STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE ECONOMY AND...All evidence taken today in this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege; therefore you are protected against any action for what you

16 November 2016 Standing Committee on Economy and Infrastructure 16

T R A N S C R I P T

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE ECONOMY AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Inquiry into the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016

Melbourne — 16 November 2016

Members

Mr Joshua Morris — Chair Mr Bernie Finn

Mr Khalil Eideh — Deputy Chair Ms Colleen Hartland

Mr Jeff Bourman Mr Shaun Leane

Mr Nazih Elasmar Mr Craig Ondarchie

Participating member

Ms Samantha Dunn

Staff

Secretary: Ms Lilian Topic

Witnesses

Ms Jaala Pulford, Minister for Agriculture,

Ms Cassandra Meagher, executive director, biosecurity, and

Dr Mariko Lauber, manager, domestic animals unit, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources.


The CHAIR — I declare open our Standing Committee on the Economy and Infrastructure public hearing and welcome our witnesses. Minister, thank you very much for your attendance today. I would also like to thank our gallery for being present here today. Today the committee is hearing evidence in relation to the inquiry into the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016, and the evidence today is being recorded. All evidence taken today in this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege; therefore you are protected against any action for what you say in here today, but if you go outside and repeat the same things, those comments may not be protected by this same privilege. Minister, I believe you have a presentation for us.

Ms PULFORD — Yes, thank you, Chair. I am joined by Mariko Lauber and Cassandra Meagher from the department. I will just make a few introductory remarks and then Cassandra will walk the committee through a brief presentation.

The CHAIR — Great, thank you.

Visual presentation.

Ms PULFORD — As I am sure you are all well aware this legislation is about delivering on an election commitment that the government made prior to the 2014 election. Many of the parts of the puppy farms election commitment have been delivered through our first budget or through other administrative measures. This legislation seeks to complete that task, and there are three main components to it.

One is the limit to the size of a domestic animal business over time, so by 2020 a reduction in the number of fertile female dogs to 10. This represents more than five years since the election commitment was made. I recognise that that for some breeders is quite some change, but it is change with five years notice.

The second is to ban the sale of puppies and kittens in pet stores. Now, many in the pet industry already do not do this; they recognise that consumers have strong views on this matter, but the bill seeks to ban the sale of puppies and kittens. I know in the evidence that you have received to date and your consideration of this legislation that you will all know and recognise that there is an exception to that rule. That is because there are some fantastic arrangements that exist between pet stores — including some of the very large chains that operate — and rescue organisations, and we do not want to disrupt those. So some of the adoption days that occur already — the legislation will enable for those to continue unhindered. I will perhaps come back later in questions in more detail on this, but the legislation also seeks to recognise the terrific work of so many volunteers across the state in providing rescue and shelter support to animals looking for a home and indeed doing some great matchmaking with members of the community. So we are wanting to support that and to strengthen those arrangements.

The third part of the election commitment that this legislation seeks to acquit is to improve the traceability around online selling. Again a challenging area but, as with many of the things that any of us purchase on any day of the week, pet sales online of course exist and are growing as a proportion of the market.

I understand that the committee has some interest in consultation with stakeholders, and if I can quickly just respond to that before I pass to Cassandra for the presentation: the Victorian Avicultural Council were consulted in August and October 2016 specifically on the question of animal sale permits. The Pet Industry Association of Australia were consulted in July 2015 and March 2016. I met with them in July 2015. Banksia Park I met with in June 2015, Pets Australia again in June 2015, Animals Australia were consulted in August 2015 and March 2016, the RSPCA in August 2015, March 2016 and August 2016. I can provide a little more information about the nature of topics, whether it was a broad discussion on the matters of policy approach earlier in the period or finer detail on the provisions of the bill. As you can imagine, consultation was broader earlier on and more specific in later months — and the Australian Veterinary Association in August 2015. I just add to that local councils in August 2015, March 2016 and August 2016 — so Wellington Shire Council, City of Casey, Cardinia shire and Gannawarra shire, as councils that have a particular knowledge and expertise in the operation of the Domestic Animals Act.

If I could just provide the committee with one further update in response to a number of the issues that have been raised by DOGS Victoria over the last month, I have had meetings and discussions with DOGS Victoria during this period, and in recognition of some of their concerns the government next week will be introducing amendments to the bill in respect of three aspects. The first is to create an additional definition, that of


‘recreational breeder’. This would be available to authorised organisation members with nine or fewer fertile female dogs and those breeding from one to two dogs.

The second amendment is to delay the commencement for recreational breeders to register with local councils and to become code compliant until 10 April 2018. That is providing them with an extra 12 months to become compliant with a code with which they already should be compliant. I can come back to the requirements that my predecessor, Peter Walsh, placed on DOGS Victoria back in 2014.

The third amendment is to allow registered foster carers to supply kittens to pet shops from an earlier age — from eight weeks. So again that is in response to a matter raised by an organisation involved in the adoption of kittens. Of course kittens and puppies are a very different proposition when we are considering matters of how the market operates and availability.

I can reflect on my own personal experience of this. I do not think it is particularly uncommon. There is a cat at my house because he just turned up at the back door. Getting a cat and getting a dog are not necessarily the same thing, although of course we recognise that there are specialist breeders doing some great work with cats, and I have had the opportunity to meet them in recent times too.

I would add to that as well that, in terms of the government’s understanding and recognition of the way in which people source their puppies and kittens, of course these are deeply personal matters because people have great affection for family members. My own experience again, with the committee’s indulgence, for what it is worth is that I have an ageing dachshund that was sourced through a phone call to DOGS Victoria — I believe they had a different name that long ago — which then put me in touch with the breeder from where that dog was sourced. My other dog is a rescue dog from an organisation that has been referred to in evidence presented to the committee earlier today.

If I can just perhaps pass to Cassandra Meagher, who will take us through a quick presentation and respond to some of the issues that have been raised. Then we will be happy to take the committee’s questions.

Ms MEAGHER — Thank you, Minister. Just to recap, the Victorian government made three election commitments: the first, to limit breeding businesses to 10 fertile female dogs by 2020; the second, to restrict pet shops to selling dogs and cats sourced only from registered shelters and pounds; and the third, to address concerns about online sales of dogs and cats. The Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016 amends the Domestic Animals Act 1994 to implement these election commitments.

The development of any legislation begins with a problem. The community indicated to the minister and to the department that they believe there are several problems or concerns with the breeding, sale and management of dogs and cats in Victoria. The most common include:

1. commercial breeding of dogs leads to poor welfare;

2. unregulated backyard breeding of dogs leads to poor welfare;

3. complex ‘breeding domestic animal business’ definition is difficult to enforce and there are loopholes for applicable organisation members;

4. the term ‘not for profit’ creates confusion and inconsistent application with respect to domestic animal boarding, rearing and training businesses;

5. kitten and puppy brokers are not clearly defined in the act;

6. enforcement agencies are unable to obtain a warrant to seize evidence to prove illegal breeding;

7. enforcement agencies are not being awarded costs by magistrates for seizure, care and rehoming of animals from illegal breeding operations;

8. it is difficult for the community to determine who is an ethically, legally operating breeder;

9. pet shops should not sell puppies or kittens;

10. pet shops can provide poor environments for puppies and kittens;


11. pet shops encourage impulse buying, which can lead to irresponsible ownership or an increase in unwanted animals;

12. pet shops provide market access for illegal breeders;

13. online dog and cat advertisements are failing to meet the legislative requirements;

14. enforcement of online and print advertising is sporadic;

15. it is expensive for foster carers to register their foster animals with local council;

16. foster carers currently supply large numbers of kittens to pet shops;

17. some public sales of animals should be able to occur under certain conditions; and finally

18. unregulated public sales of birds create welfare problems.

The department developed multiple policy options for addressing these concerns. Policy options must be balanced — that is, they must consider both sides of the argument — achieve the desired outcome, be cost effective and be practical.

As part of the development of these policy options, the department and the government undertook informal consultation with multiple sections of the community, including breeders, the pet shop industry, enforcement agencies and animal welfare groups. The government reviews the policy options presented by the department and determines which option best solves the policy problem and, in this situation, delivers on the election commitments.

The department drafted the bill in line with the government’s preferred policy option. Further targeted consultation, approved by cabinet, was undertaken as the bill was drafted. The further purpose of this consultation was to ensure that the provisions of the bill were practicable and achieved the desired outcome.

The bill introduces a number of reforms to implement the government’s election commitments. Firstly, it simplifies and clarifies the definition of ‘domestic animal business’. The simplified definition amends the definition of a ‘domestic animal breeding business’ to all premises with one or more fertile female dogs and three or more fertile female cats that are bred for the purpose of selling the puppies or kittens.

This provides the community and enforcement agencies with a very clear means of identifying legal versus illegal breeders. For example, any dog breeder who is not registered is operating illegally. Definitions for training, boarding and rearing/breeding businesses have also been amended to articulate the intent of for-profit terms. These definitions now clearly state that anyone who is training, boarding or rearing a dog or cat for fee, for services, for exchange or for sale is required to register as a domestic animal business. The rearing definition clearly captures puppy and kitten brokers.

Secondly it limits existing dog breeding businesses to 10 fertile females per rateable property by 2010. Thirdly it limits new dog breeding businesses to 10 fertile females per rateable property from 2017. It then limits pet shops to acquiring dogs or cats from registered shelters, registered pounds and registered foster carers. Next it prevents the co-registration of shelters, pet shops and breeding businesses across Victoria. This provision prevents unscrupulous individuals from co-registering breeding businesses, shelters and pet shops across the state to create an illegal supply chain.

However, the current domestic animal business registration records are held individually with 79 separate councils. To enable enforcement of these provisions the bill establishes a statewide database to manage domestic animal business registrations known as the Victorian Domestic Animal Business Register and creates offences for publishers to publish advertisements for the sale of dogs or cats that do not contain the legislative requirements of a microchip number for each animal or domestic animal business and registering council. The provisions support the existing offences for a person to advertise a dog or cat for sale without a microchip number or domestic animal business number and registering council but acknowledge the role online print and media publishers need to play in ensuring that all advertisements contain the legislative requirements.


As a consequence of these reforms the bill has some consequential amendments. These include amending the enforcement and cost recovery provisions to support the implementation of election commitments. The bill introduces new powers for the enforcement agencies, local council and the RSPCA to obtain warrants for residential dwellings to search for and seize things and documents that provide evidence of domestic animal businesses being operated illegally or not in compliance with the relevant code of practice.

The bill also provides for broad monitoring powers allowing enforcement officers to monitor and inspect properties where there is reasonable suspicion that a domestic animal business is being operated illegally or not in compliance with the relevant code of practice. The bill also clarifies cost recovery mechanisms for enforcement agencies that seize animals from illegal or non-compliant domestic animal businesses. The new provisions very clearly articulate that a magistrate can award costs for seizure, transport, veterinary care, rehabilitation and rehoming of seized animals. These powers are extended to properties where Greyhound Racing Victoria greyhounds are kept to support the enforcement of the new greyhound provisions inserted in the Domestic Animals Act 1994 by the Racing and Other Acts Amendment (Greyhound Racing and Welfare Reform) Act 2016.

The second consequential change is the introduction of an animal permit sale system to provide exemptions to offences currently under section 96 of the act. Section 96 of the Domestic Animals Act makes it an offence to sell a dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig, mouse, reptile or exotic species of a caged bird from anywhere that is not a private residence or a registered domestic animal business. However, the government believes that there are certain circumstances where public animal sale may be acceptable under strict controls. The animal sale permit scheme provides the ability for the minister to allow animal sales to legally occur while safeguarding the welfare of the animals and protecting the community.

The third consequential change is an introduction of a voluntary foster care registration scheme that recognises the important role foster carers play in the management of animals in Victoria. The government acknowledges the vital role that foster carers play in the management of dogs and cats in Victoria. In Victoria dogs and cats over the age of three months must be registered with the local council in which they reside, even if they only being cared for temporarily, such as in a foster care arrangement.

The government acknowledges that the cost of fostering animals, particularly entire dogs and cats over three months, can be significant. Therefore, the bill introduces a voluntary foster registration scheme to significantly reduce the cost of legally registering animals in foster care to $7 for each dog and $4 for each cat for the first 12 months that the animals are in foster care.

The bill also creates a definition of foster care that limits foster carers to five animal adult equivalents at any one time. A single animal adult equivalent is a dog or a cat over 16 weeks of age, a female and her litter under 8 weeks of age or a litter aged between 8 and 16 weeks of age. Individuals wishing to foster more than five adult animals will need to register as an animal shelter.

The fourth and final set of consequential changes are miscellaneous and administrative amendments to the act. The bill also introduces a number of administrative amendments to the act to improve implementation, administration and enforcement. These amendments include cost recovery mechanisms to fund the development of the Victorian Domestic Animal Business Register, the recognition of approved dog obedience training organisations in the act and the formalisation of the application and reporting processes for these organisations, simplification of code-making process and changes to the cycle date for domestic animal management plans.

The minister foreshadowed the house amendments. So after the introduction of the bill to Parliament, a number of stakeholder groups expressed concerns about certain aspects of the bill. Applicable organisations such as DOGS Victoria in particular expressed significant concern about the impact of the bill on their breeders. The Minister for Agriculture and the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources met with DOGS Victoria to discuss their key concerns, including the rate of compliance with existing standards and the use of the term ‘business’ for hobby and small breeders. During these discussions it became apparent that DOGS Victoria’s Regulations, Codes, Policies and Procedures 2016 — DOGS Victoria regulations — do not meet the requirements of the code of practice for breeding and rearing businesses 2014, as required under the conditions of applicable organisation status.


DOGS Victoria regulations only address 6 of the 51 relevant clauses in the code of practice. Only one clause completely meets or exceeds the code of practice for breeding and rearing businesses 2014. The remaining clauses are only partially addressed. The result is that many DOGS Victoria and other applicable organisation members will need to change their management practices to become compliant with the Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses 2014. Therefore the government is introducing a house amendment to provide all applicable organisation members and all breeders with one to two fertile female dogs, who under the act are currently exempt from registration as a breeding domestic animal business, an exemption from registration until 10 April 2018.

To address DOGS Victoria around the use of the term ‘business’, the house amendment creates a new definition of ‘recreational breeder’. The recreational breeder definition includes applicable organisation members who have nine or fewer fertile dogs or between three and nine fertile female cats and where all fertile female dogs or cats kept by the member are registered with the applicable organisation and individuals who are not members of an applicable organisation with one or two female dogs. Recreational breeders will not be called a domestic animal business but will have to comply with the same legal requirements as a domestic animal business — that is, they will need to, firstly, register with the local council and, secondly, comply with the mandatory Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses 2014 by 10 April 2018.

The delayed commencement of recreational breeders will provide councils with 12 months to review staffing, resourcing and administration requirements as well as domestic animal business registration fees. Compliance with the Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses 2014 for individuals with up to five adult breeding animals will largely be focused on record keeping, health management plans, mandatory veterinary care, vaccination and microchipping. These breeders are not required to build kennel facilities under the Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses 2014. The code will be reviewed prior to 10 April 2018 to reflect the new definitions of a ‘breeding domestic animal business’ and a ‘recreational breeder’.

Recent discussions with pet shops and cat foster carers have indicated that the proposed limits on registered foster carers to only supplying cats over the age of six months to pet shops may impact significantly on the homing of stray kittens in Victoria. The six-month age limit was introduced to prevent unscrupulous individuals from registering as foster carers and funnelling illegally bred puppies into pet shops. However, the restrictions have an unintended consequence on the management of a high volume of kittens that are re-homed during the spring and summer months in Victoria. The house amendment addresses the unintended consequences by allowing registered foster carers to supply pet shops with kittens from eight weeks of age. The restrictions for the supply of puppies remain at six months of age for registered foster carers.

Finally, I turn to myths. There are a number of misconceptions about the myths. I will now run through some of these myths. The first myth is that the bill introduces new requirements for applicable organisations to comply with the Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses 2014.

The CHAIR — Sorry, Ms Meagher, can I just stop you there? Is this with the house amendments or is this as the legislation was originally written?

Ms MEAGHER — This is as the registration stands now. What we are going to step through in the next three slides are those things. While the act currently exempts applicable organisations with fewer than 10 fertile females that they breed to sell from the requirement to register as a domestic animal business, a condition of the applicable organisation status is that the organisation has a binding code of conduct or a code of ethics that meets or exceeds the minimum standards in the Victorian legislation. In this case, for breeders and rearers the minimum standard is the Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses 2014. Therefore applicable organisation members should already be compliant with the provisions contained within the Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses 2014. This slide shows the actual compliance with the current legislation.

This slide now shows the compliance with current versus the new legislation. What you can see in this slide is the current and then the new provisions, and in the second part of the slide you can see the definition of recreational breeder being introduced and the compliance with the code of practice, which is already required under the existing legislation.


Then this slide shows the actual compliance with the existing legislation. So you can see here that we know that applicable organisation members are not currently compliant with the existing code, and the question mark basically indicates that we are unsure about the compliance with local planning laws.

There are just some other myths that might help with some questions that are coming up. The second myth is ‘domestic animal business registration for purebred dog and cat breeders and backyard breeders will cost in excess of $2500 per year’. Most councils charge between $200 and $300 per year for domestic animal business registration. There is one council that sets their registration fees at $2500 —

The CHAIR — Which one is that?

Ms PULFORD — Wellington.

Ms MEAGHER — and a couple have additional fees associated with first-time registration. The Domestic Animals Act 1994 provides a cost-recovery scheme for local council implementation and enforcement of the act. Local councils, wherever possible, are encouraged to set their registration fees for dogs and cats and domestic animal businesses at a rate that will enable them to recover costs for their services. The department has had conversations with many councils about the domestic animal business fees and has had assurances that councils will be reviewing their fee structures in light of the changes to the definition of a breeding domestic animal business.

The third myth: ‘breeding is a discouraged use so my council refused my domestic animal business application’. The Domestic Animals Act 1994 contains very limited grounds on which a council may refuse a domestic animal business application. The grounds for refusal are: the proprietor or a person applying for registration has failed to comply with the act, the regulations and any code of practice applying to the business or terms or conditions or limitations or restrictions to the registration; the proprietor or person applying for the registration has been found guilty of an offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986. A council must refuse to register a new registration of a premises in relation to a domestic animal business if the council is satisfied that the relevant person has at any time within the last 10 years preceding the date of the application for registration been found guilty of specified events, and refusal of these grounds is appealable through VCAT.

The next myth is that ‘council enforcement officers will need to be experts in avian welfare to review an animal sale permit application for bird sale’. The animal sale permit scheme has been designed to ensure that the council has the right to refuse public sale of animals in their municipality. The scheme asked councils to provide advice to the minister in the form of a report. This is a simple form for council to fill in on a suitability of venue and suitability of the management and emergency evacuation procedures for sale. We have provided an example of what a form — an assessment report — might look like for the committee to review.

The CHAIR — Ms Meagher, I am just conscious of time. I am not sure how much you have got left to get through.

Mr ONDARCHIE — Could we table that?

The CHAIR — Have you got a significant amount to get through?

Ms MEAGHER — There are only three myths left.

The CHAIR — And that is it?

Ms PULFORD — These are absolutely responsive to the evidence the committee has heard to date and, I think, probably present us with the opportunity to save some time. Though, that said, if the committee is desiring to extend the time for our hearing, I am sure we would be available to stick around.

The CHAIR — Minister, that is terribly kind of you, so I will ask Ms Meagher to continue — absolutely.

Ms MEAGHER — So just going back to the bird sale myth, the scheme asked councils to provide advice to the minister in the form of a report. This will be in a simple form for the council to fill in on the suitability of a venue, the management of the animals in an emergency and what the processes for the sale look like. We have provided an example of the form to the committee for review. These are areas which local government animal


management officers currently enforce under the pet shop code of practice. As such they should be able to review the application and simply complete the recommendation.

If councils refuse or do not recommend a sale permit be granted, then, under the bill, the minister cannot grant it. Each sale organiser is required to contract a veterinarian to attend the sale for the full day to ensure the welfare of animals being sold. Councils are not required to attend, except in an emergency capacity. However, councils are provided with the power to close a sale if they feel that the sale is breaching conditions of the permit or there are other emergency concerns.

The next myth is ‘the limiting of foster carers to five adult-equivalent animals will prevent organisations like Vic Dog Rescue from continuing’. It has been difficult for enforcement agencies to determine at what point a foster carer with a large number of animals needs to become a registered animal shelter. During the development of the Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses 2014 several breeding and veterinary experts were consulted to determine what number of breeding animals could be properly cared for in a household situation without the need for purpose-built kennels or catteries. These experts recommended five adult animals as a limit. This limit was adopted in the code of practice.

A similar principle applies to foster carers. While many foster care animals are not being bred with, they often require intensive behavioural or medical care rehabilitation. In addition, many foster carers have their own pets that live in their household. To ensure a foster carer’s home is not overwhelmed with high-care animals and that all animals in the foster care are given sufficient space and care, the bill will limit foster carers to five adult-equivalent animals at any given time.

The next myth: ‘I am a member of DOGS Victoria and I breed occasionally, but I also run rescue for my breed. This bill prevents me from continuing my rescue efforts’. The proposed legislation does not prevent breeders from rescuing dogs or cats, being associated with a rescue group or a foster care organisation or even supporting a shelter. It prevents a registered breeder from registering as a shelter or a pet shop in Victoria. The restrictions are designed to close the supply chain for illegal breeders — that is, they prevent an unscrupulous breeder from registering as a breeding business on one premises, opening a shelter on another and distributing their puppies through the shelter into a pet shop either owned by them or someone else. As long as breeders do not rescue or foster more than five-adult equivalents at any given time, their ability to register as a breeder and conduct rescue efforts will not be compromised.

The next myth: ‘applicable organisation members with fewer than 10 fertile female dogs have never been required to comply with the Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses 2014’. Applicable organisations have as a condition of their applicable organisation status a requirement to have a binding code of conduct or ethics that meets or exceeds the minimum standards of the required code in Victorian legislation. In this case, breeders and rearers, the minimum code is the Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses 2014. A second condition of the applicable organisation status is that the organisation enforces their code of conduct or ethics and provides sufficient communication and education with their members to ensure that they can comply with the relevant Victorian legislation.

The department have worked closely with applicable organisations since 2012, both on the development of the code for the operation of breeding and rearing businesses 2014 and on the responsibilities of each applicable organisation to modify their internal code of conduct or ethics to meet or exceed the Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses 2014.

Finally, ‘applicable organisations are losing all their exemptions under the act’. Currently under the Domestic Animals Act 1994 applicable organisation members, in addition to the exemptions from registration as a breeding domestic animal business, are exempt from mandatory desexing orders instituted by some local councils and obtain reduced registration fees for their entire dogs and cats. The bill only proposes to change exemptions from ‘registration as a breeding business’. All other exemptions will remain. However, all applicable organisations are currently in the process of reapplying for their applicable organisation status. The department notified all applicable organisations in 2015 of the requirement to reapply for applicable organisation status by 1 January 2017. Thank you.

Ms PULFORD — Thank you, Cassandra. Can I perhaps add on myth 2, around the intersection of these issues with council planning decisions? I indicate for the committee’s benefit that, in addition to the evidence


provided by Ms Meagher, I have agreed with the Minister for Planning to develop formal planning guidelines that will avoid any potential confusion.

As you have heard, there are actually very limited circumstances in which council can currently refuse registrations of breeding activity, but to the extent that there is a lack of clarity across councils or among those who are involved in recreational breeding, the government has determined that we will develop a planning code that will ensure that there is a consistent standard and that the rules are clear for everyone involved.

The CHAIR — Very good. Thank you for that clarification, Minister. I thought I might start on that point with some questions insofar as I have certainly seen that, even though there is a limited range by which council permits can be refused by the letter of the law, it may be the fact that some councils may step outside of that and, whether it be for ideological reasons or what have you, refuse a permit. How would those new guidelines seek to ensure that that did not occur?

Ms PULFORD — At the moment, the only grounds upon which a council can refuse a domestic animal business, taking into account the amendment that I indicated before of a recreational breeder, is if there is non-compliance with the Domestic Animals Act 1994, the Domestic Animals Regulations 2015 or the relevant mandatory code of practice or if the person has been found guilty of a specified offence or is subject to an order made or registered under sections 12(1) or 12A(2) to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

So there will be additional restrictions put in place through the legislation to prevent co-registration of breeding businesses, shelters and pet shops, as the committee has heard, and the limits associated with the number of fertile females on the property. However, the Domestic Animals Act 1994 will not provide for refusal on the grounds that the activity is undesirable. But recognising that it is a matter of concern to some people that their local councils will ignore the rules and do things to them that the councils are not allowed to do — that is the context in which we are operating —

The CHAIR — It has happened before.

Ms PULFORD — I have agreed with the Minister for Planning that we will develop formal planning guidelines to avoid any confusion and that they will provide uniform arrangements across the state. They will be developed next year, including a period of public consultation. Given that for AO members we are proposing to provide a further 12 months that was initially planned for them to be compliant, that would most certainly be able to be concluded within that time frame.

The CHAIR — Okay. I was negligent, Minister, in thanking you for appearing today. I did want to acknowledge that you were not required to attend our hearing today and answer our questions, and I think we as a committee are certainly very thankful for the fact that you have come along. We have asked some of your colleagues to come along and answer some questions about certain things, and we have not been able to get them to do so, but for you to be willing to come along today is something we are certainly very thankful for.

Ms PULFORD — Thank you for the opportunity, Chair and committee members. There has been, as we have indicated in the presentation, a degree of misunderstanding about the way in which these arrangements will apply. There has also been, I think, a gap between what has been required of applicable organisations and what has been happening, so I have actually been quite looking forward to the opportunity to help clear up some of these matters to assist the committee and, in turn, assist the Parliament in considering this legislation.

The CHAIR — As have we, Minister. I might just go to the 10 breeding females. Yesterday we heard evidence from a number of groups who were of the view that that number of 10 breeding females was a number plucked out of thin air and that there was no evidence behind why it is that that number should be chosen to say that above 10 breeding females there will be adverse animal welfare outcomes but below 10 it is okay. Indeed the RSPCA, who were in my view rather unconvincing in their evidence, said that they agreed with the limit of 10, but they seemed to use the Dennis Denuto defence of, ‘It’s the vibe’. There was no evidence behind why it was that they supported the number 10, but the government had proposed it and they supported it. I am just wondering if you might be able to point the committee to any evidence at all that restricting the number of breeding females to 10 is going to achieve positive animal welfare outcomes.

Ms PULFORD — The limit of 10 relates to the promise that the then Labor opposition made to the Victorian public before the election, and this bill is about acquitting that election commitment. In terms of the


dialogue with animal welfare organisations, predominantly the RSPCA but others, in the development of this election commitment, it was certainly put to us by animal welfare organisations, including at the time the RSPCA, that there was a relationship between animal welfare and socialisation and that the greater the number, the greater the risk — the key element there being around socialisation and human interaction. That is why the election commitment identified 10 as the number, and the legislation reflects the election commitment.

The CHAIR — I thought I might use an example of something that, Minister, is in our own backyards, and that is that the government also made an election commitment that the Canadian forest, as it was, was going to become the Canadian State Park. The government went through and did some consultation and found that if they turned the Canadian forest into a state park, people would not be able to ride their horses or walk their dogs in there. That was a perverse outcome that had not been foreshadowed prior to the election when the election commitment was made. So the Labor government backed away from that election commitment and decided to make it the Canadian Regional Forest to allow those activities to occur. This Labor government, it appears, is not averse to stepping away from an election commitment when they recognise that it would actually have a detrimental effect on the community. I will put it to you that that is what is going to happen if this legislation passes. Why is it that you will not do what your colleague has done and step away from an election commitment for the betterment of our community?

Ms PULFORD — Conversely, Chair, there is no evidence that has been presented to me that there would be enhanced animal welfare outcomes by having breeding businesses operating at a large scale. Mr Ondarchie, through his interjection, if I could take it up, said, ‘Why not 12?’. Conversely, you could make the same argument about an upper limit — why not 200? Why not 300? Why not 1000? We accepted the advice of animal welfare organisations, predominantly the RSPCA but others, in the development of the election commitment —

Mr ONDARCHIE — They said there was no science behind this — there was no scientific evidence.

Ms PULFORD — recognising the relationship between socialisation and better animal welfare outcomes.

The CHAIR — I think it would be fair to say that from the witnesses we have heard this bill demonstrates a masterclass in how not to legislate. We have had the MAV come before us, and Mr Spence said:

I have been around the system for 50 years, and this one sits at the top of my tree of cumbersome, poorly-put-together legislation.

Mr Spence is someone who has been around for a long time, and he was absolutely scathing of this legislation, along with the president of the AVA and many of the other industry groups who have not been consulted, were not consulted prior to this legislation.

Ms PULFORD — That is not true.

The CHAIR — I suggest to you that this bill really is more about ideology than about achieving animal welfare outcomes. We have heard from group after group after group, from expert after expert, that the perverse outcome of this bill is going to be that animal welfare is actually going to go downhill in the state of Victoria rather than being enhanced. Where is the evidence that this bill is going to enhance animal welfare in Victoria at all?

Ms PULFORD — As the Chair of the committee, it sounds a bit like you have already made up your mind.

The CHAIR — I am always open-minded, Minister — always.

Ms PULFORD — Well, it sounds a little bit like you have already made up your mind.

Mr ONDARCHIE — Sounds like you have already made up your mind too, Minister.

Ms PULFORD — I would question your capacity to properly consider the evidence that we have just presented.

Mr ONDARCHIE — We have listened to other people — that is the point.

Ms PULFORD — For example, on the question of the bird sales permits, which is one of the examples that you have just given, at the moment the activity of people wishing to sell exotic birds at markets and other public


events is currently illegal. Recognising and listening to the desire of people who would very much like to be participating in this activity, this legislation will enable an activity that is currently illegal to become legal, and that is what the permit system seeks to provide.

On the evidence that you have heard from DOGS Victoria, can I suggest that the DOGS Victoria leadership now, I think, are absolutely committed to getting their house in order. There is a letter that I am happy to provide to the committee that my predecessor, Peter Walsh, wrote to DOGS Victoria in October of 2014 updating them on some changes that the previous government had made in this area and indicating that as part of their AO status they had 12 months to ensure their members were compliant with these standards. Now, for reasons perhaps best explained by that organisation, that has not happened. We will continue to work with DOGS Victoria to ensure that they are complying with the undertaking that they made to the former government and the arrangements that exist under their AO status. We have, as I indicated today, determined that we will provide them with another 12 months to do this. The purebred breeders that are members of DOGS Victoria, I believe, are overwhelmingly doing the right thing — they are dedicated to their breed and incredibly invested personally in the activity that they participate in as a recreational breeder. Again, responding to DOGS Victoria’s concern around the terminology, we recognise that describing recreational breeders as such is something that they would very much desire, and that is what that amendment seeks to do.

But it must be said that the claim to be able to successfully self-regulate is hard to stand up. The government provided in our first budget $5 million to the RSPCA to establish their special investigations unit. This was part of the puppy farms commitment. I am advised that 80 per cent of the RSPCA’s investigations by that unit of illegal puppy and kitten farms involve applicable organisation members. So I recognise completely and I really commend the efforts of the current leadership of DOGS Victoria, who are working furiously to get their house in order. We recognise that. We are proposing to give them another 12 months to do that. But they are falling well short of where they are supposed to be right now.

The CHAIR — Thanks, Minister. I have got a few more questions, but I might go to Mr Elasmar. We will go along the committee and we will see if anybody has final questions after that.

Mr ELASMAR — Minister, thank you very much for appearing today. Let me assure you that the Chair’s view and Mr Ondarchie’s view is not the committee’s view.

Mr ONDARCHIE — You have not heard my view yet. You are about to, but you have not heard it yet.

Mr ELASMAR — One of the questions I would like to ask you is: some people and organisations believe that the breeding or sale of dogs will be pushed underground, making other operators take over — does the bill address this issue?

Ms PULFORD — Yes, it does. The central register that Ms Meagher talked about in her presentation certainly goes to that question. Dog breeding in particular — cat breeding, as I indicated, is different in a number of ways — is something that before the election we said we would shine a spotlight on, and this legislation will do that. The central register is a really important part of that. Councils of course have their role in registering. This information will then exist in one place, where of course each council will only be able to see the information relevant to their municipality but the department will have a much better view of this activity across the state. Right now the answer to ‘How many dogs are bred in Victoria?’ resides in 79 different locations. Little wonder that we have problems with animal welfare. There are 36 properties, I believe, that are currently under active investigation by the RSPCA. We certainly know anecdotally of organisations that have recognised our government’s determination to crack down on puppy farms and have scaled down their operations or have packed up and moved interstate, but there is a lot more work to be done here and this legislation will enable that to occur.

Mr ELASMAR — Minister, you have stated in the media that the bill will affect less than 90 breeders. Where does this figure come from?

Ms PULFORD — There are 86 domestic animal businesses under the current legislation.

Mr ELASMAR — Many breeders are worried about paying for registration or permits from council. Can you please explain what the bill changes for existing breeders?


Ms PULFORD — The bill makes no changes to the planning arrangements that exist across local councils. As I indicated earlier, the extent to which there is some anxiety about this I think will be addressed by the work the planning minister and I have agreed will occur to ensure clear guidelines for all local councils.

Mr ELASMAR — I will ask Cassandra a question, if she does not mind. Some farmers are worried about the impact on them in the course of their breeding of working dogs. Is there any special condition for working dogs in the bill or somewhere else?

Ms MEAGHER — Yes. So within the breeding and rearing code there is special provision for working dogs at the moment, which include exemptions currently. The bill, as it stands, does not propose any additional requirements for working dogs.

Mr BOURMAN — Thank you for your presentation. I have not had the opportunity to question a minister before, so this is new ground for me.

Ms PULFORD — That is not the case. You asked me a question last week in the house.

Mr BOURMAN — But questions without notice are kind of different. It is not really a backwards and forwards. I am going to go back to magic 10 number. As you are well aware, numbers in what I do are an important thing. You said that you spoke to a lot of animal welfare associations and they came up with the number 10. With the other people you consulted, what did they say about a magic number that would ensure animal welfare?

Ms PULFORD — There are a number of numbers, none of them particularly magical, but if you look at the code of practice it is full of numbers — five or less, nine or less. The organisations that the opposition met with in the development of this policy included some sensitive discussions with the RSPCA and DOGS Victoria and a meeting with Animals Australia and with Oscar’s Law.

Mr BOURMAN — That was the opposition, you said?

Ms PULFORD — Yes.

Mr BOURMAN — What about yourselves in the — —

Mr ONDARCHIE — The then opposition.

Ms PULFORD — That is when we were the opposition.

Mr BOURMAN — Sorry; I was thinking of Minister Walsh.

Ms PULFORD — Yes, in the development of the policy.

Mr BOURMAN — But notwithstanding the animal welfare organisations, did anyone else propose a number that would seem reasonable — to them at least?

Ms PULFORD — It was not like an auction, if that is your question — 12 or 20 or 1000 or whatever.

Mr BOURMAN — No.

Ms PULFORD — There was a recognition by those organisations that there is a relationship between scale and animal welfare outcomes.

Mr BOURMAN — I have been to Banksia Park where it is obviously far in excess of 10, and even the RSPCA say there are no indications of any animal welfare issues. So what I am wondering is: is it a number that is the issue or is it the care that is being given to them? Technically if they have a thousand breeding animals and are caring for them properly in the required amount of space, that is an animal welfare at its finest. If they have got one dog and they are mistreating it, then they fit under that 10 limit, but it is still not addressing that issue.

Ms PULFORD — The election commitment, among other things, indicated our desire for industrial-scale breeding of puppies to be phased out in Victoria. I certainly have no shortage of critics who think 2020 is too far


away and too slow, but in recognition of the impact on, I think, a reasonably small number of organisations in the state there will be five years between the announcement of our policy intent on this and the time by which it needs to take effect. I appreciate that this will be a point of difference in the Parliament and perhaps in the community, but our legislation seeks to acquit our election commitment, and that was part of our election commitment.

Mr BOURMAN — Who was that election commitment developed in conjunction with? I know you were not lying in bed one night thinking, ‘This is a good election commitment’. Someone would have obviously come to you and worked on it with you. Who would it have been?

Ms PULFORD — You are reflecting on 2014. I am not sure many of us in our line of work were lying in bed much at all really.

Mr BOURMAN — I can assure you of that.

Ms PULFORD — As I indicated, in developing the election commitment the organisations that I met with included the RSPCA, DOGS Victoria, Oscar’s Law and Animals Australia. Candidates and members of Parliament who were talking to lots of community organisations and advocacy groups on a range of issues would be well aware that they were all very active in their engagement with members of Parliament and aspiring members of Parliament in the lead-up to the election.

Mr BOURMAN — So it is safe to say it was developed with animal welfare organisations and no-one else.

Ms PULFORD — I met with DOGS Victoria as well.

Mr BOURMAN — I will move on to — —

Ms PULFORD — Who may describe themselves as an animal welfare organisation. That is probably a matter for them. I certainly believe them when they tell me that they are absolutely determined to maintain very, very high standards among their members. I absolutely believe that the overwhelming majority of their members are doing the right thing, but I also have to recognise that when the RSPCA tell me that their inspectorate, in the work that they are doing on puppy farms, is finding 80 per cent of these properties are card-carrying members of applicable organisations, then I think we have to recognise that there are some serious animal welfare issues, and that is what we are trying to address.

Mr BOURMAN — It was mentioned that pet shops would not sell puppies and kittens due to various issues — poor conditions and so on. If that is the case, then why are animal rescues and all that going to be sold through pet shops? Either they are okay or they are not, regardless of where the animal comes from.

Ms PULFORD — I think this is a very good question. At the moment many, many pet stores choose to not sell puppies and kittens; I think it is quite a modest number of pet shops that still do. Consumers have, over quite some time, expressed with their own actions their views on this. When I met with the pet industry association they told me that they had seven members who were affected by this in Victoria, so again, when you think about all the pet stores operating across the state, it is not very many that will need to make a change here. But I certainly believe, and it is the government’s position, that pet stores are not a good place for puppies and kittens.

That said, this is where we come to the exception to the rule. The exception to the rule is about preserving some fantastic arrangements that already exist between rescue organisations and pet stores. Some of the larger chains, through organisation with some of the larger rescue organisations, have adoption days. We did not want the legislation to inadvertently disrupt what are very, very good arrangements by pet store proprietors who are keen to play their part in this and by rescue organisations who find that is an important way to find homes for all of these animals that are looking for a home.

So the only circumstance in which a pet store would be selling kittens and puppies would be with the full agreement and encouragement of a rescue organisation. Now, certainly many of the rescue organisations that I have had a chance to meet would not participate in this and would not take up this option, but for those arrangements that are already in place, including a significant operation in rehoming kittens that operates in Melbourne’s western suburbs, we do not want to disrupt those operations.


Mr BOURMAN — I am just going to point out I do not have any skin in this game. All bar two of my animals in the last 19 years have either been from a rescue organisation or personal rescues — we found them ourselves — so I have got nothing for or against pet shops, but it seems to me what we have got left now is people that are getting their animals from reputable breeders. In fact from the evidence I have heard they are more or less partnered with a breeder. So you have the traceability of the animals, and you have not only the various legislation for consumer laws but you have also got return periods and things like that. It seems to me — and I am asking you or getting you to convince me otherwise — that what we are going to do is get rid of the people who are trying to do the right thing whilst we are trying to get rid of the people trying to do the wrong thing. It seems to me — I think I used this term before — we are swatting a fly with a Buick.

Ms PULFORD — How do you swat anything with a Buick? That sounds tricky.

Mr BOURMAN — You obviously do not read Garfield.

Ms PULFORD — No, I have not picked up a Garfield in a long time, I must confess. The pet stores who are already in an arrangement with a rescue organisation — —

Mr BOURMAN — I meant actual breeders. Mad About Pets, I think it was, have breeders that they generally deal with — or a breeder that they generally deal with. So you have got a direct line, basically, notwithstanding a few other things.

Ms PULFORD — Yes. So this change would require the purchaser to be dealing directly with the breeder.

Mr BOURMAN — Okay. I just do not see to what end. I do not see it — —

Ms PULFORD — Because we believe that puppies and kittens do not belong in shop windows.

Mr BOURMAN — Unless they are from a rescue organisation.

Ms PULFORD — Typically the rescue organisations would not involve housing them in a store.

Mr BOURMAN — Okay. One last question, because otherwise I will take up everyone’s time and they will get cranky with me. We have heard evidence from the councils that they are struggling to cope as it is. We have evidence from people that have not been inspected in ages because the councils are struggling to cope, and I think there was a cost recovery provision in this. As I am understanding it, there are 86 registered domestic animal breeders now. There are obviously going to be a heap more should this go through. It is going to place an extra strain on councils that are already struggling a little bit. I am seeing a potential problem: either they are going to have to put the cost recovery up so much that it is going to effectively stop people from doing it or they are just going to refuse. It is not refusing a domestic animal business as such; it is just going to take so long that it will just stop.

Ms PULFORD — Thank you for the question. The mechanism for councils to cost recover to fulfil their obligations under the legislation are not proposed by this bill to change at all. Councils currently can and do cost recover and will be able to in the future. I might now invite Dr Lauber to provide the committee with a bit more detail on how this will operate from council to council and perhaps to reflect on some of the consultation with councils about how this will operate and meet their needs.

Mr BOURMAN — I might just ask the last part of my question. You mentioned consultation with councils. We had the municipal association come in and say they were not consulted.

Ms PULFORD — But we consulted with councils.

Mr BOURMAN — Three or four, I think?

Ms PULFORD — No, more than that.

Mr BOURMAN — Anyway, over to Dr Lauber.

Dr LAUBER — The Domestic Animals Act currently provides cost recovery mechanisms for local government to enforce the act. That is the way it was originally developed. Some councils take that up and fully cost recover their activities in relation to domestic animal businesses. Others do not. The department provides


support as much as we can to councils in helping them determine how they will cost recover, but obviously it has got to go through our local government process.

The bill does not change the cost recovery mechanisms that exist. In our consultations with councils they have indicated that they will review their resourcing mechanisms and their staffing requirements under the proposed changes. For those councils that currently have very high fees — for example, Wellington — their fees are related to the size of the businesses that exist within their municipality. They will be looking at scaling those down. It is literally done on a cost recovery mechanism: it takes us this long to do an audit, we have to do this many audits a year and it takes this long to do the administration.

They have already indicated they will be looking at that because obviously the size of the businesses that exist will come down. The Victorian Domestic Animal Business Register that is proposed in the legislation should also help reduce costs for councils because it provides a single database that will be administered and funded at the state government level that will allow councils to record all of the information relating to domestic animal businesses without having to have their own separate databases. That should help reduce costs, and the government will cover the cost of moving existing data for existing domestic animal businesses — and that is all domestic animal businesses, not just breeding businesses — across to the new database on behalf of councils. That should help reduce those costs.

The department also provides a significant amount of support to councils. We have a full-time local government liaison officer who provides one-on-one support to councils when they request it in their enforcement of the act. We have a dedicated website that provides a huge range of tools that support council in their enforcement. We offer free training in a number of areas. In the past, when the code of practice relating to the operation of breeding and rearing businesses came out, we offered free auditor training to help councils get their authorised officers up to speed in auditing practices. We are trying to provide that support as much as possible at low or no cost to council.

Mr BOURMAN — I guess my concern is that we have a system that is kind of not working now, and we are going to further that system. Again, it is all about animal welfare. It is pointless, in my opinion, having all this go through and then not having the council able to do it — having all these people registered and then someone seeing them once every 10 years. That is a concern I have. You can comment on that or not as you wish.

The CHAIR — You can take that as a comment if you like.

Ms PULFORD — There is a requirement of councils in terms of frequency of inspection.

Dr LAUBER — Councils are not supposed to register without inspecting the business beforehand, but I will say that the auditing of a property that has fewer than five adult animals — dogs or cats — is far less than the audit on a property with six or more. The reason for that is that there is no requirement to build kennelling or cattery facilities. The majority of what will be done will be desktop: looking at their health management plans, making sure they have veterinary agreements and making sure that they review a selection of records. When comparing that with a property that has 200 or 300 dogs where they have to go in and audit the facility, which might take several days and multiple auditors, we think that, yes, there is a trade-off. It is a large facility versus a very small facility.

Mr BOURMAN — I am conscious of taking up everyone’s time.

The CHAIR — Thank you.

Mr ONDARCHIE — It is good to see a minister here at our committee. Maybe you are setting a precedent for other ministers to come and visit us. It has been a struggle. Minister, you said in response to a committee question not long ago that the RSPCA are telling you things. The RSPCA told us in evidence that there was no scientific evidence for why 10 is determined as the right number. Can you explain that point of view to us?

Ms PULFORD — The RSPCA, in conversations I had with them in 2014 when we were developing this policy, did recognise the difference between the size of a breeding establishment, the scale of activity and animal welfare outcomes. It recognised that socialisation was important. In developing the election commitment discussions with the RSPCA certainly did help to identify 10 as the number.


Mr ONDARCHIE — How did we arrive at 10, given that the RSPCA said there was no scientific evidence to arrive at 10?

Ms PULFORD — Ten is the number that was identified. It represents our desire to, over time, transition out of large industrial-scale breeding of these companion animals.

Mr ONDARCHIE — It sounds like you are telling us that 10 was the election commitment and that is the one you are going with.

Ms PULFORD — The legislation reflects the election commitment. Ours is a government that keeps its election promises.

Mr ONDARCHIE — Do you keep all of your election commitments?

Ms PULFORD — Yes.

Mr ONDARCHIE — Yes? Well, you did commit — —

Mr ELASMAR — This has got nothing to do with the bill.

Mr ONDARCHIE — We are talking about election commitments.

Mr ELASMAR — Yes, election commitments about — —

Mr ONDARCHIE — You gave an election commitment that Victorians would see no new taxes or charges. That commitment has already been broken. How do you explain keeping your election commitments?

Ms PULFORD — Ours is a government that delivers on each and every one of its election commitments. Our first budget, you might recall, absolutely delivered on our election commitments in respect of the legislation. I am not sure if the Chair is going to get you and I to come back to the scope of the inquiry at some point or not, but — —

Mr ONDARCHIE — I am just drawing on your statement about election commitments.

Ms PULFORD — I am happy to talk to you at length about the work that the government is doing to deliver its election commitments.

Mr ONDARCHIE — You said no new taxes and charges; you have already broken that.

The CHAIR — I am sure, Mr Ondarchie, your next question will relate to the specific reference that we have.

Mr ONDARCHIE — Aren’t you lucky, Minister.

Ms PULFORD — Really, I am quite happy to talk about how we deliver on all of our election commitments.

Mr ONDARCHIE — We could perhaps start with no new taxes and charges.

Minister, Banksia Park, as reflected by the RSPCA and others, is a good business with no investigations and good compliance. Have you visited Banksia Park?

Ms PULFORD — No, I have not, but I have met with them.

Mr ONDARCHIE — Do you or your advisers take heed of the fact that, should this legislation pass, it will impact Banksia Park’s business?

Ms PULFORD — I recognise that for a small number of very large-scale breeders — and when we are talking about across the board, DOGS Victoria has 10 000 members — there are a number of breeders who will be impacted by this legislation. This legislation is not without purpose. This legislation seeks to transition over a number of years out of large-scale, industrial-scale breeding of companion animals.


Mr ONDARCHIE — Do you understand that, should this legislation pass the Parliament, this will drive Banksia Park to close and therefore put 25-plus Victorians — some of whom have a disability — out of employment?

Ms PULFORD — The election commitment was announced more than two years ago in recognition of the need for some businesses to change. The election commitment proposed an implementation date for that element of the reform to 2020 to recognise that for some of these organisations there will be change.

Mr ONDARCHIE — This is a reputable business that has gone on for generations. If this is truly about animal welfare, as you claim, why then would you bully a business like Banksia Park, who are by all reports a reputable business? We have seen evidence here and others have testified as to how good they are. Why would you bully them out of existence if it is genuinely about animal welfare?

Ms PULFORD — I reject your assertion that anybody is bullying anybody.

Mr ONDARCHIE — Let me put it another way to you then, Minister. Banksia Park by all the evidence we have received is a good, reputable business that cares for its animals. If this legislation is genuinely about animal welfare, why would you enact the pieces of legislation that drive reputable businesses like Banksia Park out of business?

Ms PULFORD — The policy objective here is to over a number of years transition away from very large-scale breeding. We believe that there is a relationship between scale and animal welfare and that socialisation is an important part of this. This election commitment was developed in consultation with the RSPCA and other animal welfare organisations, and this legislation reflects our election commitment.

Mr ONDARCHIE — This is legislation that was drafted prior to you coming to government.

Ms PULFORD — No, it is not.

Mr ONDARCHIE — Now, you tell us that you have taken some consultation. The definition of consultation is a meeting with experts in order to determine and get advice. It sounds to me like it has not been consultation; it has been one-way information sessions. Why would you enact legislation that puts 25 Victorians out of work, when their employer is a responsible and reputedly great business doing the right thing by animal welfare? Why would you move to put them out of business?

Ms PULFORD — The then opposition developed our election commitment based on consultation with animal welfare organisations and DOGS Victoria. We proposed a change over a number of years up to 2020 — and as I indicated before there is certainly no shortage of people who would prefer this to be much quicker — that would gradually reduce large-scale breeding in Victoria. That is the policy question that will be before the Parliament.

Mr ONDARCHIE — Minister, would you go and visit Banksia Park and meet with their 25 employees?

Ms PULFORD — I have met with Banksia Park.

Mr ONDARCHIE — Down at their site, I meant. Would you go and visit them and meet their employees?

Ms PULFORD — I have not met with them. We have developed the legislation. I am aware of their concerns. I have received correspondence from Banksia Park. I have seen the video that they provide and have provided to members of Parliament about their business, so whilst I have not been there, I am familiar with the way in which they operate, and I understand that they are opposed to this legislation.

Mr ONDARCHIE — Minister, you represent a government who claim that they care about the Latrobe Valley and wider Gippsland. The decisions taken by this government are affecting employment in the Latrobe Valley and wider Gippsland. Why wouldn’t you take the chance to go and visit these employees and understand how this legislation might affect them?

Ms PULFORD — I understand the effect of the legislation on large-scale breeders across Victoria, and I am certainly working closely with many colleagues on a particularly challenging time for the Latrobe Valley as a member of the Latrobe Valley task force. Indeed, the government, as members will no doubt be aware,


announced in recent weeks a $266 million package to support both the establishment of the Latrobe Valley Authority and accelerated economic transition for a community in Victoria that is experiencing significant challenges, not exclusively related to the decision by Engie to close Hazelwood, but certainly that is a very, very significant shock to the local economy and one that the government is acutely aware of and working very hard with the community to respond to.

Mr ONDARCHIE — So given this legislation might affect 25 employees in wider Gippsland, will part of your regional development support include support to Banksia Park?

Ms PULFORD — The government has a range of measures in place to support industries and businesses in transition, and they would be available to any business.

Mr ELASMAR — What has that got to do with the bill? This is the third question. It is not acceptable.

Mr ONDARCHIE — This is about employment, that is why.

Mr ELASMAR — This is the third question to the same minister. It is not acceptable.

Mr ONDARCHIE — This is about employment, and if I and Mr Morris are the only ones who care about employment in this place, something is wrong.

Mr ELASMAR — No, it is not employment. It has gone well beyond.

The CHAIR — Minister, if you do take exception to any question, I am prepared to entertain that, but, Mr Elasmar, I think Mr Ondarchie is asking a fair question. The minister is being very generous with her time, so I think Mr Ondarchie’s question was quite in order. Minister, is there anything you would like to add?

Ms PULFORD — I have not got anything to add. I think I have responded to Mr Ondarchie’s question.

Mr ONDARCHIE — I have one more for the moment, Chair. This relates to being able to deliver this legislation, because the evidence that certainly the RSPCA gave us is that it is going to require more investigation and enforcement of compliance. What the MAV, as a sample of councils, and the RSPCA were saying to us was that there are not enough people on the ground to be able to do that. Will the government look to financially support either councils or the RSPCA in order to make sure that we can deliver on your compliance and investigations around this?

Ms PULFORD — As we have provided evidence in response to earlier questions and indeed in the initial presentation, the capacity of local councils to cost-recover their responsibilities under the Domestic Animals Act will be unaffected by this legislation. They can now; they will be able to in the future. In addition to that, I can remind committee members that the RSPCA was provided with $5 million in the government’s first budget — again, as part of the election commitment on puppy farms — to establish their special investigations unit. This is in addition — —

Mr ONDARCHIE — Makes sense why they support it so much.

Ms PULFORD — Well, I think the RSPCA actually have quite some form in being the peak organisation in Victoria responsible for advancing animal welfare, so I am not sure where you are going in terms of trying to impugn their motives. The RSPCA and a number of other organisations expressed to members of Parliament — opposition and government alike — their views, as indeed did tens of thousands of members of the community about the need to clean up puppy farming in Victoria.

The CHAIR — I thought I might just pose a question. Minister, this committee and legislation you are responsible for have a bit of a history. We also had the breed-specific legislation, the restricted breed dog legislation, which we reviewed. I think those who were on the committee would recognise that was bad legislation. It was poorly drafted legislation that did not achieve the outcome that it intended to.

Mr ELASMAR — That is your view, Chair.

Ms PULFORD — It was their legislation, actually.

The CHAIR — It was our legislation.


Mr ONDARCHIE — But if you want to disagree and if you want to defend it, go ahead.

Ms PULFORD — To be fair, the breed-specific legislation was introduced into the Parliament. It was, I believe, the piece of legislation that had the quickest passage through the Parliament of any in the state. It was introduced in very, very difficult circumstances, following the death of a child. I have no doubt that all the people who were involved at the time — opposition, government, all parties — were very much intending to come up with the best possible resolution that they could.

There were some unintended consequences before the election. We indicated that we would ask your good selves to consider this issue. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the committee for a very fine body of work on that really complex issue. As members know, we have provided our response and indicated our plans to make some modest reforms to that area.

This legislation is very different. This has had a much longer gestation, and it is the subject of a parliamentary committee inquiry to give these matters proper consideration and proper airing. In recognition of some of the concerns that DOGS Victoria have, the government have announced that we will be making a number of amendments to this legislation and indeed that I will work with the Minister for Planning to provide certainty and clarity in relation to some of the concerns around planning issues.

But on the question of the terminology, a recreational breeder classification will be established as part of the legislation, and in recognition of some of the challenges that DOGS Victoria have in terms of their compliance with the standards that were set by Peter Walsh when he was the Minister for Agriculture, we recognise that there are some people who will need a little bit more time, so we are proposing to give everybody 12 months more.

The CHAIR — Where I was going, Minister, was that indeed this committee did do the work on the restricted breed dog legislation, and I think across party lines we had the opportunity there to amend a piece of legislation that was not achieving the intended outcome. My view is that right now we have an opportunity to change legislation for a better outcome for our community prior to the introduction of a poor piece of legislation. I just want to put on record that I do hope you take on board the recommendations of our committee as we go forward. But I did want to put something else — —

Ms PULFORD — If I could just respond to that, without having seen the conclusion of the committee’s work, I would not want to get ahead of that and say that I am absolutely confident that you will land in the right spot.

The CHAIR — Feel free to if you want too.

Ms PULFORD — But of course I have and always will take very seriously the work of members of Parliament on parliamentary committees, and your work on the breed-specific legislation was important in informing our response to that. Similarly I am sure everybody who has an interest in this issue will await your committee’s deliberations. I believe it is reporting to the Parliament on 8 December.

The CHAIR — In the last sitting week, yes indeed.

Ms PULFORD — The last sitting week. We will certainly be very interested to see where you land.

The CHAIR — Thank you, Minister. I have one more question. You shared a personal story in terms of your animals, where they came from and how they came into your life. I just thought I might share mine with you. We have Gus the groodle, who is our family pet.

Mr ONDARCHIE — A groodle?

The CHAIR — A cross between a poodle and a golden retriever, I think, Mr Ondarchie.

Ms PULFORD — That sounds like a lot of hair.

The CHAIR — Well, it is wool, so it does not come off anywhere, which is great. Gus the groodle came to our family from an establishment that was not on the same scale as Banksia Park but a similar type of facility where there are a large-scale number of dogs being bred. I just put it to you that my family chose to get Gus the


groodle in the way we did. We wanted a groodle. That is what we got. We got it from the facility that we did. You got your dogs from a variety of other places that were not the same as the place that we chose. My family has made a choice and your family has made a choice. I put it to you that what your government is trying to do is remove from people like me and my family the opportunity to make the decision that we wanted to when we were getting our dog.

Ms PULFORD — Did your groodle, Gus, come from Victoria?

The CHAIR — Yes, indeed.

Ms PULFORD — Yes, so the legislation will enable domestic animal businesses to continue to operate on a small scale. The legislation will enable all DOGS Victoria members who are currently doing the right thing to continue as they are, unchanged apart from the requirement to register. For those who are not compliant with the code, they will have some time to make some change, but I am confident that consumers will still have no shortage of options in terms of being able to adopt a furry friend into their family.

The CHAIR — I will have to disagree.

Mr BOURMAN — I just have one last question. We have heard from all sorts of people — animal welfare people, breeders and so on. There is one lot of people you will not hear from, and they were referred to yesterday as the other scum.

Ms PULFORD — As the what?

Mr BOURMAN — Other scum — the illegal, substandard people that do not obey the existing laws. What is this bit of legislation going to do to attend to the issue of the people who are just completely flouting what we have got here already?

Ms PULFORD — The central register is an important part of that in terms of being able to provide a whole-of-state look at breeding activity.

Mr BOURMAN — Can I interrupt you there, minister?

Ms PULFORD — Sorry, go on.

Mr BOURMAN — No, that is all right. It is just that obviously, coming from a shooting background, I understand the concept of registration quite well. The problem we have is when criminals do not register something — and these people are the substandard, real puppy farmers who are criminals — a register will not help. If you get an animal further down the track and you find out that it is not registered and does not have a microchip and what you have got is hopefully a nice animal but probably suffering from all sorts of things, it is not actually going to help you attend to the people that are not even trying. They are not even interested in trying.

Ms PULFORD — The legislation provides for greater information being made available to purchasers for online purchasing — and it is important to recognise that online purchasing has gone from being small to quite significant quickly, and I think we can all reasonably expect that it will continue to be an important source as people increasingly source every other aspect of things they need in their lives online — and that through breeding organisations and the aboveboard operators that are operating in accordance with the code and with the legislation, that information is available.

In terms of the role for consumers in this, the community awareness campaigns that have existed in the past will continue to do so. What we will do as part of the support for consumers is continue to promote very loudly and clearly and through animal welfare networks as well the message to consumers that they should not purchase an animal without a breeder number.

The CHAIR — Mr Ondarchie has a final question.

Mr ONDARCHIE — I have one last — —


Ms PULFORD — Sorry, if I could just quickly add to that, consumer sentiment has been very important in driving reform to date. It is one of the reasons why many of the large and small pet stores are not choosing to sell puppies and kittens in their stores, so we will continue to support that community awareness aspect of this as well.

Mr ONDARCHIE — I actually have two quick questions. One is to Cassandra around foster carers. Sometimes they only have their dogs for weeks — not months, not years, but weeks. Should they be required to pay anything at all, given they have only got them for a very short period of time?

Ms MEAGHER — There is a voluntary registration scheme.

Ms PULFORD — The scheme for foster carers is entirely voluntary. For some it will suit the way that they operate; for others it will not. It is entirely voluntary, and it is about recognising the excellent work that foster carers do in the community and providing those who wish to to access cheaper registration.

Mr ONDARCHIE — They are not compelled to?

Ms PULFORD — No, not at all.

Mr ONDARCHIE — Okay, thank you. My very final question comes back to employment, particularly in the Latrobe Valley and wider Gippsland. A significant employer in Gippsland, as I referred to earlier, Minister, is Banksia Park. Some of their employees have disabilities, and we are worried about their ongoing capacity to be employed should your legislation come through and close Banksia Park. The owners of Banksia Park, Matt and Kirstin, are here in the gallery today. Will you meet with them after we have finished our committee meeting?

Ms PULFORD — Well, I — —

Mr ONDARCHIE — Because I thought you said you had plenty of time; that is all.

Ms PULFORD — Yes, well, I have given the committee half an hour more than I was booked in for —

The CHAIR — You certainly have. You have been very generous, Minister.

Ms PULFORD — so I think I am out of time. I have met with Mr Hams previously, and I am aware of his concerns. In relation to his individual employees and, as you raised, a matter of people with a disability, that is not something that was raised with me at the time, so I am not in a position to comment on the specifics of the health conditions of employees of one particular business.

The CHAIR — Thank you, Minister. Minister, Ms Hartland emailed through a list of questions that she was hoping you would take on notice. Are you prepared to take those questions on notice?

Ms PULFORD — Yes, that is fine.

The CHAIR — That is terribly kind of you. Minister, I do greatly appreciate you taking the time that you have. You will receive a transcript of evidence, which you can read and make amendments to. That will ultimately make its way onto the committee’s website, but I do thank you for your attendance today. I close our hearing.

Committee adjourned.

Documents

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE ECONOMY AND...All evidence taken today in this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege; therefore you are protected against any action for what you