as part of its animal care and protection agenda, and I thank the members of the task force for this comprehensive and important work that will guide future reforms.

In concluding, with this bill we’re delivering on yet another of our election commitments—because Victorians know they can trust this government to get things done.

I commend this bill to the house and wish it a speedy passage.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (15:11): I thank members for their contributions today and look forward to seeing this legislation progress. This is important reform. It was a commitment of the Andrews Labor government prior to the 2018 election, and it is pleasing to see yet another commitment being delivered. As we have heard today, these reforms will assist vets and animal shelters to reunite lost pets with their owners more effectively, providing a more consistent, streamlined process for all involved.

Extensive consultation has been undertaken with stakeholders and with the broader Victorian community to inform the design of this bill, ensuring that the reforms retain or improve animal welfare, compliance, privacy and community safety standards. Importantly, vets were at the centre of this consultation to ensure that these reforms do not place an undue burden on the great work that they do. Mr Barton in his contribution raised his concerns for vets amid the high workloads that they face, the stressful nature of their work and the shortages the industry is experiencing. The government has been very mindful of these issues in developing these reforms, working with vets and their peak body, the Australian Veterinary Association. This scheme is voluntary for vets and not mandated in any way. If a veterinarian is unable to provide a lost pet reunion service, they do not have to provide this service and can simply refer members of the public to other participating vets, shelter facilities or council. Mr Barton also might be interested to know that the government has also added certificate IV in vet nursing as a free TAFE course.

In her contribution Ms Bath indicated that she had some questions about the detail of the bill, and I look forward to having those conversations with her. But in regard to the record-keeping and reporting requirements for participating vets, it is important to note that the local councils, as the primary regulators for domestic animal management, maintain oversight of animal movements within their municipality. The record-keeping and reporting details are to be drafted in consultation with stakeholders and will be prescribed in the Domestic Animals Regulations 2015. It will be a simple, supported process for all participating vets and shelters that will likely require the collection and reporting of information such as the name and phone number of persons handing in the lost pet, the date and time the animal was handed in, the pet’s microchip number, the name and phone number of the person collecting the pet, the owner’s address and details, and the date and time the pet was collected. The government has already commenced consultations with stakeholders to develop the supporting regulations, which will be finalised to align with the bill’s commencement on or before 1 October 2022.

To ensure pets are returned to their lawful owner the bill includes a process to ensure appropriate ownership verification. Shelters and participating vets must scan the pet for a microchip and make a reasonable effort to compare microchip information with council pet registration data. Shelters and participating vets must always request proof of ownership and be satisfied that the right person is collecting the pet. If the ownership is unclear, the pet must go to the council to determine the ownership.

I would also like to correct Ms Bath’s claims around the consultation on this bill. While Ms Bath claimed there was not sufficient consultation, I would refer her to the second-reading speech, which makes clear the extensive amount of consultation undertaken on this reform. All councils were offered the opportunity to participate in consultation on the bill, and in total 1066 submissions were received from councils, the community, vets, rescue groups and other stakeholders. The consultation on this important reform will continue with key stakeholders while we consider the necessary supporting regulatory changes, in particular with councils, vets and the Australian Veterinary Association, the RSPCA Victoria and Greyhound Racing Victoria.

Mr Atkinson raised the issue of assistance animals, and I am pleased to advise that the Victorian government is currently reviewing the issue of assistance dog regulation and recognition. The review is being conducted in accordance with the Absolutely Everyone: State Disability Plan 2017–2020. Action 23 of the plan proposes that the Victorian government review options for:

• defining assistance dogs within the Domestic Animals Act

• establishing a registration scheme for dogs trained through an approved organisation

• developing a ministerial approval scheme …

for assistance dogs. This review is underway, and I can also advise that a national working group has been established to develop national consistency for assistance animals in Australia.

Mr Bourman had indicated his interest in an amendment to require councils and other authorised officers to scan deceased cats and dogs for microchips and subsequently inform owners. The government thanks Mr Bourman for his proposal and his constructive approach in raising this matter with the government. While we are supportive of the principle and the intent behind Mr Bourman’s proposal, we do believe that it does require consultation with key groups to ensure that it can be designed so as to avoid any unintended consequences. Victoria’s 79 local government areas have a key role under the Domestic Animals Act 1994, and the government has sought to ensure that they have been thoroughly consulted in the development of this bill. The government would seek to ensure that councils are similarly given the opportunity of consultation before implementing further changes such as those as proposed by Mr Bourman.

The government also notes that the existing Domestic Animals Act provisions do enable councils to contact the owner of a deceased pet. The Domestic Animals Act requires councils to develop a domestic animal management plan every four years in consultation with their local community. These plans are reviewed annually, and residents are able to raise service needs through the DAMP process, enabling councils to tailor their animal management services to address community needs. The notification of owners of dead cats and dogs collected by councils could be incorporated into these plans.

In addition, it should be noted that all pets should be responsibly confined to their owner’s property. If outside the owners’ properties, they must be wearing a council registration tag. Responsible owners will ensure their pets are always wearing a tag when off their property. In the circumstances of a pet escaping or wandering and being unfortunate enough to be killed, registration tags provide a mechanism to identify and notify the owner. Council staff could collect the tag or tag’s information and pass the details on to local law officers to search a council’s pet registration database and notify the owner. Some metropolitan councils already use council tags or microchips to notify owners of deceased pets. This type of service depends on the domestic animal management plan, policies, priorities, time, resources and community needs of the specific council.

Mandating that all councils must scan for a microchip on all deceased pets without adequate stakeholder consultation may result in unintended consequences. Some of the factors that require further consideration include the scope of any changes, as councils are only responsible for collecting dead pets on council property; the ability to locate a microchip on a deceased pet; impacts on other domestic animal management services for living pets due to reprioritisation of efforts; obviously the costs, both financial and resourcing, of councils; and of course there are safety risks for staff handling dead animals in places like busy roads et cetera. Noting these considerations, the government will undertake to consult with councils and other stakeholders and subsequently implement Mr Bourman’s proposal this year. With that I commend this bill to the house and look forward to our conversation in committee.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (15:22)

Mr BOURMAN: Just as a statement more than anything, as the government has undertaken to address my concerns this year, I am not going to move my amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Bourman.

Ms BATH: Thank you, Minister, for summing up and responding to some of the statistical-type questions that I had. In no way do I have a need or wish to verbal your response, but I have been having a conversation this afternoon again with Mark Menze from Animal Aid. Animal Aid runs seven aid centres, five in Coldstream, one in Sale and one in Bairnsdale. He said that he has had some conversations with Mr Meddick with regard to the rehoming pets task force but he has not had any great communication—or any communication, they are his words to me—from government or government departments et cetera. He does also say that he has 6000 animals that would pass through his centres and he has some concerns. The first one we will look at is just in relation to the discussion of regulations, and he wants to make sure that either somebody communicates with him or there is public consultation via the Engage Victoria website. So will there be a platform where he can deliver all of his concerns, or can there be some direct conversation with him? That is my first question.

Ms TIERNEY: There has been extensive consultation, Ms Bath, and I do understand what you are saying—there is a constituent of yours that does not feel as if there has been, but is it a shelter that operates under the 84Y?

Ms BATH: Yes, it is.

Ms TIERNEY: So this does not apply.

Ms BATH: Thanks, Minister. On that point I seek to understand whether 84Y will remain and the regulations and this legislation will operate in a parallel manner. Or is 84Y going to become redundant, and all of the veterinary clinics and animal shelters that wish to opt in will be part of this legislation? So will 84Y be then redundant?

Ms TIERNEY: So 84Y agreements have been retained, and that is to allow councils to enter into arrangements with organisations for services more complex than just reuniting pets. This is pertinent to councils that conduct pound services and animal shelters, as 84Y agreements allow the two parties to agree on procedures, fees and other matters associated with pet reunification or rehoming. These tailored arrangements could include a fee structure for animal management services as well as requirements to ensure a lost pet is desexed or registered with council before it is returned to its owner. Also 84Y agreements are important to facilitate the movement of pets from a pound or a shelter into foster care in order to rehabilitate them in a home environment and prepare them for adoption. Does that help?

Ms BATH: It does. I might loop back, Minister, but I will go to the question that relates to veterinary clinics being able to provide an invoice for services in the collection of the animal and if that animal needed any attention. Could you go into a little bit more detail around those sorts of bills. Can they be capped? I think the bill says that the owner, once they have received the animal and the invoice, is not compelled to pay. Could you go through some of those? Is it going to be capped? Is there an indication for the vet clinic? What is some of the structure around that in the regulations, and how will they be identified?

Ms TIERNEY: Given vets run private practices and businesses, the bill enables vets to request a nominal fee if they choose to provide pet reuniting services. Vets cannot compel payment or make reunification contingent on the payment. If a lost pet is cared for by a pound facility, fees to collect the pet would also apply. The bill and regulations do not propose to set a benchmark fee, nor was a benchmark fee recommended by vets during the consultation process or by the Australian Veterinary Association in its submission on this reform. The AVA in fact recommended that vet clinics have discretion as to whether fees are charged to an owner collecting the lost pet. Animal Welfare Victoria (AWV) communications will encourage members of the public to consider paying the nominal fee to help vets to continue to provide this important reunification service. If a pet is unlucky enough to be injured whilst lost, it may require urgent veterinary treatment. Vets have a duty of care to provide what they consider to be urgent first aid. However, if a pet requires any veterinary treatment that is not considered first aid, a vet will discuss options with its owner before providing treatment. This includes an agreement on treatment and costs. The veterinary treatment costs are not related to the reunification fee.

Ms BATH: Thank you, Minister. My next question goes back to Mr Mark Menze. I may as well read it so there is no opaqueness about it. He said:

There will be many complexities that vets have to face—what happens when there is a complaint levelled at a vet who has reunited the pet with the ‘wrong’ owner …

He was quite clear in that sometimes a pet is registered to somebody but the microchip is outdated. Can the minister respond to what would happen to the vet and what the complaint process is? If the vet is targeted, what happens in that situation?

Ms TIERNEY: Firstly, in the summing up I said that if there is confusion about the ownership or a lack of clarity, then the pet needs to go to the council. So there is that.

The second question was—can you repeat that, please, Ms Bath?

Ms BATH: I think he was relating that he is concerned that if there is misinformation—i.e. the pet is given to the wrong person, even the ex-husband or whatever that looks like—the owner may come back and abuse the vet. I guess he is trying to look for some support for the decency of the vet, who is providing it with the best of their intentions. Is there any support for the vet or is there any pathway, I guess, to have some sort of redress for protection around the vet?

Ms TIERNEY: Again, Ms Bath, in terms of the summing up, this was in respect of the information that is collected and the importance of that information. So if it is unfortunately given to someone else in the family and the family unit is not functioning as well as it could be, at least the council will know who else is in the family because of the information that will be collected. Then they can take the next steps.

Ms BATH: Thanks, Minister. I know that you have said—and it is part of the Domestic Animals Act 1994—that any animal being rehomed must be registered. I think that is a stipulation. The question is, if an animal comes in that is microchipped but unregistered, will vets have the option to be able to register it or does it have to be only through council? Does an animal shelter have the option to be able to register it or is it only through council?

Ms TIERNEY: The primary role of the vet or of the shelter is to essentially give the pet back. In terms of the need for registration or further steps, again, it is the council, not the vet.

Ms BATH: Thanks, Minister. I have got a list of questions that really are around statistics. I am happy if you want to present these to the Parliament; I am in your hands. They may also be on a website, so I am happy to see, but if you could provide some information, I have had constituents want to know this. What percentage of companion animal owners within Victoria have their pets microchipped, and what percentage have them microchipped and registered? There might be some challenges in getting this information. What percentage of the total number of animals—cats and dogs—end up in local pounds, and how many of those are reunited through the microchipping or council registration process? I guess it is about some stats around that.

Ms TIERNEY: I will seek some advice in respect to whether that information is readily available.

There are a couple of things. In terms of the data collected, that is held by the individual shelter, council et cetera. In terms of microchipping, all animals that are registered are microchipped. And there was another question you had. I think that was, ‘How many have been reunited?’. There is no data on that.

Ms BATH: That is fine. This is probably one of my last questions, Minister. You said that section 84Y will continue—those agreements—and then there is an opt-in arrangement with the regulation. Can there be migration from one to the other—one clinic migrating from an opt-in to an 84Y agreement? Is there an expectation of that, and would there be communication for that to happen, even for the 84Y clinics to migrate to the opt-in agreement? They are going to run in parallel by the sound of it.

Ms TIERNEY: My understanding is that you can only have one—that is, opt-in, opt-out or an 84Y.

Ms BATH: That is all right. My question was whether somebody could stop their 84Y and then opt in, and I guess that is an option if they wish to pursue it.

Dr CUMMING: Minister, in your summing-up earlier you mentioned a lot of members’ contributions, but there was no mention of my contribution. I raised concerns during my contribution, which were that through the motion that the government agreed upon in August 2019 there was a commitment from this government to actually look at the centralisation of pet registration. Minister, could you tell me where that is at?

Ms TIERNEY: I am sorry that my comments did not go as far as some of the issues that you raised, Dr Cumming. It was an issue of time, but it was also because I became familiar with the fact that the Minister for Agriculture provided you with a letter. Yesterday?

Dr CUMMING: This morning.

Ms TIERNEY: This morning. That essentially gives you an indication as to why we have some difficulties in terms of a national register at this moment, and that is because there have been significant difficulties experienced in New South Wales and South Australia.

Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Minister. This government only this week was talking about the Service Victoria app and how I could actually go get a fishing licence. I understand that this act is from 1994. We are in 2022. It would seem that the government are quite quick to actually do something when they need to. It was very clear in my contribution, it is sitting there in Hansard: this government has sat on its hands for the last couple of years, since August 2019. I understand that this bill goes some of the way to what I was hoping for, because I mentioned in my contribution on my motion in August 2019 that in my 21 years of experience there has been a gap in making sure animals get back to their owners, especially within veterinary clinics. So this would seem to go some of the way to acknowledging my contribution from that time. But the contribution around having a centralised and standardised system to reduce the confusion within the community in relation to local and state community expectation—I fail to see what progress has been made on that.

Ms TIERNEY: I will take that as a statement.

Dr CUMMING: I will rephrase that as a question. What has this government done to move that forward? The motion was agreed upon in August 2019. Apart from an email that I received this morning about New South Wales and South Australia, what has been done in the last couple of years? It would be a simple app, a centralised, standardised system to unite all of our animals across Victoria—a database of sorts. Every animal would be there, so it would be a simple thing where, if the dog or cat has a microchip, it is scanned wherever it is and then it could be reunited with its owner.

Ms TIERNEY: As the correspondence from Minister Thomas to you indicates, there are learnings from the New South Wales and South Australian exercises. We think it is a laudable objective; that is not the issue. But at the moment there are several implementation issues, as I understand it, which are mentioned in the correspondence, and there have also been some reasonably significant budget overruns. The systems essentially have not delivered on community expectations.

So the government is still looking at it, but at this point in time there are some overwhelming barriers in a very practical way that are preventing us from prioritising it.

Dr CUMMING: Minister, I enjoyed the vast majority of your response until you said ‘prioritising it’—everything that you had said. I believe that it is the community’s expectation that we have a centralised and standardised system. We are in 2022. We have the Service Victoria app. In the way of the learnings and the barriers that could possibly be had, being that it would be a shift of systems of sorts—if it is that—currently each council collects a different amount of money to have a different amount of animal management officers with different budgets, offering a different level of service across different councils. I do understand each council is unique in some ways, with the number of animals and the amount of money collected, but there are some glaring, obvious disparities, being that there are some councils that receive a large amount of money that do not really pass on that service and then there are other councils that have low registration fees and high demands.

I put that aside. I get that—collecting fees and providing an animal service is on a council-by-council basis—but we are talking about pet registration and identification and making sure that we actually have a Victorian centralised, standardised system that we can all upload and collect data into, ideally across the imaginary council barriers, which would not be there anymore, so we can actually reunite animals much more quickly. Within this legislation it actually states that when a council officer—or a vet or whoever—has the tools to run a machine over an animal and identify it there should be immediate steps. It is pretty clear that the first thing they should do if they can identify the animal is take it immediately to that person’s property, not necessarily to the pound, because that is what it would seem is the majority of the community’s expectation: a simple service. But what seems to have happened across this system is that an animal is found and for whatever reason it ends up in the pound, even if the council has collected it. The reuniting aspect of it has been lost. That is what everyone wants to believe—that that should be the immediate system.

So, Minister, I am just wanting to gauge that from this government. I received an email, but that is not what I wanted. I did not want that. I wanted action. This government actually said they were going to do something. Is this government going to do something in the way of centralised and standardised systems for our animals and for reuniting them, and could that even be done under the Service Victoria app?

Ms TIERNEY: The correspondence with the member basically indicates that we are still working on this. It is not that we are not working on it, but what we are saying is that there have been some significant problems in some other states and that any changes in Victoria would need to be carefully developed to avoid similar difficulties. In the meantime we are doing important work, like we are today, in making sure that we have got a proper, well-understood process for reuniting pets with their owners.

Dr CUMMING: Minister, thank you for your response. It gives me some comfort to know that the government is still working on this. I look forward to the government doing something promptly and before the next election, which is in November of 2022. I would hope that the minister, Mary-Anne Thomas, would contact me promptly so we can work on this quickly so that all Victorians actually have the centralised, standardised system that they expect.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 40 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (15:51): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (15:51): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.