Wednesday, 15 October 2025

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (10:41): I move:

That this house:

(1)   notes:

(a) the community has concerns over the circumstances in which a healthy 12-week-old puppy along with his litter mate and their mother were euthanised;

(b) a remaining sibling named Milly remains alive but her whereabouts unknown;

(c) the Lost Dogs’ Home’s claims for killing these animals, including ‘genetics’, ‘anti-social behaviour’ and a ‘high risk of developing aggression’, are contested by dog behaviour specialists;

(d) this incident is not isolated and concerns around transparency have been raised in the past;

(e) since shelters have been required to report the fate of animals, the Lost Dogs’ Home have:

(i) killed 662 cats and 355 dogs for behavioural reasons in 2023;

(ii) killed 971 cats and 611 dogs for behavioural reasons in 2024;

(f) Victorians have a right to know that all organisations, especially those who receive considerable government grant funding and public donations, use scientifically accurate methods for testing the rehomability of animals;

(2)   calls on the government to commit to investigating:

(a) appointing an independent oversight mechanism to approve euthanasia for behavioural reasons by open-intake shelters;

(b) mandating pounds and shelters to offer all animals set to be euthanised for behavioural reasons to authorised pet rehoming organisations except in instances where an animal has been legally declared dangerous;

(c) requiring open-intake shelters to change to quarterly reporting on animal fate data; and

(d) ensuring animal data is more transparent and outlines what steps were taken when an animal is euthanised for behavioural reasons.

I dedicate my speech today to Murphy, who was just a baby when he was cruelly killed. Murphy was three months old and had only just been given his first taste of life. Like most Staffordshire pups, he was playful, he was cheeky and he loved to be around people, but on 25 September Murphy was failed by the very people that were supposed to protect him. I want it to be on the public record that the Lost Dogs’ Home, an organisation that claims to care about and to shelter animals, killed Murphy. This is an organisation that states its vision is to give animals ‘the best chance of a happy and healthy life’. On this occasion, they spectacularly failed at everything they purport to be about. But we know this is an organisation that relies on the cover of darkness to carry out its murderous and monstrous ways.

The Lost Dogs’ Home has a long and troubled history when it comes to transparency and when it comes to accountability. For decades animal advocates and former staff have spoken out about unnecessarily high euthanasia rates, poor rehoming practices and a deeply entrenched culture of secrecy. In 2015 the Victorian government launched a formal investigation into the Lost Dogs’ Home, following concerns made by the wider community. The investigation examined high euthanasia rates, the housing and accommodation of animals, the identification of animals’ owners and the assessment of animals for rehoming. The findings revealed that the shelter could not adequately account for why so many cats and dogs were euthanised under its care, prompting urgent calls for improved transparency and reporting practices. These are not new issues; they are part of a systemic problem that has been allowed to continue under successive leaderships and governments, with little to no reform, and it is the animals who suffer as a result.

Murphy’s death is not an isolated tragedy; it is the latest in a long line of failures by an organisation that has consistently refused to evolve or to take responsibility. Murphy is just one of the thousands of animals that the Lost Dogs’ Home deemed unworthy of being given a second chance at life and unworthy of being allowed to thrive in a loving environment. Murphy was brought to the Lost Dogs’ Home with his mother, brother and sister Milly. The four dogs were found as strays in the Casey local government area. Now they are all dead, with the exception of Milly, who remains alive, but her whereabouts is unknown and her future is also uncertain.

After arriving at the Lost Dogs’ Home, Murphy was placed into the loving hands of his foster carers, Elizabeth and Sean, who are in the gallery with us today. Between 12 September and 23 September Murphy experienced for the first time what it felt to be loved and to be cared for. He learned to trust people. On 22 September Elizabeth and Sean were asked to return Murphy to the Lost Dogs’ Home for a so-called behavioural review before his scheduled desexing on 25 September.

The Lost Dogs’ Home said this was a precaution as part of protocol for his litter. Elizabeth and Sean had nothing to worry about, they had no concerns about Murphy’s behaviour and there was never any mention of euthanasia. But on that day that he was meant to be desexed, Elizabeth and Sean received a call that their boy was instead going to be put down. He, according to the Lost Dogs’ Home, had failed one of their outdated behavioural tests. Elizabeth and Sean, desperate, contacted me, pleading for help. My office and I, on the eve of a public holiday, got immediately in touch with the Lost Dogs’ Home and did whatever we could to try and buy Murphy just some time. But by the time we got involved and had made inquiries, Murphy was already dead. For whatever reason, the Lost Dogs’ Home appeared to be so desperate to kill him that night, within hours of notifying Elizabeth and Sean. They killed him despite Elizabeth and Sean pleading for his life. They killed him despite their attempts to adopt him, and they killed him despite rehoming organisations wanting to take him in. Murphy died despite a long list of people begging for him to survive. Not only were Elizabeth and Sean’s voices ignored, they were escorted out of the Lost Dogs’ Home building by security.

The Lost Dogs’ Home’s response to this scandal has been nothing short of disgraceful. They can barely get their story straight. First they tried to claim that Murphy was killed because his mother exhibited signs of aggression, citing genetics. If that is the case, then why is his sister Milly still alive right now? When it comes to Milly, the Lost Dogs’ Home said they committed to, in their words, ‘take the time required to understand her behaviour’. In their most recent statement, they said ‘animal behaviour is dynamic and context dependent’. ‘These are decisions we don’t rush,’ they said, and that is fundamentally at odds with their handling of Murphy, his brother and their mother. Once they realised that the excuse of genetics did not stack up, the shelter pivoted and started claiming that Murphy exhibited so-called antisocial behaviour and a high risk of developing aggression. But the Lost Dogs’ Home have deliberately and repeatedly failed to explain any examples at all of Murphy’s behaviour in this so-called test, other than the fact that he was timid – a baby, in a scary shelter environment.

In fact when my office sent a list of questions about Murphy and his testing regime to the shelter, at their own request when they failed to answer our questions in a meeting, their acting CEO responded to say, ‘We won’t be responding further to your queries in this regard.’ Let me be clear: Murphy was not dangerous; he was failed by a system that allows animals to be killed behind closed doors, with no independent oversight, no appeal process and no accountability. Animals are not dying in shelters like the Lost Dogs’ Home because there is nowhere for them to go. They are dying because of these outdated and frankly barbaric behavioural tests, which fail to take into consideration anywhere near a reflection of a loving home.

I have spoken at length about why we need to move away from these so-called tests. The Lost Dogs’ Home have refused to tell anyone exactly what Murphy was put through in this test. In the past I have been told by former staff that some of them involved disgusting tactics to try and scare dogs into a reaction. It is beyond concerning that these assessments are unregulated, unverified and impossible to challenge. Foster carers – the very people who know these animals best – are completely shut out of the decision-making process, and shelters like the Lost Dogs’ Home are able to continue to rely on the status quo and on silencing people to kill healthy dogs and cats for the sake of convenience, under the cover of darkness and secrecy.

It is time that they were stripped of their right to make life and death decisions in secret. That is why today I am calling on the government to appoint an independent oversight mechanism, such as a person within the department of Animal Welfare Victoria to approve all behaviour-related euthanasia decisions that are carried out at open intake shelters just like the Lost Dogs’ Home.

In 2023 the Lost Dogs’ Home put down 3542 cats across their shelters at Cranbourne and North Melbourne. Of those, 662 were because of behavioural issues. That same year 624 dogs were killed, including 355 for behavioural reasons. That means that more than half of the dogs killed at the Lost Dogs’ Home were killed because of so-called issues relating to their behaviour. It did not get better in 2024 – in fact it got worse. 4190 cats were killed. Behaviour was the reason for 971 of those cats, including kittens. When it comes to dogs, the Lost Dogs’ Home killed 1065 in 2024, 611 for behavioural reasons. That is a staggering and unjustifiable number. Essentially 57 per cent of dogs killed at the Lost Dogs’ Home were killed because they were deemed to have behaviour issues. In all of those cases shelter staff made that decision in secret with no pushback at all. This is why experts and advocates have been calling for an independent role away from the organisations themselves to have the final say on the decision to euthanise for so-called behavioural issues. Had an independent officer had the final say when Murphy was being sentenced to his death, I would be willing to bet that he would still be here today.

It is currently not a requirement to document or to even declare any information about these decisions, such as what sort of testing was carried out, what other options were explored and whether an animal was assessed in a foster home or only in a scary pound environment. There is no accountability. There is no transparency. In fact it is not even a requirement to have an expert behavioralist make these decisions. My motion seeks to change that today. By taking the final say out of the hands of internal shelter management, with decades of poor management practices, often still using practices not supported by science or by evidence, I know we will see more animals given the chance that they deserve. By having to justify to an external and independent officer why an animal should be killed for their behaviour we will force transparency. We will see more pounds and shelters reconsidering their decisions before they make them. We will see more animals receiving treatment for conditions that should never be a death sentence, such as anxiety or timidness. We will see more animals surrendered to rescue groups who have the time and the ability to properly rehabilitate them, if they need it at all, in a more suitable setting.

The level of killing at the Lost Dogs’ Home is unprecedented, but it does not have to be this way, because hardworking pet rehoming organisations who believe every animal is worthy of living are willing to take in some of the animals on the kill lists of these pounds. In fact for years they have been begging for that right. As we were desperately trying to save the life of Murphy after his foster carers reached out, I put in writing to the Lost Dogs’ Home that night that award-winning animal rescue Forever Friends was willing to take Murphy and any of his remaining family members to put them through their behavioural rehabilitation program. This is not a rare scenario. There are countless specialised pet rehoming organisations across Victoria that are willing and able to take on animals put in the too-hard basket by organisations like the Lost Dogs’ Home and other pounds and shelters. That is why this motion also calls on the government to make it mandatory for all open intake shelters to offer every animal set to be killed for behavioural reasons to a pool of authorised pet rehoming organisations, except in the case where an animal has been legally declared dangerous.

This is something that the Lost Dogs’ Home will tell you that they already do. But the culture is one of silence, and most of these groups have been shut off after questioning the Lost Dogs’ Home’s decision-making capacity. By making this change, there is no obligation on these groups to take them in, but it does make it a possibility. It opens up another chance that previously never would have been had at all. Rescue groups are already resource stretched, but they are up for the challenge. This is a request that has come directly from them, and we should be listening, not telling them what they are not capable of. Because had it already been in place, I can guarantee that Murphy would still be alive today. It is in these smaller rescue groups where animals will truly thrive, because they will be given the time, the care and the environment to show their true temperament.

I know that even with these changes in place, there will still, sadly, be a need for some animals to be euthanised. But it is vital when that does happen – and it should only happen as an absolute last resort in extreme cases – that pounds provide as much information as possible to justify this decision. We want to ensure that animal fate data is not only more transparent but also outlines what steps were taken to come to that decision in the first place. Currently the code of practice requires Victorian shelters and pounds to collect and report their animal fate data annually. But too often this data is deliberately clunky and hard to interpret. We are calling on the government to tighten these deadlines so that data is reported on a quarterly basis, so we receive it more often and so that every three months the public, advocates and policymakers are able to get a clearer understanding of exactly what is happening inside these places and when it is happening. It will enable problems within the sector to be identified and addressed more promptly and drive shelters to maintain higher standards through increased visibility and ongoing scrutiny. Without timely and transparent data, more lives just like Murphy’s will be at stake. Animals will continue to be needlessly killed before the public are even aware that there is a problem.

It might be too late for Murphy or the countless other dogs and cats across Victoria that shelters have deemed easier to kill than to be given a chance at life. But it is not too late for every other dog and cat that will, through no choice of their own, end up in these places in the future. While we believe these changes will ultimately make shelters and pounds a safer place for animals, it is also up to the Lost Dogs’ Home to do some much-needed soul-searching. It is time we got a commitment from them that they are willing to change. They have lost their social licence, and it is up to them to earn it again. They are meant to be a life-saving shelter, but instead they have become a killing factory. Shame on the Lost Dogs’ Home for killing Murphy. Murphy was not a number. He was not a mistake. He was a life and his life mattered.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (10:59): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today on the motion put forward by Ms Purcell regarding the tragic incident of the euthanasia of 12-week-old puppy Murphy along with his littermate and mother at the Lost Dogs’ Home in September of this year. This is a particularly hard one. Georgie, you have brought something to us that I am going to do my best to get through in one piece, but no guarantees, can I just let you know. I will pass on my deepest condolences to Murphy’s carers, who I understand are with us in the gallery today, and express my sorrow and, frankly, my disgust at what has transpired. Thank you for being here but also thank you for all your efforts to raise this story for us so that we can speak here in the Parliament on the tragic loss of Murphy.

I want to also be clear that for this government animal welfare is a priority. The community of Victoria expects that we do the right thing by animals in our industries, in our workplaces, in our communities and in our homes. The events of last month were shocking and disturbing, unsettling not only those from within the animal-loving community but people right across the state. The circumstances surrounding the euthanasia of these innocent animals have left many of us questioning the processes and the standards by which these animal facilities operate and how we are protecting the animals that we call humans’ best friends. These questions deserve our attention, deserve to be addressed and deserve an effective resolution. These concerns are not only felt throughout the community but also throughout the halls of this place right here. I would like to reinforce again that animal welfare is a priority of the Victorian government, and it is at the very heart of the motion brought to us by Ms Purcell. As a society all of us have an obligation to care for and provide for these animals, as they depend on us with their lives and of course with their love.

The Victorian government has upheld and continues to uphold the obligations very seriously. Much has already been done and continues to change. I am thinking particularly of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986. Along with the codes of practice and other associated regulations it sets out the legal framework that ensures the safe, ethical and humane treatment of animals across the state. These laws are robust and comprehensive. They advocate and protect while making sure that institutions and organisations are being held accountable for their actions and their processes. You see, Victoria proudly holds a zero-tolerance policy for animal abuse and misconduct, with our laws being taken seriously and investigations being conducted according to the appropriate procedures and legislation. It is critical that the public has confidence in the systems that govern the treatment of animals in our care, especially within the shelter and pound system. We all share the expectation that shelters and pounds operate transparently and responsibly, particularly when it comes to making difficult decisions such as euthanasia, which is, I accept, at times necessary to protect public safety or the welfare of the animal.

I want to talk about the case at hand before us – the case of Murphy, the 12-week-old puppy who was euthanised at the Lost Dogs’ Home. This incident has understandably raised questions within the community, particularly around the reasons given for the euthanasia, such as genetics, antisocial behaviour and the potential for the puppy to develop aggression. These claims have been contested by some animal behavioural specialists, and the community is absolutely right to seek greater clarity. This is the bit where I am supposed to talk about how I love dogs and my own dogs. The truth is I have never owned a dog. It was one of those life things that never quite happened for me. But I am surrounded by folks that love their dogs, and maybe I am just best placed to be an aunty for so very many, including my favourite of all, Lincoln.

I read about this case, and I heard the news, and it was quite distressing. We all know that shelters and pounds hold a responsibility to care for, assess and rehome any animal that comes through the doors of any institution. The Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds under the Domestic Animals Act 1994 sets the standard for the assessment, behavioural rehabilitation and rehoming of these animals. What happened at the Lost Dogs’ Home should never have happened, and that is why organisations like these need to have and seek greater clarity on their processes for animal justice and rehabilitation. The code of conduct not only provides important guidance on the treatment of animals, it also has remarks around processes regarding new approaches and improvements.

There is so much that can be examined on this. That is why I am glad that this comprehensive motion was brought before us by Ms Purcell, because there is better transparency required with respect to topics of behavioural rehabilitation, rehoming and euthanasia.

The community absolutely has the right to know what processes and actions are being taken in consideration of animals in these areas. I expect, and I believe the Victorian government also recognises, that transparency is a key to maintaining trust, public trust, in the shelter and pound system. We understand that concerns over transparency have been raised in the past, and I just want to assure those of us here in the house and listening elsewhere that the government is committed to addressing these concerns. We must ensure that all animals are given a fair assessment and that decisions to euthanise are made in line with best available practices. This is a difficult but necessary step, and it will help to ensure that the community has confidence that such decisions are made with due diligence and with due care.

I just would like to say that the Labor government fully supports the call to ensure that animals who are at risk of being euthanised for behavioural reasons are given every chance for a second life. I agree that unless an animal has been legally declared dangerous, they should be offered to an authorised pet rehoming organisation. It is heartbreaking to think that a dog’s behavioural issues might mean the end of their life when, with the right care and the right training, they could turn their life around. Many of these animals, even the ones facing significant challenges, can become loving pets with the right rehabilitation. By broadening the options available to them, we increase the chances of finding the loving homes that they so truthfully deserve.

We also support the proposal for open-intake shelters to provide quarterly reports on animal fate data. Regular updates on the outcomes of animals will give the community confidence that animals are being treated fairly, assessed properly and are being given every opportunity to find a new home where possible. This is about accountability and making sure we are doing everything we can to improve the system.

I want to say that we are, of course, committed to ensuring that these groups that work tirelessly to provide care for vulnerable animals are supported. We know that the rising number of animals being relinquished or abandoned is putting a strain on their resources. That is why there was money made available in the 2024–25 state budget to continue delivering essential animal welfare regulatory services and support for critical functions like the pet exchange register and the commercial dog breeder scheme, ensuring that we continue to improve animal welfare standards. There is more there around funding and investment by the Labor government, including an allocation of $5 million over the next four years to support animal rehoming services through the Animal Welfare Fund. This funding aims to help ease the burden on rehoming organisations and assist in finding loving homes for the increasing number of animals in need. We know the groups are stretched thin. I have heard from you directly, and I know, also through the incredible advocacy of Ms Purcell, how tough it is for these groups out there. I am hoping that this support will help manage the rising demand for their services and ensure that more animals get the care and the attention that they need.

I could talk about what efforts that this government has done with respect to animal welfare, but I want to bring it back in the last moment to talk to the community and recognise the very valid concerns that so many have raised with respect to the tragic euthanasia of Murphy and his littermates. We are committed to looking into ways we can improve the processes surrounding the rehoming and euthanasia of animals. I commend this motion to the chamber, and I thank again Ms Purcell for her incredible advocacy as per usual.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (11:09): I would like to thank as well, Ms Purcell, for bringing this motion forward. It was very distressing to see reports about Murphy, and obviously it is something that deeply affected a lot of people. I say this as someone who cares deeply about animals and acknowledging my own dachshund Gavroche, who I believe Ms Purcell has met, is a rescue. There are thousands of families – tens of thousands of families – across the state that are very willing and able to adopt pets.

I would like to acknowledge RSPCA in Burwood, where I got Gavroche from, but I would also like to acknowledge Second Chance Animal Rescue in Craigieburn and the team there, who do an outstanding job. It is always a cause for distress when an animal is put down. The story that prompted this motion is heartbreaking, and it is natural that people would want accountability and compassion in how we treat our animals. While this motion is well intended, it risks undermining the very organisations that do the most to protect and care for vulnerable animals, such as the Lost Dogs’ Home.

For over a century the Lost Dogs’ Home has been a refuge and a last resort for unwanted, injured and abandoned animals. They do difficult work that others cannot or will not. They take in every animal that comes through their doors; that is what an open intake means. With that responsibility comes difficult and heartbreaking decisions. Those who work on the front line of animal welfare know that not every dog or cat can be safely rehomed. Some have severe behavioural or medical issues, and some present a genuine risk to people or to other animals. The professionals at the Lost Dogs’ Home make those calls after careful assessment. They deserve our support and respect and probably not more red tape. This motion would introduce an independent approval mechanism for euthanasia decisions, introduce new mandatory referral processes and increase reporting requirements, all of which sounds good on paper but in practice may bury shelters in paperwork and delay quite urgent decisions. The result would not be more compassion but would lead to more suffering. Animals in distress would wait longer for help. Staff would spend more time filling out forms and less time caring for animals. Another consideration is the motion does not adequately distinguish between animals legally declared dangerous and those assessed as high risk through professional behavioural evaluation. Transferring animals with poor prognosis may prolong suffering rather than prevent it.

We should also be honest about what drives these issues. It is not the people at the Lost Dogs’ Home, it is the chronic underfunding of animal welfare services by the state Labor government. This government has been happy to shift responsibility onto charities and volunteers while providing nowhere near the level of support that they need. They have failed to invest in education, early intervention and desexing programs that actually reduce the number of animals entering shelters in the first place. This motion lacks the clarity on how additional burdens will be funded. Without additional funding or infrastructure, these requirements may be unfeasible and counterproductive. If we really care about transparency and accountability, then let us start with government, not by imposing another layer of bureaucracy on those doing their best with limited resources. Let us support shelters with proper funding, training and facilities. Let us work with them to expand behaviour rehabilitation programs and foster community networks so that we can limit the amount of very difficult decisions that these supports have to make.

Let us remember that compassion for animals also means compassion for the people who dedicate their lives to saving them. We need ongoing efforts to improve transparency and accountability in animal welfare. I want to note again in my electorate – I have been delighted to visit a couple of times – Second Chance Animal Rescue in Craigieburn. So many people across the north have a story about how they got their dog there or their family member or friend did.

They have been quite vocal about the financial predicament that they are in and in calling on the government for additional supports. Yes, the government jumped in and gave $50,000, but as pretty much everyone has acknowledged, that is nowhere near enough to deal with the issues that they are facing. Often it is Second Chance Animal Rescue that are the first to take in animals that are victims of domestic and family violence, where a couple goes their separate ways and the dog, cat or other animal needs looking after, and that situation is only getting worse in the northern suburbs, which is leading to a massive, stretched demand. I have fears about increasing the regulatory burden. I want to acknowledge Marisa and the team and the work that they do, because their facility is outstanding. They do very important work in the northern suburbs of Melbourne.

Both of my brothers have got dogs from Second Chance Animal Rescue in Craigieburn. It was very sad: last week my brother’s staffy Buddy unfortunately passed away after 11 long years of life. He got his staffy from Second Chance Animal Rescue in Craigieburn, and Buddy was given 11 great years of life thanks to the efforts of Second Chance Animal Rescue and the work they do. There are so many similar stories throughout the northern suburbs and beyond stemming from Second Chance Animal Rescue and similar organisations as well.

For Ms Purcell’s part, I think we can all agree that what happened to Murphy was horrific. I think the intent we can all agree on, but the reality of the suggestions in the motion I think will punish those already struggling to help, and it imposes unfunded mandates that may well worsen animal welfare outcomes.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:18): I also rise to speak on motion 1091 in Ms Purcell’s name. Every year around December – sometimes January if we are a bit late in coordinating with each other – my parents, my partner and I all plan a day out together. Instead of giving Christmas presents to each other, for the last three or four years we have all put in money to buy blankets, other materials and things, and we have taken them to the Lost Dogs’ Home in North Melbourne. It has become a bit of a recent family tradition, a small way of giving back.

When people support services that look after animals, people expect the animals will be looked after. It is not for me to draw conclusions in today’s debate, but certainly the story that we have heard in the past few weeks regarding Murphy has been – I think ‘distressing’ would be too polite a word –extremely concerning. For a dog to be given a home, to have supports offered for rehoming or placement in another shelter, and then still to have its life ended is something that troubles me greatly. That is why the government will be supporting this motion today; we will not be opposing its passage.

I would like to acknowledge today the presence of Elizabeth and Sean in the room with us. I cannot begin to imagine the sort of month that you have had. It is an unthinkable thing to lose a pet in any circumstance, but especially in one where you have done everything in your power – and certainly what I know from what Georgie and her team have said to me is that you have done everything in your power – to keep them alive. In any little comfort that you may have, I hope that you have that comfort – that you did your absolute best.

There are too far too many animals – cats and dogs in particular – who do find themselves in the situation of needing care homes or support or fostering, not through a fault of their own but through the actions of reckless or unsavoury humans.

We need to do more, and there are many things – Ms Watt did go through a number of initiatives, such as the Animal Welfare Victoria funding in last year’s budget, which provides funding over three years over a number of areas, and time permitting, I will come to that. There is more work that is being done, but the allegations which have been put forward today certainly warrant being looked into, and they certainly warrant a greater degree of transparency from those who are charged with looking after vulnerable cats and dogs and who rely on significant public goodwill, donations and others to do their work.

In preparing for my remarks today, I did discover, as Ms Purcell noted, that Murphy and his siblings were located and picked up in the City of Casey, which is part of my region. I have learned that the Lost Dogs’ Home has a relationship with the City of Casey, as it does indeed with four other councils that I look after in the south-east: those being Cardinia, Kingston, Frankston and Greater Dandenong. Supporting the transparency outlined in this motion is something that is important for the state government to do, but I think it is also important that councils, whether they have a relationship with the Lost Dogs’ Home or have different scenarios, are asking these questions. It is not obviously for me, as a local state MP, to be telling my councils what to do, but I would be certainly encouraging them to have these conversations as well and to ask the sorts of questions that Ms Purcell has been raising. Those five councils of course are not the only councils in Victoria who have these relationships – I do not have the full list to hand, but there are, as I understand it, quite a few – but five out of my seven councils engage directly with the Lost Dogs’ Home.

It does go to a deeper structural problem, and that is ultimately a sadder aspect of human behaviour, that so many cats and dogs are abandoned or left in these situations by humans. Councils, state governments and charities cannot fix that. But where we have issues like Murphy’s coming before the Parliament today, it is appropriate for us to be asking those questions. And it is also appropriate for our colleagues in the City of Casey, in the Shire of Cardinia, in the City of Kingston, in the City of Greater Dandenong and in the City of Frankston to continue to have those conversations with their partners and for all councils who deal with this important issue to have these conversations with whomever it is that provides these services for them.

As part of the funding which came through in the state budget, we have seen money put into various animal welfare initiatives, all under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986. We have also seen, over the course of this government, the banning of puppy farms, with the strictest breeding rules in the country; the establishment of the offence of selling a pet without a valid microchip and source number from the pet exchange register; the removal of the need for greyhounds to be muzzled in public; the provision of Victoria’s first Animal Welfare Action Plan, which recognises that animals are sentient; the establishment of renters’ rights to keep a pet; and the reforming of the animal welfare advisory committee to ensure that the government receives the best advice that it can. This is all important work, and of course there are other measures as well, such as cat desexing programs. Also, we are the first state, presciently, to introduce mandatory reporting of animal fate data for dogs and cats in shelters and pounds, and it is from that action that we see the evidence shown by Ms Purcell in subsection (e) of her motion, showing the number of cats and dogs killed for behavioural reasons in the last two years. They are concerning numbers. I do not have the full context, but the allegations alone certainly warrant our looking into this in much greater detail. That is what this motion seeks to do, which is why I am supporting it.

No Victorian who has put themselves in a position of being able to provide safe and secure care and shelter for an animal deserves to have that animal’s fate decided by someone else. I hope, whether it be through any further government action as a result of this or even as a result of the fact that we are discussing this here today, that that sunlight shines a little bit more brightly on this data and on this issue; that for all the many, many incredible people who work supporting animals across the shelter sector, and for those few who have perhaps lost their way, that the rights and interests of animals are at the heart of the work that they do; and that governments, state and local, do everything that they can do to support them to do that so that we do not have any more cases like Murphy.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (11:26): I thank Ms Purcell for the opportunity to speak on this serious and really sad scenario that has occurred in relation to Murphy. I want to begin by reaffirming the Victorian Labor government’s deep and enduring commitment to animal welfare and recognising that animals rely on our humanity and respect for their safety. That is certainly understood.

A member interjected.

Jacinta ERMACORA: We probably do not need that in Hansard.

Victoria has long been recognised as a national leader in this space. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986, together with its regulations and more than 25 codes of practice, provides a strong legal foundation for the protection of animals in this state, and under this framework we maintain a zero-tolerance approach to cruelty and mistreatment of animals. Every allegation is taken seriously and investigated in line with the legislation established and the procedures, but laws alone cannot create compassion, dignity and respect. Over successive Labor governments we have paired robust legislation with practical reforms that have changed lives, both human and animal. As part of the 2024 budget, which a number of my colleagues have already mentioned, Labor committed $13.3 million over three years to continue delivering critical animal welfare regulatory services. At a time when cost- of-living pressures are driving record numbers of surrenders, Labor has allocated $5 million over four years to the Animal Welfare Fund to bolster the capacity of shelters and rehoming organisations.

Our record of reform in this space is substantial. If I take you back, we did ban the cruel practice of puppy farms and set the strictest breeding rules in the country. I thank my predecessor Jaala Pulford for all of her work on that initiative. We made it an offence to sell a pet without a microchip and source number from the pet exchange register, and we removed the requirement for greyhounds to be muzzled in public. We produced Victoria’s first Animal Welfare Action Plan, explicitly recognising that animals are sentient beings, a landmark acknowledgement in Australian policy.

And we gave renters – as was also mentioned by Mr Galea and my colleague Ms Watt – the right to keep pets, recognising that animal companionship supports wellbeing and social connection. We also reformed the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to ensure expert advice guides government decision-making, and we became the first state to mandate public reporting on animal fate data for dogs and cats in shelters and pounds. Each of these reforms have made Victoria fairer, kinder and more transparent in its treatment of animals.

The government is very aware of the distress caused by the euthanasia of a 12-week-old puppy named Murphy at the Lost Dogs’ Home in September this year. All pounds and shelters must comply with the Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds. This code sets minimum standards for accommodation, management and care, including veterinary treatment and, where necessary, euthanasia. These safeguards exist because the community rightly expects that decisions about animal fate are based on evidence, professionalism and compassion. However, we also recognise that when public trust is eroded, it is incumbent on all of us – government, shelters and the animal welfare sector – to rebuild that confidence. Transparency is central to that task, and that is why Victoria introduced mandatory reporting of animal outcomes and why this government is developing a guide for assessing rehoming suitability, a tool that promotes holistic behavioural assessments and supports shelters in making humane and consistent decisions. This approach aligns with the broader evidence. The RSPCA’s 2023 report on national shelter data found that improved behavioural assessment and foster care programs can reduce euthanasia rates by up to 20 per cent. By investing in training and behavioural support, we ensure more animals find safe and permanent homes.

Supporting rehoming and community partnerships is really important. Labor recognises that not all animals start life on an equal footing. Some experience neglect or trauma or abandonment. Just like human beings, you can see that in their little faces, in their eyes and in their behaviours. They get nervous, they shake, they get excited, they show love, and these are all indications that a full and thorough behavioural assessment ought to be conducted before decisions are made about ending the life of a little puppy. That is why the code permits behavioural rehabilitation in foster care and why we continue to thank and support the shelters, rehoming organisations and volunteer foster carers who make that possible.

I think it was a really lovely story that Mr Galea mentioned about Christmas and their donation to the Lost Dogs’ Home, and I think that is a beautiful recognition of the volunteers that spend time in animal welfare right across our state, including where I come from in Warrnambool and the south-west of Victoria. Across our state volunteers form the backbone of compassionate animal welfare. For example, according to the RSPCA Victoria annual report, in 2024 more than 60,000 animals were successfully rehomed through registered shelters and rescue groups.

Animal welfare reform must be coupled with public education through programs such as Animal Welfare Victoria’s pet plan and targeted cat desexing program, which help owners to make informed, responsible choices.

According to the Australian Veterinary Association pet stats 2024, cat desexing before sexual maturity can prevent up to 80 per cent of unwanted litters. This proactive approach lightens the load on shelters and reduces the tragic potential for euthanasia. It also reduces the spread of disease and illness amongst cats who are feral or uncared for. Some of those diseases are occasionally spread to human beings. As my colleagues have said, we are not opposing this motion. Our attitude and care towards animals and towards any being that is vulnerable to our conduct as human beings is a reflection on ourselves as a society and as a community. I thank Ms Purcell again for bringing this matter forward. It has provided the airspace to discuss this issue.

 Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:36): More than the odd one of my supporters tells me from time to time that I should always vote against what Animal Justice put up, regardless, and that we have got ideological differences – blah, blah, blah. I say, ‘No, we can’t do that all the time because sometimes our purposes align’ – and here we are. I support Ms Purcell’s motion completely because there is nothing wrong with it; there is nothing I disagree with. It is a little disappointing that it has taken a member of the crossbench to bring it up and that the government has not done this to date.

The first real inkling I had of the size of the problem, not necessarily with the Lost Dogs’ Home – I will just put it out there – but with the RSPCA, was during the initial inquiry way back in 2016. Whilst they were busily being activists against duck hunting, they were putting down animals at an extraordinary rate. It is clearly not just the RSPCA, and it is probably not just the Lost Dogs’ Home. I think the only welfare agencies that have any credibility really are the no-kill shelters, because at least they are giving it a go.

We are here today to discuss the issue. I look at this and I think, ‘I’ve been accused of being cruel because I hunt.’ I hunt and I love animals. You can call that a cognitive dissonance. You can call that hypocrisy. It is what it is. I am what I am. But I do not think shooting an animal, hunting an animal and killing it cleanly, is cruel. I think what is cruel is giving an animal the green dream and then killing it deliberately, even though it has got a home. That to me is cruelty. That animal had a life to live, and it was taken from it just because of God knows what.

The motion calls on the government to commit to investigating a number of things. I think the government should basically announce that it is. Government funding is one of those things – it is public money going into public things – and there is an expectation that what you say you are going to use it for you use it for. If you are a rehoming service, you should be rehoming them. If there is a problem, then you go back to the government and whatever. I have seen way too many of the organisations that are strutting around and being pompous just killing animals behind the scenes because it is basically convenient. I am only going to make a very short contribution, but I will say again that it is one of those rare opportunities to say I am completely in lock step with the Animal Justice Party on this issue.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:39): I am very pleased to rise and speak on Ms Purcell’s motion with respect to the particular circumstance of one poor animal and what it tells us about how animals are treated more broadly in rescue services. I commend her for bringing it to the chamber. Listening to the contributions of colleagues, including just then from Mr Bourman, it is very clear that the impact that pets and animals have is to soften even some of the toughest of hearts.

I think that the genuineness we have heard in the contributions today reflects that all of us, in our own ways, have had very clear attachments to pets and animals in different forms over the course of our lives. And to think that there are mechanisms that are designed to help those that need it but in fact, in their practice, may not be living up to the standards we expect, is confronting and something that deserves attention and something that deserves a bit of scrutiny. I am glad that we have the opportunity today to have that conversation.

There is a broad regulatory framework in the state of Victoria about how we should treat animals. It is not perfect. It never is. No set of regulatory features can ever fully grapple with any individual set of circumstances, particularly where we, as humans, find ourselves having to make choices about how we act. But certainly the regulatory framework that exists with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and its regulations and codes of practice in respect of animal welfare in Victoria are matters that we do take seriously. We do have a zero-tolerance approach to animal cruelty here in the state of Victoria, and breaches of our animal welfare laws are taken very seriously by regulatory authorities. Those breaches should be properly investigated to make sure that every action that occurs between humans and animals in the state of Victoria complies with the law and with these regulatory frameworks.

The instigating incident that brought Ms Purcell’s motion to the chamber today is obviously a matter involving a 12-week-old puppy named Murphy that was euthanised by the Lost Dogs’ Home in September. It was, from what I have read and what I have heard, clearly a very troubling and sad set of circumstances and outcomes for all of those who were involved. We do expect that those who take in animals, whether you call them shelters or pounds or welfare services or rescue services, have a code of practice that they should comply with and that that code sets out minimum standards for accommodation and management and care, including the provision of veterinary care. What I think we need to think about is both how those codes and practices operate and how they are oversighted and implemented. I certainly think that if further consideration needs to be made in terms of looking at how they have occurred in this case, then we should do so.

Fundamentally, the public need to have confidence that those who we as a community give the responsibility to to assist and care for animals in need are doing so in a way that complies with the requirements of codes of practice. Members of the community expect that there is care and compassion, and certainly from the many animal welfare activists that I have spoken to over the course of my time in Parliament, the genuineness with which they take these issues is very clear.

What we all have also got to figure out, I think, is that animals, particularly those who are our pets, are not innately trained in a particular way.

What we find is that as humans, as what some would describe as owners and I am sure others would use other terms, we have responsibilities in terms of the way we treat our pet companions. We have obligations to make sure that they are both cared for and looked after but also that we work with them to ensure that the behaviours that they learn are ones that are based on caring and not based on fear. We know that animals, particularly those that do receive proper care and attention, proper training, patience and support and, in many cases, love, do have behaviours that can mean that they are valued and cherished members of families for many, many years. We also know that even those who do not receive the right training and care from the humans who are in charge of them and find their way out of those difficult and dangerous circumstances and into fostering arrangements or alternative care arrangements or rescue arrangements that attempt to provide that to them still have a chance of being loved pets, of being the sort of companions that we want them to be with the behaviours that would allow that to occur.

In the last couple of minutes I will just reflect briefly on the circumstances that we have personally found ourselves in with one of these animals. My partner and I, many years ago, adopted a rescue greyhound who had clearly had some very traumatic experiences at the hands of a trainer and was resoundingly unsuccessful in the pursuit of much at all, let alone that which would bring her success on a racetrack. She was, through the Greyhound Adoption Program, fostered and put up for adoption, and she found her way to our home where she lived with us for the better part of a decade. Despite having some idiosyncrasies that were clearly the result of the way that she had been treated by those who had brought her into the world, we found that with care and support, love and attention, and I would say training but I am not sure we ever quite got that far of suggesting that she was trained, we had a rescued dog, a greyhound, as part of our lives, who was a valuable member of our household for many years. When we had to take Daisy to the vet to get her put down because she could no longer walk, we did so with sadness in our hearts and with a sense that we were doing the last thing that we could to make sure that she had had a happy and fulfilled life. I think that has got to be fundamental. That has got to be what we all should seek and strive for in the course of the way we treat animals that are part of our lives, whether we do that as individuals and families who choose to take them on, who make the commitment to giving them the care, the support, the patience and the training that they need to be parts of our households and our communities or whether we do that overall in terms of the regulatory system that ensures that the rescue shelters do the same. I commend Ms Purcell’s motion to the house.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (11:49): I am glad to also have the opportunity to speak to Ms Purcell’s motion. Thank you for bringing it today. To follow on from my colleagues, the people in this situation, Elizabeth and Sean, I believe, are here with us today. I acknowledge you both.

Much like Mr Batchelor shared his personal story, I grew up on a farm, so I was surrounded by animals for most of my life. Perhaps I will touch on that a little bit more as I go on. I might even talk to my flock of pet sheep, Lamby and Nibs and all the various sheep I raised by bottle and whatnot, Ms Purcell. There is absolutely no doubt of the special connection and bond between animals and humans and how strong that connection and bond is, whether it is pets that are dogs or a wide variety of animals. Indeed many people’s connection with various animals are stronger than with the majority of humans.

As I said, Ms Purcell, thank you for bringing this to the chamber today. The events at the Lost Dogs’ Home have resulted in many in the community having concerns. So it is right that we discuss this here today and that it has the light shone on it that it deserves. Animal welfare is a priority of the Victorian government due to the connection that people have with pets, animals and indeed wildlife, whether people are birders and have love for birds or various other animals. It does not have to be pets, of course – just appreciating and enjoying the serenity they can bring in our natural environment is an incredible thing. So the community expects that we do the right thing by animals, whether that be in our industries, our communities, our homes or indeed our local natural environments.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 regulates codes of practice to protect the welfare of animals in Victoria. Victoria has a zero-tolerance approach when it comes to animal cruelty. Any alleged breach of our animal welfare laws is taken very seriously and will be investigated with the relevant legislation and organisational procedures. While it is critical that we have robust regulation of the Victorian agriculture sector, in my experience the vast majority of the Victorian community care deeply about their animals. Indeed you can sit down and chat to anybody that has a pet, and they will probably feel more fondly about them than their children or partners or whoever else it may be a lot of days of the week.

The government is aware of the matter involving a 12-week-old puppy, Murphy, who was euthanised by the Lost Dogs’ Home in September. It was a sad outcome for everyone involved. Pounds and shelters, including the Lost Dogs’ Home, must comply with the Code of Practice for the Management of Dogs and Cats in Shelters and Pounds. The code sets minimum standards for the accommodation, management and care of dogs and cats, including the provision of veterinary care and, where required, euthanasia. More than 25 codes of practice for animal welfare exist under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986, covering a range of species and activities. With a few exceptions, codes are not mandatory but provide the defence to allegations of cruelty if recommended practices are followed. Codes include guidance on issues such as shelter requirements, housing and cage use, and conduct of painful procedures. Under the Domestic Animals Act 1994 and the codes, public and animal safety must remain primary considerations. Shelters and pounds must assess each animal’s health, temperament, sociability and behaviour for rehoming suitability. It is of course imperative that the public have confidence that this remains the case through increased transparency, which of course we all expect. We cannot have it eroded because the public do not have the confidence that this remains the case. It is clear work must always be done around transparency.

To ensure the safety of our community, the code prohibits aggressive antisocial animals or animals with known vices from being made available for sale.

We understand that not all cats and dogs are given the best start in life and that with training, patience and care many animals can be transitioned to become a beloved family pet. It was good to hear Mr Batchelor’s experience, before, of his greyhound – sad to hear that it had been mistreated but great that it got what sounds like a beautiful life with him in his home. That is why the code permits behavioural rehabilitation of dogs and cats in foster care – and I thank and acknowledge our shelters, rehoming organisations and dedicated foster carers for their continued work in this area.

To further support good practice the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action is developing a guide for assessing rehoming suitability that promotes ongoing, holistic behavioural assessments. All shelters and pounds must operate under a written health management plan that sets documented temperament, health and behavioural assessment procedures. The community is right to expect that decisions about rehoming or euthanasia must be made in line with these procedures and sit with the established operations manager and veterinary practitioners, supported by relevant animal behaviour experts.

As part of the 2024–25 state budget the Victorian government committed $13.3 million over three years to continue delivering critical animal welfare regulatory services, including to continue the delivery of domestic animal regulatory functions under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and the Domestic Animals Act 1994, including continued operation of the pet exchange register and the commercial dog breeder scheme, and to implement nationally endorsed poultry welfare standards consistent with the 2023 commitment by states and territories to implement animal welfare standards and guidelines for poultry within two years. Obviously, with cost-of-living pressures our rehoming organisations have been experiencing challenges as a large number of animals are relinquished or taken due to animal welfare concerns, so to help address the rehoming issues being experienced, the Animal Welfare Fund allocated $5 million over four years to support animal rehoming services, which not only sees those animals find homes but also brings a lot of joy to those of us that give them homes.

Our reforms over successive Labor governments have included banning puppy farms, with the strictest breeding rules in the country; making it an offence to sell a pet without a valid microchip and source number from the pet exchange register; removing the need for greyhounds to be muzzled in public; producing Victoria’s first Animal Welfare Action Plan, which recognises that animals are sentient; giving renters the right to keep a pet; reforming the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to ensure government receives expert advice; becoming the first state to introduce mandatory reporting of animal fate data for dogs and cats in shelters and pounds; and launching the targeted cat desexing program. As I said earlier, the government is always open to investigating new ways in which organisations and the wider community can feel satisfied with the level of oversight and support provided.

We do not oppose the motion. As I have said throughout my speech, whether we are talking about pets or we are talking about animals in the wild, all our lives are richer for having animals in them, whether that be in the natural environment – our time spent observing them – or in our own homes, with the joy and love that that can bring to people living on their own or as couples or indeed as families, or as a community when we are out and seeing the pets that everyone owns and getting to share that love and enjoyment together.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.