Wednesday, 12 August 2026

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (17:58): I move:

That the petition be taken into consideration.

I rise to speak on this petition which calls on the government to finally honour its now 10-year-old commitment to introduce the animal care and protection bill to finally modernise our broken animal protection laws in this state. This was a promise that was made by the Labor government quite some time ago, and it is a promise that they have continued to fail on. They have continued to prioritise other pieces of work and have continued to prioritise other pieces of legislation, despite this bill being ready for introduction to the Parliament at any time.

I want to thank the petition starter Tracey Asquith for her relentless dedication. I am sure she would love to be here today. I believe she is watching on the live stream. She has shown so much effort not just in collecting these signatures but in tireless work advocating to the government to make this change and to finally do what they said they would. This all came about after Tracey was horrified when she learned just how weak our state’s so-called animal protection laws are and how they are failing each and every day. It is clear that everyone else is disgusted too, because more than 10,000 Victorians signed this petition in rapid time after the former Premier said that these laws would not enter the Parliament this term. This was after we were promised they would enter this term and promised they would enter in the last term. There have been multiple rounds of consultation and millions of dollars budgeted for it, only for the legislation to languish and gather dust on a desk.

This is not just a broken promise. This is causing animals to suffer in real time every day, because our current framework is 40 years old – it is older than I am – and those laws were designed to punish cruelty, not to prevent cruelty. That might sound like a minor detail, but it means they are incredibly difficult to apply and to prove that there should be intervention by authorities. Part of the reason for that is because cruelty is hard to prove, whereas we know something that can be cruel to an animal is neglecting that animal – it is failing to provide care, it is failing to provide food, water or shelter. Not only would these laws have finally recognised that are animals sentient – they can feel pain, joy, suffering and happiness – but they would have mandated a duty of care, and that is incredibly important.

There are many cases that have happened in our state that would have seen different outcomes if we had had these laws in place at the time. Some of those will be familiar to people in this place because we received huge amounts of correspondence in relation to them, such as the Mount Eliza horses, where there were months of inaction while 35 horses were starving on a property with no ability for action because our laws did not allow it. There was Trump the corgi – I did not name him – who was languishing on a balcony and was only rehomed because of a negotiation with the owner, not because the laws allowed it. We have seen many of these cases.

And when the high threshold of cruelty is proven and charges are laid, the penalties are incredibly weak. We saw that in the case of Millie, a Maltese shih tzu who was brutally beaten with a metal pole at least 16 times in December 2024 by a neighbour. Her body was never found. Her attacker was placed on an 18-month community corrections order. I do believe some of Millie’s family are here today. They know the outcomes when these laws fail, and they are why we need to ensure this promise is finally delivered.

These are just some examples, but we are inundated every single day in my office by Victorians who are horrified at the animal suffering they are seeing around them, only to find out that our laws actually allow this, and then when a case does reach an outcome, the penalties do not match the crime. For example: aggravated animal cruelty has a maximum jail term of two years, which has not been used I think ever; property damage has a maximum jail term of 10 years. This really demonstrates just how devalued and dismissed animals are in this state, and that was the reasoning for this commitment in the very first place. We knew that our laws were not recognising the way that we view animals here in 2026, or in 2016 when this was first committed to. We were promised these laws by 2019. It is seven years later. There are a few weeks left of Parliament. This bill is ready, it is about priorities and it is time for the new Premier to tell us where he stands on this one.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:03): I rise to speak on what is a very important subject, and I acknowledge the continued and tenacious advocacy of Ms Purcell in raising this in the chamber. I am appreciative of the opportunity for this place to be talking about this matter today, although I will note my attire is far less appropriate to the matter at hand.

I understand that well over 10,000 Victorians have signed this petition, and I want to acknowledge each and every one of them. In affirming that the government will be supporting the acceptance of this petition tonight, I am sure that this will contribute to the ongoing public debate that we are having in this state and the ongoing work that, as Ms Purcell referenced, is already well and truly underway. I note that Minister Blandthorn is in the chamber and the work that she has done in this space over a sustained period as well. There are reforms which have already taken place. Indeed as part of this year’s state budget there is the $16.9 million commitment to deliver important animal welfare protection initiatives as well as biosecurity measures, which are just as important.

There is absolutely no place for animal cruelty like that in some of the stories Ms Purcell has shared today, some of which I have discussed with her, and similar stories. Indeed with one particular story affecting a family in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, no words can describe how I feel about that. No family should have to go through that. No family should ever have to deal with that. It is appropriate, I think, that we work for laws in this place that bring about justice for people, justice for families and justice for animals. That is something that sits at the front of my mind whenever we discuss these issues. The unthinkable thing is if I were in that situation with my pets. But that is something that we must always strive for in this place: to remember that no matter what the policy is that we are debating, the debates, the discussions and the arguments that we have in this chamber affect the lives of ordinary Victorians – of each and every Victorian. It is in that spirit that I am very much looking forward to seeing the continued policy work and the consultations taking place for this very important piece of legislation to be further continued.

There is much more I could talk about in relation to government investment in animal welfare as it stands broadly, ranging from giving renters the right to keep a pet; reforms around the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, ensuring that the government receives expert advice; becoming the first state to introduce mandatory reporting of animal fate data for dogs and cats in shelters and pounds; the targeted desexing program for cats; and the production of Victoria’s first Animal Welfare Action Plan, which recognised that animals are sentient. The latest round of funding for the Animal Welfare Fund, supporting 36 organisations, brings grants to more than $16 million over the past decade. Indeed as part of the previous year’s state budget there was significant funding as well of over $13 million, including funding to continue the delivery of domestic animal regulatory functions under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and the continued operation of the pet exchange register and commercial dog breeder scheme. This government also banned puppy farms, with the strictest breeding rules in the country, made it an offence to sell a pet without a valid microchip and source number from the pet exchange register, and removed the need for greyhounds – beautiful greys – to be muzzled in public.

I am going to conclude my remarks by going back to where I began, and that is that we do have an important role and responsibility in this place to legislate for all Victorians, especially for those moments when we are at our most vulnerable. No animal – I was going to say, especially no treasured pet, but no animal – should have to go through any amount of abuse or violence, especially where it is completely unwarranted, unnecessary and against all human and all animal decency. I very much look forward to continuing this discussion and having more to say in future debates on this issue.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (18:08): The wonderful thing about Parliament is petitions, and I respect the fact that Victorians are enabled to conduct petitions and submit them to Parliament, and then when they reach a threshold we debate them. Clearly there is always going to be a wide array of views in this place and potentially an even wider array of views in the public domain. Whilst I note this petition and will speak to it, it is not the Liberals’ or Nationals’ position that we endorse the contents of it. However, we endorse the democracy behind it.

Let me put our position quite clearly: we strongly support animal welfare, and we strongly support tough penalties for those who deliberately inflict abuse, neglect and cruelty on animals. We strongly say that there should be no tolerance of cruelty in the animal world and also in the small child world, in the domestic violence world, and the list could go on.

I am a daughter of a dairy farmer, and I know how hard my father worked for all his working life since he was 14 to make sure his animals were fit, healthy and the least stressed they could be. And it was a feather in his cap, we will say, or a piece of pride, to know that his cell count was one of the best in the state. That means that his cows produced healthy milk and they were healthy, overwhelmingly – not always, of course, and that is where that practical application of animal care comes into it.

Caring for animals is not a political slogan, and this debate should not be framed in the position of supporting animals as opposed to supporting farmers. We need to do and should be doing both, and there should be a hand-in-hand approach. We should have, and we do have now, strong animal welfare protection, and we need to do that while supporting the people that care for animals every day in food and fibre production and in care for our domestic animals. There is nothing more atrocious than having a domestic violence situation where a partner is being held ransom because of a loved companion animal.

But our concern is not with the improving of animal welfare. Our concern is with the rushing of a complex piece of legislation before important questions have been answered. The Victorian Farmers Federation have consistently raised concerns about the broad regulatory powers, uncertainty around the future licensing arrangement and the potential impact on legitimate farming practices. These concerns should not be dismissed. The VFF represents hardworking Victorian farmers, and there are more that sit under the VFF umbrella. They are asking for certainty, clarity, proper consultation and significant reforms, rather than just a draft bill before this house.

We want to see practical reform, we want to see evidence-based reform, we want things to be informed by science and veterinary expertise and we want real-world farming expertise to be included in it. Good policy is developed with industry, and in this case farmers and primary producers, not imposed upon them, and given the impact of excessive regulation on Victoria’s agricultural industries, any reforms, as I have said, must be practical, must be proportionate and must be evidence based. We should target cruelty, but we should not create uncertainty. If laws need strengthening, then strengthen them. If penalties are inadequate, then increase them. Truly what this government has done over its time is reduce Agriculture Victoria to a back room or an outhouse. It has whittled down both the enforcement powers within them and their resources to actually go out and do that proper work in relation to care and animal husbandry, we could say.

We will always support sensible measures that improve animal welfare. But this is a draft bill, and in my view we need to get it right. There needs to be more consultation. Rushing it through and calling it protection is a fallacy, and therefore whilst we appreciate the democracy within the petition, we do not appreciate a rushed draft bill.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (18:14): The Greens will be supporting this petition, and we share the call for the government to immediately introduce the animal care and protection bill. Our existing Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (POCTA act) is now 40 years old, and it does reflect an outdated approach to animal welfare, one that is largely focused on responding to cruelty once suffering has occurred rather than establishing a modern preventative duty to properly care for animals. The draft bill that has been spoken about would also have explicitly recognised that animals are sentient beings, that they experience pain, fear and pleasure and that cruelty can cause suffering. These are not radical proposals in 2026, they are basic principles that should underpin contemporary animal welfare law. The RSPCA has been so clear that these reforms will make a practical difference to its inspectors, who investigate more than 10,000 reports of animal cruelty every year. Specifically, the RSPCA welcomed legislated minimum care requirements because they assist inspectors that are investigating neglect and poor living conditions every day in this state.

The new legislation would also have strengthened serious cruelty offences and penalties, including indictable offences for the most serious intentional cruelty, torture and torment. We know why that is needed; we have seen so many horrible examples in this state. Another that I am aware of is RSPCA’s seizure of 13 horses and 24 cats from a property that was linked to a repeat animal cruelty offender, where more than 400 animals had been reportedly removed from this same person’s care over the preceding decade, and this was their fourth breach of court orders. So clearly we do need updated laws.

It is not a coincidence, but that 10-year period in which that person continued to inflict cruelty on animals roughly mirrors how long we have been talking about this new animal care and protection bill. It is a nonsense to say that this bill was being rushed. In fact this bill had been consulted on and advocated for for years, and then, when the Premier changed the action, it ground to a halt, and the bill has sat there gathering dust, and it is a damn shame. This government should prioritise this work. It is ready to go. It has been consulted on. In fact the stakeholders that Ms Bath was referring to have had extensive opportunities to contribute. I think what happened is that the then Premier got more worried about losing her own seat, and feeling that there was sensitivity around this law, she choked and took it off the agenda. Now our animals are suffering still, because this work has been done but the government has not prioritised bringing the bill on. Hopefully there is a fresh opportunity. We have certainly got a lot on the agenda in these last few weeks, but I think that this is crucial and the government should bring it on.

In fact way before the consultation on the current draft bill the Greens had been saying this for years. My predecessor in this place Sue Pennicuik, who was the one of the first Greens elected to this place, in 2006 was arguing for stronger animal protection laws and throughout her time in Parliament, including criticising these existing gaps in our POCTA act. Ellen Sandell and Samantha Ratnam, again, repeatedly called for the POCTA act to be strengthened, as had previous Greens animal welfare spokespersons. We continue that work today and we will continue until the government finally gets on and delivers fit-for-purpose, well-consulted laws.

Labor itself recognised the problem back in 2017, when it committed to replacing the POCTA act, so this is a broken promise as well as a waste of all the effort. There have been years of reviews, consultation papers, stakeholder meetings, an exposure draft and years and years of work by animal welfare organisations, legal experts, industry and the community. The government glowingly described its own draft bill as enabling ‘earlier intervention before harm occurs’. So much for earlier intervention, because inexplicably it was shelved.

The draft bill would not solve every animal welfare problem in Victoria, and the Greens certainly look forward to the opportunity to scrutinise and strengthen it as it comes through this chamber eventually, but Victoria absolutely needs to move on from a 40-year-old framework centred on responding to cruelty towards modern laws designed to prevent suffering in the first place. The government should absolutely introduce the animal care and protection bill and let Parliament get on with its job. The Greens support the petition today and thank Ms Purcell for bringing this to the chamber and everyone who signed the petition.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (18:19): It has been great to receive support from most parts of the chamber. I certainly do take issue with commentary stating that this has been rushed when it has been a decade and in that decade we have seen countless animals suffer in our state. To hear that we have strong animal protection laws when we have people in this building observing this debate who have lived the reality of that simply not being the case and the heartache and the trauma that comes with that I think is incredibly out of touch. Nobody is saying that these laws cannot exist alongside farming communities. In fact the entire intention behind these laws is that they have gone through multiple rounds of consultation and they are ready for introduction to the Parliament because that consultation was a successful process. We cannot have the opposition saying that we have strong laws while also complaining and blaming the government for one of the cases I spoke about, which was the Mount Eliza horses, where multiple MPs in the lower house were criticising the government for inaction. It does not go both ways.

We need to give authorities the power to act, and they clearly do not have that right now. There is the ability to get the balance right. I know better than anyone the balancing act that comes with protecting animals from cruelty and acknowledging that there are people who will have expectations of these laws. These laws certainly do not go far enough for me. Everybody knows my views on the various atrocities that happen to animals across our state that are completely legal. But we have got to start somewhere, and right now animals are languishing, suffering from neglect and dying because of the inaction of this government. It is time that they did the right thing and acted on this.

To hear that this is somehow rushed when we have seen multiple bills for racing, for outdoor recreation, for duck shooting, for a range of different things fly through this Parliament that were not even policy at the start of this term is galling. Once again, I call on Premier Ben Carroll to prove he is different to Jacinta Allan and introduce these laws to the Parliament.

Motion agreed to.