Animal shelters
Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (12:09): My question is for the Minister for Agriculture. Ahead of the election there has been a suggestion that the quarantine period in Victoria’s pounds and shelters should be reduced from eight days to three days. While I understand this could be viewed as a streamlining measure and a way to reduce disease, three days is often not enough time for a person to locate their companion animal. A shortened period could result in a much-loved family member being euthanised or rehomed before they are located by their person. People could be looking in the wrong location, be unable to take time off work on short notice, waiting for payday to pay the release fee or have a need to make travel arrangements. This change could also present an unfair disadvantage for Victorians who do not have English as a first language, who are elderly or disabled or who require assistance getting to a shelter or locating their missing friend. Does the government plan to reduce the quarantine period in Victoria’s pounds and shelters?
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education, Minister for Agriculture) (12:10): I thank Mr Meddick for his question. Before I get into the substantive answer can I just do a shout-out to those that do a lot of work—the staff and the volunteers—in the animal welfare sector. They do an amazing job day in and day out. So thank you for all of your hard work. Mr Meddick is quite correct. The holding period is eight days, and it is eight days for the reason of reunion but also in terms of curtailing disease.
I have also received a bit of email traffic in recent days, and I think a number of other people might have as well, from people that have been concerned about this issue of the holding period going from eight days to three days. I can assure the house that there is nothing that the government has before it in relation to this issue. I think what has happened is that the RSPCA Victoria’s 2022 election document has been circulated amongst the community—and so it should—and it has as one of its key election commitments or requirements to reduce it from eight days to three days. So I have been able to track the source, so to speak, Mr Meddick, as to exactly why I have been receiving these emails.
I reiterate that there is not anything before the government in respect of this. If there was to be a change, it would have to be through legislation, and of course with any proposal there would have to be intense stakeholder and community consultation in respect of it, and of course responsible pet ownership and animal welfare concerns would also have to be put into the mix. As I said—I underscore it—there is no proposal before the government. I think it is the RSPCA’s election document that has triggered the high level of emails that we have been receiving of late.
Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (12:12): Thank you, Minister, for that unequivocal answer. I know it will give many in the foster care network and the rescue network some real assurance that they have nothing really to fear there. The quarantine period is an issue that did arise during the Taskforce on Rehoming Pets that I chaired and handed down the final report for in May of this year. The government has supported all recommendations in principle from that report. When will they be implemented?
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education, Minister for Agriculture) (12:13): Yes, Mr Meddick, I am aware of the task force and the recommendations that were attached to it. The issue that you raised in your substantive question is actually contained in the section on ‘out of scope’, so it did not form part of the recommendations, as I understand it. But the point that you are really seeking is how advanced we are in respect of the planning and the implementation of the 17 recommendations. In the last budget, the most recent budget, there is $18.6 million allocated to animal welfare, so I think that the task force did a pretty mighty job in terms of securing moneys for the implementation of animal welfare in this state. Of that $18.6 million, I believe it is something in the order of $2.65 million that is directly associated with those recommendations.