Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 23 June 2020] p4051c-4092a Mr Bill Marmion; Mr Shane Love; Mr Kyran O'Donnell; Dr David Honey; Ms Lisa Baker; Mr Stephen Price; Mr Peter Rundle; Dr Mike Nahan; Ms Cassandra Rowe; Mr Zak Kirkup; Ms Jessica Shaw; Mr Terry Healy; Mr Reece Whitby; Mr Chris Tallentire DOG AMENDMENT (STOP PUPPY FARMING) BILL 2020 Second Reading Resumed from 19 February. MR W.R. MARMION (Nedlands — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.28 pm]: I rise to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party as the lead speaker on the Dog Amendment (Stop Puppy Farming) Bill 2020. I advise the minister that we will not be supporting the bill in its current form. The intention is well meaning. I think everyone in this house, and probably everyone in Western Australia, would not want puppy farming to be undertaken. On its website, the RSPCA defines “puppy farming” as — ‘an intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs’ behavioural, social and/or physiological needs’. That is totally unsatisfactory. No-one in Western Australia would condone that sort of activity. The Liberal Party has had a very close look at this bill and consulted widely. The member for Maylands is a well-meaning person and strongly supports this bill and the objectives that it endeavours to achieve. Although we also support its objectives, we feel it not only has some shortcomings but also a lot of people think it could have the opposite effect, which would be most concerning. The bill has some reasonably good aspects, but they add red tape to the current process of owning a dog. That may be a good or a bad thing; there are different views either way. Extensive consultation was undertaken by the government. Quite a large consultation document was produced—I will not go through it—about various aspects put forward. There seemed to be widespread support; a high percentage of people supported the objectives of the bill. I will go through some of those in a minute. The Dog Amendment (Stop Puppy Farming) Bill basically amends the Dog Act 1976 to give effect to measures to prevent and stop puppy farming by regulating the breeding and sale of dogs in Western Australia. That is one of the bill’s objectives, as mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. The mandatory standards underpin these legislative changes and are critical to ensuring that everyone is aware of the appropriate standards of care for these animals, which are integral to the lives of many Western Australians. One objective is to regulate the sale and breeding of dogs in Western Australia. As mentioned in the explanatory memorandum, dog breeding is not currently regulated in Western Australia. As a result, dog breeders are able to disguise their operations, avoid detection by authorities, and continue to breed dogs irresponsibly. The bill attempts to solve the problem of overbreeding and the inappropriate breeding of dogs in the following ways: firstly, by reducing the number of unwanted dogs born. We would all support that. Secondly, it will provide another outlet for the sale or adoption of unwanted or abandoned dogs. We would all support that too. The Shenton Dogs’ Refuge Home is in my electorate of Nedlands. It is a terrific facility that benefits the community widely—that is the broader community of Western Australia—particularly in the metropolitan area. Thirdly, it will provide a means for purchasers to be confident that they are not sourcing their dog from a puppy farm. Fourthly, it will allow dogs to be traced throughout their life, thus allowing puppy farms to be identified and shut down. The database would indicate whether a large number of dogs are being bred from one particular source. That could be identified and presumably investigated to see whether a breeder is operating within the rules and also that the dogs are being well looked after. This bill will regulate the breeding of dogs and ensure both transparency and traceability to identify where dogs are coming from. There are arguments that these measures will not necessarily stop poor breeding practices. It may not cover the registration of all dogs throughout the state. Even if it stopped puppy farming in WA, dogs will still be sourced from the eastern states. That is another issue. It would be interesting for the minister, in his second reading response, to mention how many dogs are currently registered. My experience, having lived all over Western Australia, is that it is probably a lot easier to register dogs in the metropolitan area than it is in certain rural locations. That is based on my experience living in the Kimberley. I wonder how many dogs are registered in the Kimberley. Are all dogs registered in the metropolitan area? I know they are supposed to be registered, but are they currently registered? Obviously one of the key issues of this bill is to ensure that all dogs are registered. Mr D.A. Templeman: If we had a central registration system, we would know. Mr W.R. MARMION: Correct. No; not necessarily—not everyone registers their dog. I do not know that everyone registers their dog with their local authority. This bill will amend the Dog Act 1976 and the Animal Welfare Act 2002. I must say that we received a very good handout from departmental officers during our briefing. I am looking around but I do not see them, because I do not think we are going into consideration in detail today. [1] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 23 June 2020] p4051c-4092a Mr Bill Marmion; Mr Shane Love; Mr Kyran O'Donnell; Dr David Honey; Ms Lisa Baker; Mr Stephen Price; Mr Peter Rundle; Dr Mike Nahan; Ms Cassandra Rowe; Mr Zak Kirkup; Ms Jessica Shaw; Mr Terry Healy; Mr Reece Whitby; Mr Chris Tallentire Mr D.R. Michael interjected. Mr W.R. MARMION: They are here, hidden at the back. I thank the minister for our briefing and the very good handout. The second page refers to the scope of the Dog Act. The first dot point states that it provides for the control and management of dogs—that is, responsible dog ownership. It also provides for dog registration and microchipping, dog attacks and dangerous dogs. Its enforcement authority is the local governments. The other act that is extremely relevant to the bill before us is the Animal Welfare Act. The scope of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 is the prevention of cruelty to animals; it promotes the health, welfare and safety of all animals, including companion animals; and regulates the use of animals—we do not need to worry about that—for scientific purposes. The primary scope in terms of puppy farming is the mistreatment of animals, particularly dogs. One would argue that the Animal Welfare Act is the vehicle to make sure that all animals, whether in a facility that has lots of dogs or in a house with one dog, are all treated and cared for properly and that their wellbeing is managed. When we asked in the briefing whether the Animal Welfare Act would be part of this process, the answer was yes. I understand this amendment bill is part of a package to stop puppy farming. The government wants to regulate dogs so that we know where all the dogs are in Western Australia. The welfare of dogs will be managed through the Animal Welfare Act. We had some discussion about that. I guess an amending bill will come before this house in due course. In some of the consultation that I have had with various people and organisations, including the RSPCA, obviously, I have been told that perhaps they need to be beefed up a little in their powers; maybe more support mechanisms are needed so they can get out there and do their job. All the people I spoke to, certainly on our side, would see that as being an essential element of getting the desired outcome of this bill. I should say that this bill only achieves some of the outcomes the government wants to achieve. Without the Animal Welfare Act, we are only halfway there. Some people have argued that we could potentially go backwards without the Animal Welfare Act being in play. One element of the bill that is mandatory is dog sterilisation. The aim is to ensure the non-proliferation of dogs— unwanted dogs. We do not want that. The aim of it is well meaning. Obviously, it is a burden, but an exemption in the bill states that current owners will not have to do that. People who criticise this argue that it means that some dogs will not be sterilised. We can take it either way. Of course, Dogs West is totally opposed to this, as it is a breeder that believes, as both the minister and the member for Maylands know, that Dogs West should have an exemption for sterilisation — Ms L.L. Baker: Of dogs! Mr W.R. MARMION: —of dogs!—and also to be registered as a breeder. Dogs West is a bit up in arms over that and it has its reasons. If I have time, I might mention some of those later. Another aspect of the bill is the approval to breed. If someone is a breeder, they will have to register. If someone owns a dog that is not sterilised after two years, I understand that that person is required to register as a breeder. The Dogs West people get a bit grumpy over that because that is what it does: it has dogs that breed.