|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Western Australian Student Law Review |
BENJAMIN GALLAGHER*†
ANIMAL LAW—PUPPY FARMING—DOG AMENDMENT (STOP PUPPY FARMING) ACT 2021 (WA)—DOG BREEDING—DOMESTIC ANIMALS ACT 1994 (VIC)—PET SHOPS—E-COMMERCE
ABSTRACT
The practice of puppy farming is a prevalent issue in Western Australia. As a response, the recent Dog Amendment (Stop Puppy Farming) Act 2021 (WA) was enacted to attempt to curb the prevalence of puppy farming in Western Australia. This article compares the recent Western Australian legislative amendments with the existing anti-puppy farming laws contained in the expansive Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic).
The Dog Amendment (Stop Puppy Farming) Act 2021 (WA) makes several important strides in the regulation of dog breeding and the sale of dogs in pet shops. Notable inclusions are the requirement that dogs be sterilised, the requirement for approval to breed a dog, the creation of a centralised registration system, the shift from pet shops to adoption centres, and the drafting of standards and guidelines pertaining to dogs. Looking towards the future, further amendments may be required in Western Australia to address a growing e-commerce-based pet trade which remains underregulated.
I INTRODUCTION
Australia is a nation of dog lovers.[1] Over half of all Australian households have a companion animal, with 40% owning at least one dog.[2] Australia’s canine captivation was further demonstrated in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic, with consumer demand for pet dogs skyrocketing.[3] Rising demand has coincided with an increase in unethical and unsafe puppy farming breeding practices, wherein dogs are raised in squalid conditions to maximise supply and minimise costs.[4]
In 2016, Victoria implemented world first stringent anti-puppy farming laws by amending the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic) (‘Victorian Act’) with the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Act 2017 (Vic).[5] Prior to the enactment of the Dog Amendment (Stop Puppy Farming) Act 2021 (WA) (the ‘Western Australian Amendments’), the Victorian Act contained the first dedicated anti-puppy farming legislative provisions in Australia.[6]
In the leadup to the 2017 Western Australian state election, the Western Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party in opposition, led by Mark McGowan, promised that if they were elected to power, laws would be introduced to end puppy farming in Western Australia.[7] Following a successful election campaign for the McGowan Labor Government, the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (the ‘DLGSCI’) began the process of drafting the Dog Amendment (Stop Puppy Farming) Bill 2020 (WA) by publishing a consultation report in December 2018 (the ‘Consultation Report’).[8] After initially failing to progress past the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia, the puppy farming reforms were re-tabled on 2 June 2021 as the Dog Amendment (Stop Puppy Farming) Bill 2021 (WA) (the ‘Western Australian Bill’).[9] After passing through both chambers of the Parliament of Western Australia, the Western Australian Bill received Royal Assent on 22 December 2021, thereby becoming the Western Australian Amendments.[10]
This article aims to compare the nascent Western Australian Amendments with the more mature Victorian Act to determine the efficacy of the Western Australian Amendments in combating puppy farming practices. This article begins by describing the context that led to the introduction of the Western Australian Amendments and why the legal framework in Western Australia prior to the Western Australian Amendments was inadequate. This article then dissects and compares the major features of the Western Australian Amendments and the Victorian Act with regard to puppy farming. Finally, this article discusses the potential for further legislative amendments in Western Australia to address an emerging e-commerce-based pet trade.
II BACKGROUND OF THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN AMENDMENTS
A The Practice of ‘Puppy Farming’
The overwhelming smell is always the first to hit you. Next it is the sound; twenty-five to forty wire mesh cages, many containing multiple puppies, line the walls of this Conshohocken, Pennsylvania pet store. The cages have drip pans underneath, which are supposed to allow for easy clean-up of waste, but the puppies are still covered in their own excrement and urine.[11]
The above testimony gives only a brief glimpse into the cruel world of puppy farming. Before proceeding further, a pressing question must first be discussed: what is ‘puppy farming’? No standard definition exists for the terms ‘puppy farm’, ‘puppy farming’ or ‘puppy mill’. However, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (the ‘RSPCA’) defines a puppy farm as ‘an intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs’ behavioural, social and/or physiological needs’.[12] The Consultation Report defines a puppy farm more broadly as ‘any dog breeding facility, big or small, which does not meet the welfare needs of the dogs bred and raised there’.[13]
In a puppy farm, dogs—both the mother and the puppies—have an extremely poor quality of life. The RSPCA notes that most puppy farms are ‘ad hoc’; there is no structured facility plan for animal husbandry.[14] Many puppy farms house animals in ‘filthy, unhygienic conditions’ and ‘permanently confine dogs in barren cages’ which fail to meet acceptable animal welfare standards.[15]
The effects of a puppy farm on a dog are significant. The common features of a puppy farm—overcrowding, confinement, unsanitary conditions, indiscriminate husbandry, poor facilities and a lack of basic care, veterinary care and socialisation—are all associated with contributing to a poor ongoing quality of life for the afflicted animals.[16] Puppies born into puppy farms can suffer from severe physical and psychological complications.[17] As puppy farmers frequently do not take into account a breeding animal’s genetic background, the chances of passing on inherited conditions such as retinal atrophy, hip dysplasia or corneal dystrophy to puppies is increased.[18]
The modern conception of the puppy farm arose in the post-Second World War United States of America (‘USA’) where large commercial-scale breeding operations were established to mass-produce dogs for sale in pet shops.[19] Over time, the scale of this iniquitous industry increased exponentially. For example, in 1999, there were an estimated 5,000 puppy farms operating in the USA.[20] In 2021, the number of puppy farms in the USA has doubled to 10,000.[21]
Puppy farming is not an issue confined to the USA. In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a female King Charles Cavalier Spaniel named Lucy died in 2016 after being severely mistreated at a Welsh puppy farm.[22] Moving to Western Australia, there was notably the case of Strawberry the Boxer. Strawberry gave birth to three puppies on a New South Wales puppy farm but failed to deliver the rest of her litter. Instead of taking her to a veterinary surgeon for an emergency Caesarean section, the puppy farm owner nudged Strawberry with his boot and joked, ‘Are you dead yet?’[23] Strawberry would later die, whilst two of her puppies were sold to a Western Australian pet shop.[24]
With cases such as Strawberry’s drawing the ire of the Western Australian public,[25] the Western Australian Bill was introduced following concerns from the McGowan Labor Government over the connection between puppy farming and animal cruelty.[26] The Western Australian Amendments sought to end puppy farming in Western Australia through the creation of a new system of ethical dog breeding which requires breeders to give adequate consideration to the needs of dogs before they are bred.[27] It was also hoped that the Western Australian Amendments would increase consumer confidence in the pet breeding industry by ensuring dogs are bred in acceptable conditions, reducing the risk of puppies developing a range of behavioural or health issues that can be attributed to puppy farming.[28]
Whilst the ostensible focus of the Western Australian Amendments is on puppy farming, it is notable that the term ‘puppy farm’ is not used. The term ‘puppy farm’ was omitted to acknowledge that puppy farming can encompass a broad range of unethical dog breeding practices that can negatively affect the health and wellbeing of dogs.[29]
B Pet Shops
Thus, the human population is in a frenzy for pets, more pets, exotic pets, and purebred pets. Pet shops proliferate, as do the puppy-mills and the backyard breeders.[30]
Pet shops are a staple of the pet (and more specifically, dog) breeding industry. As puppy farming practices have come under greater scrutiny in recent years, so too have pet shops which are allegedly connected with puppy farming.[31]
It should be noted that this article by no means seeks to critique the institution of the ‘pet shop’. Indeed, some pet shops exclusively source dogs from sustainable, non-puppy farming breeders.[32] There is also industry evidence in the USA[33] and in Australia[34] suggesting that large-scale pet shops and breeders could be better resourced to ensure the welfare of dogs in their care and have the ability to take an active ‘hands-on’ role in both the breeding and supply of dogs.
However, a number of pet shops do rely on puppy farms for a steady supply of dogs. In 2009, the Humane Society of the United States estimated that one-third of pet shops in the USA sell puppies originating from puppy farms.[35] Data concerning Australia paints a similarly bleak picture. Statistical analysis by the Australian National Kennel Council (the ‘ANKC’), the peak representative kennel club in Australia, estimates that only around 15% of all puppies in Australia are sold through breeders registered with the ANKC.[36] Dogs which are bred at puppy farms are not registered with dog breeding organisations such as the ANKC, as dog breeding organisations require affiliated breeders to adhere to strict breeding and animal welfare guidelines before a dog can be registered.[37] While there are few statistics on how many dogs sold through pet shops are sourced from puppy farms, the RSPCA notes that the sale of dogs to pet shops are one of the primary mediums by which puppy farmers sell puppy-farmed puppies.[38]
Further, it is notoriously difficult for consumers to discern whether a puppy has originated from a puppy farm.[39] Many consumers will not be afforded the opportunity to visit the location where a puppy was born, meet the puppy’s mother and father, or ensure that the breeder provides a high standard of care for their dogs.[40] Likewise, many pet shop operators are also in the dark about the conditions of the location from which their puppies originate. In some cases, pet shop owners are only able to provide consumers with a mere picture of a puppy’s mother and father.[41]
In response to the faciliatory roles that pet shops can play in further propagating puppy farming—including where such facilitation is performed unwittingly—the Western Australian Amendments sought to fundamentally restructure the way in which pet shops operate in Western Australia to eliminate the involvement of puppy farming and to promote the sale of unwanted or abandoned dogs.[42]
C Criminal Offences
Prior to the Western Australian Amendments, prosecuting an individual in Western Australia for participating in puppy farming was a difficult endeavour. Whilst there were no laws specifically prohibiting puppy farming per se, s 19(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA), which provides that a person must not be cruel to an animal, may provide a cause of action against puppy farming.[43] Under s 19(2), cruelty towards an animal includes if the person:[44]
(a) tortures, mutilates, maliciously beats or wounds, abuses, torments, or otherwise ill-treats, the animal; or
...
(e) in any other way causes the animal unnecessary harm.
(emphasis added.)
Furthermore, s 19(3) states that a person in charge of an animal is cruel to an animal if the animal:[45]
(b) is confined, restrained or caught in a manner that –
(i) is prescribed; or
(ii) causes, or is likely to cause, it unnecessary harm;
...
(d) is not provided with proper and sufficient food or water; or
(e) is not provided with such shelter, shade or other protection from the elements as is reasonably necessary to ensure its welfare, safety and health; or
(f) is abandoned, whether at the place where it is normally kept or elsewhere; or
...
(h) suffers harm which could be alleviated by the taking of reasonable steps ...
In order to determine that a person has been cruel to an animal where the animal suffers harm which could have been alleviated by the taking of reasonable steps under s 19(3)(h), the prosecution must satisfy a tripartite test:[46]
1. the accused was in charge of the relevant animal;
2. the relevant animal suffered harm; and
3. the harm suffered by the relevant animal could have been alleviated by the taking of ‘reasonable steps’.
An accused charged with an offence under s 19(3)(h) will not be able to escape liability by merely displaying that they took ‘some steps’ to alleviate the harm suffered by the relevant animal.[47] The term ‘harm’ is defined under s 5(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) as including injury, pain and distress evidenced by severe, abnormal physiological or behavioural reactions.[48]
Ultimately, it has been noted that the enforcement of animal cruelty-related provisions and offences against puppy farms is extremely difficult, with the rates of successful prosecutions resulting from animal cruelty complaints in Australia being ‘very low’.[49] Puppy farms are usually hidden from public view in isolated or remote areas and infrequently allow prospective buyers on-site, preferring instead to sell puppies online, to pet shops, or through façade false house ‘shop fronts’.[50]
D Civil Remedies
One of the most common reasons a dog will be purchased from a puppy farm is to become a pet ‘companion animal’.[51] Under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), the term ‘goods’ is defined to include animals.[52] It follows that a consumer who purchases a puppy from a puppy farm that is found to have an undisclosed physiological or psychological issue may seek redress under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 (‘Australian Consumer Law’) for misleading or deceptive conduct[53] or a failure to adhere to consumer guarantees.[54] For example, in Commissioner for Consumer Protection v Armstrong,[55] four consumers were entitled to compensation after being sold puppies infected with parvovirus.[56] The breeder had previously signed an enforceable undertaking under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law to have all puppies tested by a veterinarian, wormed and vaccinated.[57] On the facts, this enforceable undertaking had been breached.[58]
Whilst the provisions of the Australian Consumer Law may assist individual consumers in a transaction, it does little to stop puppy farming practices at large. Moreover, where a consumer seeks to return a ‘defective’ puppy or obtain a replacement puppy, they are arguably propagating the occurrence of puppy farming by encouraging puppy farmers to foster more litters to produce replacement puppies.
III OVERVIEW OF THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN AMENDMENTS
The legislative reforms contained in the Western Australian Amendments that are aimed at eliminating puppy farming practices relevantly amend the Dog Act 1976 (WA). These amendments can be delineated into five categories:
1. sterilisation amendments;
2. breeding approval amendments;
3. registration amendments;
4. pet shop amendments; and
5. standards and guidelines.
Each of these categories of amendments will be considered below.
A Sterilisation Amendments
The Western Australian Amendments introduce a requirement that all dogs be sterilised by 2 years of age unless exempted.[59] By implementing mandatory dog sterilisation, the Western Australian Amendments seek to address the uncontrolled breeding of dogs in Western Australia through the prevention of unwanted or unplanned dog pregnancies.[60]
A dog may be exempted from mandatory sterilisation for a number of reasons, including where a vet provides a certificate exempting the dog on health or welfare grounds,[61] the dog is owned by a person who has been granted an approval to breed the dog,[62] or where the dog is a livestock working dog.[63] The sterilisation requirement is not retrospective; dogs that were registered with a local government area (‘LGA’) or that were owned by a person at the commencement of the sterilisation amendments will not be required to undergo sterilisation.[64] However, the implementation of the Western Australian Amendments will be such that owners of unsterilised dogs will only be able to register their dogs annually, as opposed to sterilised dogs being able to be registered annually, tri-annually or for the dog’s lifetime.[65]
B Breeding Approval Amendments
The Western Australian Amendments also introduce a requirement that a person obtain a one‑off approval from a relevant LGA to breed a dog.[66] An LGA may refuse to grant an approval to breed on a number of grounds, including where the applicant is under 18,[67] where the applicant is a ‘convicted person’,[68] where the applicant lacks the sufficient facilities to breed dogs in accordance with the requirements of any relevant written law,[69] or where the applicant is not a fit and proper person to breed dogs.[70] Circumstances where an LGA may refuse to grant an approval to breed may also be prescribed.[71]
An approval to breed will be subject to any conditions specified in the approval that the LGA considers necessary or desirable to impose.[72] At any time, the conditions of an approval to breed may be amended or revoked, or new conditions may be imposed, by written notice to the approval holder.[73]
An approval to breed can be cancelled on the request of the approval holder.[74] An approval to breed can also be cancelled where the LGA is satisfied that the approval holder is a person to whom the LGA could refuse to grant an approval to breed based upon the grounds listed in s 26J(2),[75] that the approval holder has failed to comply with a condition of the approval to breed,[76] or that the person has failed to comply with the Dog Act 1976 (WA) or Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA).[77]
By implementing a system of approvals to breed, the McGowan Labor Government does not seek to stop dog breeding in Western Australia.[78] Instead, the approval to breed system adds a layer of regulation to a space where there previously was none. The application process for an approval to breed allows LGAs to ascertain a variety of details about the suitability and fitness of a prospective breeder, including whether they have they breached any relevant laws or whether they have the necessary facilities for dog breeding.[79]
C Registration Amendments
The Western Australian Amendments radically alter the existing system for registering dogs by creating a centralised registration system (‘CRS’). The CRS will create a state-wide dog registration database to replace the separate registration systems of Western Australia’s 139 LGAs.[80] The Western Australian Amendments require that the CEO of the DLGSCI establish and maintain the CRS.[81] The DLGSCI CEO and each LGA is to record prescribed information in the CRS and must ensure that the recorded information is accurate and up to date.[82]
The McGowan Labor Government aims for the CRS to become a central point for the collection of information about dog registrations and dog breeders. This information can then be shared across LGAs to assist authorities with enforcement and to help consumers make informed choices about where they source a puppy from.[83] At the time of writing this article, the McGowan Labor Government has issued a request for information for the procurement of a CRS on the Tenders WA website.[84] It is expected that the CRS will be operational in 2023.[85]
D Pet Shop Amendments
The Western Australian Amendments introduce new laws to govern both the operation of Western Australian pet shops, and how Western Australian pet shops source their supply of dogs. Under the Western Australian Amendments, a ‘pet shop’ is a shop at, in or from which a relevant pet shop business is conducted.[86] A ‘relevant pet shop business’ is a business, or part of a business, that is conducted at, in or from a shop and involves the supply of, or offering to supply, dogs.[87]
To operate a relevant pet shop business under the Dog Act 1976 (WA), the Western Australian Amendments require that a person obtain a pet shop approval from the relevant LGA.[88] On receiving a pet shop application, an LGA can grant or refuse to grant a pet shop approval.[89] The pet shop approval must be renewed yearly through reapplication by the pet shop approval holder to the relevant LGA.[90] On receiving an application for the renewal of a pet shop approval, the LGA can renew or refuse to renew the pet shop approval.[91]
An LGA may refuse to grant or renew a pet shop approval where the applicant is a convicted person,[92] or where the applicant lacks the sufficient facilities to keep dogs for the purposes of a relevant pet shop business in accordance with the requirements of any relevant written law.[93] An LGA can also refuse to grant or renew a pet shop approval if the approval holder has failed to comply with a condition imposed by an LGA on the approval.[94] Further, an LGA can also refuse to grant or renew a pet shop approval where the approval holder has failed to comply with a requirement under the Dog Act 1976 (WA) or the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA).[95] Finally, an LGA can refuse to grant or renew a pet shop approval where there has been a contravention of the Dog Act 1976 (WA) or Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) in relation to either the relevant pet shop business conducted by the approval holder, or the pet shop to which approval relates.[96] An LGA also has the ability to cancel an existing pet shop approval on similar grounds.[97]
The Western Australian Amendments do not stop at merely creating a legislative framework around the running of a pet shop, but rather require all pet shop businesses to only supply dogs sourced from a person who holds a ‘dog supply approval’.[98] A dog supply approval will only be granted to persons conducting animal refuge operations or dog management facilities.[99] The effect of this legislative reform is extreme: only stray, abandoned, seized or surrendered dogs that are kept in a refuge or a dog management facility may be sold in pet shops;[100] there is no room for the supply of puppy-farmed dogs.[101] As put by the Hon David Templeman, the introduction of the dog supply approval will see pet shops transformed into adoption centres.[102]
E Standards and Guidelines
Concurrently with the development of the Western Australian Bill, the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (the ‘DPIRD’) began the process of formulating Standards and Guidelines for the Health and Welfare of Dogs in Western Australia (the ‘Dog Standards and Guidelines’).[103] The Dog Standards and Guidelines were developed in consultation with numerous industry stakeholders,[104] and aim to reflect a recognition by the McGowan Labor Government of the value of animal welfare to the community and appropriate standards of care.[105]
The Dog Standards and Guidelines include both ‘standards’ and ‘guidelines’. Standards are minimum requirements for the basic welfare of dogs that will be enforceable under subsidiary legislation.[106] Guidelines are recommended practices that should be followed to achieve desirable animal welfare outcomes.[107] Unlike the standards, the guidelines are not enforceable, but were formulated to encourage a higher level of welfare for dogs in the Western Australian community.[108]
A number of standards and guidelines directly address dog breeding practices. For example, standard 15.2 prescribes how often a dog may be bred:[109]
S15.2 A breeder must not use a bitch to produce more than:
(a) two litters in any eighteen month period; and
(b) five litters before the dog is retired from breeding.
Guideline 15.4 then expands on standard 15.2 by recommending that dogs which have or carry inherited disorders should not be bred to ensure the welfare of the pups:[110]
G15.4 Dogs which have or carry inherited disorders:
(a) with a high chance of inheritance; or
(b) with a low chance of inheritance, but which may severely compromise an animal’s health or welfare;
should not be used for breeding.
The DPIRD has noted that the regulation of the Dog Standards and Guidelines, as well as a series of regulations pertaining to dogs to accompany the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA), is currently being progressed.[111]
IV COMPARISON WITH THE VICTORIAN APPROACH
A Background of the Victorian Approach
Before the Western Australian Amendments, the only other Australian jurisdiction to introduce sweeping anti-puppy farming reforms was Victoria. On 20 December 2017, the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016 (Vic) (the ‘Victorian Bill’) received Royal Assent, with the Hon Jaala Pulford promising that these amendments to the Victorian Act would stamp out puppy farms, reform pet shops in Victoria, and improve the traceability of online sales of dogs.[112]
Since its passage, the anti-puppy farming amendments to the Victorian Act have been lauded as a shift in the right direction, with journalist Calla Wahlquist commenting that the amendments are ‘the most effective tool yet in stamping out the [puppy] farms’.[113] This makes the Victorian Act a valuable extant example of functional anti-puppy farming legislation that the recent Western Australian Amendments can be compared with. An argument can even be made that if the Western Australian Amendments implement similar measures to the successful Victorian Act, the Western Australian Amendments will also form an effective tool in eradicating puppy farming in Western Australia.
However, it is important to note that the approach adopted by the Victorian Act is not a panacea for puppy farming; contemporary evidence suggests puppy farming is still an ongoing issue in Victoria.[114] Academic Dr Clare Brealey has noted that definitional issues plague the debate around puppy farming.[115] As will be discussed below, the Victorian Act imposes a blanket cap of 50 fertile female dogs for commercial dog breeders, and yet many dog breeding businesses impacted by the cap are not puppy farms in the sense that they would not be considered ‘intensive dog breeding facilit[ies]’ that ‘fail to meet the dog’s behavioural, social and/or physiological needs’.[116] Moreover, survey data collected by Dr Brealey suggests that the wider community lacks a nuanced understanding of ‘ethical’ breeding and the ‘responsible’ purchase of dogs, leading to the continued purchasing of puppy farmed dogs and a nullification of the anti-puppy farming intentions of the Victorian Act.[117]
B Victorian Approach to Dog Sterilisation
Unlike the Western Australian Amendments, the Victorian Act does not mandate the sterilisation of dogs. However, a Victorian LGA retains the discretion to refuse to register a dog unless the dog is sterilised.[118] Concurrently, if an owner fails to register their dog, they may be subject to a fine.[119] The interplay between these provisions creates a de facto dog sterilisation mandate in Victorian LGAs that refuses to register unsterilised dogs. Like in the Western Australian Amendments, the Victorian Act provides several categories of exemption from sterilisation.[120]
The sterilisation of dogs has been recognised as vital in stopping uncontrolled dog breeding to reduce the number of unwanted and abandoned litters.[121] The Western Australian Amendments, which mandate sterilisation, are arguably more stringent than Victorian Act in reducing uncontrolled dog breeding. By mandating dog sterilisation, the Western Australian Amendments restricts the population of fertile dogs in Western Australia to those dogs owned by a person holding an approval to breed, and to those dogs covered by an exemption from sterilisation. Any prospective dog breeders will be forced to seek an approval to breed, wherein an LGA can then scrutinise the suitability of the available facilities and the fitness of the owner to breed dogs so to prevent puppy farming practices.
C Victorian Approach to Dog Breeding
The Victorian Act does not implement a system of approvals to breed dogs as the Western Australian Amendments do. Instead, the Victorian Act defines four distinct classes of breeders, each attracting various levels of regulation:
1. microbreeders;
2. three to 10 breeders;
3. commercial dog breeders; and
4. recreational breeders.
The term ‘microbreeder’ encompasses persons who breed dogs to sell, are not a member of an applicable organisation,[122] and who have no more than two fertile female dogs.[123] Microbreeders are not required to register as a domestic animal breeder (‘DAB’) with their LGA. The category three to 10 breeders encompasses persons who have three to 10 fertile female dogs and are not a member of an applicable organisation.[124] Three to 10 breeders are required to register with their LGA as a DAB, and must comply with any relevant business codes of practice (‘BCOPs’).[125] Commercial dog breeders encompass persons holding an approval allowing them to own up to 50 fertile female dogs.[126] All commercial dog breeders must apply to the Victorian Minister for Agriculture for a commercial dog breeder approval, register with their local governments as a DAB, and comply with any relevant BCOPs.[127] Finally, recreational breeders encompass persons who are members of an applicable organisation and who own up to 10 fertile female dogs.[128] Recreational breeders do not need to register as a DAB, but they must comply with the rules and codes of their applicable organisation in order to maintain membership with the organisation.
The Victorian Act should be lauded for its recognition of the unique regulatory needs of the differing classes of breeders. For example, it is arguable that registered breeders can be permitted to act with less regulatory scrutiny as they are already subject to the rules and codes of an applicable organisation. Conversely, there is an argument to be made that large-scale commercial breeding operations, where dogs are bred and sold under a business model for profit, should attract greater regulatory attention.
Both the Western Australian Amendments and the Victorian Act take a breeder-focused approach to the regulation of dog breeding, given the consideration of whether the applicant is a suitable person to breed dogs. For example, under the Western Australian Amendments the relevant LGA will examine whether an applicant has sufficient facilities for dog breeding.[129] The system of approvals to breed dogs under the Western Australian Amendments and the Victorian Act both involve one-off approvals. The Victorian Act can be distinguished in that it places a limit on the number of fertile female dogs that a person can own under a dog breeding approval. Theoretically, the number of dogs that can be owned and bred under a dog breeding approval issued under the Western Australian Amendments is unlimited.[130]
The limit on the number of owned fertile female dogs imposed by the Victorian Act does not necessarily make the Victorian Act more effective than the Western Australian Amendments in stopping puppy farming. For one, there is no major scientific evidence to support an ‘ideal number’ of fertile animals to maximise welfare when keeping fertile animals.[131] Furthermore, there is little evidence that scale is an issue in animal welfare when breeding dogs.[132] A survey conducted on dog owners suggested that the majority of dog owners may support commercial breeding operations where the welfare of the breeding dogs is ensured.[133] Testimonial evidence was also presented to an inquiry into the Victorian Bill that suggested the larger the scale of breeding operation, the more resources a breeder will have at their disposal to ensure the welfare of their breeding stock.[134]
D Victorian Approach to Dog Registration
The Victorian Act establishes a centralised Pet Exchange Register (‘PER’) with functionality similar to the Western Australian CRS. All DABs, microbreeders, recreational breeders and members of the public who supply dogs must be registered on the PER and will receive a unique source number (‘USN’).[135] Relevant governmental departments and LGAs will then be able to access the PER to help determine the compliance of a breeder with the law.[136] When attempting to purchase an animal, consumers can access limited information from the PER, including the USN of the owner of an animal, the LGA where the owner of the animal is located, and the registration number of the premises on which a DAB is being conducted.[137] If the owner is a recreational breeder, information on the owner’s applicable organisation membership can also be obtained.[138]
E Victorian Approach to Pet Shops
Similar to the Western Australian Amendments, the Victorian Act makes it an offence for persons to supply dogs which are not from a registered pound, animal shelter, or enrolled foster carer to a pet shop.[139] It is also an offence for pet shops to sell or give away dogs which are not from a registered pound, animal shelter, or enrolled foster carer.[140] The effect of these provisions is that registered breeders will only be able to supply animals directly to the public, such as through the internet. All online advertisements for the sale of dogs must include the animal’s microchip number and the PER-affiliated USN.[141] Both the person selling the dog and the publisher of the advertisement are liable under the Victorian Act for a non‑compliant advertisement.[142] These amendments, like the introduction of the USN, address a growing e‑commerce market that is absent from the Western Australian Amendments.
The Victorian Act classes puppy brokers, being persons who act as an intermediary between a breeder and a consumer (including where that consumer is interstate), as falling within the definition of a DAB.[143] The position of an animal foster carer is also acknowledged in the Victorian Act, with ‘foster care’ defined as the short-term care of stray, abandoned, or unwanted dogs on a singular premises for the purpose of eventually rehoming those animals.[144] Foster carers may collaborate with LGAs under a foster carer scheme, entitling foster carers to reduced registration rates and access to pet shops to rehome animals.[145]
V THE RISE OF E-COMMERCE?
One facet of the Western Australian Amendments deserving of scrutiny is the failure to regulate the sale of dogs online. According to the Pet Industry Association of Australia, pet shops account for less than 10% of all puppies sold.[146] Meanwhile, record numbers of pets are being bought through the internet, with recent evidence from Europe suggesting that 57% of European consumers are moving online to purchase new companion animals.[147] While there is currently insufficient research on the exact percentage of Australians who choose to purchase companion animals online,[148] it is thought to be a booming market that has only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.[149]
The Western Australian Amendments sparsely address the rise in online sales and advertisements of dogs, despite this being recognised as a potential area for unregulated animal-related commerce since 2001.[150] Under the Western Australian Amendments, the online trading of dogs is permitted, with the only requirements being that the owner lists their ‘dog owner number’ if they have one, as well as any future prescribed information.[151] This potentially allows puppy farmers in states where puppy farming is legal to supply their dogs to Western Australians through sales on online marketplaces, completely frustrating the underlying anti-puppy farming aims of the Western Australian Amendments.
To stop the growth of puppy farming through online means, further amendments to the Dog Act 1976 (WA) to complement the Western Australian Amendments should be considered. Similar to what is required under law in Victoria, all online advertisements should be required to include a dog’s microchip and unique registration source number as recorded on the CRS.[152] Information on the breeder, including the LGA from which they operate and any past violations of the Dog Act 1976 (WA), Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) or any other similar legislation could also be required to be listed. This will enable consumers to gain an understanding of the history and breeding origin of the dog. In conjunction with providing consumers with the tools to inspect the origins of a dog advertised for sale online, the Western Australian Government could also introduce an enforcement program to closely monitor online marketplaces for users who are posting non-compliant advertisements.[153]
VI CONCLUSION
If [humanity] is to not stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men.[154]
It is early days to be judging the Western Australian Amendments as some of the provisions are yet to come into effect. Prima facie, the amendments appear to be a step in the right direction on the path towards eliminating puppy farming. The implementation of mandatory sterilisations for dogs by the age of 2, an approval scheme for breeding, and the introduction of a CRS brings much needed regulation to the dog and cat breeding industries of Western Australia. Moreover, the advent of the pet shop approval and the requirement that pet shops only sell stray, abandoned, seized, or surrendered dogs will cut off a lucrative avenue through which puppy farms can supply and sell dogs to consumers.
However, there are concerns regarding the rising role e-commerce can play in the purchasing of puppy-farmed dogs which are not addressed by the Western Australian Amendments. In the second reading speech of the Western Australian Bill, the Hon John Carey acknowledged that even with the Western Australian Amendments, consumers ‘still run the risk of dealing with a puppy farmer if they buy dogs online or interstate’.[155] In Victoria, even with the Victorian Act banning puppy farming practices and requiring a valid USN to be listed in online advertisements for dogs, many puppy farmers have simply moved their operations north to New South Wales where they continue to post advertisements that are non-compliant with the Victorian regime.[156]
However, with problems come opportunities. The Hon John Carey also noted that the Western Australian Amendments contain a review clause so that after five years of operation, the incumbent government ‘can take a step back and consider whether any improvements need to be made’.[157] The government of the day should take advantage of this opportunity for review to consider implementing amendments to address a growing e-commerce market, such as requiring that online listings for dogs include the dog’s microchip and unique registration source number as recorded on the CRS, as well as information on the breeder, including the LGA from which they operate and any past violations of the Dog Act 1976 (WA), Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) or any other similar legislation. By analysing the efficacy of the Victorian Act and Western Australian Amendments, future amendments to the Dog Act 1976 (WA) can take further effective and constructive steps in the campaign against puppy farming practices in Western Australia.
* Fourth-year Bachelor of Laws (LLB) student, Murdoch University, Western Australia. All opinions and views expressed in this article are my own, and do not constitute legal advice. Any errors or omissions contained in this article are my responsibility.
† This article is dedicated to Sandra Pallier. A registered breeder of Bichon Frise dogs, Sandra has enriched my life through her educational wisdom on all-things canine and the provision of two gorgeous puppies, Daisi and Bailee.
1 Although the Dog Amendment (Stop Puppy Farming) Act 2021 (WA) (‘Western Australian Amendments’) legislates with respect to dogs and cats, this article is strictly confined to amendments pertaining to dogs.
[2] Animal Medicines Australia, ‘Pets in Australia: A National Survey of Pets and People’ (Report, 22 October 2019) 6.
[3] Emma Wynne, ‘Dog Lovers Find Prices Rise Steeply Amid COVID-Fuelled Demand’, ABC News (online, 20 May 2021) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-20/dog-prices-rise-under-covid-fuelled-demand/100150562>.
[4] Erin Pearson, ‘Illegal Pet Sales Rise as Lockdown Adoption Boom Clears Shelters’, The Age (online, 9 September 2021) <https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/illegal-pet-sales-rise-as-lockdown-adoption-boom-clears-shelters-20210907-p58pg9.html>.
[5] Clare Brealey, ‘Victoria’s Puppy Farms and Pet Shop Laws a World First: But Questions About “Ethical” Breeding Remain’, The Conversation (online, 2 July 2018) <https://theconversation.com/victorias-puppy-farms-and-pet-shop-laws-a-world-first-but-questions-about-ethical-breeding-remain-98947> (‘Victoria’s Puppy Farms’).
[6] ‘Legislation in Each State’, Oscar’s Law (Web Page) <https://www.oscarslaw.org/legislation-in-each-state.htm> (‘Oscar’s Law’).
[7] Emily Piesse, ‘Ban on WA Puppy Farms Moves a Step Closer as Government Releases Plan for Public Comment’, ABC News (online, 4 May 2018) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-04/puppy-farm-ban-plan-opens-for-public-comment/9727048>.
[8] See Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (WA), ‘Stop Puppy Farming: Consultation Report’ (Consultation Report, December 2018) (‘Consultation Report’).
[9] See Western Australia, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 2 June 2021, 1167b–1168a (John Carey, Minister for Local Government) (‘Second Reading Speech’).
[10] Government House (WA), ‘Message No 32 from the Governor, dated 22 December 2021’ (Media Release, 22 December 2021).
[11] Melissa Towsey, ‘Something Stinks: The Need for Environmental Regulation of Puppy Mills’ (2010) 21(1) Villanova Environmental Law Journal 159, 159.
[12] Western Australia, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 19 February 2020, 774c (David Templeman, Minister for Local Government) (‘2020 Second Reading Speech’), citing ‘What is a Puppy Farm’, RSPCA (Web Page, 30 April 2019) <https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-is-a-puppy-farm/>.
[13] Consultation Report (n 8) 6.
[14] ‘Puppy Farms’, RSPCA (Discussion Paper, January 2010) 1.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid 3–8.
[17] Ibid 3, citing Humane Society of the United States, ‘Puppy Mills: Dark, Hopeless Places’ (Media Release, 4 September 2009).
[18] Puppy Farms (n 14) 5, citing generally Paul D McGreevy and Frank W Nicholas, ‘Some Practical Solutions to Welfare Problems in Dog Breeding’ (1999) 8(4) Animal Welfare 329.
[19] Jack McClintock, ‘Not Fit for a Dog’ (September 1992) LIFE 36. See also Towsey (n 11) 161.
[20] Larry Shook, The Puppy Report: How to Select a Healthy, Happy Dog (Ballantine Books, 1st ed, 1995) 56.
[21] ‘Puppy Mills: Facts and Figures’, The Humane Society of the United States (Fact Sheet, January 2021) <https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/puppy-mills-facts-and-figures.pdf>.
[22] ‘Lucy’s Law: Puppy Farm Ban Set to Be Confirmed’, BBC (Web Page, 13 May 2019) <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48249333>.
[23] Aja Styles, ‘Puppy Farm Sting: Strawberry the Boxer Left to Rot While Her Puppies Were Sold to Claremont Pet Shop’, WA Today (online, 22 September 2020) <https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/puppy-farm-sting-strawberry-the-boxer-left-to-rot-while-her-puppies-were-sold-to-claremont-pet-shop-20200916-p55wc1.html>.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Courtney Bembridge and Irena Ceranic, ‘Perth Pet Store Hits Back Over Puppy Farm Claims’, ABC News (online, 29 June 2015) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-29/perth-pet-store-hits-back-over-puppy-farm-claims/6579578#:~:text=The%20owners%20of%20a%20Perth,protest%20erupted%20outside%20their%20store.>.
[26] Second Reading Speech (n 9) 1167b (John Carey, Minister for Local Government).
[27] Western Australia, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 18 August 2021, 2990b (Stephen Dawson, Minister for Mental Health).
[28] Second Reading Speech (n 9) 1167b (John Carey, Minister for Local Government).
[29] Ibid 1167b (John Carey, Minister for Local Government).
[30] Jim Mason, An Unnatural Order: Uncovering the Roots of Our Domination of Nature and Each Other (Simon & Schuster, 1st ed, 1993) 259.
[31] See, eg, Brendan Foster, ‘Inglewood Pet Store Embroiled in More Puppy Farm Allegations’, WA Today (online, 8 July 2015) <https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/petlovers-allege-inglewood-pet-store-is-selling-puppy-farm-animals-20150708-gi7xpx.html#:~:text=Mt%20Lawley%20Pets%20%26%20Puppies%20co%2Downer%20Chris%20Emory%20said%20he,from%2C%20was%20a%20puppy%20farm.>; Tom Minear, ‘Puppy Farm Run by Peace Family at Pyramid Hill Damned By Court, RSPCA and Their Own Lawyer’, Herald Sun (online, 20 August 2015) <https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/puppy-farm-run-by-peace-family-at-pyramid-hill-damned-by-court-rspca-and-their-own-lawyer/news-story/0e913c2ef15dc8d4e4b2b094f9019da0>.
[32] See, eg, Humane Society of the United States, ‘Pet Stores in 35 States Pledge to Protect Puppies’ (Media Release, 22 December 2009) (‘Pledge to Protect’).
[33] Kim Kavin, Dog Merchants: Inside the Big Business of Breeders, Pet Stores, and Rescuers (Simon & Schuster, 1st ed, 2016) ch 6. It should be noted that the company that this book focuses on, Hunte Corporation, is now defunct and had previously been the subject of numerous allegations and litigation regarding the mistreatment of dogs in their care. See, eg, Martinelli v Petland Inc, 274 FRD 658 (D Ariz, 2011).
[34] Evidence to Standing Committee on the Economy and Infrastructure, Parliament of Victoria, Melbourne, 15 November 2016, 4–5 (Matt Hams, Banksia Park Puppies), 16–18, 27 (Mark Fraser, Pet Industry Association of Australia) (‘Standing Committee Inquiry’).
[35] Pledge to Protect (n 32).
[36] ‘A Forensic View of Puppy Breeding in Australia’, Australian National Kennel Council (Presentation, 2017) 4.
[37] See, eg, ‘Guidelines for Breeders’, Australian National Kennel Council (Association Guidelines, May 2004).
[38] Puppy Farms (n 14) 11.
[39] Ibid 2, 11.
[40] Ibid 11.
[41] Styles (n 23).
[42] Second Reading Speech (n 9) 1168a (John Carey, Minister for Local Government).
[43] Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) s 19(1).
[46] Anderson v Moore [2007] WASC 135, [52] (Jenkins J).
[47] Ibid [53] (Jenkins J).
[48] Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) s 5(1) (definition of ‘harm’).
[49] Annabel Markham, ‘Animal Cruelty Sentencing’ in Peter Sankoff and Steven White (eds), Animal Law in Australasia: A New Dialogue (Federation Press, 1st ed, 2009) 291, 292.
[50] Puppy Farms (n 14) 2.
[51] Deborah Cao, Animal Law in Australia (Thomson Reuters, 2nd ed, 2015) 159. In some jurisdictions, there is legislation specifically addressing companion animals: see, eg, Companion Animals Act 1998 (WA). In Western Australia, legislation addressing specific species of companion animals is devolved into separate legislative instruments: see, eg, Dog Act 1976 (WA) and Cat Act 2011 (WA).
[52] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 4(1) (definition of ‘goods’).
[53] See, eg, ibid sch 2 ch 2 pt 2-1, which provides a general protection against misleading or deceptive conduct.
[54] See, eg, ibid sch 2 ch 3 pt 3-2, which provides consumer guarantees relating to the supply of goods.
[56] Ibid [27]–[50] (Beech J).
[57] Ibid [8] (Beech J).
[58] Ibid [51] (Beech J).
[59] Western Australian Amendments (n 1) s 23 cl 26E(1).
[60] 2020 Second Reading Speech (n 12) 774c (David Templeman, Minister for Local Government).
[61] Western Australian Amendments (n 1) s 23 cl 26E(3)(b).
[62] Ibid s 23 cl 26E(3)(c).
[63] Ibid s 23 cl 26E(3)(e).
[64] Ibid s 23 cl 26E(3)(a).
[65] See Second Reading Speech (n 9) 1167b (John Carey, Minister for Local Government). See also Explanatory Memorandum, Dog Amendment (Stop Puppy Farming) Bill 2021 (WA) 33 (‘Explanatory Memorandum’).
[66] Western Australian Amendments (n 1) s 23 cl 26I.
[67] Ibid s 23 cl 26J(2)(a).
[68] Ibid s 23 cl 26J(2)(b). The term ‘convicted person’ is defined as a person who has, within the previous five years, been convicted of an offence against the Dog Act 1976 (WA), the Cat Act 2011 (WA), the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) or a law of the Commonwealth, another State or a Territory that is substantially similar to an offence contained in the aforenoted Western Australian legislation. See ibid s 8(2).
[69] Western Australian Amendments (n 1) s 23 cl 26J(2)(c). The Standards and Guidelines for the Health and Welfare of Dogs in Western Australia are likely to become regulations under the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) in the near future, meaning that an approval to breed could be refused by a local government for failure to adhere to any standards pertaining to dog breeding.
[70] Western Australian Amendments (n 1) s 23 cl 26J(2)(d).
[78] Second Reading Speech (n 9) 1167b (John Carey, Minister for Local Government).
[79] Second Reading Speech (n 9) 1167b (John Carey, Minister for Local Government).
[80] John Carey (Minister for Local Government), ‘Taking the Lead to End Puppy Farming’ (Media Release, 27 September 2022).
[81] Western Australian Amendments (n 1) s 14 cl 13A(1).
[83] See Second Reading Speech (n 9) 1168a (John Carey, Minister for Local Government). See also Explanatory Memorandum (n 65) 2.
[84] Carey (n 80).
[85] Carey (n 80).
[86] Western Australian Amendments (n 1) s 8(2) (definition of ‘pet shop’).
[87] Ibid s 8(2) (definition of ‘relevant pet shop business’).
[88] Ibid s 32 cls 38B, 38C(1)(a).
[90] Ibid s 32 cls 38B, 38C(1)(b).
[94] Ibid s 32 cls 38D(2)(b), 38E(c).
[95] Ibid s 32 cls 38D(2)(b), 38E(d).
[96] Ibid s 32 cls 38D(2)(b), 38E(e).
[98] Ibid s 32 cl 38G. A relevant pet shop business must also keep prescribed records relating to the source of each dog kept, supplied, or offered for supply in the course of business: see ibid s 32 cl 38K.
[99] Western Australian Amendments (n 1) s 32 cl 38O(1).
[101] Second Reading Speech (n 9) 1167b–1168b (John Carey, Minister for Local Government).
[102] 2020 Second Reading Speech (n 12) 774c (David Templeman, Minister for Local Government).
[103] See ‘Standards and Guidelines for the Health and Welfare of Dogs in WA’, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (WA) (Web Page) <https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/animalwelfare/standards-and-guidelines-health-and-welfare-dogs-wa> (‘Dog Standards and Guidelines’).
[104] Major stakeholders consulted include the RSPCA, the Australian Veterinary Association, Murdoch University School of Veterinary and Life Sciences and Dogs West: see Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (WA), ‘Consultation Summary Report: Draft Standards and Guidelines for the Health and Welfare of Dogs in Western Australia’ (Consultation Report, 2019) 6 (‘Standards Consultation Report’).
[105] Ibid 8.
[106] Ibid 7.
[107] Ibid 7.
[108] Ibid 7.
[109] Dog Standards and Guidelines (n 103) standard 15.2.
[110] Ibid guideline 15.4.
[111] Ibid.
[112] Premier of Victoria, ‘Getting It Done: Stamping Out Puppy Farms’ (Media Release, 28 November 2017).
[113] Calla Wahlquist, ‘Ending the Disgrace of Puppy Farms: Are Victoria’s New Laws the Right Approach?’, The Guardian (online, 18 December 2017) <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/ending-puppy-farms-are-victorias-new-laws-the-right-approach>. See also Oscar’s Law (n 6).
[114] See, eg, Hagar Cohen, ‘Puppy Broker Banned from Selling Animals for Three Years Continued Trading Illegally’, ABC News (online, 10 March 2022) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-10/puppy-broker-banned-from-selling-pets-continued-to-operate/100894396#:~:text=Puppy%20broker%20banned%20from%20selling%20animals%20for%20three%20years%20continued%20trading%20illegally,-7.30&text=A%20puppy%20broker%20banned%20from,nose%20of%20Victoria's%20enforcement%20agencies.>.
[115] Brealey, Victoria’s Puppy Farms (n 5). See also Clare Brealey, ‘The Politics of Dogs in Victoria: Breed, Breeding Practices & “Ethical” Acquisition’ (PhD Thesis, LaTrobe University, August 2021) <https://opal.latrobe.edu.au/articles/thesis/The_Politics_of_Dogs_in_Victoria_Breed_Breeding_Practices_Ethical_Acquisition/17204081> (‘Politics of Dogs’).
[116] Brealey, Victoria’s Puppy Farms (n 5), citing What is a Puppy Farm (n 12).
[117] For example, consumers may assume that pedigree dog breeds are inherently healthier pets, and that rescue dogs should be avoided as they are difficult to assimilate into a new family: see Brealey, Politics of Dogs (n 115) 66, 75–6.
[118] Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic) s 10A(1)(a) (‘Victorian Act’). Note that dogs deemed to be dangerous and restricted breed dogs cannot be registered with an LGA unless they are sterilised: see s 10A(4).
[119] Ibid s 10(1) specifies that an owner with an unregistered dog or cat over three months old will receive 20 penalty units.
[120] See ibid s 10B(1).
[121] See, eg, ‘Pet Sterilisation Program’, RSPCA (Web Page) <https://www.rspcawa.org.au/pet-sterilisation-program>.
[122] An applicable organisation is a membership-restricted breeding association. Each applicable organisation will have professional codes of practice which bind members: see, eg, ‘Code of Practice’, Dogs Victoria (Web Page) <https://dogsvictoria.org.au/members/members-area/members-resources/code-of-practice/>.
[123] Victorian Act (n 118) s 3(1) (definition of ‘microbreeder’).
[124] Ibid s 44B(1).
[125] Ibid ss 46, 63–63A. See, eg, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (Vic), Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses (Code of Practice, June 2018).
[126] Victorian Act (n 118) s 58AF.
[127] Ibid ss 58AA, 63–63A.
[128] Ibid s 3(1).
[129] See Western Australian Amendments (n 1) s 23 cl 26J(2)(c).
[130] See ibid s 23 cl 26I. The delegated legislation of an LGA may limit the number of dogs that can be kept at a singular property. For example, the City of Melville limits the number of dogs a person may keep on a premises within the City of Melville to two dogs over the age of three months and the offspring of those dogs under that age, unless an exemption to the limitation on the number of dogs kept is granted: see Western Australia, Western Australian Government Gazette, No 141, 11 August 2021, 3463.
[131] Standing Committee Inquiry (n 34) 27 (Mark Fraser, Pet Industry Association of Australia).
[132] Ibid.
[133] See Simone Anita Blackman, ‘The Role and Effectiveness of Regulation of Dog Breeding in Australia’ (PhD Thesis, University of Tasmania, December 2017) <https://eprints.utas.edu.au/31435/1/Bingham_whole_thesis.pdf> 269–71, 282–4.
[134] Standing Committee Inquiry (n 34) 4–5 (Matt Hams, Banksia Park Puppies).
[135] Victorian Act (n 118) ss 68M, 68X–67ZB.
[136] Ibid s 68U(1); Victoria, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 12 October 2016, 3763 (Jacinta Allan, Minister for Public Transport).
[137] If consent is given by the DAB proprietor or foster carer further information on the name of the relevant person or body, their telephone number and their email address may be given to inquiring consumers: see Victorian Act (n 118) ss 68U(2)(a), 68(2)(b), 68(2)(d).
[138] If consent is given by the recreational breeder further information on the name of the relevant person or body, their telephone number and their email address may be given to inquiring consumers: see ibid s 68U(2)(c).
[139] Ibid ss 63AAA, 63AAC.
[140] Ibid ss 63AAA, 63AAB.
[141] Ibid s 12B.
[142] Ibid s 12C.
[143] The definition of domestic animal business in the Victorian Act encompasses puppy and kitten brokerage practices by including enterprises which rear or keep dogs or cats for profit, sale, or a fee: see ibid s 3(1) (definition of ‘domestic animal business’).
[144] Ibid s 3(1) (definition of ‘foster care’).
[145] Ibid ss 15(4)(e), 15(4)(f), 63AAA, 68C.
[146] Standing Committee on the Economy and Infrastructure, Parliament of Victoria, Inquiry into the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016 (Hearing Transcript, 15 November 2016) 16.
[147] See generally EU Dog & Cat Alliance, Online Pet Sales in the EU: What’s the Cost? (Report, 18 June 2020).
[148] Ana Goncalves Costa et al, ‘Regulatory Compliance in Online Dog Advertisements in Australia’ (2020) 10(3) Animals 425, 426.
[149] Pearson (n 4).
[150] Goncalves Costa et al (n 148) 426.
[151] Western Australian Amendments (n 1) s 23 cl 26H.
[152] Cf Victorian Act (n 118) ss 68M, 68X–67ZB.
[153] Goncalves Costa et al (n 148) 438.
[154] Immanuel Kant, Lectures on Ethics, ed Jerome Schneewind, tr Peter Heath (Cambridge University Press, 1997) 212.
[155] Second Reading Speech (n 9) 1168a (John Carey, Minister for Local Government).
[156] Caitlin Fitzsimmons, ‘Dog Fight: The Battle Over a Bill to Stamp Out Intensive Puppy Mills’, The Sydney Morning Herald (online, 27 March 2022) <https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/dog-fight-the-battle-over-a-bill-to-stamp-out-intensive-puppy-mills-20220322-p5a6ru.html>.
[157] Second Reading Speech (n 9) 1168a (John Carey, Minister for Local Government). See also Western Australian Amendments (n 1) s 43 cl 54J.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/WAStuLawRw/2023/3.html