Wednesday, 19 November 2025

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (10:39): I move:

That this house:

(1)   notes that:

(a) in 2016, the Victorian Labor government made a commitment to modernise our state’s broken animal protection laws;

(b) a media release from 19 October 2017 stated ‘the Government will also review the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in close consultation with key stakeholders and the Victorian community replacing it with a modern animal welfare act in 2019’;

(c) almost 10 years later, despite multiple rounds of consultation and guarantees that the changes will come, these laws are written but yet to be introduced into the Parliament;

(2)   in accordance with standing order 10.01, requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council, within 10 weeks of the house agreeing to this resolution, all documents relating to the proposed animal care and protection bill, including but not limited to:

(a) consultation or consultation reports in relation to decision-making about the proposed bill; and

(b) communication between the government, the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, stakeholders and any other related or involved parties in relation to the progress of the bill and the reason for its significant delay.

Victoria’s animal protection laws will turn 40 years old next year. That is significantly older than I am. In 1986, when they were first written, the first disposable camera was introduced, so was the laptop, and the first computer virus was discovered. Something these items have in common is that they have all advanced over the years. Disposable cameras are now a relic, laptops have modernised significantly and we all have things in place to deal with those computer viruses. But something that has not changed since 1986 is our archaic animal welfare laws, specifically the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 here in Victoria.

More than eight years ago, in 2017, former Premier Daniel Andrews and former agriculture minister Jaala Pulford issued a media release announcing that the government would review the existing legislation and replace it with a modern animal welfare act. They said that this act would have passed the Parliament and be in effect by 2019. In that media release Ms Pulford said:

The new act will recognise the sentience of animals, reflecting the strong evidence that exists showing animals fear and feel pain. This will ensure animal welfare management and legislation in Victoria develops to meet community expectations.

Let me tell you, those community expectations in terms of how we treat animals in this state have significantly progressed since 1986 when our laws were first written. Since that statement was written in 2017 and since the first announcement in 2016, we have gone through a number of terms of Parliament – three if you include the year it was announced in and two if you include the time that they said those laws would be in effect by – and we have had four different ministers for agriculture. None of them have been able to bring this legislation to light and into our Parliament. This reminds me of the type of stuff that inspired the TV show Utopia. The inability of a government to just get this work done would be almost laughable if it were not so serious and did not have real-world consequences.

While it would be funny if it were not so urgent and serious, as I have said, the most concerning aspect of these unforgivable delays is the fact that animals are continuing to suffer at extreme levels across Victoria, and the people who are perpetuating cruelty are getting away with little to no consequences. To give this house a few examples of the horrific cases that have become casualties of the state’s inability to protect them, one might remember those starving horses in Mount Eliza, where for months horses were left without adequate food or water, suffering in plain sight while authorities failed to act. Their emaciated bodies, open wounds and clear signs of neglect were documented repeatedly, yet meaningful intervention came far, far too late. This chamber might also remember the corgi stuck on a Melbourne balcony after videos of him pacing anxiously on a tiny apartment ledge in the Melbourne CBD went viral. It was public outcry that forced his former owner to ultimately surrender him, not protection from our state’s animal welfare laws. And there is the case of Millie the dog, who was beaten to death with a steel pole outside her home in Victoria. What is particularly confronting about this case is that perpetrator was caught and is going through the courts right now, but the woeful penalties for animal cruelty that exist in this legislation mean that that man will very likely only receive a slap on the wrist. Victoria has some of the lowest penalties for animal cruelty in this country. Many other states have made the right decision and moved forward to modernise their animal welfare laws.

These are just a few cases among the many that my office is contacted about every single week – week in, week out. The reality is that our current laws intervene either far too late or they do not intervene at all. Had the proposed changes that the government promised us almost one decade ago already been in place, those horses, that corgi and Millie the dog would never have been allowed to experience such preventable neglect, starvation or suffering, and there would be consequences for it when the perpetrators were captured.

We know that this bill has been ready for some time.

These laws are written, consultation has been conducted. We know that, but it is sitting on the Premier’s desk collecting dust right now as we speak. It is time for the Premier to finally start acting in the interests of animals and the community who have been waiting a decade for this promised reform. But if she continues to refuse to do so, these documents will at the very least expose the real reasons behind this government’s shameful delay and shameful inaction.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:45): I rise to also make a contribution on this motion brought by Ms Purcell in regard to our animal protection laws. First of all, I just want to thank Ms Purcell for bringing this motion to the house and acknowledge her continued advocacy on behalf of the Animal Justice Party. As somebody who has been in this Parliament for seven years now, I have been working with the Animal Justice Party in a range of ways across a range of things, and so I am always happy to speak on a motion that talks about the sorts of things that our government is doing to improve and enhance animal welfare and animal protection.

This motion is a documents motion, and our government’s position is that we do not oppose documents motions. It is our convention: we do not oppose it. But having said that, it does give me an opportunity to talk about some of the things we are doing. I was just looking through some of the notes on this, and I am really pleased to see some of the changes and improvements that we have made in regard to chickens and poultry. There are a number of people in this chamber who know my views on chickens and poultry, so I might start there as it is a good opportunity.

Animal welfare is in the wheelhouse of the Allan Labor government. It is something we feel is important to continue to work on. There is always more to do – for example, in the 2025–26 state budget we provided $16.7 million over two years for safeguarding Victoria’s agricultural sector, supporting animal welfare. This was significant funding to the RSPCA, which is in addition to the $2.3 million. But in regard to chickens, Agriculture Victoria is drafting the new poultry regulations under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 to implement poultry welfare standards. Once the regulations commence in Victoria, they can be enforced by inspectors authorised under POCTA. That is really good news, because what we know is that sometimes people have the best intentions when it comes to keeping poultry. They are great, and some chickens make really nice pets, particularly bantams, but sometimes people think that keeping them in a cage is a good thing. It is not. It is just not, but having a system where chickens are allowed to display their natural behaviours, like scratching, flapping their wings, rolling in dirt, those sorts of things are all really important to animal welfare. That is for people who might keep backyard chickens, for example.

In regard to farmers, farmers will be allowed to choose from various egg production systems, which would include larger cages with furnishings, barns and free range. So again, it just goes to the point about making sure that whatever chicken you have, it can exhibit its natural behaviours. Like I said, that includes foraging, flapping its wings, dustbathing, all those sorts of things. It is also recognition of the fact – and this is something that is kind of tangentially relevant – we recognised in our laws a while back now that animal sentience is a thing. That is why some of these changes, in terms of enhancing or improving animal welfare, are based on that. I am personally really happy that we are recognising that.

Also, the Victorian government has welcomed the findings of the parliamentary inquiry into pig welfare. We supported 16 of the 18 recommendations, either in full or in principle, and this includes the recommendation to replace the Victorian code of practice for pig welfare with national standards and guidelines for pigs. Victoria is actively involved in the development of the national animal welfare standards and guidelines. So again, it is a national code. It is something we need to move on actively nationally, so we can have the same standards in place across not only Victoria but in other jurisdictions as well.

Just in regard to animal cruelty, in September 2025, 43 complaints were substantiated and investigations commenced. Agriculture Victoria assesses each cruelty allegation, investigates them and determines the most appropriate regulatory outcome, and that could include voluntary compliance through education, warnings, infringements and prosecutions.

Currently there are 16 cases before the Victorian courts for alleged breaches of the POCTA act, with 13 cases having concluded in 2025. The house might be interested to hear this, but I am sure Ms Purcell is aware that we are working with her office on ways to improve the lives of rehomed greyhounds through changes to muzzling and off-lead restrictions. There is always lots to do in this space. As I said, it is not the government’s position to oppose this motion – again, it is a documents motion – and I will leave my contribution there.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10:50): The Liberals and Nationals will not oppose. We will let this short-form documents motion go through, as is the protocol. It is important to get information. It is important to see some transparency around consultation and interactions with those bodies. I hope that there are a variety of entities having these conversations in relation to this bill. What I am concerned about of course is the impact and the lack of balance that may eventuate from government not recognising the importance of our agricultural sector in Victoria. The bill looks to expand enforcement powers and – we have heard it before, and I have heard it before certainly from all the ministers for ag who have been in this place – recognition of animal sentience. But without those clear guidelines, without safeguards, this could certainly lead to unintended consequences that undermine lawful rural practices.

No-one wants to see people operating outside the laws, but we have very strict laws, regulation and enforcement, and I am very concerned that this bill coming forward will be a green light for animal activism. I have heard Ms Purcell speak about some horrendous actions of recalcitrant Victorians who do things outside the law, and they should feel the full force of the law in terms of cruelty to animals, but the activism movement is not alone in its cruelty to animals. Let me just put a couple of examples on the record for balance. Back a number of years ago there were the animal activists who invaded a Tyabb poultry farm, moved into the sheds and then dislodged animals. There were many hundreds of animals in those air-conditioned sheds, and they moved into one corner. The animals moved to one end, and smothering occurred. There was the death, the very uncomfortable death, of around 200 to 300 animals.

We had Luv-a-Duck, where animal activists went onto the farm. Again, it is a fantastic story about immigrants coming to Victoria, setting up home, working with the local population of farmers and creating a wonderful and internationally recognised duck-producing, meat-producing, farm. Well, there were activists on that farm. Then there was my very own example, very dear to my heart, the Gippy Goat farm, where activists came onto a farm, a law-abiding farm, right near Yarragon. They decided to disrupt the movements there and put goats in the back of a car, take them away and say that that was protecting animals, when they were herding animals away from their herd.

This is some of the balance that I just want to provide in this conversation to ensure that the government is aware that any changes to laws, any updates, do not unfairly disadvantage law-abiding farmers. Modernisation is reasonable, but not enabling activism and risking enterprise, risking our fortunes as a state, because Victoria has always run on the back of our agricultural sector, from early days in wheat and sheep. Now of course we export the best quality beef in the world, and there is our milk production and a variety of agricultural sectors.

I note the Victorian Farmers Federation should be in some of those documents, because they also should be at the table and government should be listening to this very reputable organisation, amongst others.

They have concerns that the new welfare laws in Victoria will help animal activists. They will be concerned about the rise in legal challenges. The bill does not need to be vague; it needs to be quite specific. It does not need to be subjective; it needs to be objective. And it does not need to use ambiguous language in this, because we need certainty in Victoria that the government will support, as the Liberals and Nationals support, our ag sector to go on into the future with the highest animal standards that will not tear it down.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:55): I am pleased to rise to speak on Ms Purcell’s documents motion seeking documents relating to the proposed Animal Care and Protection Bill. Obviously, as Ms Terpstra stated, the government by convention does not oppose these documents motions. As I mentioned in my contribution to Mr Davis’s motion a little while ago, we respect the powers of the Legislative Council to make requests for documents in accordance with section 19 of the Victorian constitution, and respecting the provisions of that section of the constitution in providing that this chamber has the powers of the Parliament that applied to the House of Commons in 1855 in their rights and privileges, including what was then the Crown immunity, now executive privilege, which understandably reserves documents that are part of the cabinet process as being documents that have a privilege attached to them and therefore an immunity from orders seeking production.

I just say that because one of the things that this particular documents motion is seeking to do is to obtain access to materials that may have been used in the development of a bill. Obviously in the way that cabinet government works in the state of Victoria, and those who have read the cabinet handbook will understand, there is the central role the cabinet plays and decisions of the cabinet play in the development of legislation here in the state. Bills form part of the consideration of the cabinet process and cabinet agenda. I think, without knowing anything about the particular circumstances of this bill, it is certainly part of the standard practice of cabinet government in the state for those matters to be dealt with at cabinet. It is just an important way of understanding how some of the documents we might be attempting to seek by way of this motion might very well relate to matters which involve materials that have been submitted to the cabinet. In accordance with the Victorian constitution, the minister and the Attorney-General certainly will give that some consideration in determining whether or not there are any or all documents within the scope of the request for production that this motion seeks that are capable of being produced in accordance with those conventions and powers and immunities.

Obviously the government is incredibly attuned, as Ms Terpstra has said, to the need to have a robust system of animal welfare in this state. We absolutely expect that the community does the right thing by animals in our homes, in industries and in the broader community. We have been working hard since we came to government in a range of areas to ensure that not just the laws but also the practices and organisations are properly empowered and resourced to make sure that that can occur. They are obviously matters which we know are of significant concern to many, and they are certainly of concern to the government. The government, in the course of how we have conducted both these areas and a range of others, have been keen to ensure that animal welfare is a priority in the state of Victoria.

Motion agreed to.