That this bill be now read a second time. 

The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is an advisory group that provides advice to the Minister for Agriculture on animal welfare policy, strategies and programs to facilitate effective application of legislation that affects the welfare of animals. The committee has made recommendations for amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994. 

A public discussion paper calling for public comment was released as a result of those recommendations and legislative amendment of both acts is considered to be necessary to resolve problems with enforcement of the acts and to improve animal welfare. 

I will now deal briefly with some significant features of the bill. 

The following comments relate to proposed amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986. 

Regulations prohibiting the possession of certain implements or their use on animals and to prohibit certain procedures used on animals 

Currently the act must be amended each time a new cruelty offence is proposed. 

For example, where a specific procedure or the use of certain implements is to be prohibited, the list of cruelty offences in section 9 of the act needs to be expanded. The bill will allow regulations to be made to prohibit the possession or use of certain implements and prohibit the conduct of certain procedures. Cruelty resulting from the use of implements or conduct of procedures could still be prosecuted under the general provisions of the act. 

The prohibition of the possession or use of a number of implements will be able to be regulated subject to the regulatory impact process. Some examples of implements which may be considered for prohibition or regulation are dog or cock-fighting implements, pronged collars and electronic dog-training collars, except when used under the supervision of suitably qualified experts. 

An example of a procedure for which prohibition by regulation will be considered is the firing of horses. 

This is an antiquated procedure where hot irons are used to burn the skin in a pattern that increases blood supply to areas near joint/tendon injuries and immobilises the horse due to pain. There is no support in the veterinary profession for this procedure. 

Attendance at animal fights 

There are currently severe penalties, $12 000 or 12 months jail, for providing premises for animal fights and for being the owner of an animal that is injured by an organised fight. There is currently no penalty for attending an animal fight. Given that attendance at an animal fight encourages such activities to take place, the bill will make it an offence to attend an animal fight. 

Entry to a person's dwelling to investigate animal cruelty 

Inspectors appointed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act can currently enter premises, other than personal dwellings, to provide assistance to animals and to inspect for cruelty. Situations arise in urban areas where such animals may be inside a house that is used as a personal dwelling and no action can be undertaken by inspectors. The bill enables inspectors to enter a person's dwelling if there is a reasonable suspicion of cruelty but only after obtaining a warrant from a court. 

Notice to comply 

Inspectors are frequently faced with a situation where they provide reasonable advice to an owner of an animal which is at risk, but this advice is ignored or poorly implemented. The situation then declines such that animal cruelty develops or an animal's suffering continues. 

Currently, a court can make orders for an owner to comply but only if the owner has already been convicted of a cruelty offence. This results in many situations where an inspector cannot take timely action to prevent a cruelty situation arising if the owner is not cooperative. 

The bill will allow an inspector to issue a notice to a person that requires the person to comply with specific written instructions to alleviate cruelty to an animal or to prevent a situation in which cruelty is likely to occur. It will be an offence not to comply with the notice. 

Warrants to seize animals 

The act currently includes a process whereby the minister can order a specialist inspector to seize and dispose of animals. Usually the animals remain on the property until disposal is arranged. 

In practical terms, this process is intended to cover farm livestock situations that are protracted and unlikely to be resolved by the owner. Currently, inspectors, as opposed to specialist inspectors, can provide assistance, feed, water and treatment to animals on site but cannot remove animals to place them in care. 

The bill will allow an inspector, with the written permission of the secretary, to apply to a magistrate to seize an animal from premises, including a dwelling if the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that the welfare of the animal is at immediate risk. 

I will now comment on the proposals in the bill which relate to amendments to the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994. 

Increased penalties for dog attacks 

The current penalty for a dog attack on a person or for setting a dog to attack is $500. An owner is also liable for any damage caused by an attack if convicted. A magistrate can also order the destruction of the dog. The bill increases the maximum court penalties for dog attacks in response to public concern over publicised dog attack cases and the perception that current penalties are not an adequate deterrent. The increases are significantly higher for dog attacks that result from a deliberate human action such
as urging a dog to attack and for an attack by a dangerous dog that has a history of attack or attack training. 

Restricted breeds 

The bill will align commonwealth and state legislation regarding pit bull terriers by introducing restrictions to be placed on restricted breed dogs. Restricted breed dogs have been defined to mean those dogs prohibited from being imported by the Commonwealth Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 and includes pit bull terriers. Defining restricted breed dogs in this manner will ensure consistency with the relevant commonwealth legislation. 

The controls on restricted breeds include limiting the number of restricted breed dogs that can be owned without a permit to two, defining housing requirements and warning signage on the premises, controls when the dog is off the premises, permanent identification, compulsory notification upon the sale of an animal and in the event of escape, death or change of ownership of the dog. The proposed amendments will prevent ownership of a restricted breed dog by a minor. 

To avoid vexatious appeals, a fee will be imposed on owners of dogs declared to be dangerous who seek a review of that declaration by the review panel. If the appeal process is shown to lead to vexatious actions then the government will take further action to ensure that it operates effectively. 

Over a period of one year, the effectiveness of the restricted dog measures will be monitored and assessed. Should there be sufficient justification, the government may consider greater controls on restricted breed dogs, for example compulsory de-sexing. 

The restrictions proposed in the bill are consistent with responsible pet ownership requirements, are generally consistent with the restrictions placed on owners of dangerous dogs and address concerns expressed by the community over these breeds of dog. 

The bill ensures that the welfare of animals is protected and that enforcement agencies are better equipped to enforce the respective legislation. It also responds to community concerns over the keeping of animals that are perceived as having the potential to cause serious injury if they attack. 

I commend the bill to the house. 

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr McARTHUR (Monbulk). 

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 15 November.