Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to this motion celebrating World Veterinary Year 2011, which marks the 250th anniversary of world veterinary education. I acknowledge the contributions of the members for Calare and Robertson, and I hope the member for Robertson has a long and enjoyable time with her new pet. I thank the member for Calare for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I also acknowledge my Western Australian colleague Senator Chris Back, a respected veterinarian, who will be speaking on this motion in the other place later in the week. I see him sitting in the gallery, so I welcome him to this chamber.

The points raised by this motion are apt. The number of distinguished veterinarians we have in Australia is testament to the professionalism of the local industry. I mention a local vet in my electorate, Brendan McKay, who is a strong contributor to the social fabric of our community as well as being the veterinarian in the area. The member for Calare mentioned that 2011 marks the 120th anniversary of the first class of graduates from the Melbourne Veterinary College. The motion acknowledges the importance of vets working in the livestock industry; however, today I focus on my contribution on the role that vets play in ensuring the welfare of Australia’s domestic animals.

Australia is a country of animal lovers. It was recently reported that Australia has the highest rate of pet ownership in the world, with over 60 per cent of households having one or more pets. This compares to the UK, where 43 per cent of households have a pet. According to PetNet, 12 million Australians are associated with pets; 63 per cent of the 7.5 million households in Australia own pets; 91 per cent of pet owners report feeling ‘very close’ to their pet, reinforcing that pets are an integral member of the family unit; pets are a normal part of childhood for more than 83 per cent of Australians; and of the Australians who do not currently own a pet 53 per cent would like to do so in the future.

Western Australia is a strong contributor to these statistics: figures from 2007 estimate there to be over 3.1 million pets in WA. With research showing all sorts of health benefits accruing from pet ownership, this is not surprising. According to the Australian Companion Animal Council—the ACAC—compared to non pet owners people who own pets typically visit the doctor less often and use less medication, have lower cholesterol and blood pressure, recover more quickly from illness and surgery, deal better with stressful situations, show lower levels of risk factors associated with heart disease and are less likely to report feeling lonely, with elderly pet owners reporting increased quality of life and companionship.

There would of course be few Western Australian pet owners who have not taken their animal to see a vet. However, it is not only in keeping domestic pets healthy that vets play a vital role. They also play an important role in monitoring the animal breeding industry and in checking that animal welfare policies are being adhered to. A good example of this is the puppy industry. With dogs being the most popular pets in Australia, there is naturally a high demand for puppies and a significant dog-breeding industry right across Australia. It is important that vets monitor every aspect of the breeding process, and respectable breeders make sure this happens.

However, when I was down in the Canning wetlands recently, one of my constituents, Jo Stone, raised some concerns about the regulation of the dog-breeding industry in Australia, in particular regarding the operation of puppy farms across parts of the country. Jo had seen a documentary on TV featuring a well-known vet who had exposed evidence of puppy factories in Australia. The RSPCA defines puppy farms as:

… an intensive dog-breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs’ behavioural, social and/or psychological needs.

Jo raised concerns that vets and welfare inspectors were unable to access these puppy farms, where dogs were kept in squalid conditions. With the help of the Parliamentary Library, I have been conducting some research into this issue in Australia. I thank the library for the assistance it has provided. The research has highlighted some problems associated with the regulation of the puppy industry in Australia but has also shown that these areas can be addressed.

The RSPCA has raised concerns about the puppy-farming industry in Australia over the course of a number of years. The organisation is currently running a campaign to try and see the end of this practice in Australia. Part of the problem seems to be a lack of clear legislation guaranteeing animal welfare in this area. The first point to make is that, when it comes to legislation dealing with cruelty to animals and animal management containing provisions applicable to dog breeding, there is a great variation between different states and territories. New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have prescriptive requirements relating to accommodation, care and transport. I note that in late 2010 the Queensland government proposed a new dog standard that includes requirements for the proper registration of all dogs from breeding to point of sale and for licensing conditional upon compliance with a code of practice outlining enforceable minimum standards.

In other states, including my state of Western Australia, local government laws tend to take some precedence. In WA the Dog Act 1976 sets out laws relating to the control and registration of dogs. The act permits anyone to keep two dogs older than three months, and the young of those younger than three months. Animal welfare provisions are outlined in the Animal Welfare Act 2002, which provides for proper food, shelter and protection from harm. It is important to note that there are no specific codes of practice or standards such as apply in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland.

The RSPCA believe better regulation is needed across the board, as current voluntary registration and accreditation programs are not sufficient to ensure the identification and traceability of breeders. They suggest a system whereby all dogs are permanently traceable to the breeder and all subsequent owners and sellers through a nationally coordinated system. This means that a dog cannot be sold at a pet shop without a registration number that will allow welfare inspectors to inspect the conditions of the parents.

They have laid out four steps for this process. The first is developing a system which ensures that all dogs are registered and traceable to the person who bred the dog. This must include compulsory microchip identification of puppies by the breeder prior to the sale or transfer to be implemented in all jurisdictions. The second is that mechanisms for tracking breeder information should be explored, including utilising existing microchip registration systems to enable puppies to be traced to the breeder. The third is that the current Gold Coast breeder permit pilot project should be examined as a model for a potential national system. The fourth is that a national approach is required to ensure that puppies transferred across jurisdictions remain traceable. Such a system could be administered at the state or local government level.

The RSPCA also contend that there are insufficient standards nationwide to provide for the welfare and the health of breeding dogs and puppies and to ensure that puppies are appropriately reared to be suitable as companion animals. In short, they feel that they cannot act when they find a puppy farm. Most legislation requires the provision of shelter, food and water but does not include the need for exercise and veterinary access. In this way, the RSPCA recommend that standards be developed which are sufficient to provide for the welfare and health of breeding dogs and puppies to ensure that puppies are appropriately reared to be companion animals. They must adequately address the psychological, behavioural, social and physiological needs of both breeding dogs and puppies. Standards must cover all aspects of dog breeding that have an impact on animal welfare, including: staff competencies and training; staff-dog ratios; record-keeping; dog care and management; breeding and rearing; socialisation, health and veterinary care; transfer of ownership; and transport. Standards must be linked to existing animal welfare legislation. Standards should take into consideration the national standards and guidelines for dogs, which are currently in development through the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy. Perhaps the federal government could be doing more to help harmonise legislation and create some national standards. Perhaps it should not be up to local councils and state governments and instead there should be clear regulations within Australia for the industry.

In conclusion, the good news is that my office has been in contact with RSPCA WA and there have been no incidences of puppy farms being uncovered in WA recently. However, I understand this is a significant issue over in the east and was a significant issue at the recent Victorian election. To minimise the chances of puppy farms being established in WA, a national scheme would be advisable, perhaps along the lines of that raised by the RSPCA. For constituents wanting to make sure they purchase their dog from a reputable place, the best advice is to ask to see the dog’s biological parents. If this is declined then it would be advisable to contact the RSPCA and ask it to investigate further. Animal welfare is important and should be at the forefront of our minds during World Veterinary Year. I would like to congratulate all those veterinarians who are celebrating the 250th anniversary of world veterinary education, and I wish them all the best for this year.

See this speech in context