Page 2329 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As I said, I have spent a considerable amount of time looking into this situation. I have had discussions with the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services and his department, with the RSPCA, and with the pet industry and its representatives. I have also closely considered the work of AWAC.
Consistent with this government’s fresh approach to this issue, I am considering what can be done in respect of licensing systems for breeders. I believe that there is room to improve what criteria are considered and met before a person or entity is granted a licence to keep an animal entirely for breeding purposes. The circumstances of the breeder and the premises where the animals will be bred of course require scrutiny, but I am sure there are other issues that also should be considered. For example, before granting such a licence should standards in breeding practices be met—such as the frequency of breeding, genetic considerations and the age of the breeding animal? I do not believe that such licences should exclude animals that have been crossbred. The great Australian farm-bred working dog will not be legislated out of existence. It should not be legislated out of existence.
I therefore agree with what was asserted in the documents circulated by the Australian Veterinary Association entitled “Sale of pets through pet shops”, which stated that the future of crossbred dogs is at risk if breeding is restricted to registered breeders only, as they predominantly breed purebred dogs.
However, greater accountability in the practice of breeding companion animals should be an outcome. A proposal I have considered is that a breeder’s licence number should be used in all commercial activities such as advertising and at the point of sale. I acknowledge that regulation of the sale of mammals through print and the electronic media is difficult to regulate. That is not to say, however, that steps cannot be taken to limit the ability of possible illegal breeders to ply their trade unregulated through such media.
Therefore, another proposal I am keen to explore is legislation to prevent the publication of advertisements appearing without the breeder’s specifics, including the breeder’s identification number. Already certain industries are regulated by the Office of Regulatory Services, and traders are expected to follow laws relating to fair trading behaviour. I believe that the regulation of breeding and selling of animals would be more efficient if a licensed breeder was not allowed to publish an advertisement relating to the business carried out under that licence unless the breeder specifies in the advertisement that the breeder is a licensed breeder as well as giving the address of the place or places of breeding.
I believe that there are obvious potential benefits in better information-sharing systems between vendors, veterinary practitioners and the government regulator. For instance, there could be improved data collection and ultimately compliance on issues such as mandatory desexing, compulsory vaccinations, microchipping and registration. Veterinary surgeries could use such a system to alert the regulator if owners do not comply with their obligations to desex, and perhaps even vaccinate, their companion animals.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video