Thursday, 16 October 2025

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:02): This is our second attempt at introducing this kind of scheme for the pet rehoming sector in the last few years. We need to make sure it is done right so we do not end up back here in a few years introducing another replacement scheme because this one also suffered from low uptake.

Before concluding on the issue of pet rehoming and desexing requirements that may be included under the scheme, I am running a cat desexing appeal in collaboration with the RSPCA peninsula pet safety program. Anyone interested in donating can head to my social media for details. This program does amazing work to regenerate, rehome and desex cats. As the warmer months approach, so does kitten season. My two girls Minnie and Chiquitita – yes, after the ABBA song, but we do call her Cheeky – were first fostered by us when Minnie was just eight months old with four kittens. Thankfully we were able to give the kittens and the mother cat a loving home. I managed to rehome three of those kittens – Chiquitita has stayed with me. As for Minnie, the mother cat, it was my honour to give her a home. Cat desexing is essential to prevent unwanted litters. The RSPCA receives enormous amounts of surrendered or abandoned litters each year. Funds raised by the peninsula pet safety program mean that those cat owners who are feeling the cost-of-living pressures can access cat desexing free of charge. If you can even spare a small amount, your contribution will go a long way to helping this program, reducing the strain on the pet rehoming sector.

 Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Water) (14:04): I thank all members who contributed to the debate in this chamber and in the other place. It is great to see so many people supporting pet rehoming organisations, who do just such a fantastic job and selfless work for our companion friends. There were a number of matters raised by a number of speakers – the opposition as well as the crossbench – during their contributions, and I will try and respond to most of them in the time that I have.

Some members have raised concerns regarding the repeal of the foster carer registration scheme. This scheme enables registered foster carers to access the $6 registration fee. It has had low uptake amongst both local councils and foster carers. According to the 2024 data, only 51 foster carers are registered with this scheme. Only 13 of Victoria’s 79 councils administer the scheme. Under the new pet rehoming authorisation scheme, participating organisations would not be required to pay a registration fee for animals under their management and direction for the first 12 months the animal is in foster care. This presents a cost saving for organisations and foster carers. It is important to note that this change was strongly advocated for by the sector during consultations, which included some 54 pet rehoming organisations, 292 foster carers, 26 pounds and shelters and 54 local councils. I thank those organisations for the time they gave to attend workshops, provide written submissions and complete surveys so that the pet rehoming taskforce could fully consider how to best develop this scheme.

I understand that there will be some amendments put by the Animal Justice Party on this matter, and I understand that the government will be supporting them. I again reiterate that this scheme is voluntary and it is designed to be of benefit, not to add burden. The scheme will not restrict the activities of organisations that do not choose to become authorised. They would continue to operate as they currently do under the existing legislation. Pet rehoming organisations that choose to participate in the scheme will receive specific benefits to support their rehoming activities, but again, organisations who choose not to participate in the new scheme will continue to be able to rehome pets as they have always done but will not have access to its benefits.

There has been discussion around the new requirements to provide details on foster animal locations within seven days. It must be noted that this timeframe was at the recommendation of the rehoming pets working group, and the department is developing a dedicated website, compatible with currently used platforms, so that this is not an onerous task. It is also not the intention that penalties be applied to organisations who, for one reason or another, do not fulfil this task in a timely manner but that the department works with an organisation to achieve good results. We know that people are busy. We know that animals can move between foster homes, and we know the majority of organisations are doing their very best. I am also advised that the department will work with the IT development team to explore options for batched notices to be made for foster dogs and cats under the management of authorised pet rehoming organisations to make reporting as streamlined as possible. The department is also exploring ways in which online platforms can exchange data with existing IT platforms used by pet rehoming organisations so that the reporting is not duplicated.

These changes to the Domestic Animals Act 1994 will not come into force for 14 months to allow for the development of the supporting regulations, with input from the pet rehoming sector and the broader Victorian community. This will ensure that we get it right and organisations have the time they need to adjust. I am also advised that organisations may still choose to notify councils by other means if they prefer to not do so electronically or for some other reason are unable to notify via the website. This can include calling their councils.

I know that members have raised concerns about rescue groups being financially impacted by noncompliance. I am advised that infringements would be just one component of an overall compliance and enforcement strategy developed by the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. Working with participating stakeholders by providing education and support to meet the legislative requirements of the scheme would be a key part of DEECA’s compliance strategy. In the event of repeated noncompliance, verbal and advisory letters or warnings would take place before any infringements or prosecutions would be pursued. The department will always seek to work with an organisation to ensure compliance can be met before taking punitive measures.

As I said, the department is developing an online reporting option that will be developed in consultation with the sector. I also know that there have been some concerns raised around public release of animal fate data. To clarify, the bill does not set out that animal fate data reported by authorised pet rehoming organisations would be made publicly available. It only requires the reporting of animal fate data and sets out that this data would be kept on the new rehoming pets register.

There has also been some discussion around the aspects of the Domestic Animals Act that fall outside the remit of this bill. We understand that there is more work that needs to be done in this regard, and we undertake to do that work in partnership with the pet rehoming taskforce and the broader pet rehoming community so that we can achieve the best possible outcome for rescue animals. This includes work on what the responsibilities of councils are around desexing and microchipping animals before release to pet rehoming organisations. We hear loud and clear the organisations’ concerns about animals being euthanised rather than being rehomed, and we acknowledge that there is further work to be done in this space. Indeed, Ms Purcell raised this as a motion yesterday – it is a very important topic – which the government supported in this place.

We also note the concerns around organisations that do not sign up – that they will be excluded from grant rounds. Our animal welfare grant rounds exist to improve and increase the capabilities of our pet rehoming sector, not to punish organisations wishing to grow and cater properly for animals in their care. The bill does not make any changes to grant funding opportunities to organisations working hard to give pets a second chance. The aim of this authorisation scheme is to give surety to councils, pounds and shelters about who they are handing over animals to and how those animals will be appropriately cared for. Again, those who do not wish to join the authorisation scheme will not be penalised, but they will not have access to the scheme’s benefits.

I know that there are some concerns and questions around how the government can support organisations to meet the requirements to be authorised, including charity organisations. We do recognise that registering as a charity can be a lengthy and confusing process, and I am advised that the department, DEECA, stands ready to assist organisations in this process. The department is committed to assisting smaller organisations to navigate the application process through education materials, workshops and other appropriate mechanisms. The planned staged commencement of the bill is also there to enable applications to be made before the full scheme comes into effect on 10 April 2027. We also understand concerns around organisations that operate shelters not being captured by this scheme. Some rescue organisations have adapted their operating model to become registered as domestic animal shelters. The scheme does not capture animal shelters, as these organisations are already regulated by the Code of Practice for the Management of Cats and Dogs in Shelters and Pounds.

Further, there has been commentary on who runs this scheme. The pet rehoming taskforce requested that the state government be responsible for administering the scheme, including assessing applications and granting authorisation to eligible pet rehoming organisations. This is to reduce the operating burden on the sector. Assessments will consider a range of matters, such as if a person named on the application has committed an offence or has been issued with a notice to comply under the Domestic Animals Act or Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986, as well as other state and territory equivalents. In addition, government must consider if a person named on the application has been convicted or found guilty of an offence against a local law made under section 42 of the DA act. The government must also consider if a person named on the application is a member of an applicable dog or cat breeding organisation. The sector will have the capacity to seek further requirements as they see fit following community consultation.

The bill does enable government to set fees for applications and renewals, as required by our cost recovery policy, which requires government departments to efficiently and fairly recover costs associated with regulating and delivering services, but these will be strictly defined within the regulations – again, after extensive engagement with the pet rehoming sector and community consultation.

In relation to clarification on powers of entry, I understand that there have been some concerns around the powers of entry of authorised officers. Again, there has been some disinformation around this aspect of the bill. There is no expansion of powers to seize and no intention for this to be used to hinder the work of foster carers.

This section of the bill is just a clarification that backyards are indeed accessible for authorised officers without a warrant, for the purposes of seizing a dangerous animal, after some officers experienced some confusion around requiring a warrant to seize an animal, which subsequently and unfortunately escaped and attacked again.

We look forward to continuing our partnership with the animal welfare sector to further ensure that we are taking care of vulnerable animals in a way that aligns with community expectations. I understand members will have some questions and amendments in committee. I hope that my contribution in summing up has answered some of those questions and concerns, but I am sure that we will have an active committee session. I commend this bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

 The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad) (14:15): I have considered the amendments on sheet GPO5C, circulated by Ms Purcell, and in my view they are not within the scope of the bill. In certain circumstances an instruction to committee of the whole under standing order 14.11 is sufficient to empower the committee to consider amendments. The practice of the house is that an instruction motion can only instruct the committee to consider amendments reasonably connected to the subject matter of the bill. In this case the amendments exceed that threshold. Therefore standing orders will need to be suspended to allow the committee to consider these amendments. Ms Purcell may seek leave for a motion to suspend standing orders to enable the amendments to be considered in committee of the whole.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (14:16): I move, by leave:

That standing orders be suspended to the extent necessary to provide that it be an instruction to the committee that they have the power to consider amendments to the new clauses to amend the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003 to provide that the act does not prevent the placement and burial of animal remains in places of interment.

Motion agreed to.

Committed.

Clause 1 (14:17)

Georgie PURCELL: With the cooperation of the committee, I will seek to speak to these amendments as a grouping. The first one is a simple amendment which just reinforces what has been discussed throughout the debate of this bill, that the scheme that this bill creates is absolutely voluntary. This is just a clarifying amendment to ensure that that is the case, based on consultation with a range of pet rehoming organisations since the bill was drafted, and to alleviate any concerns that they might have about that.

My second amendment to clause 1is the one that is being considered out of scope, which allows for a pet’s remains to be buried in a cemetery. Currently, burying an animal in a public cemetery, even placing an urn in a coffin is illegal, and the only legal way for owners to currently be laid to rest with their pets is to either be buried on private land with the owner’s permission or to be scattered with the ashes of a pet outside the gates of a cemetery. But this does not mean that cemeteries are not conducting joint human–pet burials – they are – but they are being forced to choose between complying with someone else’s final wishes or complying with the law.

So we really see this amendment, if passed, as reducing risk for a number of volunteers who work within the cemetery sector in Victoria. This has also meant that public cemeteries which are illegally burying pets with people are not recording the plots, which is leading to further risk down the line where a pet has been buried in a family plot and is not on the interment record – in future a different cemetery manager may tend to that plot and discover that someone has honoured that wish of someone.

There are also no protections for makeshift pet cemeteries as private land is not classified the same as public cemeteries. Just recently we have seen the need for this amendment in a case where a cemetery outside of Bacchus Marsh was actually destroyed by developers because that land was deemed more valuable as development than operating as a pet cemetery.

This is an amendment that is basically drafted identically to a recent one that passed in New South Wales, and it would be bringing us into line with the change that they have just made.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I just thought it would be easier to get that explanation at the start. We will not get you to move those amendments until we get to the amendment part, but I just thought it would explain to everyone in the house so we know where we are going. Are there any questions on clause 1 or even questions of Ms Purcell?

Jeff BOURMAN: I will get some quick questions on Ms Purcell’s amendments over with if we are all happy with that. I only have a few questions, and I am supportive of the amendments, so these are not trick questions. Obviously, there are various animals that people call pets. If you have a cat, dog or whatever, it is usually smaller than the size of a human. Is there intended to be a size limit on the animal?

Georgie PURCELL: This amendment, if passed, would simply allow for cemeteries to make this change. It does not compel them or mandate them to make this change. It would still be up to individual cemeteries and cemetery trusts to decide if they will carry on with joint pet burials. As I said, this is something that is actually already happening. Based on the cases that we know of, and after pretty extensive consultation and speaking to a range of cemetery workers and volunteers and funeral directors, these are largely requests for smaller animals such as cats and dogs, and more so they are requests for urns to be placed within coffins, not so much the burial of a large animal. In the event where that was requested, that would of course be a decision for the cemetery and would be one for the plot that a family or an individual has taken out. But it would be a pretty unique situation because, as I said, this has been going on and we have never once heard of a large animal being requested for this case. However, I just want to reiterate that this will still leave the decision-making power in the hands of those individual cemeteries, and some of them may choose not to allow joint pet burials at all.

Jeff BOURMAN: I know the answer to this. I just want to put it on record. In what form can the animals be buried – ashes or body? Because what if someone says, ‘I want to be buried with my horse, sitting on it, holding a sabre’ – notwithstanding that it is a prohibited weapon? Is this going to be for any form, whether it is ashes or an actual body?

Georgie PURCELL: As mentioned, the most common request that we see with this is for urns with ashes of companion animals to be placed within something like a coffin and then buried with the owner. I myself have about five different urns within my house, and I would like to make a request to be buried with those animals one day. Hopefully that does not happen too soon, but this is the way that we most commonly see this request. However, there are instances of the body of an animal being requested as well, and that would be, as mentioned, a decision for a plot or a family plot and the cemetery manager to allow that to happen. Changing this law would just stop it being prohibited from happening.

Importantly, that would then allow for those animals to be recorded in plot records, which are extensively kept by cemeteries, so that if there is a change of hands with cemetery managers or volunteers, they know exactly what to expect when they might go to dig a grave or disturb a plot and know that an animal is in there. So it is in both forms, and both do happen. I have a cemetery in my own electorate that has a range of animals that have been buried illegally. That is in two different forms, but most commonly we see this in the form of ashes, because people will make the request when their animal dies before them.

Jeff BOURMAN: One last question, and then I will make a quick statement. Will it be allowable for the animal to be put down and to be interred with their human.

Georgie PURCELL: Thank you, Mr Bourman, for the question. I am actually really glad it was asked, because it is important to get this one on the record. There is actually nothing already prohibiting this in the law. An owner of an animal can request euthanasia of an animal for any reason at all, which is obviously a concern to us but it is separate to this legislation. There are no instances of people who are dying – thus far, that we know of – requesting that their animal be euthanised as a result of that. But the reality is that requesting this is currently already legal and this change in the law would not have any impact on that. However, given that we have said this is already the case and already happening, we do not expect to see an increase in people requesting that their animal be euthanised to be alongside them. What it would allow for is, if someone dies before their animal, for that animal to then be placed with them when the animal does eventually die anyway. It is just really important to reiterate that any animal owner can request a euthanasia of their animal for any reason already, and we do not see any adverse impacts of that under this change.

Jeff BOURMAN: If I can just make a statement as to why I am supporting this as well. For those that have been to the Presidio of San Francisco, there is a tiny little graveyard in there and it has pets from the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s. It is important to remember, going back to then, that even the military people that had been coming and going to wars loved their pets enough to put them in a little graveyard. It is sad and sweet, but it is also showing the connection we have with our companion animals. I also have a bit of a connection. We lost our dog Leia a little while ago, and I spread her ashes with the ashes of my son, at different times. That is why I am big on this. I can see there is a very good reason why we spread them at the beach. I feel this is something people should be able to do.

Georgie CROZIER: I have been listening to the debate on and off. Ms Purcell, thank you. I have been speaking to your office, who have provided me some information. I want to come from my responsibility as Shadow Minister for Health, who has the responsibility for cemeteries. I am somebody, like most of us, who has got pets and adores them. They are part of the family. Growing up on a farm, I had a menagerie of pets.

Georgie Purcell interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: Yes, I adored all of them. Nevertheless, I was not thinking about this piece of legislation when I was younger. To build on one of the points Mr Bourman was making, if you predecease your pet – I mean, the pet is unlikely to die at the same time. You are saying it is just not ashes in an urn to be interred, it could be a body. So where will animals that are not to be cremated be stored? I am looking at this from a health and safety aspect. I am wondering if you have consulted with cemetery trusts and the like and how you think that particular aspect would be catered for, given you said it is not just ashes, it is also bodies of animals. I am looking at it from a health and safety impact and how that would impact not only those working in the funeral industry but, more broadly, the spread of disease within the community.

Georgie PURCELL: The way that this change would operate is that it would allow for animals to be placed within plots in a similar way as humans are. If an animal was to die before a human does and the request was for the whole body to be part of that plot, it would simply allow for that animal to be placed in the plot and to be part of the plot records of the cemetery. This is a really important change because, as I said, this is currently already happening in a way that is not regulated, and it is causing issues with plot records down the line. It would not be a matter of storing the body in a separate place until a human passes, it would be a matter of a person having that request and already having a plot and the animal would be buried within it. On the question more broadly on cemetery trusts and the like, I know that I probably come in here with thoughts that are wacky to lots of people, but this is actually not one that I have come up with myself. It was brought to me by constituents within the cemetery sector across northern Victoria. The one I have consulted with most extensively has been Castlemaine cemetery and the trust and the cemetery manager there, who has linked me up with many others. They have been asking for this as a protection measure for themselves because they are already doing it. They are volunteers for the most part, taking on very meaningful and important work, but they are also putting themselves at risk every time they honour someone’s final wish. They are risking fines or risk losing their role in doing so.

Georgie CROZIER: I have just got one last question if I may. You spoke about the country, or Castlemaine cemetery, and there is a little bit more room there. In metropolitan Melbourne we have got very limited space. Has there been any modelling on the impact of this amendment you are proposing to city cemeteries that are already under huge pressure with space?

Georgie PURCELL: Certainly, when I embarked on doing this work I did not understand the complexity of the cemetery space, and it is something that I have really learned a lot about. But this change would simply be allowing for cemeteries to make the decision. Of course there is not a one-size-fits-all approach for every cemetery and every cemetery trust. In the case of cemeteries that are already short on space and think that they could not meet this requirement, they would still have the power to say, ‘No, this is not something that we will be doing at our cemetery.’ But if they would like to make that decision, it just would not make it illegal for them to do so. It is just giving the option to these cemeteries to make that change. Then it puts the power with the individuals who are making those requests and considering the afterlife wishes and end-of-life wishes. If the cemetery that they planned on being buried at or having their remains placed at did not accommodate this, they could find somewhere that would perhaps allow them to do so.

Gayle TIERNEY: Just in terms of some feedback in respect to the pet burial amendment, we accept the amendment moved by Ms Purcell. We acknowledge and understand the important role that pets play in people’s lives and that for some members in the community, there is a wish to have their pet’s remains alongside them when they die. The government has been aware of community interest in making this change for some time, particularly over recent months, and has already begun exploring the feasibility of allowing pets to be buried in public cemeteries. The New South Wales government has made a similar change to their Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2013, which came into effect on 1 September this year. The Victorian government have paid close attention to how this change has been implemented to determine any lessons we can learn from their experience. The Department of Health here, if this is passed, will begin work in consultation with cemetery trusts to update relevant regulations and develop guidance for the sector on how this change should be implemented in Victoria.

Melina BATH: Thank you for bringing this forward. It was good to have that discussion and that health aspect considered as well. From our perspective this is about enabling cemetery trusts to facilitate that; it is not about ordering or mandating that. It really needs to be a bespoke solution depending on the particular cemetery. I think we can all sympathise with people who really have a deep attachment with their animals, and where it is permissible and workable that should continue. So we do not have any opposition to this amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If there is no further discussion on the amendments – Ms Copsey.

Katherine COPSEY: Not discussion, but I will just put this on the record. I spoke to Ms Purcell’s amendments that she circulated earlier in my contribution to the debate, and I just wanted to put on record that the Victorian Greens are also in support of the out-of-scope amendment that Ms Purcell has circulated. This is a really sensible change and a compassionate one. It is going to rectify an issue that is clearly dear to many people’s hearts and mean that people, when they leave this life, can still have that connection to the companion animals that will have brought them so much joy, and I am sure the companion animals as well appreciate that connection between human and pet. We are supportive of this amendment, which will enable what we understand is an existing situation to be continued lawfully.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If there is no further discussion on Ms Purcell’s amendments, we will move to general questions on the bill.

Melina BATH: In relation to the rehoming authorisation scheme and it being voluntary, the bill does restrict section 84Yagreements to prescribed persons or bodies, which seems to be effectively excluding non-authorised groups from partnering with councils. Rescue organisations have argued that this will make participation mandatory in effect, in practice. Can the minister confirm that rescue groups which do not join the scheme will still be able to hold section 84 agreements and receive the various desexed and microchipped animals from pounds?

Gayle TIERNEY: The answer is no. It simply introduces a head of power.

Melina BATH: In relation to section 84Y(ca) many rescue groups still feel that there is an inconsistency between the theory and the practice, and rescue groups routinely take undesexed and unmicrochipped animals to prevent euthanasia. Why doesn’t the bill actually amend section  84Y to reflect the established practice, and will the minister rectify this before the scheme commences?

Gayle TIERNEY: The issue that you raised is beyond the scope of the bill that is before us today. However, we have undertaken to have further discussions around the matters that you have raised, but they are not pertinent to the bill before us this afternoon.

Melina BATH: I am sure that may give some solace. In terms of those discussions – and I realise it is outside the bill – what would they look like, and how would rescue groups be able to have this feedback? You have spoken about consultation and that being important. How can these groups get an understanding about this?

Gayle TIERNEY: The rehoming pets working group will continue, Ms Bath, and that would be the main vehicle for those discussions. It is ongoing work, and we look forward to those discussions.

Melina BATH: Volunteer groups again have raised concerns about the new administrative arrangements, such as multiple council notifications per animal within seven days – I think you spoke to it a little bit before – and penalties for late reporting. I know that you said that there is going to be an educational period and you are not out to get anyone, in those terms. Many of these groups do not have paid staff and do not have digital systems. Has the department conducted any assessment about the reporting obligations on volunteer rescues? How could that be done to reduce that red tape for this process?

Gayle TIERNEY: Part D of the bill deals with this matter. There is IT online information that is being developed, and also there will be email systems and other forms, recognising that there might be individuals or organisations that would not necessarily even have access to a computer.

Melina BATH: The bill allows for organisations with an ABN or an Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) registration to become authorised without defined standards for welfare, governance or operational capability. What welfare and governance standards will be required for authorisation, and who will audit ongoing compliance with this?

Gayle TIERNEY: It will be the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) that will handle the compliance issues in respect to the scheme. In terms of the applications, in my summing-up speech I went into detail as to what the checks and balances will be, and in particular whether people have offended various acts and clauses in acts as they pertain to criminal activity and behaviour towards animals.

Melina BATH: This again comes from concerned people who have written to me. They are concerned about the lack of independent auditing on larger breeder associations like Dogs Victoria or Master Dog Breeders and Associates, which currently self-regulate. Will the government introduce independent audits of applicable organisations to verify their adherence to the welfare and breeding standards?

Gayle TIERNEY: Again, that is out of scope. There is not any suggestion of making any changes in respect to this matter.

Melina BATH: The bill – and I think you spoke to it in your contribution – talks about the 2021 taskforce and that there were some recommendations that were achieved in this bill. In fact I think the minister in the other place spoke to it in her second-reading speech. But there are about 12, I think, outstanding. Which five taskforce recommendations have been implemented through this bill, and is there a timeline – and if so, what – for the other 12 recommendations from the taskforce?

Gayle TIERNEY: The bill before us today is recommendations 7 through to 11. Further recommendations are being worked through and consulted in terms of the sector. As you would be very well aware, this is a sector that has got strong views and very divergent views, and it does take that little bit more in terms of time. I think that because of the work that has been done across the sector there is an understanding that they will get to the issues generally and that it is working very well in terms of the level of input and consultation, including not just imparting information but genuine workshops.

Melina BATH: I will put in a plug for one of the organisations in my electorate, and I will feed that back to her so she can feel very confident that she will be listened to when she approaches.

Just going back to the rescuers, forgive me, but let me clarify: will rescuers lose their right to take un-desexed or un-microchipped animals? Councils may choose euthanasia. This was an issue that has been raised in this debate, and it has been raised certainly with people through me – so will rescuers legally retain the right to take un-desexed and un-microchipped animals from pounds? What safeguards will prevent unnecessary euthanasia happening?

Gayle TIERNEY: Again, there is nothing in the bill that deals with this, so nothing would change as it stands at the moment, Ms Bath.

Melina BATH: I think you spoke to my question here: in terms of extending the powers of entry onto private property – I am going to rephrase you – you have really re-established or clarified what is possible, rather than it being an overreach without a warrant. Is that the government’s stance?

Gayle TIERNEY: Absolutely.

Melina BATH: When will the government update the regulations to allow authorised rehoming organisations to be listed on animal microchips? I say that because my understanding is that only individuals and not organisations can be listed on animal microchips, so will there be a point in time when rehoming organisations are listed?

Gayle TIERNEY: The rehoming working group is in discussion on this. They understand that it is an issue that needs to be resolved, and the department is working with them to work out the technology aspect that is associated with this matter.

Melina BATH: I raised this in my contribution. I fear you are going to say it is outside of the scope of the bill, but it is a significant issue. It is one that I think across the board should be a concern and hopefully is a concern to the government. Stakeholders have often talked about how the bill is certainly regulating rescues, but we have got the backyard breeders that unfortunately still exist and I have heard are still flourishing. Are there new enforcement measures with the government to target illegal backyard breeders and ensure compliance resources are not focused on the rehoming organisations to the extent that they are not going to be focused on the black market, illegal breeders?

Gayle TIERNEY: It will come as no surprise, Ms Bath, that I say it is beyond the scope of what is before us today. That is not to say that we are not interested in this, but in terms of the breeding issue per se, that is within the confines of local council as opposed to this exercise. This exercise is with the rehoming working party, which is dealing with rehoming.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, there have already been a few questions on this and I obviously have an amendment on it also, but I just want to definitely confirm that the authorisation scheme created under this bill is voluntary for pet rehoming organisations to join.

Gayle TIERNEY: Yes, the proposed scheme is voluntary. Pet rehoming organisations that operate in Victoria can choose to apply for authorisation in the scheme. The authorisation scheme proposed in the bill presents an additional pathway for pet rehoming organisations to become authorised and receive benefits set out in the scheme, which will support their organisation’s activity.

Georgie PURCELL: Could you also confirm that there will be no penalties or repercussions for pet rehoming organisations that choose not to be authorised, and will they be able to carry out their operations as they currently are, taking in pets in need from a range of different places?

Gayle TIERNEY: The pet rehoming organisations that do not participate in the scheme may continue to rehome animals but will not receive the same benefits as those participating in the scheme. The scheme will not restrict the activities of organisations that do not choose to become authorised. They will continue to operate as they currently do under existing legislation.

Georgie PURCELL: Could you also confirm whether or not a pet rehoming organisation that does not become authorised will not see an impact on their ability to apply for funding through Animal Welfare Victoria? Obviously, funding arrangements are a decision of the government of the day and are not legislated, but more so, can you confirm that it is not the government’s intention with this bill to limit who can apply for grant funding from Animal Welfare Victoria or any other grant sources?

Gayle TIERNEY: It is not the government’s intention to use the scheme as a means for limiting funding to organisations. Grant guidelines are approved for each grant round by the minister of the day. The bill does not make any changes to grant funding opportunities to organisations working hard to give pets a second chance.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, how will the government equip and train rehoming organisations to meet the requirements of becoming authorised? Some feedback that I have had in correspondence and consultation is that this will be a change, particularly for the smaller organisations, even the ones that do want to join. So it would be great to get some clarification on what support will be provided, particularly to small rescue groups, as the largest burden will be placed upon them in comparison to larger organisations. They are the ones who are volunteer run with limited resources and may have to consider things like appointing new volunteers specifically with the task of ensuring compliance under the scheme.

Gayle TIERNEY: That is a very practical issue that no doubt has been raised by a number of people with their local MPs. The bill will commence operation on the day or days to be proclaimed or on 10 April 2027 if not proclaimed earlier, to allow organisations exactly what you are seeking: time to adjust. Following passage of the bill, regulations will be made to regulate reporting and animal rehoming requirements for authorised pet rehoming organisations to align with the bill’s commencement, in close consultation with the pet rehoming sector. The department is committed to assisting smaller organisations to navigate the application process, through education materials, workshops and other appropriate mechanisms. We will also strongly encourage members to make their electorate officers available to assist with applying for deductible gift recipient status. The planned staged commencement of the bill is also to enable applications to be made before the full scheme comes into effect on 10 April 2027.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, this has already been canvassed, and I note you mentioned it in your summing-up as well, but just to firmly get on the record the government’s intention in further clarifying entry and search powers in this bill: can you confirm that this will not result in inspections on foster carers, rescue groups or private residents and this is merely just a further clarifying amendment to existing arrangements?

Gayle TIERNEY: This amendment has not been introduced to target specific groups, such as pet rehoming organisations or foster carers; nor will it impact on Victoria’s property owners. Rather, the amendment clarifies that council-authorised officers have the power to enter the whole or part of any premises or any vehicle, excluding a building or vehicle that is occupied as a residential home. This will affirm authorising officers have the power to enter residential backyards to seize dangerous dogs. This technical amendment will ensure community safety by providing certainty to all councils, allowing them to respond in a timely manner to dog attacks and to seize an animal where necessary. It does not expand any current powers.

Georgie PURCELL: Can the minister confirm that rescue groups will be able to batch their notifications to the register to reduce any administrative burden upon them? And will updates on multiple cats and dogs be able to be uploaded at the same time? For example, some rescue groups believe they will need to put on a volunteer one day a week, as I have already mentioned, to meet their requirements. They would like some assurance that this scheme will be as streamlined for them as possible to ensure that they can focus on the more important parts of their duties of rehoming cats and dogs.

Gayle TIERNEY: It is the intention that the pet rehoming register established in the bill will be an online platform for use by authorised rehoming organisations participating in the scheme. The department is working to develop the online platform and its functionality to ensure reporting and notification requirements can be provided as simply as possible.

Georgie PURCELL: I just want to confirm: will there be a range of ways in which notifications will be able to be sent to the pet register?

Gayle TIERNEY: There will be, and I also want to indicate that the department will work with the IT development team to explore options for batch notices to be made for foster dogs and cats under the management of authorised pet rehoming organisations to make reporting as streamlined as possible. The pet rehoming register established in the bill is intended to be an online platform for use by authorised rehoming organisations participating in the scheme, and the department is exploring ways in which this online platform can exchange data with existing IT platforms used by pet rehoming organisations, so that reporting is not duplicated.

Georgie PURCELL: Could you please give an indication of the fee required for authorisation within the scheme?

Gayle TIERNEY: Let me check on the requirement. The bill itself does not set the fee, Ms Purcell, but what will happen is it will be contained within the regulations. On the regulations, the department commits to having full and proper consultations with the pet rehoming taskforce as well as the wider public in respect to that.

Georgie PURCELL: Can the minister guarantee that government funding will not be tied to registration with the scheme?

Gayle TIERNEY: The bill makes no mention of the way in which it would differ. The situation that currently exists in terms of government moneys and grants remains the same.

Georgie PURCELL: Just going back to the reporting requirements, Minister, can you confirm that the government will take a flexible and reasonable approach to enforcing these reporting requirements given the significant challenges faced, as I mentioned, by smaller volunteer-run rescue groups?

Gayle TIERNEY: In the event of repeated noncompliance, verbal and advisory letters or warnings would take place before any infringements or prosecutions are pursued. The department will always seek to work with an organisation to ensure compliance can be met before taking punitive measures.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, as previously noted, smaller rescue groups bear the greatest burden in meeting obligations such as reporting requirements as they are largely volunteer-run and do have those limited resources. What support will be given to these smaller groups to ensure they can meet their notification of foster care arrangements and sales reporting obligations within seven business days and thereby avoid incurring the penalty of 3 units?

Gayle TIERNEY: Infringements would be one component of an overall compliance and enforcement strategy developed by DEECA. Working with participating stakeholders by providing education and support to meet the legislative requirements of the scheme would be a key part of DEECA’s compliance strategy. In the event of repeated noncompliance, verbal and advisory letters or warnings would take place before infringements or prosecutions were pursued.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, this has been spoken about quite a bit in this, and there has unfortunately been I think a bit of information go around about what this bill does and does not do in relation to agreements entered into with councils. Does the bill stop non-authorised organisations from entering into those agreements with councils?

Gayle TIERNEY: The government does not dictate to councils who they can enter into an agreement with, and this bill does not change this.

Melina BATH: I have found an extra one. In terms of financials, the taskforce recommended equitable treatment as best as government can, but financial incentives certainly appear to be limited to authorised organisations, and non-participants will lose their discounted registration fees and grant eligibility. This relates to these existing foster carers and the soon-to-be-repealed, potentially, community foster care networks. Are they going to lose all those benefits? Are they going to lose discounted registration fees and grant eligibility? Could you confirm that, Minister?

Gayle TIERNEY: I am advised that there is no change to the grants.

Melina BATH: So existing foster carers will retain their $6 registration rate regardless of participation? Is that what you are saying, Minister?

Gayle TIERNEY: No, because we are repealing the foster scheme.

Melina BATH: So they are not going to receive that?

Gayle TIERNEY: In terms of the amendment, there is a further amendment in respect to how long moneys for registration would stay in place for.

Melina BATH: Therefore our foster carers will lose that cheaper $6 registration ability. Will they lose grant eligibility as well?

Gayle TIERNEY: Let us be clear: in terms of the last bit, the answer is no. What is being proposed in the amendment is to extend the discount for registration for a 12-month period.

Melina BATH: But in effect, after that 12-month period, once 2028 kicks in, any discounted rate has all vanished. Is that correct?

Gayle TIERNEY: Because the purpose of the bill is to create a new regime that shifts to organisations as opposed to self-regulation.

Melina BATH: So you do not have to join an organisation; you can still be an existing foster carer. But is there clarity around how much they will be charged, if this amendment goes through, after 2028 – after that period?

Gayle TIERNEY: For the record, for a foster carer with a pound or shelter there will be no registration fee.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Purcell, just before you ask another question, can I ask that you circulate your amended version of your amendments.

Georgie PURCELL: Could I ask that the amended version of my amendments be circulated now.

I just had a question that I think might, when clarified, alleviate some of the questions around the foster carer registration scheme. Can the minister confirm that there are only 51 foster carers across the entire state who are currently using it, and that under the amendment proposed by me, if passed, they would be allowed another year. I guess in the government’s view it has had quite a limited uptake. Although noting those $6 registrations are important to those 51 people, there are not many foster carers on it.

Gayle TIERNEY: That is correct, and I mentioned that in my summing-up contribution prior to coming into committee. I should also mention that there are only 11 local councils that are participating out of 79 councils across the state.

Melina BATH: Minister, I think you said 13 – so 11 or 13. The 51 foster carer networks – in actual fact that does not just mean 51 dogs or 51 cats. They could each be homing a lot, so each of those 51 could have 50 animals that they have rehomed or 100 or the like. My question to the minister is about the fees that they will then be paying if they do not become a part of a rehoming organisation. Could the minister explain what those fees would be? Would it just be the same fee that a council administers to anybody, that is, somebody who lives in my council, if they were a regular person, is it the same cost? Does the government have any idea as to what those costs are? I have not registered a dog for 16 years, so can you just help me understand what the fee structures are for these existing foster carers?

Gayle TIERNEY: I am advised that councils will have the ability to determine what that rate will be. It is not a departmental issue.

Melina BATH: It will not be zero. It will be whatever council specifies?

Gayle TIERNEY: That is for them to determine.

Georgie PURCELL: I withdraw my amendment 1. I invite members to vote against clause 1.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If you support what Ms Purcell is proposing, you should vote no, because we are omitting the clause.

Clause negatived.

New clause 1 (15:16)

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

2.   Insert the following New Clause before clause 2 –

“1 Purposes

The purposes of this Act are –

(a)   to amend the Domestic Animals Act 1994 –

(i)   to provide for an authorisation scheme for pet rehoming organisations to assist those organisations to rehome dogs and cats; and

(ii)   to further provide for Councils to be informed about animals in foster care in their municipal districts; and

(iii)   to provide for the collection of information about the outcome of efforts to rehome dogs and cats; and

(iv)   to clarify the powers of authorised officers in relation to entering premises for certain purposes; and

(v)   to provide for other minor and related matters; and

(b)   to amend the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003 to provide that that Act does not prevent the placement and burial of animal remains in places of interment.”.

New clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (15:17)

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

2.   Clause 2, line 17, omit “2027” and insert “2028”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Part heading preceding clause 5 (15:18)

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

3.   Part heading preceding clause 5, omit “Pet” and insert “Voluntary pet”.

Amendment agreed to; amended part heading agreed to; clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (15:19)

Melina BATH: I move:

1.   Clause 6, page 5, line 13, omit “body” and insert “body, including a community foster care network,”.

This basically incorporates the community foster care networks into the definition. This will test later amendments, but I will still move them – or at least one of them, on the foster care continuation. I think we have heard that there are only 51 of these carer networks; however, they could be supporting a fairly large number of animals for rehoming. If they do not choose to take on the new scheme, they will be set registration fees which could be of significance after the time of expiry of no registration. I think it is still worthwhile. I think the government still can walk and chew gum on this one. I do not think it actually hurts.

Georgie PURCELL: I just want to speak briefly on this one, because I absolutely understand the intention of this amendment; it is actually something that I explored as well. After looking at the impacts of this change, it would essentially be creating a bit of a two-tiered system, where there would be two different systems for foster carers to sign on to. It would also limit other councils from signing up to the FCRS. Obviously we would have liked to see that when the FCRS was in existence, but there has been low uptake on that one. While I am a bit conflicted in my position on this one, I just want to make it clear that I really do understand the intention behind this. I know that there have been a lot of varied views on how this should operate, which is why I tried to seek a middle ground with my own amendment.

Katherine COPSEY: I already addressed this during my second-reading speech as well. For the record, the Greens will not be supporting this amendment. We prefer the approach that has been found through Ms Purcell’s amendment and note that there is an extended transition period should that amendment succeed.

Gayle TIERNEY: The government has already spoken on this matter on a couple of occasions, and we will not be supporting this.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 7 (15:29)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Purcell, I invite you to move your amendment 4, which was tested by your amendment 1.

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

4.   Clause 7, lines 3 and 4, omit “Pet rehoming organisations” and insert “Voluntary pet rehoming organisation authorisation scheme”.

Amendment agreed to.

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

5.   Clause 7, page 10, lines 26 to 28, omit “domestic animal business (other than an animal shelter or Council pound)” and insert “rearing domestic animal business or pet shop”.

6.   Clause 7, page 10, after line 28 insert –

“(3) In this section –

rearing domestic animal business means –

(a)   a breeding domestic animal business; and

(b)   a domestic animal business to which paragraph (e) of the definition of domestic animal business applies.”.

7.   Clause 7, page 13, lines 21 to 23, omit “domestic animal business (other than an animal shelter or Council pound)” and insert “rearing domestic animal business or pet shop”.

8.   Clause 7, page 14, after line 19 insert –

“(4) In this section –

rearing domestic animal business means –

(a)   a breeding domestic animal business; and

(b)   a domestic animal business to which paragraph (e) of the definition of domestic animal business applies.”.

As with all the other amendments, I have canvassed the reasoning for them in detail.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 8 to 23 agreed to.

Division heading preceding clause 24 (15:30)

Melina BATH: I move:

2.   Division heading preceding clause 24, omit this heading.

It will be a test for the remaining many amendments.

Council divided on amendment:

New clause 33A (15:34)

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

9.   Insert the following New Clause after clause 33 –

‘33A Persons who may inspect the information register

(1)   Section 68U(2)(b) of the Principal Act is repealed.

(2)   In section 68U(3) of the Principal Act omit “, (b)(ii)”.’.

New clause agreed to.

Clauses 34 to 37 agreed to.

New clauses 37A and 37B (15:35)

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

10.   Insert the following New Clauses after clause 37 –

‘37A Offence to disclose information

In section 100B(1) of the Principal Act (where twice occurring) omit “5B,”.

37B Permitted disclosures

In section 100C of the Principal Act (wherever occurring) omit “5B,”.’.

New clauses agreed to; clauses 38 to 41 agreed to.

Clause 42 (15:35)

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

11.   Clause 42, lines 2 to 10, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘After section 68U(2)(b) of the Principal Act insert –

“(ba)   for purchasing or obtaining from an authorised pet rehoming organisation, the source number of the pet rehoming organisation;”.’.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 43 (15:36)

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

12.   Clause 43, line 14, omit “Part 5BA” and insert “Part 5B, 5BA”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 44 (15:36)

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

13.   Clause 44, lines 17 to 18, omit “Part 5BA” and insert “Part 5B, 5BA”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 45 to 50 agreed to.

New clauses 50A and 50B (15:37)

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

3.   Insert the following New Part after Part 6 –

‘Part 6A – Amendment of Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003

50A Power to make cemetery trust rules

After section 26(2)(g) of the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003insert –

“(ga)   the placement and burial of animal remains in places of interment;”.

50B New section 78A inserted

After section 78 of the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003 insert –

“78A   Placement and burial of animal remains

Nothing in this Act prevents the placement and burial of animal remains in a place of interment.”.’.

New clauses agreed to; clause 51 agreed to.

Long title (15:37)

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

4.   Long title, after “dogs and cats” insert “and the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003 in relation to the placement and burial of animal remains”.

Amendment agreed to; amended long title agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments, including amended long title.

 Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Water) (15:39): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Water) (15:39): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on motion:

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the bill with amendments.