Wednesday, 15 October 2025

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:03): I rise to make a contribution on this motion in Ms Purcell’s name in regard to the Lost Dogs’ Home. Can I say at the outset that I want to thank Ms Purcell and the Animal Justice Party for its continued advocacy in regard to our pets.

Of course we all love a doggo, I have to say. I will start my contribution with the fact that my gorgeous girl Skye came from the Lost Dogs’ Home. I remember seeing her on the day that I went to see what they had available at the Lost Dogs’ Home. She was a very forlorn looking staffie cross in her little pen. If anyone knows anything about staffies, they need to be around people, and staffies being in a pen on their own is not a good thing. She was pretty sad and looking very forlorn, so I was really pleased to be able to look at her and say, ‘You’re coming home with us.’ It was a good day. So I do have a little bit of experience with the Lost Dogs’ Home.

In preparation for this motion I was reading some of the notes. I think shelters generally these days do everything they can to rehome pets. But it is always concerning to me, as an animal lover, when I see that there are some animals that are just being euthanised. It is horrible, because there are plenty of people who want to offer loving homes for their cats or dogs. As I said, Skye, my staffie and Jack Russell cross, is a pet from the Lost Dogs’ Home and a rescue dog, as they call them. My cat Rizzo is also a rescue, from the Cat Protection Society of Victoria, so I am a firm believer in giving pets a second chance. Particularly if they have been rescued or surrendered, they deserve a good home. I also have to say at the outset that the government does not oppose this motion. As I said, I do thank Ms Purcell for bringing this motion, but also for her continued advocacy in this space.

It is concerning to see the content of this motion. The events that have transpired at the Lost Dogs’ Home have resulted in many in the community questioning these decisions and becoming distressed at the situation. I also share that distress. Animal welfare is a priority of the Victorian government. Our community does expect that we do the right thing by animals in our care, whether it be in industries or communities or our homes.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and the regulations and the codes of practice protect the welfare of animals in Victoria. We have a zero-tolerance approach to animal cruelty. Any alleged breach of our animal welfare laws is taken very seriously and will be investigated with and by the relevant organisations who help us make sure that animal cruelty does not occur.

It is critical that we have robust regulations in Victorian agriculture sectors, and it is true to say that the vast majority of Victorians do care deeply about their animals. There are always some awful exceptions to that, and we see that when we see the RSPCA and other organisations going in to take action to have animals retrieved or when animals are surrendered. It is always distressing when we see those things. I think the most recent example that springs to my mind was the example of the horses down on the Mornington Peninsula that were just recently surrendered. That was horrendous. I think sometimes what you find is – and it is a thing; sometimes people hoard animals as well – whilst they might have started off having their beloved furry or feathered creatures in their care with the best of intentions, sometimes it becomes too much and sadly, they cannot see any way out or just lose the capacity to care for those animals. But more than that, what we saw with the horses on the Mornington Peninsula I think was much more than that, and I know people were distressed about that situation. I know that people had been calling for the RSPCA to take action on that situation for some time.

More recently in regard to the Lost Dogs’ Home the Victorian government is aware of the matter involving a 12-week-old puppy named Murphy, who was euthanised by the Lost Dogs’ Home in September 2025. It was a very sad outcome for all those concerned. 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. The public must continue to have confidence that this remains the case, and that increased transparency is part of that pact. We expect our shelters to uphold the standards set out in the law, the regulations and the code when it comes to animal welfare. When these codes are eroded because the public do not have confidence in them, there is clearly work to be done in terms of improving 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. However, we understand that not all cats and dogs are given the best start in life, and that was like my Skye. With training, patience and care, many animals can transition to be a beloved family pet. That has certainly been the case with my Skye. That is why the code permits behavioural rehabilitation of dogs and cats in foster care. I thank and acknowledge our shelters and rehoming organisations and dedicated foster carers for their continued work in this space.

So I just want to conclude my remarks by saying that to ensure that the public does not lose faith in the rehoming organisations that rely on community support, volunteers and donations, along with government funding through Animal Welfare Victoria, and investigating ways in which we can further support organisations as they make difficult decisions regarding the fate of animals in their care, the government will not be opposing this motion.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (14:10): I just want to briefly sum up and touch on some of the points made within the debate today. First of all, I want to really acknowledge the cooperation and the kindness of many within the chamber in acknowledging Elizabeth and Sean, the foster carers of Murphy, who came along to listen to the contributions today. Without Elizabeth and Sean’s advocacy we would not be standing here and we would not have seen such a huge outpouring of support and more importantly outrage towards the decisions of the Lost Dogs’ Home. Their story is actually not unique, but what is unique about it is the fact that they were willing to say that they would not accept it and that it was not good enough, because the Lost Dogs’ Home operates on a culture of silencing people, of secrecy and of making people fearful of the repercussions of saying something about their practices. Elizabeth and Sean were not willing to take that. They have been so incredibly brave by standing up, and they have achieved something that we have been trying to achieve within the rescue and rehoming sector for decades now. I also want to acknowledge the work of organisations like Forever Friends Animal Rescue and Rescued With Love, who have been speaking about much of what has gone on within the Lost Dogs’ Home for many years now as well and who I know are also so incredibly grateful to Elizabeth and Sean for their bravery – and for getting thrust into a situation that they did not choose but they could not be quiet about. I just want to acknowledge that they have achieved something really amazing in doing so.

It is disappointing that the opposition is opposing this motion today, and I was quite surprised by those comments. Something that has been made really, really clear is that this is not about staff, as they claim. In fact staff started organisations like the Lost Dogs’ Home because they wanted to help animals, because they cared about animals – I am the first person to acknowledge that – but what happens is they are put within an organisation where they are not privy to decision-making a lot of the time. They are left helpless, they are left powerless and they are unable to contest or speak out against these decisions. That has been evidenced by the amount of former staff that have come to me and the amount of current staff who have been outraged by this decision to kill Murphy. It has really shone a light on something that has been going on for such a long time. This is an organisation that is unwilling to change and must be forced into change. Like I said, this is a management problem that is decades old. It is not an attack on the rescue community. The Lost Dogs’ Home as an organisation is an outlier and its practices are tarnishing the incredible work of other shelters and other rescue groups, who put so much into helping the lives of animals in this state every single day. The broader rescue community has condemned this. The rescue community –

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, there is a lot of noise in the chamber. I am having trouble hearing Ms Purcell. I would just ask that perhaps conversations could be taken outside.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): I uphold the point of order, and I ask Ms Purcell to continue.

Georgie PURCELL: Like I said, this has been condemned by the rescue community. They are the experts who know these animals best, and we should be listening to them. Just finally, I also want to touch on a few other things. People have spoken about the code of practice today, and something that is important to know about the code of practice is while that code of practice allows what happened to Murphy within it, it does not mandate it. The Lost Dogs’ Home is exploiting people’s lack of understanding of the legislation and the rules to get away with this behaviour.

We are thankful that a number of councils are actually looking into this now. The Lost Dogs’ Home operates off lucrative council contracts. They bring in a lot of money by servicing those LGAs. During the time of this debate we have been informed that the City of Melbourne is actually launching an investigation into the practices of the Lost Dogs’ Home and will be demanding answers, given that the council contract lies with them.

Finally, on the point of paperwork as raised by the opposition, I would just like to say that if a little bit more paperwork results in letting more dogs and cats live, then I think that is a pretty minimal trade-off and a pretty fair trade-off. What this motion asks for today is the bare minimum of what we could do. We could be setting the standard of good sheltering practices in our state, because that is what these organisations should be doing. They are there for the purpose of sheltering and caring for animals, and we need to get that purpose back on track within this state. Thank you to everyone for their contributions today and their support. We are now calling on the government to act within the ask of this motion, and I commend it to the house.

Motion agreed to.