Cat Management Amendment Bill 2019
Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, cats make wonderful pets and provide a great deal of joy and comfort to their owners. However, they are also excellent hunters, host to harmful cat-borne parasites and when uncontrolled, they are a source of community nuisance. Amending the Cat Management Act 2009 provides an invaluable opportunity to create a comprehensive and effective regulatory framework for cat management in Tasmania, a framework that applies across the state and builds consistency across all municipalities.
This bill goes quite some way to improving cat management effectiveness, and I welcome key aspects of the bill. Compulsory microchipping and desexing of all non-exempt breeding cats is very welcome, as is the requirement that all cats sold must be desexed prior to change of ownership. These requirements of responsible cat ownership will help to reduce the number of cats, and in particular the number of unwanted cats and kittens that end up as strays or feral cats. Domestic cats poorly managed are a source of all stray and feral cats, as we would note.
Preventing uncontrolled breeding of cats and stopping people giving away undesexed kittens will also ultimately impact on reducing the feral and stray cat numbers and reducing the negative impact these predators are having on our environment. It is very welcome progress on those matters. While the bill will not mitigate issues with existing feral cats, it will go some way towards reducing the number of cats that join them, which is a very good outcome.
In this bill, clarity on the number of cats allowed per household is very beneficial. I understand that complaints about multiple cats on a single property are a common issue for councils, so limiting households to four cats without a permit will support councils in managing these complaints. It will also reduce the health problems that can present to owners, the animal welfare concerns that can be associated with multiple cats and the nuisance issues that sometimes are caused by excessive cat numbers on properties.
Landowners too will benefit from the changes to the protection of primary production and private property from cats. Roaming domestic cats in Australia have been found to roam on average, from one hectare up to 31 hectares over several days. Being able to trap and seize, and in the case of primary producers, humanely destroy roaming cats on their property will assist property owners to undertake cat management actions on their land. I welcome that initiative.
However, while landowners have some redress with regard to problem cats on their property, cat owners are still not held responsible for allowing their cats to roam beyond their premises. The onus appears to be on the rest of the community to protect their property and wildlife, and their domestic property and other animals, from roaming cats. I note that the amended Cat Management Act is just a component of a comprehensive cat management program, which includes the Cat Management Plan 2017 to 2022. This plan includes three regional cat management coordinators and the rather entertaining and informative TassieCat website. These are excellent initiatives.
State and local governments agree more education with a greater focus on responsible cat ownership principles is necessary to increase community awareness and understanding of these matters. Education is fundamental. An understanding of responsible cat ownership and all that that entails is vital when it comes to cat management. I congratulate the entire Tasmanian Cat Management Reference Group and the 102 individuals and groups who made public submissions and contributed to the Tasmanian cat management plan.
As good as many aspects of this bill are, it does not go far enough, in my view. It falls short on the issue of containment, and therefore community members and property owners, who are currently impacted by roaming cats, will continue to be frustrated. Considerable destruction of native wildlife, including in specially reserved places, will also continue. The bill does not require cat owners to ensure their cat is contained and not roaming. This is the single thing that would most significantly reduce the problems that cats cause in our communities. Currently a cat is not required by law to be secured or restrained or prevented from being on a property without the consent of the property owner, the manager or the occupier. This bill, as it currently stands, does nothing to substantially progress that matter. That is disappointing.
Research clearly highlights that community education alone, while highly important, is not enough to motivate all cat owners to keep their cats at home. Mr President, we know in many areas of our lives that it is not enough to set a rule or requirement and expect people will comply with it simply because they have been educated to understand why that rule is there. We know that realistically there are many instances in which a consequence is needed to motivate compliance with a rule or requirement and to change behaviour in a way that can be relied upon.
There are many benefits to effective cat containment. Not only would our native wildlife be protected, but so would our much-loved pet cats. For instance, too many loved cats are run over on our roads. Containment would prevent this. Cats at large often get into fights. I know that personally. I have had cats that have been frequent fighters. They get in fights with other cats and with native wildlife, and that often results in infected wounds that can be potentially life-threatening, unpleasant to deal with, and expensive.
People may not be aware that when cats have wounds, you have to keep the wound open for it to heal well, which involves rather unpleasant arrangements.
Ms Forrest – You do need to keep them inside while that is happening.
Ms WEBB – Indeed. Contained cats have much less chance of contracting feline AIDS or toxoplasmosis, nor do they unwittingly spread diseases to native animals and livestock.
Mr President, importantly for neighbourhood relationships and cohesion, contained cats do not wander onto a neighbour’s property causing a nuisance or damage and the potential for neighbourhood disputes. When cats are contained, owners never have to worry about where their cat is and whether it is safe and whether it will be coming home that night.
Roaming cats are a real problem. Recent Australian research – in fact just from this year – reviewed 66 studies on predation rates by pet cats – not stray or feral cats – to estimate the predation toll across Australia. They estimated that 390 million animals are killed by domestic cats annually, including 241 million native animals. That figure includes small mammals, birds, lizards, insects and frogs. On average, this research found, a roaming pet cat kills 186 mammals, birds and reptiles each year, including 115 native animals.
Because pet cats live at much higher densities than feral cats, their predation rate per kilometre squared in residential areas is actually 28 to 52 times larger than the predation rates by feral cats in natural environments. It is domestic cats, it is our pet cats, that are the biggest killers, but only because we allow them to be so. The research I have just spoken about concluded that pet cats are capable of driving declines in local populations of native wildlife species.
A key recommendation was that cat prohibition should be considered in new residential developments that are close to areas of high conservation significance because they have the capacity to drive declines in native wildlife species in sensitive areas. Based on these predation rates, Mr President, it is estimated that at least 627 100 native animals are killed in the Kingborough municipality each year from domestic cats alone.
This municipality is of interest to me because my electorate of Nelson. The southern part of my electorate encapsulates the northern part of the Kingborough municipality, so it is a highly local issue for me and my constituents, and I am very keen to see a better result. Cats also spread the disease toxoplasmosis which is fatal to a number of Australian herbivores, including bandicoots, wombats, possums, wallabies, and also birds such as forest ravens.
I am sad to relate that in Kingborough an entire family of little penguins was killed in recent times by a roaming domestic cat – not a feral cat. Although the council knew who the cat’s owner was, they were unable to take any effective action against that owner under current legislation. Compare this to the actions we have recently seen put in place to protect little penguins from dog attacks. We acted decisively to ensure that form of domestic pet is either not able to roam, or if it does the owners are penalised effectively for that kind of predation.
There is another reason that cats are a real problem and that is the diseases they can carry. As wonderful as cats are as pets, it is estimated that 30 to 40 per cent of domestic cats worldwide carry toxoplasmosis and sarcocystosis. Along with other cat-borne diseases, this presents a risk to humans and is a costly problem for livestock production in Tasmania.
That can be spread by cats to livestock if the livestock consume feed or water that has been contaminated by infected cat faeces. Toxoplasmosis, the disease caused by a parasite t‑gondii, causes abortion in sheep, goats and pigs, and defects in their offspring. Young pigs can also get quite sick from the disease.
Two species of sarcocystis are spread to sheep in Tasmania, one via cats and the other via dogs. However, only the species spread by cats creates macroscopic cysts in the muscle tissue of sheep. The cysts look like grains of rice and cause that sheep meat to be condemned.
While infection is most common in Australia from feral cats, all cats can contract the parasites, especially if they roam and eat prey or scavenge.
The greatest impact on stock tends to occur on properties that border rural townships – so common in Tasmania – where numbers of feral cats are greatest. However, all farms are at risk as any cat that roams and scavenges can contract and spread the parasite. Prevalence of these parasites among sheep is higher in Tasmania than on the mainland, due to Tasmania’s moist climate and higher densities of domestic and feral cats on many sheep properties.
This leads to the accumulation of persistence of the parasite oocysts on pasture. Records indicate that both these parasites significantly impact on sheep production in Tasmania. Up to 40 per cent of meat losses due to the presence of sarcocystis in meat have been recorded and recent monitoring of a Tasmanian abattoir detected sarcocystis in 13.7 per cent of the carcasses.
Data from Animal Health Australia detected sarcocystis in approximately 6 to 21 per cent of Tasmanian adult sheep carcasses. One property that ran ewes in a small town in Tasmania had 118 of 354 sheep condemned. That is a fairly high proportion of the flock.
While recent prevalence data for t-gondii is not available, a 1974 Tasmanian study found 62 per cent of ewes tested positive. That is rather out of date, but I think it gives us an indication that it can be quite significant.
Game meats, including kangaroo and wallaby, can also be sources of t-gondii cysts. Toxoplasmosis can thus adversely impact on the game meat industry if that meat is not stored and cooked appropriately.
The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association – TFGA – in a submission in July this year to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Energy inquiry into the problem of feral and domestic cats in Australia reported that stock losses due to toxoplasmosis and sarcocystis are a significant problem for farmers and a real barrier for Tasmania to be able to reach its $10 billion target for agricultural production.
However, Tasmania has no routine sheep or game meat health monitoring program so the real impact of these parasites and their associated diseases is not known, and farmers may not be aware that their stock is contaminated.
An assessment on Kangaroo Island in South Australia that we can look to as an example found the annual cost to that island’s sheep graziers due to lost meat production from sarcocystis alone was between $2 million to $4 million.
There is a third way in which roaming cats are a real problem. Roaming domestic cats create significant public nuisance and community discord. Approximately 43 per cent of community complaints received each year by Kingborough Council’s cat management officer relate to nuisance caused by roaming domestic cats.
Roaming cats disturb other domestic cats and dogs. They defecate in neighbours yards. They fight with and kill neighbours’ pets and local wildlife. They spread toxoplasmosis to wildlife, to livestock and to humans, and they cause breakdowns in neighbour relations. The lack of recourse for those neighbours affected by roaming cats is an ongoing cause of community discord. In fact, in relation to this bill, I have had numerous contacts from community members who actually find this topic highly distressing, because it is a real problem in their lives to have roaming neighbourhood cats affecting their lives and their property.
Under current arrangements, and even under the improved amendments in this bill as presented, all the responsibility and effort isleft on the shoulders of those who are being impacted, those whose property is being damaged, those whose property is being invaded by roaming cats. It is the neighbour whose yard the cat roams into that must go to the expense and effort of trapping or seizing that cat which roams in their yard. That neighbour continues to be imposed upon for the effort and possible expense to either return the cat to the owner, if the owner is known, or to take the cat to a cat facility, all in that neighbour’s knowledge that they could have to do that all over again tomorrow, and that there is no penalty available for the owner of that cat, and no requirement that the owner actually takes responsibility for their pet.
It is like groundhog day for some neighbours. It comes with damage, with mess, with loss of life for wildlife that may frequent the garden and be a source of pleasure, and even a loss of life for other much-loved pets. I have had numerous reports in the course of consulting on this bill of loss of pets such as pet rabbits in backyards to roaming cats. That detriment of roaming cats is very clear, it is not in question. What we need to ask ourselves is: how does that balance against the drawbacks that may be presented by implementing compulsory containment or providing a legal framework at least in this first instance for compulsory containment?
The Government’s view is that the Tasmanian community, including local councils, are not ready and not willing to accept compulsory containment of cats. However, when I look at the available evidence, I find this to be a claim that is not supported. Looking at what we know about community sentiment in recent years, I have found that a 2013 Kingborough Council community survey of 406 people about responsible cat ownership found that at least 84 per cent of respondents supported restrictions on roaming cats. Of the cat owners surveyed, they made up about a quarter of the people overall who were surveyed, 45 per cent already contained their cats, at least to some extent.
In 2015-16 the Kingborough Council again surveyed Bruny Island residents and ratepayers and found that 81 per cent of people surveyed were in favour of cat containment, and 44 per cent of the cat owners already, to some extent, contained their cats. A 2016 survey of 1462 Tasmanians, of which nearly two-thirds were cat owners, was undertaken by the Tasmanian Conservation Trust. That survey found that 62 per cent of all respondents supported compulsory containment of cats to owners’ property, remembering two-thirds of those respondents were cat owners. Of the cat owners surveyed in that survey, 48 per cent of them already contained their cats to some degree.
A 2019 survey by the Tasmanian Cat Management Project, a statewide joint initiative, as we have heard, to support implementation of the Tasmanian Cat Management Plan, surveyed 344 people across the state, including 148 cat owners among that 344. The survey found that 47 per cent of respondents said roaming cats are a nuisance in their neighbourhood, that they have a personal experience of that nuisance and that 78 per cent supported compulsory containment. That was the state Government’s own survey. Of the cat owners in that survey, 42 per cent reported that they already keep their cats on their property at all times, and a further 35 per cent said they kept them contained at night.
The TFGA also surveyed its members, and found that over 95 per cent were very supportive of compulsory desexing and microchipping, and that 80 per cent of the members agreed for the need for cat containment. The claim that the community does not support this is a rather hollow one. What I think is that the message is quite loud and clear. This data demonstrates there is a strong community support for compulsory containment of cats and a high community understanding of the benefit that would ensue. Rather, what is missing is regulation catching up to community sentiment and providing incentive and appropriate support to make it happen. Without a penalty for breaches, there is a limited compliance and no incentive for cat owners to manage their cats’ behaviour fully. Without legislative support councils, groups with direct interest in cat management and conservation groups and communities themselves face an uphill battle to increase cat containment in the community through education alone.
Cost is often put forward as a drawback for compulsory containment. Arguments put forward cite cost as a reason not to include compulsory containment in this bill. It is claimed there will be significant costs associated with compulsory containment and complex challenges relating to statewide enforcement. It is plain fact that pets are expensive. There are costs associated with them. Anybody who has a pet would vouch for that. We know that pets require regular trips to the vet. We know that pets require regular care and attention. They require food. They sometimes require equipment. They sometimes require adjustments to our homes. The responsibility for pets is one that owners accept when they get them and it is an ongoing responsibility for the lifetime of that pet. If the regulations are clear and adequate time is given for transition, people will accept appropriate containment of cats as a cost of ownership, along with compulsorily microchipping and desexing just as we have already required with this bill.
Also argued is the cost to local governments that carry out compliance under the Cat Management Act. In the second reading speech the Leader is very clear that councils can choose to enforce all, some or none of the act according to their resources and in response to their communities’ needs. Councils would have no obligation for example to police at large cats. Individual councils determine their priorities under the Cat Management Act. However, councils wishing to would have from containment, if it were regulated, clear powers and appropriate penalties to act effectively. Regulating compulsory containment would also mean that councils would not have to use limited resources to develop and enforce their own by‑laws. Their cat management programs could be readily adapted and changed in line with the need, resources and the community support and attitude they find in their local area.
It is important to also consider in contrast the cost that is now being borne of not regulating to contain cats. I have already spoken on the costs to primary producers through some of the impacts from disease. I have talked about the cost in terms of wildlife loss in our general community and in our sensitive areas. There is also the cost in terms of property damage and the cost in terms of community and neighbourhood harmony.
I have spoken about the personal costs to families dealing with untimely loss of loved pets through road accidents and cat fights. These combined costs, this quantum of costs, that we are experiencing now in the absence of regulation in terms of containment, are significant. I would contend that they outweigh the total societal costs of confinements, both materially and also ethically.
As a result of this I will be moving some amendments to this bill if it goes through to the Committee stage. I acknowledge the leadership and the work over many years of Kingborough Council that has worked with me in relation to these amendments and provided much valuable input. It is the work and the leadership shown by Kingborough Council and the experience that it has gained through its processes so far that has informed the amendments.
I have a set of amendments that are short and to the point.
First, there is going to be a set of small amendments that are really very focused on councils, and these relate to cat protected areas, cat prohibited areas, and cat management areas.
Neither the current act, nor the proposed amendments in this bill as presented include penalties when owners of cats allow their cat to enter a cat prohibited area or who do not follow measures associated with a cat management area. I am moving some amendments that would allow for penalties to be applied for these actions when an owner allows their cat to enter a prohibited area or does not comply with measures in a cat management area.
At the moment, councils can only trap, seize or humanely destroy a cat found in a cat_prohibited area and they need to return it to the owner or take it to a cat management facility. Even if the council has evidence of where the cat resides, the council can only seize the cat and return it or humanely destroy it. They cannot actually deter the owner from allowing that to happen again, for the cat to be in the prohibited area.
That is why I am going to moving an amendment that sets a reasonable penalty for an owner allowing their cat to enter a cat protected area or for a person not complying with the measures of a declared cat management area, allowing their cat to go against those measures. At the moment the lack of such a penalty has been an ongoing issue, certainly for the Kingborough Council. In Kingborough, in the Boronia Beach cat prohibited area, for example, the council has failed to trap a cat that has been entering that cat protected area for years. There are photos of that particular cat on remote camera walking around the trap put there.
Ms Rattray – I think his name is Blackie.
Ms WEBB – There you go – Blackie. We in fact saw pictures of this cat in our briefing. At the moment, there is no deterrence for that cat owner, of that repeat offender in that prohibited area and, to emphasise, that prohibited area is a cat prohibited area because it has highly sensitive wildlife. There is no deterrent for the cat owner. It is a very time-consuming, frustrating and costly exercise for the council and certainly it is a highly damaging circumstance for the native wildlife in that area.
For the council to be able to say to that cat owner, for a cat entering a cat prohibited area, ‘It is now a fineable offence and you will be incurring a maximum penalty for that offence, so how about you keep your animal at home’, just to have that small stick to bring to bear alongside the education already been applied for many years, will allow the council to respond so much more effectively. In fact, the effectiveness of having a stick, to some extent incentivise compliance has been demonstrated already.
The Kingborough Council has noted it has seen a reduction in instances of people giving away undesexed kittens because there is now a penalty applied. This can be pointed out to people and used as part of and alongside education to help incentivise compliance. Again, in my community, the Kingborough Council could use the requirements proposed in the amendments I will put and their associated penalties in the case of roaming cats in the vicinity of other sensitive areas such as the Peter Murrell Reserve and adjacent council reserves – Coffee Creek, Algona and Huntingfield Avenue reserves.
These reserves are home to many birds and mammal species, including threatened species at high risk from predation and diseases spread by cats. Monitoring the reserves has consistently identified many domestic cats particularly close to areas of dense housing. The council would undertake the necessary community education before embarking on enforcing this provision and again require evidence from a complainant before they could act.
Importantly, the council can use the provision to help educate the public and encourage responsible pet cat ownership and in an area of such high conservation value. As I said, councils will not automatically have to manage cats or be obligated to carry out compliance work, for which they do not have the resources. Those particular amendments just provide the council with the option to act if and when it is relevant to do so in relation to those cat protection prohibited areas and cat management areas.
I will mention briefly my other proposed amendment , which is a broader one and is to do with compulsory containment. It will mean people will need to make sure their cat is not in public areas or on private areas that do not belong to them and not under effective control. That is effectively what it is. It does not dictate how people go about that, it just means there would a consequence if cats roamed. This will again sit alongside education. It sits there as an opportunity for councils, where relevant, to pick it up and use it as a consistent, statewide understanding of how such things could be responded to. Councils will not be obligated to go out and in some active way enforce such a provision. We will talk about that more no doubt, if I have the opportunity to bring the amendment.
The amendment does not mean councils will be out patrolling the street in vans, picking up cat’s willy-nilly off the streets. In some ways this means not being a requirement that would mean councils have to be out actively enforcing. It provides a way to respond when an issue or a problem has been identified, when a complaint has been made. A lot of the time that is the way we establish rules and consequences to breaking rules in our community. We do not actively go out there and make sure everyone is following it. What we do is, when it is identified someone has broken that rule, we respond then with the penalty, or with at least interaction around the fact there is a penalty there and perhaps the person would like to change their behaviour.
To provide one example – it is not particularly similar, but represents the principle – we set speed limits on our roads. That does not mean we have police on every road making sure every driver is driving that limit and no more. We do not do that. We are all out driving every day and no-one is checking or enforcing we are following the speed limit. But what we do is put measures in place to be able to identify times at which people might not be following the speed limit. We have speed limit checks in relation to particular areas or particular circumstances. We check in on it when there is an issue. We respond then with a penalty or a consequence.
Enforcement of a regulation such as this is not about resource-intensive, time-consuming and really forceful enforcement that imposes something. It is about having an opportunity to respond. It is about people understanding there is a consequence. It goes alongside education and understanding and provides that avenue for response. That is what I encourage people to think about when we are talking about this and when they hear comments about the enormous cost of enforcement and things like that. It actually does not have to be that – it can be a modest cost of enforcement used as a response by those councils who choose to, in circumstances they have deemed locally relevant.
These amendments will offer additional tools. They will be available to us to prevent situations we have seen occurring and will continue to occur, even when this bill, with the many good things it contains is put in place. Things like that little penguin colony and the destruction caused there, things like the property damage caused or the livestock disease that spread. The proposed amendments allow councils to participate in enforcement or phase in enforcement, even as their resources and commitment permit. It may be a council decides they currently do not have the dedicated resources to address particular sorts of cat complaints, but in two years’time they may be in a position to do so. Establishing an opportunity in this legislation allows for that to happen where relevant.
I am well aware individual councils have the ability to make by-laws to enable local cat management action. However, we need to understand that developing by-laws is a resource- and time -intensive process. Many members with local government experience would be well aware of this issue. It requires considerable resourcing to develop and put in place by-laws, and it can create an unrealistic community expectation as a result. Certainly, in Kingborough Council’s experience the development of its Bruny Island cat by-law was only possible because Kingborough chose to make it a priority, had a dedicated cat management officer and external funding support. The process took more than five years. It involved significant community consultation, reporting to the council, development of an implementation plan and supporting policies and procedures, and securing grants and partnerships to facilitate compliance and enable implementation. It is onerous and it is costly, particularly for smaller councils.
In addition, and as we can see if we look to South Australia, different by-laws across different communities can lead to inconsistencies and confusion in the community. Simple changes to this legislation would readily empower councils to act when and where appropriate within their resource capacity, and in a way that effectively builds their confidence in cat management. The state Government needs to provide that opportunity in this legislation so that it can be applied and used as a resource in those local communities where it is relevant and appropriate. It is a way to support local government.
I support this bill and many of the measures in it which are excellent progress towards more integrated and effective cat management in the state. I will be asking members to consider and support amendments, if we get to Committee stage, that will allow the legislation to be more effective and able to be applied well in local areas.
Amendments proposed to the Cat Management Amendment Bill and Council Vote
Clause 16 Amendments proposed. (Ms Webb)
Clause 16
First amendment
Page 28, proposed new section 19, before “A council may”.
Insert “(1)”.
Second amendment
Same page, same proposed new section, at the foot of the section.
Insert the following subsection:
(2) Except as otherwise prescribed, the owner of a cat must not –
(a) take the cat into a prohibited area; or
(b) take an action that enables the cat to enter into a prohibited area.
Penalty: Fine not exceeding 20 penalty units.
And the Question put, That the Amendments be agreed to,
Committee divided.
|
AYES 4 |
NOES 8 |
|
Ms Armitage Mr Gaffney (Teller) Mr Valentine Ms Webb |
Mr Dean Ms Forrest Mrs Hiscutt Ms Howlett Ms Lovell Ms Palmer Dr Seidel (Teller) Mr Willie |
|
Pair: Ms Rattray |
Pair: Ms Siejka |
NEW Clause A
To follow clause 8.
- Part 2A inserted
After section 11 of the Principal Act, the following Part is inserted:
Part 2A – Registration of Cats
11A. Registration of cats
(1) The owner of a cat that is more than 6 months of age must register the cat.
Penalty: Fine not exceeding 5 penalty units.
(2) A person must not evade registration of a cat by –
(a) concealing the cat; or
(b) disposing of the cat, other than in accordance with this Act.
Penalty: Fine not exceeding 5 penalty units.
11B. Application for registration
(1) The owner of a cat that is required to be registered is to apply for registration to the general manager of the council for the municipal area in which the cat is to be kept.
(2) An application to be registered is to –
(a) be in an approved form; and
(b) be accompanied by a registration fee, if any; and
(c) include the number recorded on any microchip implanted in the cat.
11C. Registration tag
(1) On the registration of a cat, the general manager is to –
(a) allocate a registration number to the cat; and
(b) issue to the owner a tag that is clearly and durably marked with –
(i) the name of the council; and
(ii) the registration number of the cat; and
(iii) the expiry date of the registration.
(2) A registration tag is valid until the expiry date marked on the registration tag.
(3) A person must not –
(a) use a registration tag that is not valid; or
(b) use a registration tag issued in respect of another cat; or
(c) counterfeit a registration tag or knowingly use a counterfeit registration tag; or
(d) remove a registration tag from a cat without just cause.
Penalty: Fine not exceeding 3 penalty units.
11D. Cat must wear collar
(1) The owner or person in charge of a cat must ensure that the cat, while not at the premises at which the cat is usually kept, has a collar fastened around its neck to which is attached the cat’s registration tag.
Penalty: Fine not exceeding one penalty unit.
(2) This section does not apply to a cat when it is being shown as part of a cat show.
(3) A person, without just cause, must not remove a collar from a cat that is not at the premises at which the cat is usually kept.
Penalty: Fine not exceeding 2 penalty units.
11E. Cancellation of registration
(1) The owner of a registered cat must notify the general manager, of the council for the municipal area in which the cat is registered, in writing within 14 days after –
(a) the cat’s death, loss or removal; or
(b) beginning to usually keep the cat on premises in another municipal area.
Penalty: Fine not exceeding one penalty unit.
(2) The general manager, if satisfied of the truth of the notification, is to –
(a) cancel the registration of the cat; and
(b) in the case of a cat beginning usually to be kept by its owner on premises in another municipal area, notify the general manager of the council for that municipal area of the cancellation.
11F. Change in details of registration
(1) A person who becomes the owner of a cat that is already registered must, within 14 days after becoming the owner, notify the general manager, for the council for the municipal area in which the cat is registered, in writing of the transfer of ownership.
Penalty: Fine not exceeding one penalty unit.
(2) If a transfer of ownership of a registered cat occurs, the former owner of the cat, within 14 days after the transfer, must notify the general manager, for the council for the municipal area in which the cat is registered, in writing of the transfer of ownership.
Penalty: Fine not exceeding 1 penalty unit.
(3) The owner of a cat is to notify the general manager, of the council for the municipal area in which the cat is registered, in writing within 14 days after beginning to usually keep the cat at another address in the same municipal area.
11G. Council to keep register
(1) A general manager is to keep a register in respect of registered cats.
(2) The register is to state –
(a) the name, age, sex and reproductive capacity of the cat; and
(b) the breed of the cat, if identifiable; and
(c) any identifiable feature of the cat; and
(d) the owner’s name and address; and
(e) the registration number of the cat allocated under ; and
(f) the number recorded on any microchip implanted in the cat; and
(g) any other information that the general manager considers relevant.
Committee divided.
|
AYES 4 |
NOES 9 |
|
Mr Gaffney (Teller) Ms Rattray Mr Valentine Ms Webb |
Ms Armitage Mr Dean Ms Forrest Mrs Hiscutt (Teller) Ms Howlett Ms Lovell Ms Palmer Dr Seidel Mr Willie |
So it passed in the Negative.
New Clause A [Section 16E inserted] brought up (Ms Webb) and read the First time as follows:⎯
A. Section 16E inserted
Before section 17 of the Principal Act, the following section is inserted in Part 4:
(3) In this section –
“at large”, in relation to a cat, means that the cat is –
(a) in a public place and not restrained or secured; or
(b) on private premises without the consent of the occupier;
“restrained” means enclosed in a container suitable for the transport of cats;
“secured”, in relation to a cat, means that the cat is attached to a lead not more than 2 metres long that is –
(a) held by hand by a person able to control the cat; or
(b) tethered to a fixed object.
(4) The owner of a cat must not allow a cat to be at large.
Penalty: Fine not exceeding 5 penalty units.
Question proposed, that new Clause A be now read the Second time.
Committee divided.
|
AYES 4 |
NOES 9 |
|
Mr Gaffney (Teller) Ms Rattray Mr Valentine Ms Webb |
Ms Armitage Mr Dean (Teller) Ms Forrest Mrs Hiscutt Ms Howlett Ms Lovell Ms Palmer Dr Seidel Mr Willie |
So it passed in the Negative. Title agreed to.
Bill to be reported without Amendment.
