Companion Animals Bill

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.01 p.m.]: I had almost concluded my remarks earlier this afternoon. Since then I have discovered that the genesis of this bill was not the bill presented to the Hon. E. P. Pickering when he was Minister, but a report that was presented to him. That very same report was passed from the Cabinet Office to Parliamentary Counsel to be put in the shape of a bill. The report was not a white paper; it had nothing to do with the consultation process that took place. It was an old report, and Parliamentary Counsel faithfully turned that report into the very flawed legislation that was introduced into the other place. That is why the legislation is an absolute mess. If the Government had looked at the white paper, if it had taken into account all the submissions made by groups all over New South Wales and had listened to the people, the House would not have this legislation before it. Essentially it was a flawed process. At dinner I told the Minister for Public Works and Services that I would be very brief tonight and would make only one comment.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: And I told you that I would hold you accountable if you were not.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I would strongly advise Ministers to read their legislation before bringing it before the House. I also strongly urge Ministers to allow backbench members who have an interest in the subject to look at legislation before it
Page 6908
is presented to the House. If members had been given the chance to look at this bill - and I know they did not, all they saw was a briefing paper - they would not have allowed it to be presented to the House. Crossbench members read the bill when they first got it. I think we read the bill before the Minister did.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: The Opposition read the bill before the Minister did too.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: The Opposition read the bill and the crossbench members went through it with a fine toothcomb when it was first available. We were absolutely alarmed at what we saw in it. I alerted some Labor Party backbenchers who had not read the provisions in the bill and they were horrified. They immediately started a lobbying process. I repeat my advice to the Ministers: please read your legislation.

The Hon. I. COHEN [8.05 p.m.]: The Greens are cognisant of the many complaints from the community about the companion animals legislation and its colourful history in the lead-up to debate in this House. There have been many problems. I am concerned that some good aspects of the legislation have been somewhat derailed by the public debate, especially in the media, which has changed the direction of this important legislation. Regardless of whether the bill has been developed in the most appropriate way or whether those responsible have done their homework, as a Green I am convinced of the need for legislation such as this. The Greens support the bill. It will make pet owners take responsibility for their pets. The greater regulation and control of pet ownership in this bill will lead to a greater respect for the concept of pet ownership and for companion animals and, I hope, will eventually lead to less cruelty towards animals.

Unquestionably, massive destruction of animals occurs in our community. Many problems arise in animal-care institutions and organisations because people do not have the right attitude towards companion animal control and ownership. The public does not take this responsibility seriously enough and often it is the animals that suffer. Many animals are bought without due care, not looked after adequately and then dumped. People fail to realise that many of these creatures live for 10 or 15 years and deserve a decent quality of life. I am personally appalled at the lack of care shown by pet owners both in Sydney and on the north coast where I live.

The Greens acknowledge that Australia has a unique biological heritage. Ancient animal species have evolved having survived global changes over millennia. Australia has one of the world’s highest rates of extinction of plant and animal species. The urbanisation of many areas, particularly the coastal zones of New South Wales, has involved the clearing of the habitat of many species and the introduction of predators to these environments. The loss of corridors and habitat for fauna has been impacted upon by the introduction of new animals. When debating this legislation honourable members have a direct responsibility to consider the impact of domestic animals on native wildlife.

A companion animal is any animal kept for the mutual welfare and benefit of the animal and its carer. An animal may be kept primarily as a companion or pet, for protection, to provide assistance to its carer, for working purposes or to provide assistance to people with disabilities. In 1994 approximately 66 per cent of Australian households owned a pet. The pet industry is one of the largest in Australia, employing more than 30,000 people and contributing about $2.2 billion to the economy annually. According to a BIS Shrapnel report, about a third of that amount, or $720 million, was spent in New South Wales in 1995.

Pet care industries make a significant contribution to the Australian economy and benefit greatly from pet ownership through funding and advertising campaigns that highlight the importance of pet ownership. However, our indigenous animals are used in the pet food industry, and this raises the question of animal cruelty. In 1992 there was increased support for pet ownership and a strong commitment to the care of pets. This trend was said to be in response to the relentless pace of social, cultural, economic, political and technological change which was so profoundly established in Australian society in the 1980s and into the 1990s.

The Pet Care Information Advisory Service undertook a study entitled "What Australians Feel about their Pets" which related to attitudes towards cat and dog ownership. I express concern about research prepared by or for that service because of funding by the industry. Hugh Mackay, who assisted with the report, noted that there have been three primary effects: a widespread loss of control of our lives; a growing sense of isolation as a direct result of the fragmentation of families and households; and the feeling that the traditional Australian neighbourhood is under threat. Australians appear to have lost their confidence in the future. Morale is down and people need comfort, reassurance, ritual and other experiences to help rebuild their confidence in their own future.

Page 6909

These factors apply to many situations in modern society, such as family breakdowns, suicide, drug use and violence. Mackay argues that these shifts in social attitudes help explain the increasing value that Australians place on pets in their lives. Interestingly, at the same time aggressive and emotional advertising has increased in magazines and on the television, depicting warm family moments, the close emotional rewards of pet interaction, and images of the strong outdoor male with the wild dog running free along the beach as the fashionably correct model of the moment. Human beings are often under stress and suffer loneliness, and pet ownership is a therapeutic strategy deliberately calculated to reduce those symptoms. In a more recent study in July 1996 entitled "The Mackay Report: Mind and Mood, No. 85" Mackay noted that during research, when participants made conscious attempts to find something positive to say, pets and sports were major topics. The study found:

Pets are the reliable providers of companionship of a particularly undemanding kind . . . while pets continue to be the object of some hostility - notably involving dog droppings on suburban footpaths and cat attacks on native fauna - pet owners regard their pets as being an integral part of their lives: therapeutic contributors to their sense of well being; companions of the most reliable and undemanding kind.

It is a sad indictment of society that in this socially deprived environment people resort to pets for security. There are obvious positive aspects of companion animal ownership, as Jackson cites in "Domestic Pets in New Urban Areas, Australian Planner", Volume 31, No. 3 of 1994. These are:

•pets act as protectors and companions. This is particularly so in an era when the population is ageing and more people are living alone

•pets teach children about sharing, caring, communication and responsibility

•pets assist with therapy in hospitals, prisons, psychiatric institutions, nursing homes and schools

•pets relieve stress -

it is worth noting that pets can also create stress, not just for the owner but for people in surrounding areas -

•pets act as an incentive to exercise

•and pets are good for our health.

Other implications of companion animals relate primarily to owner responsibility and addressing the need for legislation. Failure to de-sex animals leads to an increase in the population, which often results in unwanted animals being either put down or dumped. They can also have an environmental impact, particularly on native birds and animals. Dogs which are exercised in public areas have the potential to be a risk to public and native animal safety, while dogs defecating in public places is another negative effect of owner irresponsibility.

It is estimated that there are more than 500,000 dogs in Sydney alone, producing approximately 100 tonnes of excrement a day. The general health implications are significant and can result in faecal coliform pollution of waterways and the growth and spread of algal blooms. Because owners do not take proper care of their pets this crime against the environment is perpetuated. I hope that public education campaigns will be put in place to demonstrate to owners that pet ownership carries a significant responsibility.

It is important to have greater regulation of animals. Dogs left unattended for long periods have the potential, through excessive barking, to be a nuisance to neighbours. Some animals have a propensity to become feral. The green and white papers on companion animals raised fundamental principles of responsible companion animal care, such as providing safety and protection from injury, food, water, shelter, exercise and space appropriate to the needs of the animal, health care - including vaccination - parasite control, professional veterinarian treatment where necessary, identification so that the animal can be safely returned if lost, and breeding controls to ensure the health and wellbeing of the animals. De-sexing of animals is encouraged unless they are specifically kept for breeding purposes.

All carers should respect other animal carers and those who do not have companion animals. Other companion animals, livestock and native animals should also be protected. Owners have a responsibility to protect their companion animals from stray, dumped and uncared for animals by ensuring responsible breeding practices. One must respect their rights, acknowledge the benefits of keeping working and companion animals, and have an expectation that a responsible standard of companion animal care will be enforced.

I acknowledge the many years of work by organisations that care for injured native animals, such as the New South Wales Wildlife Information and Rescue Service - WIRES - Sydney Metropolitan Wildlife Services, the Native Animal Network Association, the Basin Birdwatchers Club and the Native Animal Trust Fund. These groups are responsible for caring for injured animals and informing and educating the community about the
Page 6910
potential danger to native animals. The Greens believe that responsibility for educating the community about responsible pet ownership should also lie with the pet industry and that this information could be added to pet food labels. I hope that the industry, which makes such large sums of money out of pet ownership, will be responsible in helping the Government to inform people of their new responsibilities.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: It would be good if the industry could put the information on the back of labels.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Yes, that is exactly my point. It is incumbent on the industry to be responsible, given that it employs more than 30,000 people and makes $2.2 billion annually. The majority of the industry has headed towards the development of the interests and culture of pet ownership without looking at its responsibilities. In this respect the Government is on the right track in recognising in this bill the responsibility of pet ownership. There should be greater care, less cruelty and certainly less wastage of resources in a culture in which pets should be afforded a higher level of protection. I have said time and again that in the push to encourage the popularity of pet ownership many animals suffer. A brochure published by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service states:

A feral cat may have been a domestic cat that was unwanted and dumped, a stray, or the offspring of a feral cat. It is estimated that there are 400 000 feral cats in New South Wales and around 12 million feral cats across Australia . . .

Research shows that both feral and domestic cats kill and eat more than 100 native species of birds, 50 mammal and marsupial species, 50 reptile species, and numerous frogs and invertebrate species. In Australia, cats have no natural predators. They are most active at night, dusk and dawn when much of our native wildlife is also active.

Cats are scavengers and hunters and will naturally prey on the most available and easily caught animals. They eat approximately five to eight percent of their body weight each day, which is the equivalent of up to seven native bush rats per week. Their prey consists mainly of small to medium-sized animals, but they can also kill animals the same size as themselves. In urban areas, cats will scrounge garbage scraps and eat carrion (dead animals).

Even well-fed domestic cats will prey on and kill native wildlife because of their natural hunting instincts. Native animals killed by domestic cats include possums, bandicoots, birds, lizards, snakes, skinks, geckos, bats, native rats and marsupial mice. Domestic cats can kill, on average, about 30 native animals per year.

In urban areas, the number of domestic cats that regularly visit neighbouring bushland areas can outnumber feral cats and therefore have a greater impact on native animals . . . Cats can also carry diseases which affect humans, livestock and native animals. Toxoplasmosis is transmitted by cats and is a disease which can cause blindness, birth defects and miscarriage in humans as well as blindness and damage to the central nervous system and respiratory organs of native wildlife. Some native animals, such as bandicoots and kangaroos, never recover from the disease. Due to bacteria in the mouths of cats, wildlife injured by cats rarely survive. Feline influenza is often present in feral cat populations and can be transmitted to domestic cats.

Feral and domestic cats are a major threat to the survival of our unique Australian wildlife. They have no place in our national parks and nature reserves.

I suggest this major problem is due to irresponsible pet ownership. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has issued a leaflet in northern New South Wales about the responsibility of dog owners towards koalas. The leaflet states:

DOGS - domestic dogs were responsible for 40 known koala deaths last year in the Lismore area.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR DOG DOES AT NIGHT?

Habitat loss, road kills and DOGS are seen as the major threats in the Lismore area.

To secure a healthy population of koalas in the Lismore area residents must recognise that the responsibility is theirs.

•DOGS must be secured in an enclosure at night.

•If you see a koala leave it alone and make sure dogs are kept away.

The leaflet suggests that when acquiring a dog one should consider the most suitable type for urban living and available space and that dogs should be kept in enclosed areas, or indoors from sundown to sunrise. The leaflet states that people should realise that chained dogs can still kill koalas. A leaflet produced by the Native Animal Network Association Inc. states:

Studies show that domestic (PET) cats hunt many species of native birds and animals.

It is becoming clear that some domestic (PET) cats are persistent hunters while others may be more opportunistic.

The majority of cats will attack small ground dwelling birds such as the beautiful blue wren, once common, but now rare where cats dominate.

Small night animals are also hunted if cats are left to roam after dark.

These include feathertail gliders, sugargliders, pigmy possums, ring tail possums, baby brush tail possums, bandicoots, small bats, etc.

It is fine to have cats in the community. They can exist happily in a domestic area but they do not need to be left out at night. A leaflet published by the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage states:

Page 6911

Research has shown that cats have been in Australia for at least two centuries. They were possibly carried to northern Australia by traders from the East Indies or survived the wrecks of Dutch ships.

Estimates vary but there are probably five to ten million cats in Australia. About 2.8 million are domestic cats . . .

Cats have been found to eat more than 186 species of native birds, 64 species of mammals, 87 species of reptiles, 10 species of frogs, and numerous invertebrates.

The document makes the point that cats, because of their amazing adaptability, revert very well to a wild state if allowed to escape. It is important to have proper protection of native wildlife through responsible cat ownership. I have taken part in many debates about the Companion Animals Bill. I will study with interest the massive number of amendments to be put before the Committee following the second reading debate. I hope that the bill succeeds and that sensible amendments are acknowledged and agreed to. It cannot be stressed too greatly that native wildlife is suffering terribly from irresponsible ownership of domestic animals. We all have a primary responsibility to wildlife, not only to protect them from cruelty but also to ensure their survival.

Dog owners must take responsibility for the welfare of their animals and be considerate neighbours to those who often suffer from reckless animal ownership. I am concerned that many animals are purchased as Christmas presents and then dumped. Each year approximately 80,000 stray cats are put down. I am also concerned that through misguided care for animals they will continue to be destroyed in large numbers. I look forward to there being greater regulation in the industry, including microchipping and licensing of dogs and cats. If it is a little more difficult to own an animal people will take their responsibilities more seriously. The New South Wales authorities who deal with masses of strays should find their work a little easier. Local councils have the right and responsibility to deal with animals humanely, and I hope that we do not have a continuum of irresponsible animal ownership. I support the bill and will endeavour to ensure that the amendments agreed to will benefit the community as well as the animals.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [8.30 p.m.]: I know exactly what is meant by people fighting like cats and dogs, because this legislation is the biggest fight on the part of cat and dog owners I have ever witnessed. I have received a huge amount of correspondence from a great many people, for which I am grateful. I am always pleased when my constituents feel so strongly about an issue that they write to me about it. However, the correspondence received is so contradictory that it is very difficult to know who or what to believe. While the majority of animals kept in our society are kept as pets, some are kept for more functional purposes, such as guard dogs, guide dogs used by those with physical disabilities - and what wonderful work they do - and dogs used as working animals on rural properties. You, Madam Deputy-President, being of a rural background, would realise what wonderful work dogs do on farm properties. Dogs are also used by the police, customs officials and those in the security industry.

To ensure that all those aspects of animal ownership are addressed, the working party defined "companion animal" as any animal that is kept for the mutual welfare and benefit of the animal and its carer. It may be kept primarily as a companion or pet, for protection or for providing assistance to its carer, such as for working purposes or for providing assistance for people with disabilities. The guide dog charity is one of my favourites, and it is one that I am sure we are all incredibly fond of. Guide dogs do so much for people who have lost their sight. According to a study released in 1995, caring for a pet is the norm in Australia. In 1994, 66 per cent of Australian households owned a pet: 57 per cent owned a dog or a cat, 42 per cent owned a dog and 31 per cent owned a cat.

There were approximately 3.8 million dogs and 2.9 million domestic cats Australiawide at that time, with New South Wales accounting for 1.226 million dogs and 865,000 cats. When market research figures were first collected in 1996, the total number of owned dogs in Australia was estimated to be 1.3 million. From 1978 to 1988 the number of dog-owning households increased from 1.74 million to 2.13 million. I thank the Parliamentary Library research service for those figures and for the excellent paper on this legislation produced by Marie Swain. I have recited the figures to emphasise the very large number of animals we have in this country. That is why people feel so strongly about this bill. People own cats, dogs, birds and many other animals. When I grew up in Italy I did not own an animal because I lived in a flat, but I remember that people who did own pets used to feed them leftovers.

The Australian pet food industry is unbelievably huge. Sometimes I am upset to think that so many millions of dollars are spent on animal food, when leftovers seemed to be good enough for pets in years gone by, yet so many thousands of children go to bed hungry every night. It is sad to think about how much money is wasted in that way. I intend to quote from only two of the letters sent to
Page 6912
me, in order to give honourable members an idea of the difficulty I faced in reaching a decision on this legislation. Charles Wright, Chief Executive Officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has written the first of those letters. I remember meeting Charles Wright about 20 years ago, when he was a board member of the Evatt Foundation. His letter reads in part:

The Bill must be passed
The RSPCA puts down some 30,000 cats and 15,000 dogs per year simply because we are unable to identify their owners. This bill will go a long way towards eliminating this tragedy.

Dangerous Dogs
This bill allows council officers to take action on dangerous dogs which has caused numerous problems in the community and even caused death . . .

We all know of incidents of children and adults being attacked by dogs. Sadly, many older people are afraid to walk the streets or parklands, especially at night, for fear of being attacked. The RSPCA letter also states:

Holding Periods
The RSPCA has never had to hold cats for any period of time but generally do so for 7 days.

The current bill requires the pounds, for which RSPCA represents 13, in the Sydney metropolitan area to hold cats and dogs for 7 days if not identified, 14 if identified.

Mr Wright’s letter continues with reasons for which I should support the legislation, and I thank the RSPCA for putting that case so well. The second letter to which I shall refer comes from the Animal Societies Federation, in Gladesville. The writer states:

I beg you to read this before attending the Companion Animals Debate today. It reflects the views of many thousands of your constituents.

Last week representatives of several peak animal welfare organisations (International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Animal Societies Federation (ASF), Animal Liberation, Cat Defence, PAWS, World League for Protection of Animals) held an emergency meeting to discuss the new legislation.

The Animal Societies Federation states its belief that this legislation is terrible and will not go any way towards dealing with the problems. The federation has asked me to oppose the bill. I pay tribute to the Minister for Local Government, who has worked very hard on this issue. I realise that it would be extremely difficult to satisfy everybody. However, I recognise that 180 amendments have been proposed to this legislation. In my opinion, any bill that has so many amendments should be sent back to the drawing board to be redrafted. A bill that has 180 amendments is surely an impossibility. We have all had a difficult day - particularly me - and the thought of debating 180 amendments is not attractive. One of the many letters I received came from the Ronnoco Cattery - I would have had to read that letter if only because of the author’s beautiful name.

I realise that other honourable members wish to speak in the debate and I shall not delay the House. I have read all of the letters that have been sent to me. Animal Liberation has stated that the bill is a disgrace, yet so many other letters I have received have asked me to support it. I shall oppose the second reading of this bill only because I feel that any bill that needs 180 amendments cannot be good. Let us at least reach agreement on the essential parts of the bill, send it back to the drawing board and make sure that it is better drafted, and ensure that it will be legislation acceptable to the community. Obviously, pets are extremely important in the lives of so many people.

For elderly people a cat or dog can be like a member of the family. So many older people are incredibly lonely - children grow up and have their own families and sometimes do not seem to think of their parents. I always remember my father saying that a father can keep 10 children but 10 children cannot keep a father. That statement is so true so often. For people living alone a companion animal can be wonderful company, whether it be a cat, a dog or even a little bird. Let us do the right thing by animal owners and by this legislation. I shall oppose the second reading of this bill. That is not because I consider the Minister has not tried hard enough; certainly he has tried hard. Unfortunately, however, it would appear that his department has not advised him fully and this bill is in need of major redrafting.
The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.40 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats are proud to be the party with the soundest record on animal welfare issues. We support the changes proposed in the bill at a philosophical level, but we recognise that it is a compromise that balances the competing interests of animal welfare groups, pet owners, wildlife protection groups, animal breeders, animal traders, the RSPCA, those affected by noise and those fearful of dog attacks. However, we are concerned that in some respects the balance between the various groups may not be optimal. Ultimately the Australian Democrats agree with the Greens that native animals that may be at risk should take precedence over animals that exist in large numbers and have their future guaranteed by their relationship as domestic companions to humans.

Page 6913

As such, companion animals are part of human husbandry. Already human activity is by far the greatest threat to the biodiversity of the planet. The Australian Democrats wildlife policy states that all exotic species that compete with the indigenous species, or pose a threat to the survival of such species, will be listed as pests and legislation for their control will be initiated. We do not suggest that companion animals are pests, but we recognise the necessity of keeping control of species that humans favour. Democrat policy also states that measures will be taken to stem the disappearance of smaller vertebrate species, with the dedication of reserves where necessary; and that particular studies will be carried out to identify and protect wildlife corridors and migration routes.

It must be pointed out that some small native marsupials have been made extinct, and that others are in grave danger of becoming extinct. Recently I visited Warrawong Sanctuary near Adelaide and saw species that are close to extinction, and I had not even been aware of their existence. The only conclusion is that while efforts are being made to offset the needs and aspirations of companion animals and their owners with the protection of the public, the vital conservation of native birds and animals must not be neglected. The protection of native birds and animals should be the primary objective of animal welfare policy in New South Wales. I flag that I will move an amendment to that effect during the Committee stage of the bill.

Protection of native wildlife is particularly important with regard to endangered species. In sensitive areas restrictions on domestic pets are necessary to achieve that protection. It must be recognised that cats are active nocturnally and instinctively hunt. Dogs are pack animals, and as such are also a danger to ground nesting birds and small marsupials. I am pleased to note that the bill bans cats from wildlife protection areas set apart for that purpose by local councils, via clause 25(f). Local councils should be encouraged to identify sensitive wildlife areas in council regions so that native species, and particularly endangered species, can be properly protected from unaccompanied cats and dogs. The fine under this section is a maximum of $550.

Clause 71 of the bill provides for the establishment of a register of companion animals. I am pleased to note that, for the first time in New South Wales, it will be necessary for cats to be registered, following the lead set by Victoria and South Australia. I would, however, flag an amendment that will improve the identification of companion animal owners who change address. The amendment will provide for optional cross-referencing of the address of the owner on the companion animal register with his or her car registration, and with gas, electricity and water utilities. It is generally accepted that pets may become disoriented when an owner moves house, and may take off back to the old residence. Some of them make it and some become lost on the way.

It is also the case that when people move house they sometimes forget to lodge change-of-address notices as promptly as they should, and the dog and cat registration may be left at the bottom of the list. The foreshadowed amendment will make it possible to link the address on the companion animal register with, say, the address for the electricity account - one address that must be provided prior to taking up residence in new premises. The owner could therefore be contacted at the new address if necessary. Another pleasing feature of the legislation is the provision of protection from dangerous dogs. Division 2 of part 5 makes provision for a dog to be declared dangerous and division 5 of part 5 contains provisions for dealing with restricted dogs.

Restricted breeds are listed as pit bull terriers, american pit bull terriers, japanese tosas, argentinian fighting dogs, brazilian fighting dogs and any other breed as prescribed by regulation. The list has been compiled from the Customs Act, which sets out the breeds of dog that may not be imported. In addition, any dog, irrespective of breed, may be declared dangerous. The provisions relating to ownership and control are comprehensive and onerous for dangerous dogs and restricted dogs. This covers the concerns expressed in our submission regarding responsibilities associated with the ownership of dangerous dogs.

I am concerned about security dog training and the proliferation of such dogs with the growth of the private security industry. This issue was discussed in the white paper but was omitted from the bill. The Minister for Police has the carriage of this matter and provisions relating to security dogs will be included in the second wave of amendments to the Security Industry Act. I have been informed that standards being contemplated are those standards at present in place relating to police dogs. In principle the Australian Democrats support the bill before the House.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [8.45 p.m.]: Companion animals are special and precious to a great many people, which explains why this
Page 6914
legislation has generated so much debate and concern among members of the general public. When I was a child I had a cat called Snappy. Snappy was my pet for 16 years and used to sleep on my chest. It would wait for me to return from school, and would comfort me when I was upset. When Snappy died I was very upset. I remember going to school and sharing my sorrow with a number of my colleagues. Snappy was taken to the vet to be put down because it had kidney disease. My mother and I buried Snappy in a box in the backyard, complete with flowers and a cross. My pet truly was a companion, a very loving companion that I remember with affection. However, Snappy was also a proficient hunter and, as we lived next to a reserve, it would often disappear and return with some birds or lizards and very proudly miaow to tell us of its conquest.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Was it a swimmer as well as a hunter?

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: No, it hated water. A balance has to be reached between addressing the concerns and needs of people who have companion animals and protecting native wildlife, to ensure that native animals have their rightful place and security in our country. I support the legislation on the basis that it promotes an understanding and acceptance of the important role of companion animals in the community and in the lives of many individuals who are socially isolated or have special needs. The legislation was introduced to promote responsible ownership of companion animals, and to provide for their effective care and welfare. It also contains measures to reduce the adverse impacts that some animals may have on the environment and on individuals - very often animals that are not properly cared for by their owners, who become stray, nuisance or dangerous animals. The legislation makes special provision for restricted dogs, which are notoriously dangerous.

The bill proposes mechanisms that are likely to achieve these objectives, some of which include a system of permanent identification and lifetime registration for companion animals, legislative status for cats as well as dogs, strengthening regulations relating to dangerous and restricted dogs, and promoting local companion animal planning and control strategies. The benefits of pet ownership for individuals and the community have been widely recorded and recognised. As reported by David Leser in the Good Weekend on 10 May 1997, dog owners are happier and healthier than non-dog owners. That article notes also that community links are fostered and improved through pet ownership.

Children who grow up in families with healthy and well-trained pets also benefit from learning about friendship and responsibility. The benefits of owning pets are emphasised more in today’s community when changing lifestyles cause people to feel more isolated and in need of a companion. Most pet owners in New South Wales are responsible and care for their pets by giving them attention and love, ensuring they are vaccinated, registered, trained and socialised. However, the busy lifestyles of owners of companion animals, amongst other reasons, can have adverse effects on those animals and cause problems for the community.

Irresponsible ownership causes behavioural problems in the animals; they become a nuisance and most often a danger. Irresponsible pet ownership results in approximately 30,000 dog attacks in Australia each year, of which a large proportion are on small children. Stray or improperly restricted pets can be a danger to property, particularly on farms, and to wildlife. They also pose health risks to humans and other animals. Irresponsible pet ownership results also in many family pets being dumped and destroyed. I support the bill because it will ensure more responsible pet ownership. I have received many representations from individuals and community groups emphasising the positive aspects of the legislation but raising also some concerns, including imposing additional expenses and rules and regulations that will bring hardship to responsible pet owners.

Many of the concerns with regard to this legislation relate to low compliance with pet ownership legislation, requirements of microchipping, qualities of pounds and the provisions over seizing, destroying and selling animals. I am satisfied that most of these issues will be addressed during the Committee stage. I emphasise the importance of the legislation to protect wildlife and individuals, particularly children. Though I support the bill, I foreshadow that I shall move amendments during the Committee stage to address some of my concerns. My first amendment relates to the meaning of "owner". For the purposes of the legislation my amendment shall propose that owners must be aged 16 years or older. This will ensure mature and responsible ownership of companion animals and that children and young people are not held liable for breaches of the legislation in civil and criminal proceedings.

My other amendments will propose that dangerous and restricted dogs be controlled only by persons aged 16 years or over. Apart from ensuring the security of the person controlling the animals and the security of others, the amendments will
Page 6915
promote ownership and control of animals bred and trained to be pets rather than killers. The amendments will clarify and strengthen the bill as they will ensure more responsible pet ownership. I have other concerns about certain aspects of the bill, most of which arise from past instances when children were attacked and mauled by dogs. As these relate to the details of the regulation-making powers of the legislation, I seek assurances from the Minister that the following concerns will be addressed.

First, I seek clarification from the Minister, in his own capacity and on behalf of the Minister for Local Government, about the definition of "wound". In other jurisdictions wounding in relation to companion animals legislation has been interpreted to mean a bite that punctures the skin. I seek an assurance that "wound" means any physical injury directly caused to the victim by the animal, which, in all likelihood, is a dog. I wish to ensure that when a person breaks a limb as a consequence of being lunged at or attacked by a dog that injury will be covered by clause 20 of part 3 as it currently stands. Second, I seek an assurance from the Minister that during the drafting of regulations for off-leash areas councils will take into account the proximity of children’s playgrounds and schools, and the likelihood of children frequenting the areas. Third, I wish to ensure that the areas in which dangerous and restricted dogs are kept are designed to prevent them from exiting on their own.

I seek an assurance also that the regulations will prescribe that dangerous and restricted dogs be properly restrained and muzzled when children are present on the property. These concerns arose from the many cases of children being mauled by dogs on private property, mostly because children wandered into areas where the dogs were kept. Finally, I commend the bill for making provisions for community education in relation to companion animal care, responsible ownership and management of the responsibilities of the Companion Animals Advisory Board, which was established by the legislation. These education programs will promote better ownership practices and help to reduce the incidence of dog attacks. I seek an assurance from the Government that a significant proportion of these programs will specifically target children, serve to educate them on the benefits of family pets and teach them how to avoid dog attacks.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dorothy Isaksen.