OPINION: Poor rescue groups shame rich RSPCA

 As principal solicitor for law firm Lawyers for Companion Animals, I have concerns about the composition of the companion animals taskforce.

by Tahnae Goldsworthy

Local Macarthur Chronicle
12 Jun 12 @ 11:00am

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_generalindex.asp?sectionid=1&areaindex=CATASK&documenttype=8&mi=9&ml=10

This document submission below was a collaborate effort with input from around 30 people very concerned with the high kill rates of cats and dogs in NSW.
PLEASE NOTE – THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Input from the document came from a range of sources, all of them concerned with the high kill rate of cats and dogs in NSW.

If you agree with the submissions below, please feel free to send the template document below or amend or delete parts of it for your own purposes.

The email address is cataskforce@dlg.nsw.gov.au

PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO INCLUDE the feedback form on Page 41 of Taskforce discussion paper. It is extremely important that concerned animal-lovers provide feedback to the NSW government on this discussion paper. You may wish to include cc emails to Ministers Page and Hodgkinson. The email addresses are as follows

office@page.minister.nsw.gov.au

office@hodgkinson.minister.nsw.gov.au

Companion Animals Taskforce Discussion Paper

Division of Local Government,

Department of Premier and Cabinet Locked Bag 3015

NOWRA NSW 2541

Via email cataskforce@dlg.nsw.gov.au

SUBMISSION

An additional 50,000 animals will have been killed while the Taskforce Discussion paper has been underway. The Taskforce was established August 2011, the draft report was released May 2012 and public submissions to the draft paper are expected by 1^st July 2012. In essence there is the very least; another 3-4 months wait before any final recommendations will be released. The lack of urgency from the Taskforce is shocking, the lives of cats and dogs are at stake and priority is called for to address these issues.

Predominantly groups which make up this Taskforce generally have little experience in the rescuing or rehoming of these animals and furthermore on average hold a vested interest in maintaining high numbers of animals in the community for commercial and or hobby interests. It also appears that Questions (options) 1-20 are geared in such a way to raise revenue, without providing concrete examples of how the revenue will be spent to reduce the kill rates of cats and dogs.

Furthermore, the lack of “grass roots rescue” and volunteer groups is particularly noticeable when reviewing the recommendations made. Rescue and volunteer groups hold no commercial or vested interest and understand the issues faced, as this is their day-to-day experience. Surely that should have earned them a right to a voice, a voice that this Taskforce needs to listen to. Numerous requests were made to the Minister for Primary Industries and the Minister for Local Government to include NO KILL rescue groups on the Taskforce, but all these requests were denied. I contrast this with the situation in America where the City of Dallas has established the Dallas Companion Animal Project, the official task force appointed by the City of Dallas in July of 2011.  Originally conceived by the Animal Shelter Commission on June 23, 2011, its mission is to guide the community toward increasing programs and strategies to end the killing of adoptable homeless animals. You will notice that the Dallas Task force is comprised of more than 50% of the people who are currently, or have previously been, part of community rescue groups. https://dallascompanionanimalproject.wordpress.com/about/task-force-members/

If Taskforces are established to provide a solution it should be a taskforce with members with a proven history of implementing proactive and proven programs in animal welfare that have reduced the number of animals killed in Australia. The current members on the taskforce have not implemented meaningful solutions to substantially reduce the kill rate of our companion animals, whereby grass roots rescue are leading the way with compulsory sterilisation and micro chipping of animals rehomed and turning high kill pounds into low kill pounds.

It is reported that over 50,000 animals in NSW alone are killed on an annual basis; surely this is a testament that these key groups have repeatedly failed to implement any strategies to substantially reduce the kill rate of our companion animals. In the Taskforce discussion paper, no mention is made of the AWL Queensland approach “Getting to Zero” or any inclusion from the US and Canadian “No Kill” initiatives.  The very fact that these strategies have not been referred to, demonstrate an unwillingness by the Taskforce membership to strategies concerning the saving of animal lives in pounds and shelters. The very subject they have been asked to report on!! On 18 May 2011 Tim Vasudeva (AWL) and Kristina Vesk (Cat Protection Society) co-ordinated a workshop at NSW Parliament House, which was hosted by Clover Moore. Steve Coleman (RSPCA NSW) was also present at this Workshop. One of the topics presented at this workshop were Getting to Zero in whole communities: the model and how it can be achieved. Why is it that there are representatives of THREE organisations on this Taskforce that are supposedly animal welfare orientated who have attended this Workshop yet there is no reference to Getting to Zero in the Discussion Paper? There is a lack of transparency as to which (if any) of these three Taskforce members were in favour of Getting to Zero principles, despite being aware of them. No minutes of meetings of Taskforce meetings have been made publicly available (that I am aware of).

http://www.awlqld.com.au/about/position/pet-rescue-gold-coast/

http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/

I make the following recommendations: –

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Introduce High Volume Low Cost Desexing Schemes for cats throughout NSW. This could be done via mobile desexing clinics similar to those which operate in the US and New Zealand. If New Zealand can do this, why can’t Australia? http://rnzspca.org.nz/saving-lives/mobile-clinic/311-mobile-clinic
• Surrender Tax on breeders whose animals end up at the pound.  All microchips to include the breeder details for the lifetime of the animal. There has been a proliferation of rescue groups who are cleaning up the mess of unwanted animals, which are bred indiscriminately by unscrupulous and/or irresponsible people. This way breeders will have to bear some of the responsibility for the animals they indiscriminately pump out into the community. Rescue groups carefully scrutinise potential homes for dogs and cats they rescue and rehome. Also most rescue groups and some ethical breeders allow for animals sold by them to be returned (thereby continuing to take full responsibility for the animal). Unethical breeders do not care where the animal ends up as long as they are can make a short-term financial gain from the sale of the animal.
• Recommend an enquiry into RSPCA NSW’s high euthanasia rates. The RSPCA NSW has massive financial resources and despite this, has high kill rates of animals entering their facility. 2010-11 41,662 dogs and cats entered the RSPCA NSW, and 21,240 were subsequently killed*, that is 51%. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=rspca%20statistics&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CFIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rspca.org.au%2Fassets%2Ffiles%2FResources%2FAnnualStatistics%2FMicrosoft%2520Word%2520-%2520Annual%2520Statistics%25202010_2011%2520EXTERNAL%2520ONLY.doc%2520%252011.11.pdf&ei=pFLxT6bbNO2ZiAft0_j7DA&usg=AFQjCNHhjOHvlZxbgCElwlIqLlBzeV8zXg
• The Dogs Trust UK is a comparable organisation and their mantra is “We never kill a healthy dog”’. This Inquiry should also investigate community concerns regarding dissatisfaction with action not being taken in animal cruelty cases. Too many times rather than taking the action the community expects, the RSPCA merely says, “we are monitoring the situation, the investigation is ongoing, we can’t tell you any more due to privacy”. Meanwhile animals are suffering. There is a great deal of community anger due to a strong perception of lack of response by the RSPCA. The easy access to large numbers of unwanted animals makes them easy targets for animal cruelty perpetrators.
• The Taskforce should also be investigating the possibility of expanding the Companion Animals Act to include other animals such as rabbits. At present there is no regulation of rabbit breeding in NSW. If rabbit breeders continue to breed rabbits indiscriminately there is the potential for domestic rabbits bred in a rural areas to escape and mate with the local wild population, which could wreak havoc on the local environment. For this very reason, it is illegal to own a rabbit as a pet in Qld.

Breeding regulations

1. The introduction of a breeder-licensing program with an aim to regulate the industry.
2. Impose limits on the number of puppies and kittens that can be bred. Impose time limits between litters. Mandatory record keeping of all litters (and parents, ie stud or bitch) ie, one litter per year per cat.
3. High penalties need to be introduced as a deterrent for unlicensed breeding. . Funding to go to policing of unlicenced breeders and rehoming of confiscated animals.
4. Prohibit large-scale commercial breeding activities and licence backyard breeders.
5. Stop the sale of live animals in Pet Shops and local markets.
6. Address Greyhound breeding numbers and actively seek solutions to their plight.  There needs to be an expansion of the GAP program so that a significant number can be re-homed. The numbers that are re-homed by GAP are tokenistic. Over 85% of greyhounds bred will not live a full life span. There needs to be (breeder and owner) accountability for greyhounds that are bred. Let’s not forget that some greyhound breeders breed in large number and are, regarded by some, as puppy farmers.
7. Backyard breeders need to apply to their local council for a Development Application to breed dogs. Special areas are required for to be set aside for whelping and cleaning run off need to be considered.

Improve Re-homing

1. Councils to ensure an Animal Welfare Charter is included into their internal governance. In addition to this, council pounds to implement a rehoming facility as part of the care and responsibility towards animal welfare.
2. Resourcing in local pounds is minimal, therefore recommendations to local councils to ensure better collaboration within their community and acceptance of volunteers who are working at these facilities.
3. All animals available for rehoming should be prominently advertised on the council website and social media sites, with every effort being made to ensure these animals find alternate homes.  Often this work is undertaken by volunteers and these volunteers should be encouraged to undertake this work. Additionally work with local animal rescue and rehoming centres to further expand the reach of advertising for homeless animals.
4. Implementation of key performance indicators for Council and Shelter Staff that focuses on the reduction of euthanasia rates. Refer to the AWL Queensland Getting to Zero scorecard as a guide.
   1. Implement a Council Foster Care Program that will minimise the number of animals held in pound facilities until their alternative home may be found.
   2. Redefine with a view to significantly improve Temperament Testing with a view to assisting the animal with behaviour modification.  (See Winograd, Temperament Testing in the Age of No Kill)
   3. Implement appropriate training to be provided to pound and shelter staff in animal welfare, management and rehoming practices.
   4. Education – one of the important aspects of education for dog owners is dog training. Many dogs end up in pounds because of their behaviour. This is a point that needs to be highlighted. It is a major issue as to why dogs get killed. It is not always aggressive behaviour. Quite often it is stupid things like dogs barking and general unruly behaviour and people don’t now how to handle it and are not told at the time of acquiring dog proper information about dog behaviour or how to train dogs. There are all sorts of ways that all councils could be encouraging dog training;
      for example- Owners get discounts if they have attended dog training classes.
   5. Introduce legislation to make it illegal for a landlord to discriminate against pet owners on the basis of their choice of household companion. Introduce pet bonds to satisfy landlords.

10. Regulate the advertising of animals for sale unless the advertiser is an approved registered and licensed breeder with an approved licence number, or an approved Rescue group.

11. Legislate so that the sale of cats and dogs online, in newspapers and elsewhere is prohibited without displaying a licence number (for example like tradesmen are required to do)

12. Recommend the AVA to actively encourage vets to work at preferential rates with approved Rescue groups. This work should be encouraged as a community responsibility.

13. Vet surgeries should be encouraged to act as small-scale rehoming centres and take part in rehoming initiatives as part of their community contribution.

Other strategies

1. Education and the encouragement of responsible pet ownership with the aim to reduce the number of animals surrendered each year to council pounds and shelters. The current education is more about inaccurately identifying dangerous breeds. Ie Councils to actively put out leaflets and information with rates on responsible pet ownership.

1. Education should include full disclosure on lifetime costs and imposts on ownership of an animal for its lifetime. These costs are well known and are explained in detail in the ACAC 2010 report “Contribution of the Pet Care Industry to the Australian Economy 7^th Edition”. People seeking a pet should be made aware of the full lifetime costs and responsibilities associated with lifetime ownership.

1. Far more focus needs to be put onto Councils to provide education for Rangers and Animal Control Officers to develop strategies designed to help members of the community keep their animals and return animals to owners. (See Standing Tall in Reno, No Kill Advocacy Centre 2010).

REGULATION OF BREEDERS

Option 1          Introduce a breeder licensing system

Do you support the introduction of a breeder licensing system to strengthen the regulation of cat and dog breeding practices?

Yes         

Breeder licensing must be applied to each and every breeder; there should no exemption for membership to any Kennel Club, Dogs NSW or other Association. Licensing details should be kept by a State Government or independent authority.

Option 2          Revise the Breeding Code of Practice to make existing guidelines enforceable standards

1. Do you support revising the Animal Welfare Code of Practice – Breeding Dogs and Cats so that the guidelines contained within the document apply to breeders as enforceable standards?

Yes         

Yes, all guidelines should be standards

1. Do you think that such standards should also form the basis of requirements for a breeder licensing system (see Option 1)?

Yes         

Option 3          Clarify planning legislation requirements relating to the approval of commercial breeder, boarding and shelter premises

Do you support the development of planning guidelines applying to breeding, boarding or shelter constructions across the state?

Yes         

I support this, and it should be linked to breeder licensing criteria

ADVERTISING AND SALE OF CATS AND DOGS

Option 4            Mandatory listing of an animal’s microchip number or breeder number in all cat and dog advertisements

Do you agree that all advertisements for cats and dogs offered for sale (including internet advertisements) should include either the animal’s microchip number or the number of the animal’s registered breeder?

Unsure         

Breeder details must be included on microchips for the life of the animal,. There must be suitable resources available to monitor and enforce compliance. Advertisements should NOT display the animals microchip number. Displaying microchip numbers could potentially have devastating effects with regards to privacy issues, and is very much open to abuse by unscrupulous public officials.

Option 5 Issue guidelines on the advertising and sale of cats and dogs

Do you agree that guidelines on the advertising and sale of cats and dogs should be provided by the Government?

Yes         

There must be suitable resources to enforce any guidelines and the media must be legislated to comply (In Queensland media appear unwilling to enforce the requirements)

MICROCHIPPING, REGISTRATION AND DESEXING

Option 6          Remove  existing “two step” registration process to require microchipping and registration of cats and dogs by 3 months of age

Do you support revoking the existing “two step” registration process to require the microchipping and lifetime registration of cats and dogs by 3 months of age?

No         

There needs to be (REGISTRATION) exemptions for animal rescue groups. Many vets, especially in country areas will not desex under 6 months, so 3 month registration won’t work as there are discounts for registration of desexed animals (and some animals wont be desexed till 6 months due to vets being unwilling to desex under 6 months).

Option 7 Provide a registration fee rebate for owners who desex their animals within 3 months of registration

Do you support a registration rebate for owners who desex their animal within 3 months of registration as a means to encourage desexing?

Yes         

Yes, but the rebate needs to be sufficiently attractive

Option 8          Raise cat and dog registration fees to fund additional council and State Government cat and dog management programs

1. Do you think that registration fees should be increased to make more funding available for council and State Government cat and dog programs?

Yes         

• There needs to be a surrender Tax on breeders whose animals end up at the pound.  All microchips to include the breeder details for the lifetime of the animal. There has been a proliferation of rescue groups who are cleaning up the mess of unwanted animals, which are bred indiscriminately by unscrupulous and/or irresponsible people. This way breeders will have to bear some of the responsibility for the animals they indiscriminately pump out into the community. Rescue groups carefully vet potential homes for dogs and cats they rescue. Unethical breeders do not care where the animal ends up as long as they are can make money from the sale.  A surrender tax on breeders would be a source of revenue for councils.

The vast majority of pet owners are responsible and should NOT be penalised for the defect of irresponsible pet owners. The pound problem is a community wide problem and responsibility should be taken by the Community and the Pet Industry. I would support an increase in Council Rates as a Community-wide companion animal welfare contribution, and a levy on all revenue generating members of the pet industry, excluding approved Rescue Groups and Shelters.  Additional costs on responsible pet owners could drop compliance rates.

1. Do you support amending the Companion Animals Regulation to allow registration fees to be annually indexed to inflation?

Unsure

Only if the money goes towards saving animal lives. How do councils currently spent funds received from registrations and fines?

Option 9          Establish new registration categories to encourage desexing

1. Do you support the implementation of “Desexed animal – purchased from pound” registration category?

Yes         

I support this, and suggest that registration fees for an animal purchased from a pound /shelter or approved Rescue Group be a lower figure than for purchases elsewhere. This will serve as an encouragement for the public to obtain their pets from pounds, shelter and rescue groups.

1. Do you support the implementation of “Desexed animal – post-purchase consultation by owner” registration category?

Yes         

Option 10          Introduce measures to improve compliance with companion animal legislation data entry requirements

1. Do you support encouraging breeder and animal welfare organisations listed in the Companion Animals Act to become “registration agents” to process registration fees and change of animal details?

Unsure         

I don’t agree that further fees should be imposed on top of the existing fees.

1. Do you support establishing a fee for service model for such registration agents to encourage uptake of this arrangement?

Unsure        

1. Do  you  think  that  online  owner  “self-service”  data  entry  options  should  be developed?

Yes         

Any process, if user friendly, that makes compliance easier, must be considered. The public already use such services in for example pink and green slips for motor vehicles, so why not pets?

Option 11          Establish a grant funding initiative for councils/partner organisations to deliver targeted microchipping, registration and desexing programs

Do you support the establishment of a grant funding program (sourced from the Companion Animals Fund) for councils to promote the microchipping, registration and desexing of cats and dogs?

Yes         

• The UK Dogs Trust employs very successful programs of this type targeting socio-economic regions where high numbers of animals are bred.
• There needs to be a surrender Tax on breeders whose animals end up at the pound.  All microchips to include the breeder details for the lifetime of the animal. There has been a proliferation of rescue groups who are cleaning up the mess of unwanted animals, which are bred indiscriminately by unscrupulous and/or irresponsible people. This way breeders will have to bear some of the responsibility for the animals they indiscriminately pump out into the community. Rescue groups carefully scrutinise potential homes for dogs and cats they rescue. Unethical breeders do not care where the animal ends up as long as they are can make money from the sale.

THE ROLE OF EDUCATION

Option 12          Develop a community wide socially responsible pet ownership education campaign

1. Do you support the development of a whole of community socially responsible pet ownership education campaign?

Yes         

I ONLY support this option subject to a complete overhaul of the existing and current education programs, which are clearly a failure in respect of reducing pound entrance figures. Any programs developed must be agreed to by approved Rescue Groups. If this turns into a money-grab for RSPCA, ACAC and PIAA as a means of encouraging higher pet ownership figures across the country, then, no, I would not support it.

I believe the current programs, at exorbitant cost to the public, are a failure in reducing the pound entrant and killing problem.

The Taskforce information provided on Page 27 certainly confirms where the focus of such education has been so far:

“The Program is distinct from previous programs in that trained and paid Pet Educators are accompanied by their suitability-tested dog during school education sessions, allowing children to experience dog safety messages first hand, in a controlled environment.

 The Program replaced the Safe Pets Out There (SPOT) program, which successfully focused on promoting socially responsible pet ownership and was developed in response to the significant community concern about the safety of children around dogs and ran from February 2007 to September 2009 (Ramsay, 2009).”

I.e. on dog safety and safety of people around dogs. Whilst I certainly support education on safety of people around animals, this is NOT what is needed in order to stop the pound killing problem. It needs a total rethink, and urgently.

1. Do you support providing school based socially responsible pet ownership programs to students outside of the 5 to 7 year old age group?

Yes         

It needs to focus on responsible pet ownership, cost of having a pet, the importance of desexing etc. Students should also be educated to the shameful statistics that around 250,000 cats and dogs are killed every year in Australia and some of the causes of this.

Option 13          Develop mandatory standardised information on socially responsible pet ownership to be given out at point of sale and introduce initiatives to reinforce such information

1. Do you support the development of mandatory, standardised information to be provided at point of sale?

Yes         

I support this option provided the information includes full disclosure on total lifetime costs and responsibilities required for the lifetime of the animal. I would support a requirement for a pet owner to sign an agreement document specifying that they have read and understand the responsibility requirements. I remain opposed to the sale of animals through pet shops or markets, unless they are approved Pound/shelter/rescue group animals.

A pet licence should be introduced. The Lost Dogs Home has an on-line version of it, while hardly brilliant, is a start.

1. Do you support post-purchase socially responsible pet ownership consultations as a means to reinforce point of sale information?

Yes         

Yes, I do, but am unsure how this would be implemented given the high numbers of animals bought. Most breeders have little concern for the welfare of the animal once it has left their hands and they have been paid.

Option 14 Establish minimum qualification requirements for pet shop, breeding establishment and pound/shelter staff

1. Do you think that it should be compulsory for at least one staff member working in a pet shop, breeding establishment, shelter or pound to have a minimum qualification in animal care and management in-line with the recommendations of the Animal Welfare Code of Practice – Sale of Animals in Pet Shops?

Yes         

However that person should be a manager in charge, and I do not support sale of animals in pet shops unless they are animals sold in assisting pound/shelter or rescue groups. This also applies to all staff at PETBARN who is now selling animals on behalf of the RSPCA.

• All petshops have specialised trained staff to a level of education that would allow them to advise people as to which what pets would be suitable to peoples lifestyle and accommodation.
• All those selling or rehoming animals should have a return positive policy whereby all animals sold or rehomed that do not work out can be returned for rehoming. Most ethical breeders and rescue groups already have such policies in place.

1. Do you think that a Certificate II level qualification should be developed for this purpose?

Yes         

Option 15          Provide more funding for research on key cat and dog issues

1. Do you think that a portion of the Companion Animals Fund should be set aside for annual research grants on cat and dog issues?

Unsure         

Perhaps, but needs to be focussed on practical solutions to the problems of over-breeding, pound entrance and pound killings, and rehoming. Research should be conducted by entirely independent entities un-related to RSPCA NSW, ACAC, PIAA and its members.

I am concerned that funding for research would be appropriated by ACAC, PIAA, DOGS NSW, RSPCA NSW and/or their members as a money grab and initiatives to further their commercial vested interests. I am totally against any funding being provided to these organisations that have failed the animals on a number of levels over an extended period of time and have stifled legislative change aimed to improve animal welfare.

Do you think that such funding should be limited to key organisations or individuals involved in cat and dog research?

Unsure

This cannot be answered without knowing who the “key” organisations are.

It has been proven that “key organisations” and those involved in cat and dog research frequently lack the basic understanding of practical measures required at the grass roots level to reduce breeding and increase rehoming levels of needy animals.

Wyong Council Animal Care Facility that has dramatically improved its animal homing rates simply with a change of culture and leadership. This did not need expensive surveys and research.

IMPOUNDED CATS AND DOGS

Option 16          Encourage greater collaboration between councils and animal welfare organisations on the delivery of impounding and re- homing services to reduce euthanasia rates

Do you think that increased collaboration between councils and animal welfare organisations in the delivery of impounding services will improve re-homing outcomes for impounded animals?

Yes

By animal welfare organisations I assume you are referring to community rescue groups. Community rescue saving thousands of lives every year by rescuing animals on death row from council pounds. There should have been much more respect given to them in this discussion paper. Indeed, despite repeated requests that they be included, a representative from a NO KILL rescue groups is a very obvious omission.

Absolutely yes, if implemented correctly. There needs however to be a substantial change in culture at many Councils and Pounds who are not used to outside collaboration. There needs to be education around the process and careful management. It would be wrong to just throw councils and animal welfare organisations together and say “get on with it”.

Option 17          Investigate the development of an integrated impounded animal management tool

Do you support the development of an integrated impounded animal management tool to improve policy responses for impounded cats and dogs?

Yes         

Option 18          Review barriers to cat and dog ownership in relation to residential tenancy laws

1. Do you agree that NSW residential tenancy and strata management legislation should be reviewed to identify barriers to the ownership of cats and dogs in rental accommodation and units?

Yes         

I don’t need to “identify barriers to ownership of cats and dogs in rental properties”. Landlords need to feel confident that their properties will be looked after and that any damages will be made good, as for any other category of damage by other means. Strata unit legislation needs to be replaced with modern legislation that permits animals in units.

1. Do you support the development of a pet bond scheme to encourage landlords to accept more cat and dog owners as tenants?

Yes         

1. Do you support the development of targeted education to promote cat and dog ownership in rental accommodation?

Yes         

Option 19          Introduce measures to encourage the confinement of cats to their owner’s property

1. Do you support providing councils with voluntary powers to issue local orders to cat owners to confine their cats (where appropriate and enforceable)?

Yes         

1. Do you support the development of resources that encourage cat owners to confine their cats, particularly at night?

Yes         

Option 20          Establish an ongoing reference group on cat and dog management and welfare issues

Do you support the establishment of an ongoing reference group on cat and dog management and welfare issues?

Yes         

I support this option on the provision that independent Rescue Groups and Animal Welfare Advocacy Groups are included. It must not be a reference group comprising pet industry, RSPCA and dog breeding vested interests.

With these recommendations in mind I ask the Taskforce to consider these practical and innovative ideas that will assist in reducing the number of animals being euthanized each year.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Regards

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [10.09 a.m.]: I move:

That:

(1) A select committee be appointed to inquire into companion animal welfare with the view to improving their welfare.

(2) That the committee consider the following matters:

(a) The number and cause of companion animals arriving in NSW shelters and pounds each year and their outcome, such as whether they get re-homed, re-united or euthanased;

(b) The breeding of companion animals;

(c) The practices associated with the sale of companion animals including from pet shops, markets, pounds, shelters, online, classifieds, or to the overseas market;

(d) Mandatory desexing, including prior to sale;

(e) The effectiveness and enforcement of the Department of Primary Industries’ companion animal policies, standards and guidelines;

(f) The effectiveness of the Companion Animals Act and its application by local government;

(g) The effectiveness of micro-chipping;

(h) The treatment of companion animals travelling by airplane;

(i) The impact of pet bans in accommodation including apartments, strata, retirement villages, and rental properties;

(j) The impact of pet bans on public transport;

(k) The existence and effectiveness of education programs on responsible pet ownership, including the importance of desexing;

(l) Data collection by government and non-government agencies to inform and monitor companion animal welfare; and

(m) Any other matter relevant to improving companion animal welfare.

(3) That the committee consist of six members as follows:

(a) Ms Clover Moore, who shall be Chair of the committee;

(b) Three Government members; and

(c) Two non-Government members.

(4) That the members be nominated in writing to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly by the relevant party leaders within seven calendar days of the passing of this resolution.

(5) That at any meeting of the committee four members shall constitute a quorum.

This is a very significant issue. Animals are live, sentient beings. Pets give unconditional love and companionship. Pets teach us to care and nurture, encourage us to exercise and save the national health bill over $4 billion a year. How could a civilised society allow around 60,000 cats and dogs to be destroyed every year in New South Wales? The Animals (Regulation of Sale) Bill 2008 I introduced would have stopped impulse buying of pets, resulting in fewer cats and dogs ending up in pounds and being destroyed. It also would have removed an outlet for cruel puppy farming and backyard breeding. My bill was rejected even though companion animal welfare is seriously inadequately addressed. During debate on the Animals (Regulation of Sale) Bill the then Opposition, now the Government, called for more information and moved to defer the vote to establish a select committee to inquire into companion animal welfare. This motion now calls for that select committee to be established.

Thousands of people across New South Wales support this initiative. An open, transparent and independent inquiry is a vital opportunity for Parliament to improve the welfare of companion animals. The RSPCA has seized from puppy farms thousands of dogs in appalling conditions. These mass breeding facilities churn out puppies en masse while thousands of healthy animals are destroyed every year. The Pet Industry Association’s recent claim that it will sell puppies only from accredited puppies is welcomed, but there is no independent oversight or enforcement of the sale of pets, and many pet shops are not association members. Puppy farms will continue to sell pets through classified advertisements, at markets and overseas.

While most registered breeders are responsible, concerns have been expressed that some dog breeds have exaggerated physical features, such as overly large eyes or head, that cause breathing, walking, eye, skin, hip and back problems, and a lifetime of pain. Professor Paul McGreevy of the University of Sydney Veterinary Science Faculty, who worked on the BBC documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed, expressed such concern that a parliamentary inquiry was held in the United Kingdom. The New South Wales Parliament should consider mandatory desexing of animals. Unwanted litters account for a significant number of animals in pounds and shelters. A non-desexed female cat and her offspring can produce 420,000 cats in seven years, yet cats can be desexed as young as eight weeks. Non-desexed animals are more likely to show antisocial behaviours, get into fights or escape from their surroundings.

Many abandoned pets are not microchipped, including some from pet shops, despite legal requirements. Often the details for microchipped pets are out of date, making it difficult to link impounded animals with owners. Education is essential to achieve responsible pet ownership. The City of Sydney companion animal policy focuses on education and provides for free microchipping, dog obedience training, subsidised desexing and pet taxis for low-income earners. Not all councils do this and animal welfare charities do not have the resources to run large education programs on pet welfare. Governments should run statewide education campaigns to ensure a consistent message about animal welfare and care. Stray cats are vulnerable to attacks from dogs and people as well as health issues from lack of food, water and veterinary care, but councils have no rights or legal support to protect stray and feral cats as they are not defined in law. We need animal law reform to help councils rehouse stray cats and protect them from harm.

Last year two of my constituents lost their beloved French bulldog Kransky, who died at Sydney Airport from heat exhaustion while waiting to board a plane. Animal protection groups have told me similar stories. Parliament should investigate whether the Companion Animal Transport Agencies Code is sufficient to prevent a similar fate for other pets. Parliament should assess all animal welfare codes and policies to determine if they meet expectations. Code reviews are regularly overdue and often support industry interests over animal welfare needs. Shelters and pound practices vary greatly and good models need to be identified as benchmarks. The term “free to a good home”, for example, creates problems particularly for cats, with non-desexed cats having kittens and thereby adding to the number of unwanted pets.

The City of Sydney has a partnership with the low-kill Sutherland Shire Animal Shelter, where only dangerous or seriously sick animals are euthanased. Healthy animals remain at the shelter until they are rehoused, microchipped and desexed. New South Wales should aim to become a pet no-kill State. Blanket bans on pets in apartments, retirement villages and rental properties force many people to give up their beloved companions at a difficult time of their life. Apartments and retirement villages in New York, London and Paris generally allow pets. Similar bans on public transport make it difficult for people with pets to get to a vet or visit a friend, particularly if a low-income person does not have access to a private car. CityRail imposes a complete ban on pets being allowed on trains, but the State Transit Authority allows pets to travel on buses at the discretion of the driver. However, sometimes public housing tenants who are able to get to a vet cannot return home because they are prevented from taking their pet on the bus.

In cities such as San Francisco, Berlin, Paris and London it is normal for people to take their pets on public transport. The terms of reference for the committee I propose would include the collection of comprehensive data on pet sales, pound and shelter numbers to trace the origin of pets to assess any under-reporting. The Government set up the Companion Animals Taskforce in response to lobbying for this inquiry. A taskforce cannot replace an inquiry because it has strong industry representation and does not hold public meetings. With a taskforce we do not know what is happening. Many members in this place have said they are animal lovers, and I guess many of them will talk about their pets. Those who really care about animals will support this motion so that the Parliament can gain an understanding of the problems associated with companion animal welfare and make informed recommendations on this important issue. This motion is about establishing an inquiry, understanding the issue and getting to the facts. It also is about the Parliament making the right decision. Respect and compassion for animals are essential to a humane and just society. I commend the motion.

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Minister for Local Government, and Minister for the North Coast) [10.16 a.m.]: Let me first acknowledge the longstanding genuine interest of the member for Sydney in companion animal welfare issues. In the time we have been together in this Parliament, which is 24 years now—

Ms Clover Moore: That is coming to an end quite soon, it is said.

Mr DONALD PAGE: We will see. That is the member’s choice. Over that time the member for Sydney has consistently demonstrated a very keen interest and concern about companion animal welfare. I thank her also for her comments on her motion, many of which have validity. Certainly, when I became the Minister for Local Government—I had not been involved in this area—and was briefed about the number of dogs and cats being euthanased, mostly in this State’s pounds, I was saddened and very concerned. For example, animals euthanased between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2011 totalled 13,661 dogs and 17,991 cats. These figures are disturbing indeed. As a result I met with the Minister for Primary Industries, who has responsibility under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, to see what the Government could do to try to address these issues. We agreed to put together a taskforce to investigate and address these and other issues facing the companion animal industry. In saying that, whilst I am very empathetic to the concern of the member for Sydney, we will not support the motion because a taskforce has been established, which is chaired by the very capable member for Charlestown, who is a veterinarian and has been doing great work with the taskforce.

The taskforce will provide advice on key companion animal issues and, in particular, on strategies to reduce the rate of companion animal euthanasia. As I said, the taskforce is chaired by the member for Charlestown, who is a veterinarian with vast experience and knowledge relating to companion animals. I am pleased that he agreed to chair the taskforce, as is the Minister for Primary Industries. The taskforce comprises representatives of the following organisations: the Australian Companion Animal Council, the Australian Institute of Local Government Rangers, the RSPCA New South Wales, Animal Welfare League NSW, Pet Industry Association Australia, Dogs NSW, Australian Veterinary Association, Cat Protection Society, and the Local Government and Shires Associations New South Wales.
<3>

The taskforce terms of reference are sufficiently broad to cover the issues the member for Sydney has raised in her motion. The terms of reference state that the taskforce will inquire into: euthanasia rates and re-homing options for surrendered or abandoned companion animals; the breeding of companion animals including the practices of puppy farms—it is a disgrace what is happening there; the sale of companion animals; the microchipping and desexing of companion animals; current education programs on responsible pet ownership; and any other high-priority companion animal issues that become apparent to the taskforce during its investigation. In response to the comment by the member for Sydney about the problem with the taskforce being that it does not have public meetings, I am assured by the chair of the committee there will be public meetings as the taskforce goes about its work.

The taskforce is currently finalising the draft discussion, which will be available for public comment in coming months. All interested individuals, groups and organisations are encouraged to make a submission when the discussion paper is released. After taking into account feedback on the discussion paper the taskforce will prepare a report by the end of this year which will provide recommendations for consideration by the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Small Business, Katrina Hodgkinson, and me as Minister for Local Government. Can I thank the chairman of the taskforce for the work he has done so far. I understand the draft discussion paper is ready to be presented. I thank the members of the taskforce, who have worked very hard, and also the two departments involved—Primary Industries and the Division of Local Government. I express my deep appreciation for the brilliant work of the officers from the two departments: Ross Burton, Angela Thompson and Vaughan Macdonald from Primary Industries and Janet Pengelly and Glen Colley from the Division of Local Government. The chairman of the taskforce has confirmed with me, as the responsible Minister, that these people have been nothing short of fantastic in the way they have contributed to the deliberations of the taskforce. We thank the members or the taskforce for their participation and the work they are doing.

I look forward to the discussion paper being made public and the community having their input into where we go from here. By the end of this year the recommendations will come forward from the taskforce for the Government to put into place. This is an issue of concern to me. I was raised on a cattle property, have been around dogs all my life and still own dogs. I am keen, as is the Minister for Primary Industries, to stop—I do not know that we can every stop—or reduce the number of unnecessary deaths that are occurring through euthanasia of our dog and cat populations. I look forward to the report coming back to the Government. Because of what we are doing as a Government we will reject the motion today but we appreciate very much the intentions of the member for Sydney in relation to raising these issues. The concerns of the member are shared by the Government.

Mrs BARBARA PERRY (Auburn) [10.23 a.m.]: I support the motion of the member for Sydney. It is a detailed, sensible motion. I acknowledge her work in this area for many years. The member is quite right, this is about a broad matter of respect for animals, how we treat our animals, and bearing in mind that thousands of animals, cats and dogs, are companions to many people in the State and across Australia. I acknowledge that the member for Marrickville, the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, is in the House today. She has a keen interest in this issue. Many members on my side of the House have held a keen interest in the issue. As a former Minister for Local Government I am aware of the issues around companion animals and the high rate of euthanasia. The Minister will know that in my time I started some work around that issue. The high rates of pet euthanasia in New South Wales are horrific: more than 150,000 dogs and cats over the last five years have been euthanased in pounds across the State.

That is not to say that there is not a great amount of work going on with pet rescue shelters and the RSPCA. I note the work done over many years with regard to responsible pet ownership: the Safe Pets Out There [SPOT] program which appears to be a new program that is delivered in schools across the State. I think that has gone a long way to teaching young people about responsible pet ownership. Those young people are then teaching their parents. Despite all of that work it is clear that there still remains a great deal of concern around these issues that the member for Sydney raises. I am aware and clearly understand, having heard the Minister of the taskforce that is in play at present, but I am concerned about the following matters. The Companion Animals Act has not been reviewed for many years. It has been amended to include tougher dog laws with higher penalties, but I do think the Companion Animals Act needs to be reviewed to look at the broader issues that the member raised. The taskforce terms of reference do incorporate some of the concerns of the member for Sydney but they do not go into broader issues such as the impact of pet bans in accommodation including apartment, strata, retirement villages and rental properties, and the impact of pet bans on public transport. If we are going to look holistically at companion animals the issues on the agenda—those put by the member for Sydney and many animal welfare advocates—need to be looked at in a broad way. The Opposition will support the motion. I ask the Minister to elucidate how the public inquiry will work. A taskforce, from my recollection, is a little different: it reports publicly but does not necessarily take evidence publicly in the same way a parliamentary select committee would, with cross-examination possible.

An important person involved in animal welfare died yesterday. Kath Gazzard set up a project called Pets for Older People. That program was about rehousing pets for people who were socially isolated or needed to go to palliative care. I note her good work and I will speak of her another time. [Time expired.]

Mr ANDREW CORNWELL (Charlestown) [10.27 a.m.]: In May 2011 the member for Sydney gave notice of a motion regarding the establishment of a companion animal inquiry. While I appreciate the member’s longstanding interest in the area, the motion is not supported. The Government does not support this motion because it has been superseded by the Government’s proactive approach in the area. In the middle of last year the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Don Page, and the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Katrina Hodgkinson, established the companion animal taskforce. The taskforce met through the second half of last year and into this year to produce a discussion paper that examines the matters the member for Sydney has raised in her motion.

A select parliamentary committee is not required because the Government has already acted in the area and therefore paragraph (1) of the motion cannot be supported. This motion should not be supported because the terms of reference for the companion animal taskforce are sufficiently broad to cover all of the areas of concern raised by the member for Sydney. The taskforce has examined all issues relating to euthanasia rates and unacceptable breeding practices such as puppy farming. I can assure the House and the member for Sydney that all of the issues covered at items (a) through to (m) in paragraph (2) of the motion have been considered by the companion animal taskforce. This Government is acting in a complete and comprehensive manner that is not offered by the motion put forward by the member for Sydney.
<4>
Paragraph (3) of the motion deals with the make-up of the committee. The member suggested that she should chair the committee that would consist of three Government members and two non-Government members. This part of the motion cannot be supported because the make-up of the Companion Animal Task Force is superior to the suggestions made by the member for Sydney. As opposed to having six politicians considering matters of this importance, the task force has a cross-section of stakeholders who have come together to produce a discussion paper that is comprehensive and groundbreaking. On the task force we have the RSPCA, which brings with it some 130 years of corporate knowledge in the area. We have the Animal Welfare League, which brings in excess of 50 years at the coalface. We have the Cat Protection Society, which brings in excess of 50 years experience. We have the Australian Veterinary Association, which represents a profession with more than a century of animal welfare as its core business.

The task force also has members who represent dog breeders and industry who not only bring corporate knowledge but also a passion for animals and a genuine desire to improve outcomes for companion animals. We have representatives from local government and council rangers, the people who deal with some of the heartbreaking situations that unwanted companion animals face. And, finally, we have been supported by the fabulous departmental staff from the Department of Local Government and the Department of Primary Industries. Whereas the make-up of the committee suggested by the member for Sydney may offer opinion, the Companion Animal Task Force offers expertise. Therefore, paragraph (3) of the motion should not be supported.

The member for Sydney has demonstrated passion, and I commend her for that. But the motion cannot be supported because, thanks to the leadership of Minister Page and Minister Hodgkinson, the Government has taken the lead in this area. Our brief is broader, the make-up of our task force is superior to that suggested by the member, and our work is virtually complete. The discussion paper is due to be released in the first half of this year; and, in line with our commitment, it will be. I thank all members of the task force for their expertise and their desire to improve outcomes for companion animals. The member for Auburn raised a number of other issues. I assure the member that we have taken an holistic approach. We will have public consultation once the discussion paper is released, because that is exactly what it is designed to do—to promote comment. We are seeking input from the public. Once that process is complete, we will be taking further recommendations to the Minister. I have appreciated the opportunity to debate the motion. But we have taken the lead, and therefore cannot support it.

Mr JAMIE PARKER (Balmain) [10.31 a.m.]: I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. I trust they do so genuinely and honestly, because some issues remain about lack of openness and involvement of the public in the process to date. But I take on board the genuine comments by the chair and the Minister, who claim that the situation is “under control”. This is an important issue—a critical issue, in fact—because one of the points raised constantly by the member for Sydney over the 20 years or so she has been a member of this place is the inadequacy of action on animal welfare. I welcome the contributions of members of the Labor Party on this issue; unfortunately, there was not significant action on this matter during its term in government. We trust that this Government will take some positive steps because, as a local councillor of almost 14 years and mayor for several years, I have been very concerned about the level of euthanasia of companion animals. As another member discussed, the department released in August last year the numbers: 150,000 dogs and cats euthanased in pounds over the past five years. That is absolutely unacceptable. It is a disgrace.

The number of animals euthanased in pounds can be easily remedied. A range of steps can be taken. We have heard some of those today, but they include issues that have been raised, for example, in the Australian Capital Territory, in a bill that is before its Legislative Assembly outlining some possible reforms. The bill, introduced by The Greens, has been discussed with other parties in good faith. The bill proposes introducing mandatory licences for cat and dog breeders to ensure they meet proper standards of animal welfare; banning the sale of cats and dogs from stores and markets, with some limited exceptions; introducing additional requirements on the sale of animals; providing basic care information to all buyers; banning the display of animals in store windows; making it an offence to sell animals to children; restricting advertising; introducing a system of traceability; and mandating desexing of cats and dogs at sale—as part of a whole range of strengthening of animal cruelty provisions in the Australian Capital Territory. I encourage the chair of the task force to examine that proposal to see whether it will provide some useful information.

I support the motion moved by the member for Sydney because concerns are held about the make-up of the task force. As a solution, it is considered inferior to a select committee. Many members will have seen the newspaper article that generated a great deal of consternation about this issue, because the make-up of the task force is of significant concern. The Herald Sun of 7 March this year carried a report about the pet industry group president posing with a dead cat. That does not generate support and encourage people to think the industry representatives—who make money by selling companion animals—will have the best interests of animal welfare in mind. The article in the Herald Sun was very disturbing for many people; it caused a lot of concern in the community. People contacted my office and said, “Are these the people looking at animal welfare in the community?”

Genuine concern has been generated because the minutes of meetings of the task force are not available to the public, and there have not been public discussions. Those are legitimate concerns—not political or tactical concerns designed to attack the Government, but genuine concerns about the type of outcome that will come from this task force. The question is: If the industry is running this task force, what kind of an outcome will we get? So, of course, people are waiting with bated breath to see what happens with the submissions and comments on the discussion paper that will be distributed by the Government. I conclude by saying that animal welfare needs to be the focus of all issues. Animal welfare needs to be at the heart of a just and humane society, and that is why The Greens support the motion. We look forward to the Government’s discussion paper so that we can respond to it.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [10.36 a.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I am pleased that the Minister has said he finds the facts disturbing and believes the task force will address the issues; and that the chair of the task force assures us that that will be done. But I have to say that I have raised the issue of animal welfare continually over the years, and the Parliament has failed to respond. I find that failure distressing. We are known as the country that has the highest number of pets per person, and we are known as the country where the family pet is a national characteristic. Yet, compared with other countries, our treatment of pets is quite appalling. Successive governments and this House have failed absolutely to address the issue when I have raised it.

I say again that animals are live, sentient beings; they suffer both physical and psychological pain. Defending animal welfare should be a very important part of what we do. I believe the majority of people in New South Wales expect us to do that. There has been an absolute failure in this place to do so up till now. The Government says it will achieve reform through the task force. I welcome the fact that the task force has been set up because that is better than nothing. But we do not know what the task force has done; it has not held any public hearings, and its minutes have not been made public. We are assured that it is getting on with the job. That is great, but we are keen to see what job it is getting on with, given the absolute lack of commitment to this area by government and opposition till now.

The task force includes members of the Pet Industry Association of Australia, the Australian Veterinary Association of Australia and the Australian Companion Animal Council. These are not animal welfare bodies; they represent industry interests. I share the fears and concerns of animal protection groups that the task force will produce recommendations that reflect industry interests and not animal welfare goals. That is why I wanted the inquiry. I believe—and fear, given my past experience in this place and the past experience of the people of New South Wales—that animal welfare needs will be watered down because of industry influence. That is what has happened time and time again. That is why I proposed an inquiry. In fact, I proposed the inquiry when the Coalition said in opposition that it agreed with the proposals in my bill but could not support the bill because it was going to have an inquiry when in government. But when I put forward the proposal for that inquiry now the Coalition is in government, it says the task force will deal with it.
<5>
I hope the task force does deal with it and that the task force has as its main goal improving the welfare of companion animals, because that has simply not been the case in this place.

I am sorry that the Government has not honoured its commitment to conduct an inquiry. Once the information was collected and presented it would be up to the Government to decide whether to accept the inquiry’s recommendations. But the Government has gone down the task force route, and I hope some benefits will come from that. I respect the RSPCA, which I work with closely at the City of Sydney, and I have worked with Tim Vasudeva of the Animal Welfare League and Katrina Vesk of the Cat Protection Society on animal welfare issues for a very long time. But I believe they are going to be very much up against industry bodies that have opposed outright regulation in the pet industry.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

1494—COMPANION ANIMAL TASKFORCE

Ms Clover Moore to the Minister for Local Government, and Minister for the North Coast—

1. How many times has the Companion Animal Taskforce met?
2. Were all members present, and if not, which were not?
3. Were minutes take at meetings?
4. If not, why not?
5. Will the Taskforce conduct any consultation to develop its promised Discussion Paper?
6. If so, who with?
7. When is a Discussion Paper by the Taskforce expected to be released?
8. Which animal welfare⁄ protection⁄ rights groups and other organisations will the Taskforce send the Discussion Paper to and specifically ask for a submission?
9. How will the Discussion Paper be publicised to ensure a wide range of views and experiences are involved in the process to develop recommendations?
10. Will there be public hearings?
11. Will submissions be publically available?
12. Will the taskforce provide a response to submissions?

Answer—

I provide the following details in response to your questions:

1. The Taskforce has met on four occasions since August 2011.
2. All members have been present at the meetings, with the exception of the Australian Institute of Local Government Rangers whose representative was unable to attend two meetings, and the Pet Industry Association of Australia whose representative was unable to attend one meeting.
3. Yes.
4. See answer to 3.
5. Consultation on the Taskforce’s areas of inquiry will be conducted as part of the forthcoming discussion paper submission process.
6. The general public will be consulted through the submission process.
7. The discussion paper is expected to be released in the first half of 2012.
8. All interested animal welfare⁄protection⁄rights groups are encouraged to make a submission when the discussion paper is released.
9. Notices advising of the release of the discussion paper will be placed in metropolitan newspapers and the Government Gazette. Minister Hodgkinson and I will also issue a media release advising of the discussion paper’s release and promote the discussion paper at relevant events. The Taskforce Chair, Mr Andrew Cornwell MP has also indicated that he will publicise the discussion paper at various targeted events. The discussion paper will be available on the Division of Local Government website.
10. No.
11. Submissions may be made publicly available, unless individuals specifically indicate that they do not want their submission made public.
12. No. Submissions will be considered by the Taskforce in preparing its final report to Government.

Question asked on 14 February 2012 (session 55-1) and published in Questions & Answers Paper No. 65.
Answer received on 6 March 2012 and printed in Questions & Answers Paper No. 71.

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/la/qala.nsf/18101dc36b638302ca257146007ee41a/74efa98aeab96e14ca2579a4001fd4b3?OpenDocument