Thursday, 16 October 2025

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10:03): I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the Liberals and Nationals on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Rehoming Cats and Dogs and Other Matters) Bill 2025, which amends the Domestic Animals Act 1994. As I have a little bit of time on my side, I would just like to make some comments in relation to the importance of dogs and cats in our lives –and as companion animals – and indeed reflect on the past bill that we debated some years ago but also the importance of some of these amendments. The Liberals and Nationals have amendments for this bill.

The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners produced a report recently, and it talked about the pet effect and the health-related aspects of companion animal ownership.

For everyone here, I am sure, as we heard in the lower house, that there will be many and varied discussions about the importance of companion animals in our lives. This report, through the GPs, explores how companion animals, especially dogs and cats, can positively influence our physical health, our psychological wellbeing and our social health. Some of the topics that it covers are the physicality of looking after another furry creature – the physical importance of getting out and getting active, particularly if you have a dog; improvements in cardiovascular health; lowering of blood pressure and reducing of stress in terms of having that companionship; increased physical activity for dog owners; enhanced immune system development in children; and of course the psychological health of reducing loneliness, of having that other creature to stare into your eyes and know your soul as an important antidote to isolation and depression. In terms of social health, if you have ever been out walking a dog, they are a conversation starter down the rail trail. They are an important way potentially for people – not always, but there can be reduced social interaction – to start a conversation about a dog. I am sure that there have been many positive relationships formed from that starting conversation. And indeed there is social cohesion and family cohesion. For those people in here who own a pet, I would say half of their conversation at the end of the day is talking about the antics of their dog or cat. In our case it was ‘Who’s fed Buddy? Has he had a walk or is it my turn?’

This bill relates very much to the rehoming of dogs and cats and the importance of animal welfare throughout that process. There have been many important and longstanding rehoming organisations. One of them was the temporary custodian of our dog called Buddy. We had Buddy for 14 years. He chose us. He was about one year old at the time at the Keysborough animal shelter. He latched onto my hand and latched onto our hearts. This is a very similar case. We buried him last year, 12 months ago, and it was like there was a death in the family. I am sure there will be similar commentary around that.

One of the things that I do want to also comment on is a charity called the Companion Animal Network Australia, CANA. It certainly puts a very high emphasis on the importance of pets in the lives of ageing people – again reflecting some of the work from the Royal Australian College of GPs – and the significance that that plays. Also there were inroads made with the Retirement Villages Amendment Act 2025 last year, which enabled pets to continue an attachment, because often why dogs actually end up in rehoming situations, and you hear it time and again, is that the previous owner was too old or frail to look after them and in many cases reluctantly had to relinquish their animal. Of course there are horrendous stories, and you only need to scroll through your social media to see these sorts of stories, of animals being neglected and the RSPCA or others needing to come in. They certainly draw on the heartstrings of anybody with a heart, the very good work that these organisations do.

On the flip side to this I was on an inquiry some years ago – this house’s Environment and Planning Committee – into the decline in ecosystems, which looked at threatened species. That report was out in 2021. A really important point that I do not think we should lose sight of is that cats are fantastic and make a difference in people’s lives, but they are also bespoke, very clever and evolved predators. Dr Matthew Rees from Melbourne University was one of our presenters. He talked about feral cats, those that are left or escape. He related the fact that foxes and feral cats are estimated to jointly kill 2.6 billion mammals, birds and reptiles across Australia – so it was a broad scope – every year.

This figure certainly underscores the massive ecological toll that these introduced predators have. They are killing machines and they are adaptors, and it certainly is a red flashing light. There are various ways to inhibit that and control them, and I know that Landcare Australia and indeed Landcare Victoria are looking at some significant ways to reduce that impact on our native species from these feral cats. The other quote that came out of that inquiry – it was just a general survey. Respondents said:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

Cats have an extraordinary impact on Victoria’s native fauna, in particular adding to the decline in threatened species, international migratory birds and other native species. There are also implications for the spread of disease, which may have impacts on the native fauna.

A couple of weeks ago I was up with my colleague Tim McCurdy in the lovely town of Bright, and it is doing it tough at the moment, as is Porepunkah. Hopefully people are returning to Bright and Porepunkah. We visited a constituent to speak about issues in my portfolio, and this family had the most amazing internal–external, I will say, palace for their cats. The cats had a pathway, a stand that went up to a hole in the wall, and that hole in the wall traversed across and outside into a palatial cat palace, so the cats could go in and out at their free will. They were able to experience and be outside and feel the fresh air and feel the wind and scratch on their poles out there, but they were completely and utterly contained and therefore protected from being able to get away. I just want to thank that family for doing that hard work and looking after the welfare of their animals but also nature and stopping the degradation of the birds around the place.

In relation to the specifics of this bill, it amends the Domestic Animals Act and it establishes an authorisation scheme for pet rehoming organisations that assist in finding permanent homes for cats and dogs. It improves information sharing with local councils about animals in foster care and provides data collection on rehoming outcomes – are these homes long-term, sustainable and effective, and are there good outcomes? There is some more collection around that. It clarifies the entry and enforcement powers of authorised officers, and it repeals the existing foster care registration scheme and establishes a pet rehoming register.

My colleague and the shadow minister in charge of this bill Emma Kealy, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, in her contribution spoke about the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016 and some of the frustrations that were felt by the community through that process. Yes, the aim was to strengthen the animal welfare rules and to close loopholes that allowed puppy farms and to distinguish them from rehoming organisations or foster care, enabling them to continue to breed and do so with a reduced capacity, but one of the comments that was made was that when that legislation was debated, the community foster carers for animals certainly felt that there was insufficient consultation and communication. The Municipal Association of Victoria felt that there was insufficient conversation and communication, and also others raised concerns with regard to that.

In relation to the bill, part 2 of the bill exempts foster care animals, and it removes the requirement for registration of a dog or cat that is kept in an animal shelter or council pound or in foster care under agreement, such as an entity in line with the relevant code of practice. Part 3 looks to introduce a pet rehoming organisation authorisation scheme and a framework around that, and the Secretary of the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions will oversee the applications, renewals, conditions and revocations.

In order to be a rehoming organisation under this bill the organisation must be a registered charity with an ABN, report outcomes on the fate of the adopted events and manage that information, notify councils of animals in foster care and of dangerous dogs, hold unique source numbers and also look at other requirements such as desexing and vaccination to improve rehoming activities and ensure that hopefully those pets are safe and well and available for rehoming. What it also does is repeal the existing foster carer scheme, and that is something that we want to have more conversation on during the course of this debate.

The minister in her second-reading speech spoke to the Taskforce on Rehoming Pets and the background and its context. It was established in 2021, and it was looking at the barriers to rehoming cats and dogs across Victoria, how to reduce unnecessary euthanasia, how to review regulatory burdens faced by volunteer organisations and how to identify gaps in coordinating between councils and shelters and community foster carers. This bill brings in and implements five of those 17 recommendations from the taskforce, and we await with continued interest when the remainder of those recommendations will be implemented and what that will look like.

In relation to part 4, it establishes a pet rehoming register, and that is managed by the secretary. It contains details of authorised organisations, renewal revocations and information again about their fate. It can be accessed by limited authorised officers, councils and inspectors, and this includes penalties as well. Part 5 clarifies how and when authorised officers can enter and the particular types of residences that it can enter as well, and there are other amendments in terms of part 6.

I remember at the time – and it has been raised since by good people that have provided letters and emails to me in relation to this bill – the concern around the black market. Even though these bills come in with legislation, rules, there are still recalcitrant people and I think people of very low morals who are prepared to run the black market on these operations. Clearly they are profitable. Clearly there is a black market of clandestine puppy farms and they are going on to various sites and offering these animals up and meeting in car parks and swapping them over. Really there is a shadow of understanding and a shadow in terms of government accessing these groups, enforcing the rules and calling them out and penalising them. Indeed in 2023 the RSPCA seized 29 dogs from a suspected illegal breeding operation in the Macedon Ranges. Animals were found to be in cramped conditions, unsanitary conditions and poor health. There have also been other groups, and I am sure others will make some comments on those, that have highlighted that online platforms, such as Gumtree and the like, are being used to sell puppies from unregulated breeders. I have travelled out to visit some of the established breeders – I want to make reference to one in a moment – and have seen the care and the nurturing and the consideration that they take when they are breeding these dogs under all the regulations and the bar that has been set.

Like all times, sometimes legislative intent versus reality is there, enforcement gaps are there, traceability failures are there and stakeholder exclusion is there.

In relation to the bill, under the current and soon-to-be repealed system foster carers register individually with their local council, but this abolishes that scheme – that is in part 3, division 4 – and replaces it with a system where carers operate under the umbrella of an authorised pet rehoming organisation. That means if you are an individual carer, you cannot hold a rehoming authorisation yourself; instead, you must affiliate with or operate under an organisation. To legally foster and rehome animals you must join as a volunteer and be part of an organisation that has an ABN. You must sign a foster care agreement with that organisation. You must offer and follow the code of practice. This is all, in a sense, important to have a high standard, but what we also know is you must provide all the goodness that is required and be there. What you cannot do is register yourself anymore with your local council. You cannot pay a local council fee for each animal, you cannot apply directly to the department and you cannot rehome animals independently or outside the structure.

The Liberals and Nationals – and again I want to thank my colleague Emma Kealy for her work in this – are going to put through an amendment. I am happy for those to be circulated. What we are seeking to do with these amendments is to ensure that the existing foster care registration scheme can exist alongside the new pet rehoming authorisation scheme. The foster care registration scheme applies to persons who provide that foster care, which is not dependent on being a foster care network. While the new scheme added by the bill provides for authorisation of organisations, the Liberals and Nationals will seek to amend the definition of ‘pet rehoming organisation’ in clause (6)(c) so that it includes a reference to community foster care networks. The definition would then read:

pet rehoming organisation means a person or body, including a community foster care network, that –

(a) is established for the purpose of finding permanent housing for dogs or cats; and

(b) arranges temporary housing and care for dogs or cats in private residential premises instead of other premises …

As a result, the clauses of this bill would include references to community foster care networks with references to a pet rehoming organisation and would not need to be amended. So in effect it is keeping the old system but also making sure that the new system can run concurrently and in support. Thank you for that, and I hope that explains our rationale behind that.

Some of the concerns that we have heard in terms of the volunteer sector have come – and I am assuming that many members here who have been listening and looking in their inboxes have been concerned – from the community. One of them is from someone from Victorian Dog Rescue, Found Hearts, Guardian Angels Animal Rescue and others – and that is Linda Buchholz. Her concern relates to the proposed voluntary authorisation scheme not being truly voluntary. She has questions. Why was the rescue sector not offered a self-regulatory pathway similar to Dogs Victoria? What protections will remain for groups that do not join the authorisation scheme? How do the amendments in this bill align with the statewide goal of saving more animal lives? What support will be provided to volunteer-run rescues to meet new compliance demands? And will the government consult further with grassroot rescue organisations before implementation?

Those are some of the questions. I have put them here, but I am happy to ask them in the committee stage of the bill. There is another one from a lovely lady, a French bulldog breeder in Victoria, Sharryn Aurisch. I will just make some comments on her work. She is concerned. I quote her letter to us:

Meanwhile, the real problem – backyard breeders – continues with little to no accountability. They are:

• Breeding dogs in substandard conditions

• Selling unvaccinated, unmicrochipped animals

• Advertising without source numbers or microchip numbers

• Operating unchecked across platforms like Facebook, Gumtree, TikTok, and Instagram

This is not just a regulatory failure – it’s a welfare crisis.

They are some of her concerns. The letter continues:

I would like to point out that during the consultation period for these legislative changes, I was never contacted, despite being a licensed, compliant, long-standing breeder with a vested interest in industry reform. This exclusion of legitimate stakeholders is deeply concerning.

She says:

I formally request:

1. That this matter be brought before Parliament for further investigation and review.

2. That I am updated … on what action is being taken to address these gaps in the current system.

3. That the government commit to implementing independent audits for applicable organisations and develop a transparent, enforceable strategy to regulate backyard breeders operating illegally …

I think that the wish of all members in this place is to make sure that there is a reduction of these black market and unregulated breeders that do no good to an industry that is attempting to do the right thing.

We do not oppose the bill outright. We will pursue the amendments that I have outlined. We want there to be a more fair and flexible system. Our key amendment is that we retain the current voluntary community foster care registration scheme alongside the new pet rehoming authorisation scheme. We feel that this dual model can promote flexibility and choice.

Finally, I would like to thank the many thousands of volunteers across Victoria who rescue abandoned pets, who pay the vet bills out of their pockets and who open their homes to neglected and abused animals. One of my former staffers, who was with me for a very long time, is over in Bali right now doing that very good work. She has rehomed, I would say, hundreds, and her particular style of animal are the working dogs and kelpies. She has been devoted. She has travelled interstate. She has looked after those animals and taken great care in the way she seeks to find a match. Kelpies, as we know, are very busy and devoted animals, but they also need that work. You need to be able to source and then match an animal with the right home. I know from Carolynne that certainly at times there is a trial, there is an assessment, and if it is not working out between the new home and the animal, then they are withdrawn and the search goes on.

Our volunteers do an amazing job, and there are many very successful operations and successful relationships. We want to support those organisations and the community foster carers as well. We are sure that these amendments strike the balance. As I said, we will not be opposing the bill, and I will have more to say during the committee stage.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:29): I also rise today to speak on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Rehoming Cats and Dogs and Other Matters) Bill 2025. The reforms in this bill represent a significant step forward for animal welfare in Victoria. Its essence is to embed the dedication of our rescue groups and shelters into the legislative framework, recognising the vital role that they play by giving them the support that they need to continue their very important work. Indeed, this is not the first day this week that we have discussed matters such as this, so it does appear quite timely that this bill is before the Council today.

The bill will repeal the current voluntary foster care registration scheme from the Domestic Animals Act 1994 and will, in its place, introduce a voluntary authorisation scheme for pet rehoming organisations. This will mean that for the first time these groups will be formally recognised under the Domestic Animals Act 1994. The bill today reflects years of consultation, and it also reflects the findings of the Taskforce on Rehoming Pets, which delivered its final report a few years ago after a wide engagement with the sector. Recommendations 17 and 11 of the taskforce report called for a regulatory framework to recognise and support rehoming organisations. Since that time the department has been conducting interviews, workshops and surveys, and it established a specific rehoming pets working group back in 2023, which has also informed the legislation that is before us today.

[NAME AWAITING VERIFICATION]

This government is committed to supporting the sector and its people, many of whom volunteer their time and dedication to take in, rehabilitate and find new homes for cats and dogs in Victoria. Touching off from my comments yesterday on a different matter, I also wish to reiterate my support and my heartfelt thanks for the work that they do, as someone who has donated to organisations many times in the past. Indeed my parents recently adopted a young cat – maybe not quite so young; I think he is about six years old – and they are very excited to have young Charlie with them now. He is doing very well. He had a bit of a rough life in his early years, but he has now settled in quite nicely, which has been really lovely to see and welcome him as part of the family as well.

This is a bill that recognises for the first time in Victoria the significant contribution that Victoria’s pet rehoming organisations make in finding permanent homes for cats and dogs. It will deliver on five recommendations of the taskforce by establishing a regulatory framework for PROs – pet rehoming organisations – in that aforementioned act, the Domestic Animals Act 1994. The framework will introduce a voluntary authorisation scheme for the PROs, and it will do so through amendments to the act, repealing the current provisions that established the voluntary foster carer registration scheme. That FCRS as it stands currently regulates the individual carer rather than the PROs, meaning that regulatory oversight is not focused on the organisations that oversee all aspects of the pet rehoming process. It has not been widely adopted in its current form, and we know that the PRO sector has advocated strongly for this particular change during consultation.

The pet rehoming authorisation scheme will centralise animal foster care activities under authorised and regulated rehoming organisations, including authorised pet rehoming organisations, animal shelters and pounds. Foster carers will continue to play a valuable role in the cat and dog rehoming and care process, but the proposed changes will alleviate regulatory and administrative burdens for voluntary foster carers and recognise the critical role of PROs. Those PROs authorised with the scheme will be able to access specific benefits to reduce their financial burdens and also to enhance and maximise their ability to rehome animals that are under their care. Organisations that choose to participate in the scheme will receive specific benefits to support the rehoming practices, similar to what pounds and shelters currently have and in line with taskforce recommendations – benefits such as a 12-month exemption to paying council registration fees for cats and dogs awaiting rehoming, which will make a huge difference in particular, as well as limited access to the declared dogs register to help ensure aggressive dogs are not rehomed, and the ability to hold adoption days in prescribed pet shops to support the housing of more animals and to support the organisation as well. These benefits will mean that authorised PROs will have similar opportunities as pounds and shelters to rehome cats and dogs, in line with the taskforce’s recommendations.

Those PROs who choose not to participate in the new scheme will continue to be able to rehome pets as they have always done, but they will not have access to those benefits that those who take part in the scheme will have. PROs authorised within the scheme will be required to meet certain requirements, including the reporting of animal fate data – again, a topic that we discussed extensively yesterday – harmonising requirements amongst all pet rehoming services, including shelters and pounds.

We know that a growing number of cats and dogs in Victoria need new homes. Indeed the statistics that we went into just yesterday illustrated that all too horrifically well, and it is vital that local and state governments have that better understanding of where these animals are and how they are being rehomed. The changes that this government has already brought in allow us to have more of that data that was used in yesterday’s motion, but also acknowledging the need for more data, such as is provided in this bill, will provide a greater sense of transparency. That is very much needed. To qualify for authorisation, organisations must be registered charities with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. This will ensure accountability and foster public trust in the system, highlighting that rehoming work is driven by a commitment to serving the community and not for profit.

The bill will also clarify powers of entry for authorised officers to enter premises, excluding any building or vehicle used as a residence, to determine compliance with the Domestic Animals Act. This is in response to one particular incident where a council authorised officer (AO) did not enter a backyard to seize a dog suspected of an attack as the officer believed they had to obtain a warrant. This resulted in the dog escaping the backyard in the time it took to get the warrant – which was a matter of hours – and reattacking. There is no expansion of any powers to seize, just a clarification that backyards are accessible without a warrant for the purpose of seizing a dangerous dog.

The bill will require the secretary to maintain a pet rehoming information register, which will record the granting, renewal and cancellation of authorisation for pet rehoming organisations. This information register will support notification requirements from pet rehoming organisations to state and local government. The information register will also support the reporting requirements of pet rehoming organisations, pounds and shelters to state government on the fate of animals in their care. This central repository for all reporting information requirements of the pet rehoming authorisation scheme will eliminate administrative complexity and the burden faced by authorised organisations, most of which are led and operated of course by incredible volunteers.

This bill will also, as I mentioned, enable those PROs to hold adoption days in pet shops that are prescribed as domestic animal businesses under the act, and this will provide similar rehoming opportunities to the PROs, as are currently available to pounds and shelters. Adoption days at pet shops will provide a wider exposure to animals available for adoption by authorised pet rehoming organisations and support the rehoming of more animals. PROs will be able to promote their activities on these adoption days and educate the community about the work that they do in rehoming pets. Consistent with the current offences that are set out in the act, penalties will apply to any authorised pet rehoming organisation that sells or gives away a dog or a cat at a pet shop under these ages. The notification and reporting requirements are proposed before an adoption day and to confirm any sales, for want of a better word, or rehomings, which aims to support compliance and monitoring by the state government and local councils. AOs will have the power to shut down adoption days if they reasonably believe that the welfare of animals is at risk.

Another feature of the bill will be a benefit aimed at reducing the financial and administrative costs for scheme participants. As I mentioned, this scheme will allow participants to access an exemption from registering foster cats and dogs with their local council for the first 12 months that an animal is held within foster care and in that time whilst a permanent home is being sought. Currently the requirement is for all dogs and cats to be registered with their local council if the animal is over three months of age, and we know that many animals come into voluntary care for very short periods, which means that council registration can be unnecessarily burdensome and cost prohibitive. This is a very commonsense measure aimed at supporting those incredible people who are doing so much to support cats and dogs in need.

That is one thing that is a particularly important part, but I also mentioned the declared dog register, and this bill will provide for authorised PROs to have limited access to inspect the declared dog register to review the declared or menacing status of a dog that has been surrendered to them. Providing this information not only helps with broader transparency but is also necessary, as it is intended that the PROs be prohibited from rehoming dogs that are declared on the register, consistent with the same requirements that are on pounds and shelters, which are prohibited from rehoming aggressive or extremely antisocial animals. To appropriately manage the privacy and information security, an authorised PRO will not have access to the entirety of information on the register or be able to amend information on the register themselves, such as the identifying information of a dog owner, as an example, and they will only have access to the declared dog register to determine the status of the dog. Organisations that choose not to participate in the pet rehoming organisation authorisation scheme will not be able to access these benefits either.

This is a bill that I know has come forward before us today after extensive consultation with the sector, following indeed the taskforce report and the working group’s activities over the past couple of years. Consultation has taken place with 54 pet rehoming organisations, 292 foster carers, 26 pounds and shelters, 54 local government areas and four animal welfare groups. The reforms will create a structure that works with the sector rather than imposing unnecessary obstacles, as the previous system has done in too many cases. It ensures that care is delivered to high standards, whilst providing flexibility and benefits that make rehoming more sustainable. It also sends a clear message that the government values and supports the work of shelters, foster networks and adoption groups.

I would just like to briefly note as well that we have received an amendment just now from Ms Bath. My understanding is that we have not been given much time to work through this amendment, and I understand that we will not be supporting this amendment, as it runs across and counter to some of the recommendations of the taskforce. I understand that the government will not be in a position to support this particular amendment.

Volunteers give up so much of themselves to take animals into their care, into their homes and into their lives – animals at their times of greatest need. They are far too often the unsung heroes of our society. Just as we touched on this matter yesterday, I really appreciate the opportunity today to acknowledge the work that they do day in, day out, sometimes under very trying conditions. It is my profound hope and genuine belief that under the provisions of this bill that work will be better supported by government and made easier so that we are not getting in their way but giving them the support and resources that they need as they do this incredible and valuable work for the community. I commend the bill to the house.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (10:43): I too rise to speak on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Rehoming Cats and Dogs and Other Matters) Bill 2025, and I hope that in doing so I can offer the perspective of someone in this place who has a long, close and continuing relationship with the hardworking pet rehoming sector. It is of course a sector that is diverse and is dedicated, and while there are often mixed and varied views within it – like with all volunteer organisations – it is one that is absolutely united in deep care for our beloved companion animals and ensures the best possible outcomes for all of them, particularly those that have been forgotten, put into the too-hard basket or abandoned.

I grew up in a family that, from a really young age, instilled in me the mantra of choosing adoption over shopping, and that is something I have done my entire life. Our dogs and cats were always rescued from pounds and shelters and rescue groups. But my formal relationship with our state’s pet rehoming sector did not actually commence when I took on my role in this place, it was when I was president of the animal welfare organisation Oscar’s Law, long before entering Parliament, when I worked with the government on the legislation to stamp out puppy farms across the state. Through my work fighting the cruel puppy farming industry, with its many, many survivors that came to us as an organisation, I came to know the many different specialised rescue groups and organisations across Victoria, who were always more than willing to help with rehabilitation and care work, sometimes in the most complex and difficult of cases.

It is because of their work that I actually now share my home with three rescue dogs: Aggy, a 15-year-old cavalier; Stella; and Steve. All of them are puppy farm survivors. They came to me not through large organisations or pounds and shelters but through micro-rescue groups, which this bill is about today. My relationships with them have only been strengthened over my time as an Animal Justice Party MP and with my work for the Animal Justice Party.

Of course in the last term of Parliament, when I was working for our first member of Parliament, Andy Meddick, the Taskforce on Rehoming Pets was formed out of one of our motions. It was very, very similar to the one that we passed in here yesterday, calling for pound and shelter reform and to improve livability and rehoming outcomes for pets across the state. That taskforce, which was chaired by the Animal Justice Party, undertook consultation and pursued opportunities to improve those survival outcomes for our companion animals, as well as researching ways to support the groups within the pet rehoming sector. It delivered its final report in 2021 with 17 recommendations, all of which the government supported or supported in principle in its response.

This bill before us today directly acquits, I believe, four of those recommendations. It is probably important for me to say it would have been my preference if some of the other recommendations, which more directly focus on relieving the pressures on rescues, were prioritised, but this is the bill before us today. It is really important that we get it right and that we continue to support the rehoming organisations that it impacts, because our pets are companions, they are sources of comfort and they are often the threads of fabric within our family life. Many Victorians will tell you that they are in fact richer – emotionally, socially and morally – for sharing their lives with a dog or with a cat. But the systems that govern their welfare, rehoming and protection have struggled to keep pace with community expectations and with the very real-world challenges faced by rescue groups and by foster carers.

This bill today seeks to strengthen and support the rehoming sector so that more animals find safe, loving homes and fewer endure uncertainty, neglect or worse. I think it is really important for us to acknowledge that this bill is not about punishing the pet rehoming sector or making it harder for them to operate, but I do acknowledge that change is hard. In saying this, I have a lot of sympathy for their mistrust and for their cautiousness when it comes to dealing with the government. I understand why they may feel that frustration, particularly when we are making these laws at a time when we have been begging for other issues within the companion animal space to be addressed and they have not been addressed, such as rampant indiscriminate breeding, which absolutely increases the pressure on our rescue groups, or the recent introduction of the commercial dog breeding logo, which essentially gives a government tick of approval to some of our state’s worst breeders. In fact the breeders – or the puppy farmers – of Aggy, Stella and Steve, who I just spoke about, actually hold the commercial dog breeder logo. That is a really significant flaw within those puppy farm laws that I spoke about earlier.

I understand that there are genuine, legitimate criticisms from the rescue community that this bill also comes at a time of crisis within our sheltering systems, which this bill does not impact. We canvassed that issue pretty significantly yesterday, and it is a fair argument to say that those pounds and shelters are in far more desperate need of reform and of change. We have seen absolute horror stories over the past month from organisations like the Lost Dogs’ Home, and they are not the organisations that are being impacted by this legislation that we are talking about today.

However, it is also my view that regulating and professionalising the sector will, in the long run, make it stronger, and that is because our rescue groups are skilled, capable and more than qualified. They know dogs and cats better than most of us, they know dogs and cats better than a lot of large shelters and pounds and they certainly know our cats and dogs better than many government agencies. This allows them to be taken seriously, and importantly, it instils further trust and pushes back against the excuses that we hear, often from organisations like the Lost Dogs’ Home and other large pounds and shelters, that they cannot hand over animals to rescue groups because they do not operate under a model of regulation. That is something that they have consistently said when refusing to hand over animals that are on the kill list and opting to kill them instead of handing them to rescue. They claim they cannot guarantee their welfare, that there is no code, there is no regulation and there are no laws in place that can guarantee their safety. They say that somehow animals will be better off dead than in the hands of an experienced rescue group or foster carer. Too many times we have heard this justification for killing. Large pounds and shelters claim that because they are bound by a code of practice but rescue groups are not, they cannot be trusted with animals with so-called behavioural issues. I believe that creating a model of regulation will prove what we have always known: that those organisations are wrong, and there will be even less excuses for them to use to continue to discredit our hardworking rehoming organisations.

This bill proposes replacing the current foster care registration scheme under part 5B of the Domestic Animals Act 1994, which has had low uptake. In fact there are only around 50 carers using the scheme across the state. This is not necessarily because that scheme is bad. It is actually because the majority of councils do not offer it, and it has been ineffective in providing support and benefits to the pet rehoming sector. However, I have done a lot of consultation and had conversations in relation to this bill. Noting feedback from the community and the rescue groups who are utilising the FCRS in some of the LGAs who are utilising it, I will be moving an amendment extending the repeal timeframe of the FCRS for one more year until 2028 so the two schemes can run concurrently for some time, giving plenty of time to adjust and move over to the new system. This would allow more time for the limited number of carers in the existing scheme to move over to this new model.

The new model proposed in its place, which this bill does create, is a voluntary authorisation scheme for pet rehoming organisations under which groups may apply to become authorised. I really, really, really want to emphasise that this authorisation scheme is voluntary. While organisations that do choose to become authorised under this scheme will be eligible for benefits and incentives, such as reduced registration burdens, it is not and will not be a requirement for pet organisations to do so. Existing pet rehoming organisations that do not become authorised under the new scheme will be able to continue their operations as they currently are right now without implication or penalty. Authorised pet rehoming organisations, while qualifying for benefits, will also have defined obligations, for instance reporting standards of care and disclosure of data. The aim of this is to achieve better information traceability and transparency about animals being rehomed across our state. Reporting the outcomes of animals that go into care is not about placing an undue burden onto pet rehoming organisations but achieving a more fulsome picture of the rescue workforce across our state. However, I do understand it could result in an increased administrative workload for some organisations, particularly those that are small and volunteer run. I will have a number of questions in the committee stage of the bill about how the government intends on supporting organisations with this transition and ensuring that nobody is penalised for things like small mistakes or genuine errors under this new system.

It is my hope that the information collected through this process will be used by the government and by the department as a powerful tool to help shape better support for groups, for foster carers and for volunteers in their incredible efforts, while also considering the policy solutions that reduce the burden on their ever-growing workload, which has been in a bit of a crisis state over the past few years. Some of the benefits that will be accessible for authorised pet rehoming organisations under the scheme will be reduced council fees and the ability to hold adoption days without a permit.

This is an important acknowledgement of the important work of rescue groups and rehoming organisations, but I would also encourage the government to consider the ways in which they can support rescue groups that are just unable to become authorised under this scheme.

I am also aware that grant funding is not something that is written into legislation but rather is set by the government of the day and is not guaranteed. We have to consistently fight for the continuation of animal welfare funding and grants from the state government. I will also be seeking assurances in the committee stage of the bill that it is not the government’s intention with this legislation to only offer funding options in the future to authorised organisations after the scheme is in place. We do not want to create a scenario where those who cannot meet the requirements and criteria miss out completely or are worse off. That would be a really, really bad outcome.

It is important for us to acknowledge that not becoming authorised does not mean that an organisation has poor operations or a lesser standard of care. For rescue groups with a lower intake who might specialise in a particular breed or a certain animal or has less volunteers or fewer foster carers, the expectations placed on them under this legislation just might not be worth the benefits and the effort in becoming authorised. Their work can and should still be supported, not just by the public but by the government too. While this bill takes good first steps, it is also important to acknowledge that rescues come in all shapes and sizes. We should be doing all we can to support those in the sector, not just those with the funding, resources and ability to comply with the regulations under this scheme.

Finally, as I mentioned at the outset, the government must also prioritise the remaining and arguably more important recommendations from the Taskforce on Rehoming Pets. It cannot just start and end here. There are some really important things that were suggested to the government through this important piece of work, which I was very closely involved in, that would actually reduce the burden on rescue groups and their workload in the first place. These recommendations more directly address those needs, particularly the small rescue sector, such as funding, resourcing, volunteer burden and overwhelming intake of animals.

As mentioned, I have a number of amendments to this bill, and I ask that they be circulated now. The first amendment reinforces that the authorisation scheme that this bill creates is absolutely voluntary. We decided to do this amendment based on some concerns from the rescue sector that the original legislation did not make that clear. This is an important clarifying amendment to give assurances to rescue groups that the choice to join this scheme is their own and they will not be penalised if they choose not to.

The second amendment extends the repeal time from the foster carer registration scheme, or FCRS, to 10 April 2028 while keeping the existing commencement date for the new authorised pet rehoming organisation scheme. While there has been low uptake of the FCRS due to limited council participation, there are a small number of rescue groups and foster carers using it, and this will allow them one more year to move away from the FCRS and onto the new scheme, should they choose to join it. I am aware that the opposition has also circulated an amendment in relation to the FCRS, which we can discuss more in the committee stage of the bill. I do just want to flag that this option is one that we also explored, of continuing the two schemes running concurrently, and we did see that that was going to be somewhat problematic and potentially defeat the purpose of this entire bill.

The third amendment fixes the references to ‘domestic animal business’ in sections of the bill to ‘rearing domestic animal business or pet shop’, ensuring that rearing domestic animal businesses are captured in these clauses. This is essentially what we deem to be a bit of a drafting error that we noticed and hope to fix to ensure that this bill is only applied to those who it was deemed to apply to.

As I stated from the beginning, this is an important piece of legislation that I know the rescue community has been very, very engaged in and very, very communicative about. It has a lot of support from sections of the pet rehoming sector, and then of course I completely understand there are other parts of the pet rehoming sector who are less convinced that this is necessary.

It is my hope, through this contribution and through the amendments today that will hopefully pass, that we can strike the right balance of addressing the needs of those concerned while creating a system that will better support the state’s rehoming workforce, while also ensuring those who cannot join this new scheme will not be impacted; can continue their operations; can continue to receive government support and, importantly, do the work that they care about, and that is rehoming pets, ensuring they get the best chance at life; and can continue their important work across the entire state. I will have a little bit more to say in the committee stage of the bill, and I look forward to exploring it with colleagues then.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (11:01): I am glad to stand and support the Domestic Animals Amendment (Rehoming Cats and Dogs and Other Matters) Bill 2025. I am sorry I was not at my microphone; I was actually having a conversation about the importance of the bill in the corridor there. I would like to be able to start this contribution by recognising some of our pet rehoming organisations in Victoria, to list them and to recognise them. But one of the key reasons why we are here is because that is currently not able to occur, because we do not have those systems and those processes in place.

We had the work of the taskforce over time, a number of years ago, which came out with its recommendations, and we have this legislation here before us today – out of those recommendations comes this legislation. The bill will deliver five recommendations from the taskforce by establishing a regulatory framework for pet rehoming organisations, and that will be in the Domestic Animals Act 1994. The framework will introduce a voluntary authorisation scheme for our pet rehoming organisations in Victoria through amendments to the Domestic Animals Act and repeal current provisions that established the voluntary foster carer registration scheme. The voluntary foster carer registration scheme regulates the individual carer rather than the pet rehoming organisations, meaning regulatory oversight is not focused on the organisations that oversee all aspects of the pet rehoming process. The foster carer registration scheme – a bit of a mouthful – has not been widely adopted, and this change was strongly advocated for by the pet rehoming organisation sector during consultation.

Pet rehoming organisations that choose to participate in the scheme will receive specific benefits to support them and their rehoming activities, and these benefits will mean that pet rehoming organisations will have similar opportunities as pounds and shelters to rehome cats and dogs, in line with the taskforce recommendations. Pet rehoming organisations who choose not to participate in the scheme will continue to be able to rehome pets as they have always done but will not have access to its benefits.

The bill has been formed by extensive consultation with the pet rehoming sector and organisations involved in rehoming pets in Victoria. New regulations will be developed to set out more detailed requirements for the framework. Changes to the act will not come into force for 14 months to allow for the development of the supporting regulations, and input from the pet rehoming sector and the Victorian community will be sought in relation to the development of these regulations.

The bill also clarifies powers of entry for authorised officers to enter premises – that will exclude any building or vehicle used as a residence – in order to determine compliance with the Domestic Animals Act. This is in response to an isolated incident where a council authorised officer did not enter a backyard to seize a dog suspected of an attack, as the officer believed they had to obtain a warrant. This resulted in the dog escaping the backyard in the time it took to get the warrant – a matter of hours – and reattacking. There is no expansion of powers to seize, just a clarification that backyards are accessible without a warrant for the purpose of seizing a dangerous dog.

I think it is also worth acknowledging why we end up in the situation where animals or pets need to be rehomed. In an ideal world we would not need to rehome any pets – they would already be in a home where they are cared for and loved and in turn deliver their family and carers all the love that we know pets give. It is probably a good occasion just to touch on the fact that taking on a pet is a serious commitment. I think there was great work done, particularly by Jaala Pulford and others in the last term or the term before that, to ensure that we get the conversation going about how it is not just popping out on a whim or having a Christmas present idea for a pet. But there are other unforeseen reasons why people with the best intentions are not able to care for their pet and have to put it up for adoption. That can be something like people moving overseas or ill health, and of course death can see a pet without anyone to care for it. Domestic violence can be another situation that leads to that. There are various family circumstances, household circumstances or individual circumstances that can lead to someone who had the best intentions to care for their animal – I should have probably included financial in there, because taking on a pet is, apart from a significant time commitment, also at times a very significant financial commitment. We know that any of us can find ourselves in unexpected financial difficulties in our lives, and we do not want pets to suffer unintended consequences. Therefore the ability to have the pet rehomed in any of those situations I have outlined, when people’s life circumstances change, is really important.

Personally I have known two close family members who have gone out and adopted greyhounds, and they have loved them and the whole extended family has loved them. It has brought about a great deal of joy for everyone around birthdays and various events and of course taking them out for the walk to the park and getting to meet other dog owners and hearing their stories about whether they have purchased their pets or from those that have rehomed pets. On the individual basis or the family basis or the broader community basis, not only do pets bring people together, but the story of adoption or care for that matter is a beautiful thing. I have not done that myself. I was a respite foster carer for some time, a bit of a different world. But opening up your home, whether it is to people or animals, to share your space and take the time to care for others, is a really nice thing, and it is a conversation starter with other people and a way to check in on other people around you and just make a more connected community and society, really.

All of this sits alongside other programs that are run, whether it is microchipping, funding of shelters or vaccination programs, things that we have collectively put in place over time to ensure that our pets are healthy, we understand ownership and there is prevention of disease.

At every step we can look to improve health, much as we do with our human population, and ensure vaccination programs are in place so that we are avoiding unnecessary illness, avoiding unnecessary injury and avoiding unnecessary death; all these programs are very, very important.

For me, growing up on a farm, I had a strong connection with a whole lot of animals. We had a motion in here yesterday, and I talked about my pet sheep – I only named a couple of them – Nibs and Lamby. I did not get on to Donatello and Raphael. I think the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles might have been a bit of a craze at the time, so a few names like that came out. Of course we had dogs, cats, chooks and all manner of things running around. It cannot be underestimated the connection that makes – I do not want to say only for kids, but it is particularly for kids – with that love of animals, that inquisitive nature and that understanding, care and empathy. I think that goes also for, as I mentioned yesterday, our wildlife. I think when we have a respect and a care for animals, whether they be pets or wildlife, and a cause for concern for the local environment those animals live in – and hopefully that extends then to a care for the local environment that we all live in – we all benefit from that and those lessons that are learned.

It can be at any time of life that someone has a pet and finds incredible love, connection and meaning in their life. I think particularly as people age they can at times find themselves more isolated, and having a pet as a companion is just such an incredibly rich, rich thing. For a pet to have come from a situation where it did not have a home and to be given the opportunity for a new home, with that pet being properly chipped, properly vaccinated and properly registered, is an opportunity for a meaningful, love-filled life. We know that, again, like humans, animals that have had a difficult journey at the start of their lives can take some time to settle and to adjust to a new lifestyle and to become and feel safe and know that there is adequate food, adequate shelter and no perceived or actual harm. That is a beautiful story to hear. Well, it is horrific to hear stories of neglect and mistreatment in the first place, but to hear those stories of pets settling into homes with their new carers is fantastic. It parallels and opens human existence.

The rehoming organisations that are that connection point are so important to not only the animals but the future owners and carers. As I said at the start of this, I do not have a list of them by name, but on recent committees I have been on we have heard from a number of them and recently – it is not exactly the same – been out at wildlife rescue shelters meeting the people who are doing work on the ground out in our regional communities.

It comes back to human care and human empathy and people wanting to do the best thing by others, which is something that is beautiful and should be acknowledged and should be celebrated. As this bill talks about, there are benefits to support those people doing that good work, and we have nothing but thanks and admiration for the that work is done.

I think there are a lot of areas where the government is and has invested in seeing better outcomes for animals – pets and wildlife – but I have run out of time, so I will not go into that. I will just close by saying to everyone who does this work in and for our community and for animals a very a very big thankyou, and I give my recognition. I hope this legislation leads to better awareness and better recognition, and I will leave my contribution there.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (11:16): I rise to speak on behalf of the Victorian Greens to the Domestic Animals Amendment (Rehoming Cats and Dogs and Other Matters) Bill 2025. The Greens will be supporting this bill. Before I go into the details of what the bill does today, I do want to pause and recognise and thank the thousands of volunteers, foster carers and rescue groups and organisations across Victoria. We all know these are people who provide a home to dogs and cats in need, and they put in countless hours feeding, training, cleaning, driving to vet appointments and comforting animals that have often been through trauma. Often they do this without any pay or much recognition. But their work is essential, and without them, many, many more animals would be left without a comforting home and a second chance. On a personal note, all my life the animals that I have lived with and loved have been rescues.

Turning to what we are here today to do in the chamber, this bill seeks to achieve a number of things. It introduces a new authorisation scheme for pet rehoming organisations. Under the current law, Victoria has a foster care registration scheme that allows individual foster carers to register through councils. However, as we have heard through the debate today, the uptake of that scheme has been low, and many rehoming organisations have said that this current design is not working well. This bill proposes to repeal the current foster care registration scheme and introduce a replacement voluntary authorisation scheme for organisations that rehome cats and dogs. Shelters and foster and rescue groups will be able to apply to be authorised under the law, and once authorised those groups and organisations can gain access to certain benefits like reduced burdens from council registration requirements, the ability to run adoption days in pet shops or other venues and support with reporting. Those benefits come with obligations: the need to meet standards, to collect data, to report on outcomes for animals and to meet transparency requirements that will improve our understanding overall of how our fostering system is working in Victoria.

We also note Ms Purcell’s sets of amendments. One of those amendments will extend the existing foster care registration system for 12 months to provide an additional period of transition time for organisations that are on the current scheme and who choose to take up the new one – there will be that extra 12-months time. The Greens think that is a sensible improvement, and we will support that amendment.

The bill also creates reduced registration fees for certain classes of dogs. The bill ensures that regulations that can prescribe certain classes of dogs, such as microchipped dogs or other defined categories, can reduce registration fees. This is a cost-relief measure, and it also aligns with incentives for responsible pet ownership, such as microchipping.

The bill provides better data reporting and oversight, and one of the key gaps that we have heard around this sector is that there is not at the moment a functional and consistent set of statewide information. Our ability to have information around animal outcomes has been increasing and improving in Victoria over the years, and the bill continues that trend.

Currently it is difficult to understand how many animals are in foster or shelter care, how long they stay there, how many are successfully rehomed, or their fate data – that is, whether they are returned, adopted, euthanised or so on. The bill requires that if organisations choose to become authorised organisations, they will submit that information. It allows councils therefore also to be informed about which animals are in foster care in their area, and this will hopefully improve local oversight as well as improving our statewide understanding and alignment in terms of data collection and publication.

In relation to entry powers for authorised officers, in limited circumstances this bill provides some clarification for the powers that authorised officers have and clarifies that the entry to backyards, where there is a safety concern, is allowed and provides clearer legal footing for officers, reducing ambiguities that have previously constrained local responses and action when we have seen dog attacks or dangerous animals. Some councils were unclear whether there was lawful authority to act in certain cases. If there is a concern about dangerous animals – for example, dogs that have threatened or bitten people – it is clarified that officers have powers to act in backyards without needing a warrant, though they cannot actually enter a person’s home without proper legal authority, I note. The bill does build in procedural safeguards around this. Notice needs to be provided and there needs to be an opportunity to respond. There is also a requirement to provide reasoned decisions, as well as that exclusion of home interiors. Lastly, the bill harmonises rules across municipalities and organisations so that there are consistent expectations, and hopefully this will reduce fragmentation and mean that our rules are less ad hoc across Victoria.

The Greens believe that this bill will improve outcomes for animals, and we congratulate the government on progressing these recommendations from the taskforce. With better data, the sector and all of us will know where animals are more quickly. We will know how quickly they can be rehomed, and we will discover where bottlenecks exist. This will, we hope, help government, councils and the community to target support where it is needed. Volunteer rescue groups, foster carers and shelters do enormous and amazing work, and they often do so with minimal resources. This bill formally acknowledges their role in Victorian law, and it also tries to ease some of that burden by offering some exemptions from registration or administrative requirements, which will hopefully ease that burden.

I acknowledge and reinforce that this new authorisation system is voluntary, and what I would ask the minister and the department to ensure is that training and support that is put in place in the implementation of this scheme is sufficient so that smaller groups and grassroot foster networks and so on are not unfairly burdened, and can easily and quickly gain information around the scheme and support to become authorised should they choose to.

I also note that rehoming organisations, shelters, councils and the department need time to prepare. In the principal bill, the commencement date is April 2027, which gives about 18 months lead time to allow for transition, to allow regulation development, application processes, capacity building and sector adjustment. As noted, Ms Purcell’s amendment will have the effect, if successful, of providing that buffer period where it will be 12 months later that the existing scheme ceases.

Much of how the scheme works – the thresholds and reporting obligations, penalty structures, registration fee classes and exemptions – will be fleshed out in regulations. I will just note that the success of this bill in action will depend heavily on ongoing, good consultative drafting of those regulations. Again, I urge the minister and department to continue to ensure sufficient time and resources are allocated to those mechanisms and consultation, noting that there has been a long period of consultation in the development of the bill that is with us today.

Just turning to the amendments that have been circulated. We understand that Ms Purcell’s amendments have the effect of reinforcing or clarifying that the authorisation skill created by this bill is indeed voluntary. They have the effect of extending the repeal timeframe for the foster care registration scheme to 10 April 2028, while keeping the existing commencement date for the new scheme that is being brought in by this bill, and also a clarifying amendment substituting references to domestic animal business in clauses 68KD(2) and 68KF(1)(c) to breeding domestic animal business or pet shop and ensuring that rearing domestic animal businesses are captured in these clauses.

The Greens welcome these improvements to the bill, and we will be supporting Ms Purcell’s amendments today. To the amendment that has been circulated this morning by the Liberals–Nationals, we have only had a short time to consider this amendment. However, we have concerns that it creates duplication and is sort of inconsistent with the purpose of the bill, which is providing this replacement framework for a scheme that has had low uptake. We will therefore not be supporting the Liberals–Nationals amendment.

In closing, I just want to thank the government again for the progress that has been made on this. The recommendations that are acquitted by this bill are four, I understand it, from the recommendations of the Taskforce on Rehoming Pets. However, there remain a lot of good recommendations and direction provided by that taskforce that are still to be implemented, so I urge the government to continue work to implement the remaining recommendations from the Taskforce on Rehoming Pets. We welcome this bill and will be supporting it, and I will leave my comments there.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (11:26): Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise and speak in support of the Domestic Animals Amendment (Rehoming Cats and Dogs and Other Matters) Bill 2025. The relationship Victorians have with their animals says a great deal about who we are as a community. Our pets are not just companions but part of our families, part of our homes and our daily lives. They bring joy, structure and at times a great deal of chaos, but also unconditional love. Caring for animals is one of the most human things we can do. It is an act of empathy that connects us all. Yesterday I spoke on the horrific tragedy that affected Murphy, a case that reminds us all of why animal welfare matters so deeply. It is a tragedy that reminds us of why there needs to be transparency and consistency across every part of the system that handles animals. Yesterday Murphy’s carers were brave enough to come into this place and witness the changes that are being made to better protect against cases like Murphy’s ever happening again. I thank Ms Purcell for her continued advocacy on these issues and many activists that work tirelessly to achieve better outcomes and conditions for animals.

When reflecting on the contributions made in this place and in the other place, it is clear that every member has their own story to tell, whether it is about a much-loved family pet, a local rescue organisation or the volunteers who make this place possible. That is because animal welfare touches every corner of our community. It is something that unites us, regardless of where we live or what we do. That sense of care and responsibility does not end at the front door. It extends beyond our home. It extends to the way we as a state support those who work on the front lines of animal welfare. Across this state thousands of Victorians dedicate their time and energy to giving cats and dogs a second chance. They volunteer at shelters and they foster animals in need to make sure that every animal has the opportunity for a safe and a loving home. Their work is quiet but it is so important, and it deserves a framework that supports it, one that makes their work easier, more consistent and properly recognises their contributions right across the state.

I want to take a moment to also acknowledge and honour the incredible animal welfare organisations, volunteers and community groups that make such a difference every day. One that immediately springs to mind is the RSPCA and the immense work they do in providing care, advocacy and education to protect our animals across the state. I, however, want to take a moment to acknowledge that, in Melbourne’s north, groups like the Lort Smith Animal Hospital in North Melbourne, Second Chance Animal Rescue in Craigieburn and Wat Djerring Animal Facility in Epping – and there are also countless other smaller rescue and foster networks – do remarkable work caring for animals in need. These organisations not just provide shelter and veterinary care but give frightened and abandoned animals the chance to heal and to find a home. Their staff and volunteers show extraordinary care, often going above and beyond to make sure every cat and dog that comes through their doors is treated with love and with dignity.

Their work is driven by compassion, and this government is proud to stand alongside them. It is this compassion that underpins the bill before us, a framework to better support animal welfare and responsible rehoming.

This year’s state budget provided $16.7 million over two years towards safeguarding the future of Victoria’s agricultural sector and supporting animal welfare. This includes significant funding for RSPCA Victoria, which is in addition to the existing $2.3 million the organisation receives every year from the government. The Animal Welfare Fund’s grants program continues to provide vital support to Victoria’s pet rehoming organisations, with $5 million committed over four years through the 2023–24 state budget, and in 2025, 33 organisations shared in $1.6 million in funding through round 12 of the program, including nearly $1.14 million directly to benefit and support not-for-profit shelters, community rescue groups and rehoming organisations. This investment helps those on the front line continue their important work.

From banning cruel puppy farms to introducing Victoria’s first Animal Welfare Action Plan and making Victoria the first state to introduce mandatory reporting of animal fate data for dogs and cats in shelters and pounds, we know the importance of animal welfare. Our government has a record of delivering strong and practical animal welfare reforms, and this bill continues that. In 2021 the Minister for Agriculture established the Taskforce on Rehoming Pets to examine how we could better support the rehoming of cats and dogs across Victoria. The taskforce brought together representatives from animal welfare organisations, veterinarians, councils and community foster networks, all with a shared goal of improving outcomes for animals in need. Later that year the taskforce delivered its final report to government, setting out a series of practical recommendations to strengthen pet welfare and improve pathways for rehoming. It looked closely at how we could increase transparency in the movement of animals between shelters, pounds and rescue groups, how we could ensure that rehoming processes are safe and consistent and how we could continue to support rescue organisations to operate under a stronger and more professional framework. Importantly, the taskforce also explored ways to expand rehoming opportunities for animals previously used in research and teaching, recognising that every animal deserves a chance to live out its life in a safe and caring environment. The bill before us today delivers on five of those key recommendations. It is the next step in turning the taskforce findings into practical, compassionate reform that strengthens animal welfare across Victoria.

One of the central reforms in this bill is the introduction of a new voluntary authorisation scheme for pet rehoming organisations, or PROs. This bill amends the Domestic Animals Act 1994 and repeals current provisions that established the voluntary foster carer registration scheme. You see, the previous model focused on individual carers rather than the organisations that manage the full rehoming process. It saw very limited uptake, and through consultation the sector made it clear that reform was needed. The bill shifts the focus to pet rehoming organisations and the groups that take in, care for and rehome animals. This is change that is strongly supported by the sector, and under the new framework, organisations that choose to become authorised will gain access to a range of practical benefits. These include an exemption from council registration fees for foster cats and dogs during their first 12 months in care, helping to ease costs for volunteers and foster networks. They also will have the opportunity to hold adoption days at registered pounds, shelters and pet shops and those wonderful community events where animals get to meet their new families without having to go through some really unnecessary permit processes. You see, each authorised organisation will receive a three-year, no-cost source number through the pet exchange register, reducing unnecessary burdens and ensuring traceability remains strong across the system.

Finally, authorised groups will have limited access to the Victorian declared dog register, allowing them to check whether a dog surrendered by a member of the community has been declared dangerous or menacing. That means better safety, transparency and confidence for everyone involved in the rehoming process.

A new pet rehoming information register will also be established and maintained by the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. This register will record each authorisation granted, renewed or revoked and ensure that participating organisations meet clear standards, including requirements around pre-adoption practices such as desexing, vaccination and animal fate reporting. These measures will promote greater consistency across the sector and provide a clearer picture of how animals are being cared for and rehomed across the state.

Importantly, I just want to say participation remains voluntary. The new scheme presents an additional pathway for pet rehoming organisations to become authorised and to receive those benefits that I mentioned, which will support their organisations’ activities. Pet rehoming organisations that do not participate in the scheme may continue to rehome animals as normal but will not receive the same benefits as those participating in the scheme.

The bill also introduces some important technical amendments to strengthen and support compliance, clarifying the powers of authorised officers under the Domestic Animals Act 1994. These are the local government and animal management officers who work every day to keep our community safe. These are the people who step in when a dog is declared dangerous or when a welfare concern is raised – and can I take a moment to acknowledge those workers and thank them for what they do. I do recall meeting some of them a couple of years ago, and know that that is a role that fills them, often, with great joy, and it is such a wonder to see that role continue to be supported with the bill before us.

This bill makes clear that authorised officers may enter a residential backyard without a warrant when necessary to seize or contain a dangerous or menacing dog, and at the same time it confirms that officers cannot enter a building or vehicle used as a residence without a warrant. These compliance updates are practical and they are necessary. They give authorised officers the clarity they need to keep our community safe, while respecting the privacy and rights of residents. It is about getting the balance right. These amendments respond directly to concerns raised by councils and animal management officers during consultation, ensuring that they have the clarity and authority needed to act swiftly when animal welfare or public safety is at risk.

This bill recognises the extraordinary work of those who dedicate themselves to the care and rehoming of animals across Victoria every day. Shelters, rescue groups and foster networks open their doors to animals in need of safety and love. It takes incredible empathy, energy and compassion to care for animals who have known fear or neglect, and to help them find their way to a new beginning. It is their work that turns uncertainty into hope for these animals, and this bill will support high standards of care while offering flexibility and practical benefits that make rehoming more sustainable into the future. It also sends a clear message that the work of these organisations matters and that the people who dedicate their time, energy and expertise to helping animals are supported. I would like to say to those people and organisations who give their time to care for animals in need: thank you. This bill is for you and for every life made better from your work. I commend this bill to the house.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:39): I also would like to rise to speak on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Rehoming Cats and Dogs and Other Matters) Bill 2025. Yet again, we get another bill with these mysterious ‘authorised officers’ gaining new entry powers. And unfortunately, this bill clarifies these entry powers, but it does not clarify them in a way that I would like.

What it should do is it should clarify that they need a warrant before going into someone’s backyard, but no, it does not do that. It clarifies that they are allowed to go in without a warrant, so it will make it easy for the government in the future. Whenever you give these powers of entry without warrants, the Libertarians will oppose them.

Secondly, I would like to acknowledge the large number of people that have contacted my office with concerns about this bill. One of the primary concerns that they have been having is around the handover of animals from pounds to rehoming and shelter organisations for animals that are not desexed, chipped or vaccinated. They have expressed concerns that this requirement would be problematic, because the pounds would not have the resources to desex and vaccinate them before handing them over. My understanding is that it is quite common for these rehoming organisations to do that work themselves, but it is also my understanding that this is an existing problem. Although I do acknowledge that, and I am opposing the bill, as they asked me to, I am probably opposing it for different reasons than what they had concerns about. Nevertheless I would like to acknowledge the large number of people with those concerns, and maybe we can clarify some of them during the committee stage of the bill. That is all I have to say on this one.

 John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:41): I rise today to speak on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Rehoming Cats and Dogs and Other Matters Bill) 2025. This bill is about the government using its levers and powers to work with pet rehoming organisations for better animal welfare outcomes. Currently the Domestic Animals Act 1994 is the primary piece of legislation where the standards for responsible ownership of dogs and cats are set out. It is under this act that the existing Domestic Animals Regulations 2015 exist, and these regulations are set to expire at the end of the year. Our pet rehoming organisations here in the state of Victoria do very important work, and with this bill the government is recognising their work and recognising the fact that those rehoming organisations that are doing the right thing deserve to be rewarded. We all know that these organisations – those who are doing the right thing, at least – do incredible work, so it is altogether fit and proper that we should do this.

The bill has been a long time in the making. It is a piece of legislation that was conceived as a result of consultations with the sector over four years, and it is dedicated to the proposition that animals in the care of humans deserve to be treated humanely. The primary policy purpose of this bill is to implement a regulatory framework for this sector, including a voluntary authorisation scheme. This scheme, while voluntary, will provide incentives to encourage organisations to participate in it. It is important that we work with these organisations, not against them. Many of these places are primarily run on the sweat of volunteers, who give up their own time to do the work because they believe it is important. When we deal with this sector, it is important to keep that in mind, because one thing you certainly would not want to do is to make it harder for people who are volunteering their time for an important cause. This means that while this bill will give those organisations who do register with the authorisation scheme new responsibilities, we will also be helping them and offering them assistance in meeting those responsibilities.

In order to access the benefits of the new scheme, participating organisations will have to meet certain requirements. These can include the reporting of animal welfare outcomes and potentially other matters such as animal fate data and important pre-adoptive activities, which can include desexing and vaccinations. The aim of these requirements is to protect animal welfare and ensure that rehoming organisations are holding themselves to high standards. In return for this the scheme will be offering incentives and assistance, aiming to reduce financial and administrative burden on those organisations. An example of this would be removing the requirement to register an animal in their care with the council if it is only in their care for less than 12 months. This is the sort of thing that would allow a rehoming organisation to reduce its administrative costs as well as financial costs without sacrificing on the quality of service they are providing. We all know too well that some of these animals who pass through these facilities stay for a very long time. Others pass through quickly. For those who enter it and exit quickly, it makes no sense to expect these mostly volunteer-run organisations to have to go through the bureaucratic process of registering them again and again.

Included in this bill is the repeal of the existing voluntary foster care registration scheme. The reason why we are proposing this repeal is because the scheme has had a very low uptake, so we have seen it not being as effective as it could have been. While this individual scheme has not had the levels of adoption that we might have hoped, this does not detract from the important work that the animal foster carers do every day. Looking back at the scheme, it is fairly obvious that it was not altogether a bad idea. It had the right intentions and the right concept behind it, and it was clearly implemented as part of the commitment to the fair and humane treatment of animals and support for those who take care of vulnerable animals. But the scheme cannot have the positive effect that it was designed to have if it has not had the uptake that we hoped for. As we know, the thing with voluntary schemes is that you cannot force people to join them. If we do not see uptake of a scheme, the responsibility is on us as the Parliament and us as the government to redesign it in a way that those who are involved in pet rehoming, those who know the system’s needs better than anybody else, will choose to sign up to it.

Foster carers have crucial roles to play in pet rehoming, because pet rehoming is a sector that, sadly, is growing and the more people we have who can help take pressure off our pounds and shelters, the better. The benefits of putting an animal in foster care far outweigh the benefits of leaving them in a shelter. Many of the foster carers themselves love what they do and love taking care of animals. I have never been able to really get inside the head of a dog, so to speak, so I cannot speak to this from a place of authority, but I can imagine that many animals might prefer being able to live in somebody’s home as a member of the family to being stuck in a shelter for months, if not years, on end. That is why we are transferring responsibility for regulating the foster care section of the animal rehoming sector under the new voluntary authorisation scheme. Under this piece of legislation, foster carers will be able to be a natural extension of the animal rehoming sector and will be able to continue in their important work with a reduced administrative burden. The reduced administrative burden is important because those people who are already doing an extremely generous act should not be punished with paperwork. Making processes simpler and smoother will not just benefit the foster carers, it will benefit the system as a whole because it will make the role more appealing, more enjoyable and less of a drain.

The bill will also create a pet rehoming information register to be managed by the department. This will also assist pet rehoming organisations to manage their notification and reporting responsibilities to both the state and local levels of government by serving as a central location for all the reporting requirements under the new scheme. This measure will make keeping track of the system far simpler, putting all the information in one place instead of allowing it to be dispersed across different organisations. Simplifying and standardising processes is important work which will better facilitate the pet rehoming sector performing its functions and services. Additionally, because of the new requirements we are placing on rehoming organisations, we are also granting them new rights. This will include allowing rehoming organisations to participate in the adoption days of commercial pet shops. Further, these organisations will be able to better promote their activities, allowing them to reach a broader range of people who might be looking to adopt a pet.

The strict conditions which currently apply in situations of pet sales will still apply in these circumstances. The change being made here is only to pet adoptions and the ability for these organisations to place animals in need of a new home in front of interested potential new owners. The actual adoption process has not been changed. The existing rigorous rules will continue to apply, and it is right that they should continue to apply, because genuine commitment and accountability matters in these issues. Existing rules for the minimum age of the animal on the day of sale will continue at their current levels. New notification and reporting requirements are being proposed for adoption days and after adoption to ensure that everything is being run with integrity and in the spirit of animal welfare. Authorised officers will be given the ability to shut down adoption days if they have a reason to believe that they are being conducted in a way that jeopardises animal welfare. Authorised officers are also being given the right of entry into buildings other than those used as residential homes in order to ensure that the responsibilities of those taking care of animals in need of rehoming are being met.

A warrant will still be required for an officer to access someone’s private home. Authorised officers have an important role to play in ensuring compliance and integrity in this field. Similar to when dealing with issues relating to vulnerable people, issues relating to vulnerable animals require close scrutiny and strict standards to ensure that those in a position to be exploited are being protected. These issues are complicated, and there are times when a line needs to be drawn. Crimes against animals offend the conscience, and it is important that domestic animals in human captivity are treated in a humane manner that lives up to the community’s expectations. We pass legislation such as this because we as Victorians choose to be a state that sees compassion and empathy as virtues to be held up as standards.

With this sort of bill, I think it is safe to say that most Victorians do not have this issue at the top of their minds every day. Day to day I know Victorians and my constituents in Southern Metro care about education, health, jobs, transport infrastructure, community safety, housing and workers rights, but just because this is not a highly salient issue that captures the close attention of the public or the media or that affects most people’s lives every day, it does not mean that it is not worth us spending our time on. If anything, it says more about who we are as legislators and what we do when nobody is looking. It is fair to expect that nobody will win any points in the opinion polls for how they vote on this bill. That does not mean that the work does not matter or that passing the bill is not important. Similarly, if there happen to be any members of this chamber who for some reason believe that pet rehoming organisations have had it too good for too long and need to be taken down a peg, then they have every right to speak out and vote against this bill. Personally, I will be supporting this bill because I think it is the right thing to do and because I think that these organisations do important work and deserve our support.

The average person on the street, who is not involved with the pet rehoming sector, could easily be forgiven for not taking a deep enough interest in the minutiae of the regulations governing this sector. What most members of the public could agree with, however, are some of the core values and principles behind this – values like compassion and the idea that animals who are under human care deserve to be treated humanely and not to face exploitation or neglect and the principle that volunteers who give their time and effort to an important cause, such as this one, deserve systems and regulations that support them rather than burden them. Further, members of the public also rely on strong regulations governing this sector because they want to know that by adopting a pet from a certain organisation or business that they are not contributing to animal exploitation. Senseless cruelty against animals, especially those animals who are in care, is something that most people instinctively understand is wrong. As important as the practical changes being made to the law are – so that we can facilitate the better and the more effective functioning of the pet rehoming sector – so too are the other value propositions behind this bill. This bill is saying that we are going to continue to work on this issue until we have a system that not only functions effectively but also meets the expectations of the community from a values point of view.

To recap, this bill makes some simple, pragmatic changes to restructure how Victoria’s pet rehoming sector will go into the future. It aims to support the work of the pet rehoming organisations, recognising their work and the work of their volunteers as central. It creates a new volunteer authorisation system, which will provide significant incentives to organisations to sign up. Making the scheme voluntary places the onus on the government to create a scheme that pet rehoming organisations and foster carers would want to participate in, rather than one they would be obliged to participate in, because these volunteers who do the work do not deserve to be punished for their generosity, their hard work and their commitment to caring for animals; they deserve to be rewarded and supported for it.

Further, we are abolishing the existing voluntary registration scheme for pet foster carers and incorporating this into a new sector-wide scheme. This is because pet foster carers play a crucial role in the pet rehoming system. They ensure that pets do not just have temporary accommodation but temporary homes. They also play a role in ensuring that the ethical treatment of animals is always at the heart of the system. Both for pet foster carers and pet rehoming organisations, this bill places an emphasis on reducing bureaucracy and administrative burden. This is important because so many of these organisations are volunteer run and cannot afford to pay somebody to do this sort of work. Finding ways to reduce paperwork, without negatively impacting on the ways to ensure accountability in the system, is important to ensure that the system can operate more effectively and efficiently.

Although this bill reaffirms the Allan Labor government’s commitment to treating animals who are under human care with compassion, these animals do not choose to be placed into shelters or choose to be abandoned by their owners, so it is on us as the state government to ensure that they are cared for. For the reasons I have outlined already, for its commitment and practicality and for the commitment to fulfilling our values as a state, I commend the bill to the house.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:55): I rise to speak on the Domestic Animals Amendment (Rehoming Cats and Dogs and Other Matters) Bill 2025 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. I have a little bit of history with rehoming animals as someone who grew up in a dog show family. We had Pekingese and French bulldogs, so one of my superpowers is I can actually see any breed of dog, whether it be a mixed-breed or a purebred dog, and know exactly what breed that is and what category it would be shown under, as someone who grew up in that environment.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Rachel PAYNE: I think it is a bit of a superpower, Minister, yes. It is one of those things that I do have a lot of fun with, playing with friends. Rehoming pets was something that I experienced growing up a lot, growing up in a family where there were a lot of animals around, making sure that there was rehoming available and making sure that the right people were also offering those homes and that there was that duty of care provided.

Referring back to the bill, it implements recommendations 7 to 11 of the 2021 Taskforce on Rehoming Pets final report. This taskforce investigated how to improve pet welfare by addressing pet rehoming pathways and survival rates. It found there was strong cross-sector support for the regulation of pet homing to improve consistency in animal care and increase opportunities for collaboration with councils, shelters and pounds. The bill responds to these findings by introducing a regulatory framework for the pet rehoming sector and a benefits-based voluntary registration scheme. The proposal in this bill of a voluntary scheme reflects concerns raised during consultation by the taskforce. There were concerns raised by stakeholders that regulation could impose an administrative and resource burden on rehoming groups, reducing their ability to care for animals and straining resources, particularly for smaller volunteer-run organisations. This scheme will replace the existing foster scheme, which has suffered from low uptake since its introduction as part of the puppy farm and pet shop reforms of 2017.

For registration under the new voluntary scheme, pet rehoming organisations will need to meet certain requirements, including registration as a charity with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and reapplication every three years. Additional requirements for authorisation will be developed in a regulatory framework. This will include reporting on the location of animals and may include reporting of animal fate data and requirements of pre-adoption, including desexing and vaccination. The benefits of authorisation will include being able to hold pet adoption days without the need for an animal sale permit and an exemption from registration of foster animals with local councils. Importantly, this bill also clarifies powers for entry of authorised officers, ensuring that adoption days where animal welfare is at risk can be shut down if needed.

While the minister has cited extensive consultations with the pet rehoming sector over the last four years, there still seems to be uncertainty and confusion from the sector about what this bill intends to do. Smaller organisations who do not have the resources to acquire and maintain authorisation under this scheme have raised similar concerns to those identified in the 2021 taskforce report. They want to make sure that it is truly voluntary and that they will not be punished for not having the resources to join the scheme. The changes in this bill are intended to support and not punish the sector, but it is disappointing that the government consultation appears to have stopped after the bill was developed. There is a clear need for greater transparency and communication.

An authorisation scheme for the sector is long overdue, and it makes sense that organisations that go to the effort of getting registered receive additional benefits. At the same time we need to support smaller organisations in the pet rehoming sector to ensure that they are not put at a major disadvantage because of these reforms. A good place to start with this is making sure the sector is informed of these changes and what the consequences will or will not be for them.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.