Dog and Cat Management Miscellaneous Amendment Bill

DOG AND CAT MANAGEMENT (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading 10th of March 2016

 

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (12:20):  I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill before us. This is possibly one of the more crossparty efforts, to see this legislation before us, but I do commend the work of minister Hunter in bringing this bill before us and in the long consultation processes that have happened in various formats, most notably the citizens' jury on this matter and also the late Dr Bob Such's involvement in establishing a select committee that was also supported, as a venture, by the then not-quite-to-be minister, the member for Mawson, Leon Bignell. He shortly thereafter became a minister and, in his elevation, was ably supported by Dr Susan Close, the member for Port Adelaide.

 The Hon. Michelle Lensink has brought previous pieces of legislation to this place and, as I said, many members of parliament and also members of the community have pursued the public discussion on dogs and cats in our society. I think this piece of legislation, being an amendment to the Dog and Cat Management Act rather than to the Animal Welfare Act, is significant in the shift in public attitudes as well as in the ability to contemporise this area of law in our state. I commend those particular members of parliament but also the many members of parliament who have spoken about the various issues that we grapple with in this sphere.

 One thing that came up time and time again in the citizens' jury and in the media around the citizens' jury, and certainly in the ministerial statements that accompanied it, was that in this state 10,000 dogs and cats are euthanased each year—  The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS:  Possibly more, as the minister said, and that is certainly one of the areas of concern that the minister is well aware I have been most interested in with regard to this bill. At this point, I indicate that I will have some amendments that I will table this afternoon with regard to ensuring better transparency around euthanasia rates of dogs and cats in our state, not as anything other than a tool to ensure that we do better in the future.

 This bill is a culmination of that select committee work on dogs and cats, a culmination of the citizens' jury and a culmination of the work of many members of this place. I note that the Hon. Michelle Lensink has put an enormous amount of effort into this area, but is currently on maternity leave. I also want to thank my staff member Lauren Zwaans, who has put a lot of effort into this area in terms of research and consultation with stakeholders, and who is also on maternity leave, unexpectedly early. However, she has certainly left me well equipped to progress this debate, and I thank her for that.

 I also thank the minister for his briefings, and Andrew Lamb of the Dog and Cat Management Board, who I am sure eagerly anticipates the passage of this bill, as well as Tara Bates, specifically, for her willingness to ensure that we were provided with information and answers to our questions. Many of the answers to those questions have ensured that we are not seeking to move too many amendments; we will have a few, but many of those answers ensured that we did not have to pursue amendments to this bill because we were confident that the issues we were raising were going to be addressed by it.

 I want to particularly thank the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League (AWL) for their contributions and continued conversations with my office. Certainly, the amendments that I will be putting forward on behalf of the Greens are informed by both the RSPCA and the AWL. I want to particularly commend the RSPCA for always having transparency around their euthanasia rates, but the AWL for being open to having discussions about transparency of euthanasia rates with their organisation into the future.

More recently, last Friday I hosted in this place a discussion with the Australian Veterinary Association of South Australia, which has some concerns and has made representations to members in this place about the bill. I will be raising one of its concerns in an amendment, which is about the language of 'spay' and 'neuter' specifically when we are talking about the desexing of animals. They raised the point that that in fact prohibits some forms of desexing and does not foresee new technologies where they may be more appropriate. I will be interested to have a discussion with the minister's office about that and, as I say, we will be circulating a form of words informed by the AVA's briefing in our amendments.

 This bill, of course, has also had extensive consultation with groups such as the LGA and many in the community. It contemporises the Dog and Cat Management Act, and local councils will continue to have the task of administering and enforcing the act in the community, but the bill will provide councils with additional powers to investigate breaches of the act, such as dog attacks. It also introduces the first increase in expiations and penalties in some 10 years, to maintain adequate deterrents to reduce the number of irresponsible pet owners.

 For example, councils are permitted to set a dog registration fee at $85, but the current expiation for failing to register is $80 and therefore an ineffective deterrent on the ground. It simplifies the disability dog accreditation processes and introduces the nationally consistent term of 'assistance dog', again to contemporise the legislation in our state. This bill introduces mandatory microchipping of all dogs and cats by an age set by regulation to commence from a date to be determined. Moving forward, dogs and cats in this state will be microchipped, but I note not the current cohort that is already in existence in terms of that mandatory expectation.

 The bill also provides a framework for approval of microchip implanters by the Dog and Cat Management Board and addresses an issue that has been raised time and time again with me by groups such as the AWL and the RSPCA about ensuring that we reunite lost pets, lost companion animals, with either their owner or perhaps you might call it a slave sometimes in terms of some cats' attitudes. I think the old joke is that dogs have owners and cats have slaves, and certainly a few of us in this council can definitely relate to that.

 However, whether we consider them our companion animal or our boss, we certainly want to be reunited with them if they go missing and to have an ability to track them that is more streamlined and allows more sharing across council jurisdictions. As we know, animals can travel merely across the street and be in a different council jurisdiction and perhaps not fall into the various ways that we seek to find our lost pets.

 It seems like a no-brainer that you would indeed consolidate that information into a database. I am sure that it seemed like a simple proposition, and I am sure it will actually be reasonably difficult to implement, but I commend the minister for taking these steps. I look forward to seeing reports of more lost dogs and cats being reunited as a result of this particular measure for that database and microchip recording, transparency and streamlining of information.

 It also, more controversially, introduces mandatory desexing of dogs and cats. It is not controversial for the Greens. We are certainly very strong supporters of this provision, but we are, as I say, cognisant of the words of the AVA with regard to the terms 'spay' and 'neuter' perhaps being too restrictive. The AVA has raised other concerns and has noted its strong opposition to some sections of the bill, including that mandatory desexing.

 I take on board some of their concerns. I understand that they do not want to be in the position of policing such things. They fear that some people will be fearful of bringing their animals to them if this is the case. I think this cultural shift and community conversation that we will have will also support other measures to ensure that those who have companion animals are supported to ensure that they are desexed as appropriate.

 We do not want to see animals overbred. We do not want to see the horrific instances of puppy farms in our state. We do not want to support that toxic industry, and this is one of the steps that will ensure that our beloved dogs and cats—our beloved companion animals—are more often loved than lost or unnecessarily euthanased. Desexing exemptions will of course apply to specific classes of dogs and also in specific instances.

 This bill introduces a breeder registration program to improve the oversight of breeders. Again, I think there is strong community support for these measures as people see the horrors of puppy farms and puppy factories, and of unwanted animals reproducing. It also introduces a requirement that the breeder registration number be provided to consumers at the point of sale. This is a small measure that I am sure will have a significant impact.

 The Greens, as I said, have had some consultations in this area, particularly with the RSPCA and the AWL. We will be seeking to increase transparency of euthanasia rates for dogs and cats. As the minister indicated in response to my noting that 10,000 dogs and cats are euthanased in this state per year, we would like to see that transparency record a fall in those numbers.

 We will also be seeking to ensure that the definition of 'desexing' within the bill is not prohibitive to all forms of desexing, as has been raised with us by the AVA. We will not be supporting the Brokenshire amendment with regard to working dogs. The work of the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Liberal opposition in this area is a much more attractive way to go and certainly seems to have had more consideration given to it in terms of that approach. We look forward to that debate, and will certainly continue discussions with both the opposition and the government.

 Finally, we note that the Liberal opposition has proposed an amendment in relation to reviews of the act, but we have concerns that it only addresses the penalties. Certainly, we would be seeking to ensure that there are ongoing reviews of this act—not constant, I am sure the minister will be relieved to hear—

          The Hon. I.K. Hunter:  Hallelujah!

 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS:  —but we think, if there are going to be reviews of the act, we do actually want to see this act work, and we do need to provide those milestone opportunities—not just to look at the penalties, but to look at the operations and the success, and to identify ways in which we can work collaboratively to progress the way our state and community treat our companion animals with respect. With those few words, I commend the bill.

 

Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

 

Final Stages

 

Thursday May 26, 2016

 

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly's message.

 

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

 

That the amendments be agreed to.

 

I ask that the council votes to support the amendments made in other place to the dog and cat management bill. To briefly remind the council, the dog and cat management bill aims to stamp out puppy and kitten farms by providing assurance to people that their new puppy or kitten comes from a reputable breeder, to enhance the ability of the authority to detect and prosecute puppy and kitten farms, to reduce the number of lost dogs and cats that end up in shelters, to ensure a safer and more sociable dog population and improving the management of cats in the broader community.

 

The amendments made to the bill in the House of Assembly can be bundled into two categories. First, the bill inserts 'livestock' into the title of the definition of working dog. This better reflects the intent of the proposed definition and aligns with the terminology used in other jurisdictions and by organisations like the Dog and Cat Management Board, the Working Sheepdog Association, the South Australian Yard Dogs Association, the Working Kelpie Council and Livestock SA. The definition of 'working livestock dog' remains unchanged.

 

Second, the amended bill from the House of Assembly corrects a change made in this place that allows the definition of 'desexing' to include methods that only prevent reproduction. The government instead maintains that the most appropriate definition of 'desexing' that will achieve the aims of the bill is a definition that requires procedures that prevent reproduction and diminishes the secretion of hormones that influences behaviour.

 

The government's position strengthens the effectiveness of the bill to reduce the tendency in dogs for aggressive behaviours towards people and other dogs, to reduce territorial behaviours in dogs and cats and to help to control the urge of dogs and cats to wander, thereby reducing the number of pets that arrive at shelters, and reducing the number of lost pets that are euthanased every year. I am advised that this position on desexing has been supported recently in the media by public health physician, Dr Katina D'Onise.

 

Dr D'Onise's research shows that the desexing of dogs significantly reduces the risks of dog attacks and bites. As she was quoted on 891 ABC Adelaide on Wednesday 18 May, Dr D'Onise said:

 

I would love to see it mandatory to desex dogs and cats…desexing dogs reduces the risk of aggression…that ' s been known for a number of years, veterinary behaviourists know this to be true, dog owners know this to be true so this is just…taking it one more step…that reduction of aggression does also lead to a reduction in dog bite risk.

 

This is why the government is committed to legislating for mandatory, permanent desexing of dogs and cats that removes both fertility and the reproductive hormones. I ask that the committee agrees with the government's position on a definition of desexing, and support this bill and the amendments made in the lower house.

 

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Liberal opposition maintains the position that we support the amendments that were moved in this place by the Hon. Tammy Franks. The other amendments, we accept, are really just procedural and I think the minister did put on the record the consultation which had taken place with the working dog stakeholders. However, the amendment that the government is seeking to reinstate, we believe, is too narrow. We think it limits the options that owners and veterinarians—who we should not need to remind the house are professionals of some several years of very difficult training—to come up with the best solution that they see fit. The Australian Veterinary Association maintains the position that they support the amendments, which were moved (and supported in this council) by the Hon. Tammy Franks for the Greens, for the same reasons.

 

I do not think the government has made a case. I saw in the briefing that they would provide me with the literature which supports their particular position, which I think arrived in my office while I was actually down here for question time, which I think is quite unacceptable. In the interview the minister referred to on ABC radio, I note that Dr Katina D'Onise was also asked by the interviewer, Ali Clarke, 'Do you know why it's rising?' in relation to dog attacks, and she says:

 

It relates to the number of dogs in the community...a slightly rising number of registered dogs goes along with a rising number of dog bites.

 

Ali Clarke also says:

 

I've got a text here...suggesting that desexed dogs are usually owned by more responsible people who train and look after their dogs better.

 

Dr D'Onise says:

 

That's a very good point...that could be part of the issue...desexing dogs reduces the risk of aggression...that's been known for a number of years.

 

I did ask in the briefing whether the government could verify that the procedures that they preferred could be outside of reasonable doubt that those are the ones which will reduce aggression; they have failed to do so.

 

On my reading of the document they have provided to me while I was down in the chamber for question time, I read it as a literature review which refers to desexing per se, not specifically those procedures that they are seeking to limit it to. The other point I would like to make is that, in most instances, the desexing procedures that are undertaken are the ones that they are seeking to do anyway, but I think they have cast this too narrowly and that it will cause difficulties for dog owners and veterinarians down the track.

 

I might add that the government came late to the compulsory desexing table in any case. Having supported it through the select committee process, they then abandoned it. I think they realised that they were going to have compulsory desexing forced on them by this chamber. Then they sought to put that to a citizens' jury; the overwhelming response came back that the citizens' jury supported compulsory desexing. Now they are seeking, in some bizarre way, to narrow the procedures which will limit the particular options that dog and cat owners and veterinarians may undertake. We continue to oppose that position.

 

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It will come as no surprise to the chamber that the Greens actually will be supporting what was a Greens' amendment in this house to remain in this piece of legislation. We do so not because it is a Greens' position, but because it is the position of not only the AVA (Australian Veterinary Association) of South Australia but the AVA nationally. Their press release of 20 May, which was sparked by this debate reads, 'There is more than one way to desex a dog.' They note:

 

With mandatory desexing soon to come into effect in South Australia, the [AVA] is urging the South Australian government to adopt a broader definition of 'desexing' so that veterinarians can perform effective desexing procedures based on the individual health and welfare of each pet.

 

'The original definition of 'desexing' as proposed by the government is very narrow and only allows for the removal of an animal's testicles or ovaries. The fact is that there are several methods that veterin arians can use to desex animals, all of which will achieve the ultimate goal of rendering the animals as incapable of reproducing.

 

'Removing an animal's testicles or ovaries is not always in the best interests of the animal, so it' s essential that vets are able to use their expertise and their professional judgement to determine the best approach for desexing an animal. This narrow definition of 'desexing' effectively ties their hands, giving them no options,' said Dr Anne Fowler, President of the Australian Veterinary Association South Australia Division.

 

Dr Fowler says that w ith veterinary medicine constantly developing , new and less invasive techniques for all types of s urgical procedures, including de sexing , are be coming increasingly available and veterinarian s should be able to use the most current and up-to-date methods, which a broader definition of ' desexing ' would allow for.

 

The press release also concludes with:

 

Desexing is certainly not a silver bullet solution to the issue of dog aggression and attacks. There are many factors that come into play in terms of aggression including socialisation , training and human behaviour.

 

We do not believe that by forcing an animal to be spayed or castrated by ke eping a narrow definition of 'de sexing ' will result in any great behavioural efforts [concludes Dr Fowler].

 

I seek leave to table the AVA press release dated 20 May.

 

Leave granted.

 

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I note also that this is no different to the position that the AVA of South Australia took on this bill in their consultations with all members of this parliament and, indeed, in their paper entitled 'Dog and Cat Management Bill 2015: Urban animal management in South Australia'. In that paper, under the topic 'Compulsory desexing of dogs' they already referred to the anticipated behavioural effect and noted that, in fact, dog aggression was:

 

…dependent on at least five interacting factors

 

heredity (genes)

 

early experience

 

socialisation and training

 

health (physical and psychological) and

 

victim behaviour

 

They pointed to a recent paper by Patronek et al:

 

'Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States (2000-2009)' which examined fatal dog bites in the United States over nine years. Risk factors for different variables could not be calculated for the study, but the variables that were found present in fatal attacks were:

 

Absence of someone to intervene

 

The dog and victim were unknown to each other

 

The dog was not desexed

 

Compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs

 

The dogs were isolated from regular positive human interactions (possibly kept outside)

 

Owners' prior mismanagement of dogs

 

Owners' history of abuse or neglect of dogs.

 

Importantly, i n the vast majority of fatalities at least four factors were in place. This is very relevant when we consider isolated measures aimed at addressing dog aggression.

 

I also seek leave to table that paper referred to in the AVA submission.

 

Leave granted.

 

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I note that the Hon. Michelle Lensink addressed Dr Katina D'Onise, public health physician, whose interview on 891 with Ali Clarke has been relied on by the minister, and quite rightly pointed out that she, in that interview, conceded that it was not a silver bullet for desexing and that there were other behavioural factors that come into play in terms of aggression and dog attacks. She, of course, was referring to the paper that we were promised by the Dog and Cat Management Board that the Hon. Michelle Lensink quite rightly noted she only received today during question time.

 

Fortunately the AVA in South Australia made that paper available to us when it was released. That paper being referred to was by Dr Susan Hazel and Dr Charles Caraguel, School of Animal Veterinary Sciences, University of Adelaide and was entitled 'Compulsory desexing of dogs and cats in South Australia—science, policy and public opinion'. I note that that paper concludes with a suggestion that 'Compulsory neutering³ may offer this solution.' Footnote number three is:

 

With appropriate allowances for dogs not to be neutered under the direction of a veterinary surgeon.

 

So at least they understand the importance of the role of vets in this. It concludes in its final paragraph:

 

The risk of a dog attack will never be reduced to zero, no matter what interventions are used. As eloquently stated by Overall (2010) 'it is this pro pensity to need a guarantee of "safety" that has so misguidedly driven BSL and most of the inhumane training techniques…' (Overall, 2010 p.279). We do not need to repeat measures that have already been shown to be ineffective in other jurisdictions, such as BSL…

 

For the benefit of members, that is 'breed specific legislation', and I am at least pleased that the government has not proposed such ridiculous options as breed specific legislation in this particular legislation. It goes on to say:

 

Neutering of dogs is a humane measure likely to reduce the risk of a dog being involved in an attack. It is hoped that the result will be reduced dog attacks in South Australia in the long term, but only time will tell.

 

Now, that is no silver bullet for the minister in defence of his case, and it is certainly a long bow to draw.

 

With those few words, I note that the Greens brought this amendment at the request of the vets. The vets are the ones who will be performing these surgeries, not the Dog and Cat Management Board, not the minister. The parliament should listen to the experts in the profession who undertake these procedures. We have listened on this side of the house. I hope that this chamber will now listen.

 

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I want to address some of the furphies that have been put in the contributions from the previous two honourable members. Honourable members need to understand, when the Hon. Michelle Lensink says she demands some proof beyond or outside a reasonable doubt, scientists do not work in those contexts. They cannot give you certainty, no scientist can. You might demand it, you might want it, but that is not how scientists work. They give you the best information they can, on the basis of the evidence they have before them.

 

No-one says, not the least me, and no-one has said, that there is only way to desex a dog. But we are not just focusing on desexing animals. That is an important part of what this bill is trying to do: to remove unwanted litters, to remove puppy farming, but it is not the only part, and if you support the amendment moved by the Greens, that is the only part you will get.

 

The person I was referring to was not a veterinarian, she was a public health physician, a public health physician talking about dog bites and dog attacks. She was not adopting the veterinarians' position about the purity of desexing, be it done by physical means of removing testicles or ovaries, or being done by chemical means, which certainly stops reproduction for a time, but only whilst you administer the chemicals, not forever, but it certainly has nowhere near any impact on those hormone-driven behaviours that we talked about in the other side of the debate, which is to reduce aggression, to reduce wandering and to reduce attacks.

 

That is the other half of the debate. If you support the Greens' amendment you will be supporting certainly the desexing by chemical means, and that will be part of what we want to do with this bill, to reduce the number of unwanted litters, but you will be missing out on the opportunity also to drive down the increase in dog attacks, which we are seeing, for all sorts of reasons—

 

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: We have not established that at all.

 

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I think the facts have been established about an increase. The reasons behind them have not particularly been established, but we do know—and I have read this into the Hansard, and I will read it again:

 

I would love to see it mandatory to desex dogs and cats. Desexing dogs reduces the risk of aggression. That has been known for a number of years. Veterinary behaviourists know this to be true. Dog owners know this to be true. The Hon. Duncan McFetridge, the member in the other place, knows it to be true, and argued it in the Liberal Party room but was not supported.

 

So, I say to honourable members in this chamber—

 

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: How do you know what happens in our party room?

 

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Well, you leak about it all the time.

 

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

 

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: You leak about it all the time. Look, I am not saying, and I have never said, there is a silver bullet. We need to work together with a whole suite of actions to derive the outcomes we want through this legislation; and if you only go with the Greens' amendment you are tying your hands behind your back. Most of the other interventions are outside of our control. We do not have any control over dog training. We do not have any control over the breeds. We do not have any control over the responsibility, or otherwise, of the owners. What we do have control of, as legislators here today, is an ability to put into the legislation that we want to have desexing options that not only reduce the sexual reproduction but also reduce aggressive behaviours, and the only way you can do that is by not supporting the Greens' amendment, but by supporting the amendments made in the other place.

 

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I would just like to get on to the record, because I would hate to be misrepresented by the government—which does happen from time to time—that members on this side of the chamber are not concerned about dog attacks: we are. My interpretation of what has happened with this piece of legislation is that there has been a particular person, whom we could describe as an expert, a public health expert, who has a particular view, who has convinced members of the Dog and Cat Management Board that this is going to be a silver bullet for behavioural issues. Behavioural issues are important and should not be diminished in any way.

 

I would just like to point out for members of the chamber, once again, that most of the procedures that would be undertaken in terms of mandatory desexing will be what the government wants, but we do not think it should be limited to the specific procedures that they say because there are other issues that need to be taken into consideration. Can I just point out that the select committee reported on the situation in the ACT, which had a significant reduction in dog attacks, as follows:

 

…the Domestic Animal Service in the ACT—

 

which is a municipal service of the ACT government—

 

has recorded a 47 per cent reduction in dog attacks since 2001 when legislation req uiring all dogs and cats to be desexed was introduced.

 

In their legislation, section 73—Meaning of de-sex and permit for pt 3 provides:

 

In this part:

 

de-sex , in relation to a dog or cat, includes perform a vasectomy or tubal ligation on the dog or cat.

 

So, it includes other procedures. There was a drop in dog attacks in that jurisdiction when they introduced mandatory desexing and not the specific procedures that the government is seeking to introduce.

 

I think what has happened is that the government has decided that this is a silver bullet for dog attacks and, unfortunately, they are getting caught up in that particular point of view and not listening to all of the other views. They are ignoring a whole range of other published research which demonstrates that there is a range of reasons why dogs attacks occur. This is not going to stop dog attacks in South Australia. In fact, their own person, whom I quoted previously, when interviewed on the radio, basically said that if you have more dogs, you have more dog attacks.

 

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: As someone who cares very deeply about animals, I have been listening to this debate very carefully and I just wonder if the minister could clarify a few points. Firstly, is he of the view that his amendment, as it is worded, does not necessarily preclude the use of chemical restraint? Secondly, does he believe that there is perhaps room for something of a middle ground where chemical restraint might be used in the first instance or in the majority of cases and then more physical restraint might be used in more severe cases where the behaviour has not been rectified by other methods, such as training and the other methods that the Hon. Ms Franks has mentioned?

 

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank the honourable member for her question. The advice I have just received is that castration and spaying are a starting point in the act. If a veterinarian, using her or his professional skill and experience, believes that some other procedure, or no procedure at all, is more appropriate, then they are entitled to make that decision. I am advised that vets remain at the heart of the proposed process and can make that determination.

 

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be supporting the amendment.

 

The ACTING CHAIR ( Hon. G.A. Kandelaars ): Any further contributions? If not, I will put the minister's motion that the amendments be agreed to.

 

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Will we resolve it as one—because there are different positions on each one.

 

The ACTING CHAIR ( Hon. G.A. Kandelaars ): Do you want to have them taken separately? Minister.

 

The Hon. T.A. Franks: We need to take them separately.

 

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Mr Acting Chairman, if it assists the house, I could suggest what I think might be the simplest way forward—vote en bloc if you support the amendments made in the lower house, or against them, and then any carving up of those amendments could be done through a deadlock conference process, if I lose the vote today.

 

The ACTING CHAIR ( Hon. G.A. Kandelaars ): Just to clarify this, the minister has—

 

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Mr Acting Chairman, members have indicated support for some but not all amendments. Surely they should be taken separately, as is standard process in this place.

 

The ACTING CHAIR ( Hon. G.A. Kandelaars ): If there is a desire to separate these amendments, then I will put each one separately. I will start with amendment No. 1.

 

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: We need to know what amendment No. 1 is.

 

The ACTING CHAIR ( Hon. G.A. Kandelaars ): Amendment No. 1 is:

 

Clause 5, page 5, lines 31 and 32 [clause 5(8), inserted definition of desex ]—

 

Delete the definition and substitute:

 

Desex means to castrate or spay an animal so as to permanently render the animal incapable of reproducing (and desexed has a corresponding meaning);

 

Is it clear which amendment we are putting?

 

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes, but it is in the format that, if you support the government's position you would vote yes, and if you do not support the government's position you would vote no. I simply wanted that clarified.

 

The ACTING CHAIR ( Hon. G.A. Kandelaars ): That's clear, yes, that is the way it is.

 

Amendment No. 1 disagreed to; amendments Nos 2, 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.

 

The following reason for disagreement was adopted:

 

The council prefers its position in the bill.

 

 

 

Stay Connected

Sign Up to news and updates from Tammy.