Page 2019 - Week 07 - Thursday, 13 August 2020

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video


developed a dangerous habit of pushing through legislation without proper analysis of how it will be effectively implemented. Nevertheless these amendments are a step in the right direction to better protect domestic animals and the Canberra Liberals will be supporting them today.

I note that there are a couple of amendments that will be moved. We have looked at them, and I indicate that we will be supporting those amendments at the detail stage.

MR STEEL (Murrumbidgee—Minister for City Services, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Recycling and Waste Reduction, Minister for Roads and Active Travel, Minister for Tertiary Education and Minister for Transport) (6.16): I rise today to speak briefly on the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, particularly on two amendments included under the Domestic Animals Act 2000. One of the amendments relates to the definition of a serious injury in relation to dog bites and the other relates to strengthening laws to tackle illegal online sales of cats and dogs.

Firstly, updating the definition of a serious injury is a small but important change. The bill updates the definition so that a serious injury occurring from a serious dog bite is in line with the Dunbar bite assessment scale. The Dunbar scale provides a consistent approach to interpreting the severity of a dog bite and will provide greater clarity about when a serious dog bite has occurred. A rating of four or above on the scale will be considered a serious bite. Recommendation 29 of the independent expert review into dog management made reference to the Dunbar scale as a consistent approach to clarify incidents and to assist in decision-making. This amendment will help to meet that recommendation.

The other key amendment in this bill relates to new requirements when advertising to sell or give away a cat or a dog. We know that illegal breeding remains an issue in the ACT and across the country. While the government has employed more Domestic Animal Services rangers, it can be difficult to track down online sellers who are doing the wrong thing. At present it is an offence under the Domestic Animals Act 2000 for a person to breed a dog or a cat and then sell that animal without a breeding licence. It is also currently a requirement for a person who holds a breeding licence to display the breeding licence number on any advertisement to sell a dog or cat. There are some people selling dogs and cats online who are not currently providing this information, making it difficult to differentiate between valid breeders and those who are illegally selling puppies or kittens online.

So this change in the act—I am just responding to Mr Hanson’s comments—is directly about making it easier to enforce the legislation that we currently have and about harmonising with New South Wales legislation. The amendment will introduce a new requirement that any person advertising, selling or giving away a cat or dog must include an ACT breeding licence number or a unique identifier from a microchip, regardless of whether the person bred the animal or not. This harmonises our laws with recent changes in New South Wales to ensure consistency across the border, particularly noting that many animals for sale online in the ACT may be from the surrounding region. These new requirements will make it easier to trace these animals and reduce instances of illegal breeding, to further promote animal welfare in the territory. I commend both of these amendments and the bill to the Assembly.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video