Queensland Bills Explanatory Notes Queensland Bills Explanatory Notes[Index] [Search] [Download] [Bill] [Help]
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and
Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Explanatory Notes
Short title
The short title of the Bill is the Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other
Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 (the Bill).
Policy objectives and the reasons for them
Amendment of Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (AMCD Act)
Significant animal welfare issues can arise if breeding dogs and their progeny are housed
and/or managed in conditions that fail to meet the dogs' behavioural, social, psychological
and/or physiological needs.
The objective of the amendments to the AMCD Act is to identify and locate breeders so that
existing powers under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (ACP Act) can be used to
shut down cruel 'puppy farms' (where breeders place profit ahead of the welfare of dogs) and
protect dogs from cruelty.
It has been estimated that there may be up to 100 puppy farms in Queensland. The biggest
barrier to shutting down cruel puppy farms has been the inability to locate these unscrupulous
breeders.
The proposed amendments to the AMCD Act are based on the Government's election
commitment, Protecting puppies - Labor's plan to shut down cruel puppy farms, to establish
a compulsory registration scheme for dog breeders. The amendments are also informed by the
results of public and targeted stakeholder consultation in mid-2015. Consultation resulted in a
more comprehensive breeder registration scheme being proposed than that originally
envisaged in Labor's policy paper. There was strong community support for compulsory
registration for all dog breeders. There was also strong support for the display of the breeder
registration ID number in advertisements and recording of the breeder registration ID number
against the dog's microchip.
Amendment of ACP Act
The objective of the Bill with regard to the amendment of the ACP Act is to clarify the
offence of keeping or using an animal as a kill or lure for blooding or coursing a dog.
Page 1
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Amendment of Biosecurity Act 2014 (Biosecurity Act)
The objectives of the Bill with regard to the amendments to the Biosecurity Act are to:
align terminology and definitions of material prohibited from being fed to ruminants
and pigs and poultry with nationally aligned and commonly understood terms and
provide a system for timely exceptions to such material to be made;
clarify the correct instrument for which a person should apply when they seek to
move particular biosecurity materials or a carrier that are the subject of biosecurity
zone regulatory provisions;
reduce the regulatory impost on keepers of 100 or more aviary birds;
provide for restrictions to be imposed on designated animals, designated biosecurity
matter and designated places which can operate independently of each other;
provide for more limited and targeted release of information on registers;
afford review rights to recipients of biosecurity orders;
reflect changes in the risk posed by some pests and diseases since the passage of the
Act; and
make minor technical amendments.
Achievement of policy objectives
Amendment of AMCD Act
The Bill will achieve its objectives principally by requiring a person who breeds a dog to
register as a breeder (if they are not already registered as a breeder) within 28 days after the
day the dog is born, unless they have a reasonable excuse. A person who registers as a
breeder will be issued a 'breeder ID number'.
There will be exemptions to the registration obligations where the breeder is:
an accredited breeder of an approved entity;
they are a primary producer who bred a dog from a working dog for the purpose of
using the dog as a working dog or supplying the dog to another primary producer to
use as a working dog; or
the person is a member of a prescribed class of persons.
The Bill will provide that the Minister may prescribe an approved entity if the Minister is
satisfied that the entity conducts an accreditation scheme for persons who breed dogs, gives a
unique identifying number to each accredited person (their 'accreditation number'), and is able
and willing to give the chief executive information about its accredited breeders.
The Bill will also achieve its objectives by regulating the supply, and advertising for the
supply, of dogs by requiring (unless there is a reasonable excuse) that:
a dog must not be supplied or advertised for supply unless there is a relevant supply
number for the dog (either the breeder ID number, or the person's accreditation
number or the unique reference number given interstate (if the person is a recognised
interstate breeder) or an exemption number); and
the relevant supply number must be:
included in the advertisement
recorded against the dog's PPID (microchip); and
given to a person who receives the dog.
Page 2
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
These minor impositions on those who supply and advertise dogs for supply will help identify
(by exception) dogs that are being bred and supplied outside the breeder registration scheme.
Also the PPID information on breeders will provide valuable information that can be
examined to target monitoring activities.
A person will be exempted from these obligations on those who supply or advertise dogs for
supply if they are a person who is a primary producer who breeds a dog from a working dog
and advertises the dog for supply only to a primary producer to be used as a working dog.
There are also some existing exemptions from microchipping requirements under the AMCD
Act (a government entity dog, working dogs, or other prescribed classes of dogs) and these
are reflected in exemptions from the requirement to record the supply number for the dog
against its microchip.
Mandatory dog breeder registration, supported by provision of breeder identification in
advertising and at the time of supply and recording breeder identification against the PPID,
will be an effective means of identifying dog breeders. Once the location of the breeders is
known the existing powers under the ACP Act are considered to be sufficient to enable action
to be taken about the welfare of dogs.
To reflect these amendments and their purpose, the Bill will also include the promotion of
responsible breeding of dogs as an additional purpose of the AMCD Act. It will also expand
the ways that the purposes of the AMCD Act can be achieved, by including the imposition of
registration obligations on dog breeders, regulating the supply of dogs including
advertisements for the supply of dogs, and the sharing of information about dog breeders with
particular agencies and entities that are responsible for animal welfare.
Amendment of ACP Act
The Bill will achieve its objective with regard to the amendment of the ACP Act by clarifying
that the offence related to 'blooding' a dog applies where an animal is kept or used as a kill or
a lure to give a dog its first taste or sight of blood without being limited to giving a dog its
first taste or sight of blood.
Amendment of Biosecurity Act
The Bill will achieve its objectives with regard to the amendment of the Biosecurity Act by:
amending the terminology and definitions for restricted animal material and
prohibited feed for pigs and poultry such that they are in alignment with agreed
national definitions and exceptions to the definitions can be prescribed by regulation;
clarifying under what circumstances a person may not be granted a biosecurity
instrument permit;
removing the registration requirement for owners of 100 or more aviary birds that
present comparatively low risk of avian disease transmission and amending the
terminology to more appropriately describe those birds;
inserting new and amended provisions which provide for inclusion of, compliance
with and removal of entries on the biosecurity register for restricted places, restricted
animals and restricted biosecurity matter;
Page 3
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
amending provisions prescribing what information the chief executive must keep on
the biosecurity register and what information may be disclosed or published;
requiring an authorised officer to provide an information notice when they issue a
biosecurity order, thus triggering review rights for the recipient;
amending the schedules of prohibited and restricted matter; or
making other minor amendments.
Alternative ways of achieving policy objectives
Amendment of AMCD Act
The following options were considered against the objective of identifying and locating
breeders so that cruel puppy farms can be shut down and dogs can be protected from cruelty:
mandatory registration of ALL dog breeders (with provision for specific exemptions),
plus mandatory display of breeder identification in advertising and at point of sale, with
breeder identification recorded against the microchip;
mandatory registration of breeders with 20 or more dogs, with breeder identification
requirements as above; or
retaining the status quo.
The first option (which is reflected in the Bill) - compulsory registration of all dog breeders
(unless specifically exempt), along with mandatory display of breeder identification in
advertising and at point of sale, and recording breeder identification against the microchip -
would provide an effective means of identifying puppy farms. In most respects, it is
consistent with the policy paper Protecting puppies - Labor's plan to shut down cruel puppy
farms released by the Queensland Labor Party in December 2014.
A state wide scheme capturing all those who breed a dog is proposed as the most effective
way of ensuring the welfare of dogs used for breeding and their progeny, coupled with a
strong public awareness campaign. Importantly, an online survey conducted in August-
September 2015 and stakeholder consultation revealed strong public support for an inclusive
registration scheme applying to all or most breeders.
Mandatory microchipping already applies to all dogs (except a government entity dog,
working dogs, or other prescribed classes of dogs) from 12 weeks of age or when supplied (if
earlier). The proposal involves adding one field to the permanent identification device data
already required to be included in the microchip registry database against that PPID. The
cost to record the additional microchip registration data would be minimal, and is estimated
to be about $0.60c per puppy. Similar information is expected to be required for breeder
registration schemes in other jurisdictions.
Very preliminary estimates suggest the proposed regulation of dog breeders (not including
registration fees which are not proposed to be charged for approximately two years - see
Estimated cost for government implementation below) would add only a few dollars to the
cost of a puppy if all the breeders costs (including registration procedures and amending
advertisements to include breeder identification) were passed on to purchasers. Puppies
generally sell for several hundred dollars each.
Page 4
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
The second option is generally similar to the first option above including a compulsory state-
wide breeder registration scheme. However, in contrast to the first option, the breeder
registration scheme would apply only to dog breeders who hold 20 dogs so imposes a
regulatory burden on fewer persons.
There appears to be no evidence that the number of dogs kept by breeders is in itself a factor
which determines animal welfare outcomes of breeding animals or their puppies. There is just
as much potential for animal cruelty in circumstances where breeders have fewer than 20
dogs. Crucially, a public awareness campaign urging consumers to buy only from registered
breeders could be compromised if many breeders (those with less than 20 dogs) were not
required to be registered. As a result, limiting the scope of the breeder registration scheme to
breeders with 20 or more dogs could risk compromising the effectiveness of the scheme, and
this approach is therefore regarded as far less effective than the first option.
Retaining the status quo would impose no new regulation and no new costs on government,
breeders or purchasers of puppies. However this option would fail to meet the policy
objective of shutting down cruel puppy farms. Without a breeder registration scheme, puppy
farms and other unscrupulous breeders would continue to operate undetected, resulting in the
continuation of irresponsible animal management practices and adverse impacts on animal
welfare.
Amendment of ACP Act and Biosecurity Act
Amendment of the schedules in the Biosecurity Act in relation to prohibited matter and
restricted matter will reflect changes in the risk posed by some pests and diseases since the
passage of that Act. Although the Biosecurity Act provides that a regulation or declaration
can be made about prohibited matter and a regulation may be made about restricted matter,
these powers can only be exercised in certain circumstances. The circumstances do not exist
for the pests and diseases proposed to be listed as prohibited matter and restricted matter by
the Bill.
Legislative amendment is the only way to achieve the objectives of the other miscellaneous
amendments to the ACP Act and the Biosecurity Act.
Estimated cost for government implementation
Amendment of AMCD Act
Estimation of costs for a breeder registration scheme are necessarily very approximate,
particularly because there is limited information available about the number of dog breeders
in Queensland and it is not known how many breeders would not be required to register direct
because they are accredited breeders of an approved entity (which provides relevant breeder
details to the chief executive).
As a very preliminary estimate, the cost of establishment and operation of the government's
online breeder registration system with public interface has been estimated at approximately
$250,000 - $300,000 plus ongoing maintenance of about $2,000 per month. It is estimated
two full time equivalent officers would be required initially, dropping back to one officer, to
Page 5
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
look after the database, respond to public enquiries, and deal with any operational policy
matters.
A strong public awareness program to advise the public not to purchase or accept puppies
unless from a registered breeder will be an essential part of the scheme to identify cruel
puppy farms and other unscrupulous breeders. A comprehensive public awareness campaign
is proposed, including direct mail, social media, advertisements, media engagement (press
releases and interviews), printed information, attendance at stakeholder meetings, forums and
expos, and partnering with key industry bodies and enforcement agencies. It is estimated the
education and awareness campaign would require a budget of approximately $150,000.
The cost of establishment and operation of the state wide dog breeder registration scheme,
including the education and awareness campaign will be met from the existing budget
allocation to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF) as animal welfare is core
business.
It is proposed that no breeder registration fees would be charged for approximately two
financial years from the proposed commencement (i.e. no fees before 1 July 2018). This will
help to encourage registration and compliance with the scheme. If registration fees are
considered in the future to assist in cost recovery, then any registration fees would be the
subject of public consultation, including a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS).
In terms of compliance, local governments are currently responsible for regulating the
registration, identification and supply of dogs within their areas in accordance with the
provisions of the AMCD Act. The AMCD Act allows a local government to conduct an
inspection program to monitor compliance with the Act; this would allow the identification of
non-compliant breeders as well as the existing dog registration and other dog management
requirements.
However, it is envisaged DAF and RSPCA Qld would provide support for these activities,
and the inspection program could be incorporated into a strategic multi-agency agreement
between local government, DAF and RSPCA Qld to minimise the regulatory burden on each
organisation. DAF and RSPCA Qld officers, appointed under the ACP Act as inspectors
and/or authorised officers, would continue to be responsible for ensuring the welfare of dogs
used for breeding and their progeny.
In the short to medium term, there could be a spike in enforcement costs under the ACP Act
if an increased number of puppy farms are identified that have unacceptable animal welfare.
It is not possible to quantify these costs, but costs may be significant in terms of
investigations, prosecutions and expenses caring for animals seized from puppy farms while
legal proceedings are brought against the owners. For example, in 2008-09, 12 large-scale
puppy farms were investigated by animal welfare inspectors in Queensland and more than
750 dogs were rescued. RSPCA Qld and the State Government incurred millions of dollars in
expenses caring for animals seized from these puppy farms while legal proceedings were
brought against the respective owners. For example, in one case involving 104 dogs seized
from a puppy farmer, RSPCA Qld incurred costs of almost $1.8 million in boarding and
veterinary expenses with pro bono legal support valued at over $500,000.
Page 6
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
However, in the longer term, as the breeder registration scheme is implemented and public
awareness about the need for breeder identification becomes widespread, these costs should
reduce, as puppy farms are progressively identified and closed down.
Miscellaneous amendments of ACP Act and Biosecurity Act
DAF may incur some additional costs in undertaking internal reviews as a consequence of
giving information notices for biosecurity orders which will trigger review rights under the
Biosecurity Act. Similarly, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) may
incur some additional costs reviewing internal review decisions. However, the volume of
applications for review and hence the costs, is likely to be extremely low.
The costs to government arising from other miscellaneous amendments to the ACP Act and
the Biosecurity Act will be minimal.
All costs related to these amendments will be funded from existing budget allocations.
Consistency with fundamental legislative principles
The Bill has been drafted with due regard to the fundamental legislative principles (FLPs) as
defined in section 4 of the Legislative Standards Act 1992 (LSA). Potential breaches of FLPs
are addressed below.
Part 3 of the Bill - amendment of AMCD Act
Legislation should have sufficient regard to rights and liberties of individuals
Legislation should not, without sufficient justification, unduly restrict ordinary activity
- LSA s4(2)(a)
Clause 11 - New offences
section 43E (Registration obligation)
section 43Z (Supplier must know dog has relevant supply number)
section 43ZB (Advertiser must know dog has relevant supply number)
section 43ZC (Advertisement must include relevant supply number)
section 43ZF (Supplier of dog must give particular details)
These provisions require that anyone (other than the exempted persons such as accredited
breeders) who breeds a dog must be a registered breeder, and whoever supplies, or advertises
to supply a dog must have and provide details of the supply number (generally the breeder ID
number) in advertisements, and must have the supply number recorded against the dog's
microchip.
Breeding dogs and supplying them to others could be considered an ordinary activity which is
restricted by the obligations in the proposed amendments. Further, the Office of Queensland
Parliamentary Council's publication Fundamental Legislative Principles: the OQPC
Notebook states on page 118, "Regulation of business, although prolific, is an interference in
a right to conduct business in the way in which the persons involved consider appropriate.
Page 7
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Therefore the potential FLP issue is whether the legislation unduly restricts ordinary activity
without sufficient justification; the right to conduct business without interference; and a
statutory imposition of condition on advertising. The restrictions are justified, however,
because the new offence provisions in clause 10 are the means of identifying and locating
dog breeders to enable the monitoring of the welfare of dogs that are involved:
Proposed section 43E- The requirement to register as a registered breeder is justified
because it is an effective means of identifying puppy farms. Puppy farms and other
unscrupulous breeders are not easy to identify - currently identification of animal
welfare issues related to problem puppy farms rely on complaints from the public.
Once the location of puppy farms is known, existing powers under the ACP Act
should be sufficient to enable action to be taken about the welfare of dogs and
puppies. Registration is not required if the dog that has been bred dies within 28 days
after it is born.
Proposed section 43Z - The requirement to microchip any dog supplied already
applies. These additional requirements - that a person cannot supply a dog unless
there is a relevant supply number, and the relevant supply number is included in the
PPID information kept for the dog under section 36 - are justified because they help
identify (by exception) dogs that are being bred and supplied outside the breeder
registration scheme. Also the PPID information on breeders will provide valuable
information that can be examined to target monitoring activities. For example, it will
show the number of puppies being bred by each registered breeder.
Proposed section 43ZB - The requirements that a dog cannot be advertised for supply
unless there is a relevant supply number for the dog and that the relevant supply
number must be included in the PPID information kept for the dog under section 36,
are justified because they will assist in identifying (by exception) dogs that are being
bred and supplied outside the breeder registration scheme. Also the PPID information
on breeders will also provide valuable information that can be examined to target
monitoring activities. For example, it will show the number of puppies being bred by
each registered breeder.
Proposed section 43ZC - The requirement that a person who advertises a dog for
supply must include in the advertisement the relevant supply number for the dog
unless the person has a reasonable excuse is justified because it will assist in
identifying (by exception) dogs that are being bred and supplied outside the breeder
registration scheme.
Proposed section 43ZF - The requirement that a person who supplies a dog to another
person must give the other person in writing the relevant supply number for the dog,
and the supplier's name (or the employer's or principal's name if the supplier is an
agent or employee of a business supplying dogs) is justified because it will assist in
locating the suppliers and breeders by enabling members of the public to check that
the breeder has been appropriately identified through registration and, if not, enable
members of the public to identify them to the government for investigation for the
purposes of ensuring the integrity of the registration scheme which is directed at
protecting the welfare of dogs and puppies.
Page 8
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Legislation should have sufficient regard to rights and liberties of individuals including
the right to privacy and confidentiality - LSA s4(2)(a)
Clause 16 - New section 172E (Breeder register)
The potential FLP issue is that the section breaches the principle that legislation should have
sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals including the right to privacy and
confidentiality because the chief executive may publish personal details in the breeder
register on the department's website.
The details intended for publication will be restricted to the person's name, the person's
breeder ID number and or accreditation number, the period for which the person is registered
or accredited, the local government area in which the person's place of residence is located
and either the person's contact telephone number or email address as decided by the breeder.
Publication of these details is justified so that a potential receiver of a dog can confirm that
the person supplying a dog is the registered breeder of the dog. This will assist members of
the public to decide whether or not to receive a dog based on whether or not the supplier is
registered.
There will be no public access to residential addresses and proposed section 173C provides
that if the chief executive is satisfied that the personal safety of a person would be at risk, a
person's details will not be publically available either on the breeder register or in a copy of
information from the breeder register.
Consequences imposed by legislation should be proportionate and relevant to the
actions to which the consequences are applied by the legislation - whether the penalties
are of an appropriate level - LSA s4(2)(a)
Clause 11 - Part 2 New offences
section 43E (Registration obligation)
section 43Z (Supplier must know dog has relevant supply number)
section 43ZB (Advertiser must know dog has relevant supply number)
section 43ZC (Advertisement must include relevant supply number)
section 43ZF (Supplier of dog must give particular details)
The potential FLP issue is whether the penalties are of an appropriate level because these new
offences impose a relatively high maximum penalty of 50 penalty units. The maximum
penalty is justified because an up to date record of persons breeding and the identification of
persons supplying puppies and dogs is essential for locating breeders for monitoring
purposes. Locating breeders is the pre-requisite for closing down cruel puppy farms.
The proposed penalty of 50 penalty units for failing to register as a breeder compares with the
maximum penalty of 20 penalty units for failing to register a dog with a local government
under the AMCD Act. However, this is appropriate because it reflects that dog registration is
directed at animal management compared to breeder registration which is directed at animal
welfare.
Page 9
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Use of information for a purpose other than under the Act under which it was obtained
- LSA s4(2)(a)
Clause 26 - New section 207C (Use of information by particular persons)
The section allows information obtained by persons under proposed sections 173B or 207B to
be used when performing any function under the AMCD Act or ACP Act including
monitoring and enforcement, or if the person is a police officer or an authorised officer under
the Racing Integrity Act 2015 in relation to an animal or an animal welfare offence. The
potential FLP issue is whether there is sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of a person
whose information is able to be used for a purpose other than under the AMCD Act. The use
of the information is justified because its use is restricted to purposes dealing with matters
related to animals and animal welfare and it will allow for improved detection and
investigation of animal welfare offences.
Legislation makes rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative only
if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review- LSA s4(3)(a)
Clause 11 - New section 43G (Registration of person as registered breeder)
The potential FLP issue is whether the administrative power is subject to appropriate review
because there is no requirement for the chief executive to give an information notice to an
applicant. This is justified on the basis that there will be minimal requirements for the
registration of a person as a registered breeder and there is no real discretion afforded to the
chief executive that warrants an information notice. Any person, other than an ineligible
person, may apply to the chief executive to be registered. An ineligible person is clearly
defined in section 43D. If an application accords with proposed section 43F - that is the
person is not an ineligible person, such as a minor, and the application is made in the
prescribed manner - then under proposed section 43G the chief executive must register the
person as a registered breeder.
Legislation is consistent with the principles of natural justice - LSA s4(3)(b)
Clause 11 - New section 43U (Immediate suspension)
The potential FLP issue is whether the legislation is consistent with the principles of natural
justice because the chief executive may suspend registration as a registered breeder
immediately. This immediate suspension power is necessary and its exercise will be limited
to circumstances where the chief executive believes a ground exists to suspend the
registration because there is an immediate and serious risk to the welfare of dogs or harm to
the effectiveness of the registration.
Appropriate safeguards will ensure that the process as a whole affords natural justice. The
suspension would take effect when the person is given an information notice for the decision
(triggering provisions that allow an application to be made for a stay or review of the
decision) and a show cause notice. The suspension ceases to operate if the chief executive
cancels the remaining period of suspension, or the show cause notice is finally dealt with, or
28 days after the notices have been given to the person, whichever is the earliest.
Page 10
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Legislation does not reverse the onus of proof in criminal proceedings without adequate
justification - LSA s4(3)(d)
Clause 11 - New section 43Y (Supplier must ensure cat or dog is implanted)
The potential FLP issue is whether the legislation reverses the onus of proof in criminal
proceedings without adequate justification because section 43Y imposes an additional matter
for a defendant to prove in the defence for the offence of supplying a dog that is not
implanted with a PPID. This requirement is justified because there are no means of
identifying and locating breeders if the dog, when supplied, does not have a PPID.
Clause 11 - New offences
section 43E (Registration obligation)
section 43Z (Supplier must know dog has relevant supply number) and 43ZA
(Exceptions for supply of dog)
section 43ZB (Advertiser must know dog has relevant supply number) and 43ZD
(Exceptions for advertising supply of dog)
section 43ZC (Advertisement must include relevant supply number) and 43ZD
(Exceptions for advertising supply of dog)
section 43ZF (Supplier of dog must give particular details)
The potential FLP issue in relation to these new offence provisions is whether the legislation
reverses the onus of proof in criminal proceedings without adequate justification. The offence
provisions provide that a person does not commit an offence if the offence provision cannot
be satisfied in the prescribed circumstances. The person would bear the onus of proof that the
relevant prescribed circumstances existed. The reversal of the onus of proof is justified
because they involve matters which would be within the defendant's knowledge and/or on
which evidence would be available to them.
Clause 25 - New section 199A (Evidentiary aid - certificate by chief executive)
The potential FLP issue is whether the legislation reverses the onus of proof in criminal
proceedings without adequate justification because section 199A provides that the prescribed
matters are evidence of a fact. However, the provision of a certificate for the prescribed
matters is only evidence of formal matters and not conclusive evidence. Therefore a
defendant is given the opportunity to challenge the matters in the certificate by adducing
evidence to the contrary.
Legislation should have sufficient regard to rights and liberties of individuals by providing
appropriate protection against self-incrimination- LSA s4(3)(f)
Clause 13 - New sections 140A (Power to require information) and 140B (Offence to
contravene information requirement)
Under new section 140A (Power to require information) an authorised officer may by notice
require a person to give information about an offence. The power to give an information
requirement may only be exercised if the authorised officer reasonably believes that an
offence under the Act has been committed and that the person may be able to give
information about the offence. Without these provisions authorised officers would not be
Page 11
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
able to gain access to, or consider information that is essential to identifying and locating,
puppy farms for the protection of dogs from cruelty.
The potential FLP issue regarding the rule against self-incrimination is avoided by section
140B (Offence to contravene information requirement) which provides that a person has a
reasonable excuse not to comply with an information requirement if the information required
might tend to incriminate the individual or expose the individual to a penalty.
Legislation should have sufficient regard to the institution of Parliament
Legislation should only allow the delegation of legislative power only in appropriate
cases and to appropriate person cases and to appropriate persons- LSA s4(4)(a)
Clause 11 - New sections 43E (Registration obligation) and 43W (Approved entity may be
prescribed)
Under new section 43E (Registration obligation) the obligation for a person who breeds a dog
to apply to be registered as a registered breeder does not apply to a person who is an
accredited breeder of an approved entity. Section 43W (Approved entity may be prescribed)
provides that a regulation may prescribe an entity as an approved entity. The potential FLP
issue is that these provisions effectively allow an external body (the entity) some power to
determine the extent to which a person (the breeder they accredit) is subject to particular
obligations under the Act.
These provisions are justified to allow flexibility in exempting accredited breeders from the
regulatory burden where the risk to the integrity of the breeder registration scheme is not
significant.
Legislation should only authorise the amendment of an Act only by another Act - LSA
s4(4)(c)
Clause 11 - New sections 43E (Registration obligation) and 43W (Approved entity may be
prescribed)
Under new section 43E (Registration obligation) the obligation for a person who breeds a dog
to apply to be registered as a registered breeder does not apply to a person who is an
accredited breeder of an approved entity. Section 43W (Approved entity may be prescribed)
provides that a regulation may prescribe an entity as an approved entity. The potential FLP
issue is that since approved entities will be prescribed by legislation, the new section
43E(3)(b)(c) may be considered to be a Henry VIII provision because the Act may potentially
be amended either expressly or impliedly by the prescription of the accredited breeders. In
the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee's Report on 'the use of "Henry VIII Clauses in
Queensland Legislation' of January 1997, the Committee noted (at page 23 of the report) that
it is appropriate that Parliament consider a general principle and that matters of detail may be
left to subordinate legislation. Consistent with this approach, section 43W does prescribe the
matters that the Minister must be satisfied of before making a recommendation for the
making of a regulation. For example, the Minister must be satisfied the entity is able and
willing to give the chief executive the relevant information of persons who become an
accredited breeder or stop being an accredited breeder. That information includes a breeder's
Page 12
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
name and address. Those details will allow the breeders to be located for compliance
purposes.
These provisions are justified to allow flexibility in exempting accredited breeders from the
regulatory burden where the risk to the integrity of the breeder registration scheme is not
significant. Further, any regulation is subject to disallowance by the Legislative Assembly.
Part 4 of the Bill - amendment of Biosecurity Act
Legislation should have sufficient regard to rights and liberties of individuals
Legislation makes rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative
power only if it is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review - LSA s4(3)(a)
Clause 57 - New section 172 (Publication of information held in biosecurity register)
Clause 59 - New section 173A (Use of information by NLIS administrator)
Clause 63 - Amendment of section 379 (Register of Biosecurity orders)
Clause 64- Amendment of section 431 (Register)
The replacement section 172 will enable the chief executive to decide when details on the
biosecurity register kept under the Biosecurity Act, including about restricted places,
restricted animals, restricted biosecurity matter, will be published on the department's
website. Similarly the amendments to sections 379 and 431 will enable the chief executive to
decide when details in the register of biosecurity orders and register of accredited certifiers
will be published on the department's website. No guidance on how this power should be
exercised is proposed but no more information will be able to be published than is currently
required to be published under the relevant sections of the Biosecurity Act. Further the chief
executive would be guided by the purposes of that Act in exercising the power.
New section 173A of the Bill will enable the chief executive to approve the release of
information about restricted places, restricted animals or restricted biosecurity matter by the
NLIS administrator. This would allow the NLIS administrator to target the release of the
information to users of the system who have the most genuine need to know e.g. stockyards
and abattoirs if animals are contaminated with lead. No guidance on how this power should
be exercised is proposed but the information that the NLIS administrator might be able to be
release is no more than the chief executive would be able to publish on the department's
website - that is release in a less targeted fashion. Further the chief executive would be
guided by the purposes of the Act in exercising the power.
Legislation does not reverse the onus of proof in criminal proceedings without adequate
justification - LSA s4(3)(d)
Clause 48 - New sections 162B and 162D
Clause 48 of the Bill inserts, among other provisions, new sections 162B (Compliance with
restricted animal restrictions) and 162D (Compliance with restricted biosecurity matter
restrictions) which make it an offence, without reasonable excuse, for a person to use an
animal or biosecurity matter that contravenes a restriction recorded in the biosecurity register
for the restricted animal or biosecurity matter respectively. It will be a defence in both
sections for the person to establish that they did not know and ought not reasonably to have
Page 13
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
known, of the existence of the restriction or had a reasonable excuse for performing the
activity that contravened the restriction. Placing the onus on the individual to prove the
defence is justified because the facts that support the defence will usually be entirely within
the defendant's knowledge. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the
prosecution to prove these matters in the negative.
Legislation should have sufficient regard to the institution of Parliament
Legislation allows the delegation of legislative power only in appropriate cases and to
appropriate persons - LSA s4(4)(a)
Clause 48 - New sections 162A and 162C
Clause 48 of the Bill inserts, among other provisions, new sections 162A (Inclusion of
restricted animal entry in biosecurity register) and 162C (Inclusion of restricted biosecurity
matter entry in biosecurity register) which will enable the chief executive to declare a
restricted animal or restricted biosecurity matter respectively. Currently, the chief executive
can declare a restricted place including restrictions on an animal at the place. The power to
declare a restricted animal and restricted biosecurity matter is justified because of the
potential for harm, particularly where animals or matter are consumed by humans, with
consequent loss of market access.
This power to declare a restricted animal or restricted biosecurity matter is safeguarded by the
requirement for the chief executive to be satisfied that the animal or biosecurity matter poses
a biosecurity risk. Also, the chief executive will be required to provide an information notice
to both the person who keeps the animal or biosecurity matter and the occupier of the place
where the animal or biosecurity matter is kept. This affords either person the opportunity to
seek review of the declaration of the restriction internally and externally (by QCAT).
Legislation should authorise the amendment of an Act only by another Act - LSA,
s4(4)(c)
Clause 31 - New sections 45A and 45B
Clause 31 of the Bill inserts new sections 45A (What is prohibited feed for pigs and poultry)
and 45B (What is restricted animal material) which, among other things, except certain things
from the definition of prohibited feed for pigs and poultry and restricted animal material
respectively.
Sections 46 and 46A currently allow a regulation to prescribe circumstances where gelatine,
tallow, milk and milk products or used cooking oil are excluded from the definition of
restricted animal material for ruminants or restricted animal material for pigs and poultry.
This regulation making power is proposed to be extended by the Bill. The effect of the
exclusion is to effectively exempt a person in the circumstances from the offences in sections
46 and 46A in the Biosecurity Act on feeding and supplying restricted animal material to
ruminants and prohibited feed for pigs and poultry to a pig or poultry. The fact that a
regulation can disapply the operation of the offences prescribed in the Act may be a departure
from fundamental legislative principles. Offsetting this, the extension of the regulation
making power will enable the omission of a power of the chief executive to grant approvals
Page 14
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
under section 46C that effectively except a person from the offences in sections 46 and 46A
in the Biosecurity Act.
Both the proposed extension of the regulation making power and the approval power of the
chief executive which will be replaced, reflect that there is a need for a mechanism to provide
exemptions to those offences that is responsive and flexible enough to be implemented
quickly without having to rely on a protracted process to amend the Act. Further, there is a
national process to consider possible exemptions from the offences which provides a firm
basis for decisions about the appropriate exercise of the regulation making power.
Consultation
Amendment of AMCD Act
In December 2014, Queensland Labor made an election commitment to shut down cruel
puppy farms and released the policy paper Protecting puppies - Labor's plan to shut down
cruel puppy farms. The policy paper proposed a compulsory dog breeder registration scheme,
display of breeder identification where puppies are sold, mandatory recording breeder
identification against each new puppy's microchip, and compliance with breeder standards
set with RSCPA Qld and Dogs Queensland.
In mid-2015, the government consulted on options for regulating dog breeding in
Queensland. The consultation sought feedback on a range of strategies to protect puppies and
safeguard the welfare of dogs kept or used for breeding in Queensland. It involved an online
survey and meetings with key stakeholder groups.
The online survey on the regulation of dog breeding in Queensland was open for 28 days
from 9 August 2015 to 6 September 2015. A total of 8,319 survey responses were received as
well as 489 email submissions. There was strong support for a compulsory registration
scheme that includes all breeders, mandatory display of breeder identification where puppies
are sold, breeder identification against the microchip and standards setting minimum
requirements for dog breeders. Meetings were also held with the key stakeholder groups in
August 2015.
Face to face meetings were held with RSPCA Qld, Dogs Queensland (the principal pedigree
dog breeders' association) and the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ).
Other stakeholders consulted included AgForce Queensland, the Australian Veterinary
Association, Animal Welfare League, Pet Industry Association, South East Queensland
Regional Animal Management Group, Animal Liberation Queensland, Racing Queensland
and the Australian Federation for Livestock Working Dogs.
RSPCA Qld is generally very supportive of the proposed registration scheme including the
requirement for pounds and animal shelters to be registered.
Concerns raised by some stakeholder groups such as Dogs Queensland about the potential for
duplicated registration requirements have largely been addressed through provision in the Bill
for approved entities to be prescribed by regulation. Under the proposed scheme, breeders
accredited by an approved entity would be exempt from the breeder registration
requirements. However, they would still need to advise their entity's breeder accreditation
Page 15
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
number in advertisements, have it recorded against the microchip and provide it to the
receiver when supplying a puppy.
While AgForce Queensland and the Australian Federation for Livestock Working Dogs
acknowledged the need for a state wide breeder registration scheme, they did not support
requiring owners of working dogs to be registered as breeders. This concern has been
addressed, as genuine breeders/suppliers of working dogs would be excluded from the
scheme. Furthermore, under the proposed scheme working dog owners would still be exempt
from microchipping requirements unless they supply dogs to others for non-working
purposes (as currently required under the AMCD Act).
Consultation with the LGAQ about compliance activities and the initiation of a strategic
multi-agency approach is continuing. DAF is seeking to collaboratively develop an approach
which is consistent with existing activities to minimise local government costs.
The Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR) in the Queensland Productivity Commission
was consulted in regard to the proposed legislation to protect breeding dogs and puppies. The
OBPR advised that the proposal, while not excluded from the Regulatory Impact Statement
(RIS) system, does not require a RIS as it is unlikely to result in significant adverse impacts.
Amendment of ACP Act
RSPCA Qld (given its compliance role for the ACP Act) was consulted about amending the
ACP Act to clarify the offence related to blooding and coursing dogs. They supported the
proposed amendment.
The OBPR advised that the amendment does not require a RIS as it is machinery in nature.
Amendment of Biosecurity Act
Consultation occurred with a range of relevant stakeholders in relation to the miscellaneous
amendments to the Biosecurity Act.
The Aviary Bird Biosecurity Reference Group (including representatives from aviarist
societies and veterinarians) were supportive of reducing the regulatory impost on keepers of
100 or more aviary birds. These changes were also discussed at the Poultry Health Liaison
Group meeting in late 2015 and subsequently some members of that group expressed concern
about potential risks from reducing the scope of the registration requirement.
The LGAQ and the Darling Downs Moreton Rabbit Board were consulted about and were
supportive of the amendment of section 73 of the Biosecurity Act.
The Australian Banana Growers' Council, Nursery and Garden Industry Queensland, and
representatives of the sugar industry were consulted on amendments to prohibited matter and
restricted matter listings relevant to their areas of interest, and all were supportive of the
proposed amendments. The Queensland Bee Association did not oppose the deregulation of
the small hive beetle as this hive beetle is widespread and does not have substantial impacts
on production.
Page 16
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
The OBPR advised that the amendments do not require a RIS as they are either machinery in
nature or are unlikely to have significant adverse impacts.
Consistency with legislation of other jurisdictions
The proposed amendments concerning dog breeders are broadly similar to the requirements
of other jurisdictions that have implemented dog breeder registration schemes, or have
developed proposals to do so.
Both Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) already require dog breeders to be
registered, where the animals are to be sold or are produced for commercial gain, and similar
registration requirements are proposed in a Bill Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous)
Amendment Bill 2015 in South Australia. New South Wales (NSW) is also considering
introducing a dog breeder registration scheme. The schemes in place or proposed in the ACT
and South Australia, respectively, apply to breeders with one or more entire dogs. The
breeder registration requirements in Victoria are more complex, apply only where the owner
has three or more fertile females, and vary according to whether the owner is a member of an
applicable organisation. Tasmania, Western Australia and the Northern Territory do not
currently have dog breeder registration requirements.
In Victoria, certain exemptions apply for breeders who are members of an applicable
organisation, while in South Australia it is proposed that if a breeders' association meets
criteria established by the Dog and Cat Management Board, breeders could simultaneously
register with both the breeder organisation and the government in one process. For working
dogs, Victoria provides exemptions for certain guide dog organisations (Guide Dogs Victoria
and Vision Australia Seeing Eye Dogs) from the requirements, including breeder registration,
of a domestic animal business. The ACT Government does not provide any exemptions for
working dogs. In South Australia, it is proposed there would be exemptions for working
livestock dogs and racing greyhounds.
All Australian jurisdictions apart from the Northern Territory require puppies to be
microchipped, generally by 12 weeks of age. However, the age at which this is required does
vary and in Victoria microchipping prior to sale/transfer under Section 12A of the Domestic
Animals Act 1994 (Vic) applies only to domestic animal businesses. Inclusion of breeder
identification in the information recorded against the microchip, as proposed in this Bill, is
not currently a requirement in any other jurisdiction. However, the NSW Government has
indicated it intends to redesign the Companion Animal Register in 2016 so as to capture
breeder details.
The proposed amendments to the Biosecurity Act related to the definitions for restricted
animal material and prohibited feed for pigs and poultry are to make it more consistent with
the legislation of other jurisdictions. Agricultural Ministers agreed to introduce nationally
consistent feed ban legislation for ruminants and pigs in 2001 and 2014 respectively. The
feed bans were developed by Animal Health Committee and Animal Health Australia in
consultation with the commonwealth, all states and territories and peak industry bodies.
Queensland extends prohibited feed restrictions to poultry.
The proposed amendments to the Biosecurity Act related to weeds of national significance
will also make that Act more consistent with legislation in other jurisdictions. There are 32
Page 17
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
weeds of national significance that are subject to some degree of national coordination such
as national working groups and management plans. Each jurisdiction has agreed to ban these
plants from sale. Seven of the nine weeds have been regulated in NSW and Western
Australia, five in Victoria and Tasmania, nine in South Australia and the ACT. The Northern
Territory has not yet regulated these weeds.
Page 18
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Notes on provisions
Part 1 Preliminary
Clause 1 provides that, when enacted, the Bill will be cited as the Animal Management
(Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2016.
Clause 2 provides that parts 3 and 5 (and hence schedule 1) of the Bill will commence on a
day fixed by proclamation. It does not mention parts 1, 2 or 4 so they commence on assent of
the Bill.
Part 2 Amendment of Animal Care and Protection Act 2001
Clause 3 states that this part amends the ACP Act.
Clause 4 amends section 32 to clarify that it is an offence to keep or use an animal as a kill or
lure to give a dog a taste or sight of blood from the animal, either on the first or subsequent
occasion. As there is no current definition of blood (in the context of blooding an animal) in
the Act, the clause expands the provision to describe what is meant. This is considered
prudent because the Macquarie Dictionary definition of blood means to give a hunting dog its
first taste or sight of blood, but the clause amends the provision to make it an offence to keep
or use an animal as a kill or lure for a dog, irrespective of whether the dog has tasted or
sighted the blood of the animal or any other animal previously.
Part 3 Amendment of Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act
2008
Clause 5 states that Part 3 amends the AMCD Act. (It also includes a note to see the
amendments in schedule 1 which relate to omission or amendment of existing notes and
changing minor to child to accord with current drafting practices.)
Clause 6 inserts an additional purpose for the AMCD Act in section 3. It is to promote the
responsible breeding of dogs. This reflects that the AMCD Act will encompass a wider
purpose with the additional obligations relating to breeder registration and the supply and
advertisement of dogs.
Clause 7 inserts additional ways that the purposes of the AMCD Act can be achieved in
section 4. They are imposing registration obligations on dog breeders; the regulation of the
supply of dogs and the advertising of dogs for supply; and providing for the sharing of
information about dog breeders with particular agencies and entities that are responsible for
animal welfare. Another new way that the purposes of the AMCD Act can be achieved is for
the chief executive to establish a breeder register. The breeder register will contain details of
persons who have been registered as breeder, or as accredited breeder, or exempted such as
the person's name, breeder ID number, accreditation number or exemption number, contact
details. Sections 4(ba)-(j) are renumbered as 4(c)-(m) as a result of the insertion of the
additional ways that the purposes of the AMCD Act can be achieved.
Page 19
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Clause 8 inserts a new section 12A which provides that a person breeds a dog if the dog is
born to a female dog that is usually kept by the person including through an agent, employee
or anyone else. If the person who usually keeps the female dog is a child then a parent or
guardian of the child is taken to be the person who has bred the dog. Section 12A(3) clarifies
that it is irrelevant whether the person who has bred the dog intends to keep the dog or supply
it to other person.
Clause 9 omits mention of suppliers from the heading of chapter 2, part 1, division 1
(Obligation on supplier or owner of cat or dog) because clause 10 omits section 13 which
prohibits the supply of a cat or dog that is not implanted with a PPID. Instead equivalent
provisions are inserted in new section 43Y by clause 11. Chapter 2, part 1, division 1 now
only provides for obligations on the owner to ensure that their cat or dog is implanted and to
give notice of any changed PPID information to a licence holders
Clause 10 omits section 13. Instead equivalent provisions are inserted in new section 43Y
(Requirement for cat or dog to be implanted) in chapter 2B, part 2 by clause 11.
Clause 11 inserts a new chapter 2A (Registration of dog breeders and related matters) and 2B
(Supply of cats and dogs) and creates new parts, divisions and sections.
New section 43A provides for the definitions of terms used for the purposes of chapter 2A.
New section 43B defines an accredited breeder as a person who is accredited by an approved
entity to breed dogs in accordance with the accreditation scheme conducted by the approved
entity.
Section 43B(2)-(3) clarifies that a person is taken to be an accredited breeder on the approved
entity's approval day (the day that the entity is prescribed as an approved entity). This will
ensure that all accredited breeders of an approved entity on the day it is prescribed will be
taken to be accredited breeders and not only the breeders accredited after the entity has been
prescribed. However, they only become accredited breeders for the purposes of the Act on the
approved entity's approval day.
A new section 43C defines an accreditation number as the unique identifying number an
approved entity gives a person who is an accredited breeder of the approved entity. Section
43C(2)-(3) provides that it does not matter that person has been given the unique identifying
number before the approved entity's approval day but for the purposes of the Act it only
becomes the accreditation number of the accredited breeder on the approved entity's approval
day.
New section 43D provides a definition of an ineligible person. An ineligible person, such as a
child, will not eligible to register as a registered breeder under section 43G.
New section 43E provides that a person who breeds a dog must, if they were not a registered
breeder on the day that the dog was born, apply to be registered as a breeder within 28 days
after the dog is born unless certain circumstances apply. The circumstances in which they
would not be required to be registered are that they are: an accredited breeder of an approved
entity; a primary producer who has bred the dog from a working dog to use as a working dog
or supplying the dog to another primary producer to use a working dog; or a member of a
class of persons prescribed by regulation. They would also not be required to register if they
Page 20
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
have a reasonable excuse or if the dog that was bred dies within 28 days after it is born. A
maximum penalty unit of 50 penalty units is provided.
New section 43F provides that a person, other than an ineligible person, may apply to the
chief executive to be registered to breed dogs. The application is to be made either
electronically using the online breeder registration system or in the approved form. It must
include the person's designated details and the application must be accompanied by the
prescribed fee. (Designated details is defined in section 43A to mean the person's name;
either their residential address and local government area or, if they are a body corporate, the
address and local government area of their place of business, head office or registered office;
contact telephone number; and the person's email address.)
New section 43G provides that the chief executive, must, as soon as practicable after
receiving an application under new section 43F, record the person as a registered breeder in
the breeder register and give the person written notice of the person's registration as a
registered breeder. The notice must state the designated details of the person recorded in the
breeder register, the breeder ID number given to the person and the registration date.
New section 43H provides that a person's registration as a registered breeder ends one year
after the registration date stated in the notice of the person's registration unless the
registration is sooner cancelled.
New section 43I provides that a person's registration may not be transferred.
New section 43J provides that the chief executive must give a registered breeder a renewal
notice at least 14 days before their registration as a registered breeder expires. The notice
must state the designated details for the registered breeder as recorded in the breeder register
that the registered breeder may renew their registration by paying the prescribed fee and state
the period of renewal of registration.
New section 43K provides that a registered breeder who intends to renew their registration
must, before their registration expires, pay the prescribed fee regardless of whether they have
been given a renewal notice under new section 43J.
New section 43L provides that the chief executive must give the registered breeder notice of
the renewal of registration within 14 days of receiving the renewal fee. The notice must state
the designated details of the registered breeder as recorded in the breeder register; their
breeder ID number; and the date the registration was renewed.
New section 43M provides that a person's registration ends one year after the renewal date
stated in the notice of renewal of registration unless it is sooner cancelled.
New section 43N provides that a registered breeder must give notice to the chief executive of
any changes to the designated details within seven days after the information has changed,
unless the breeder has a reasonable excuse. A maximum penalty of 50 penalty units is
provided. The notice must be given either electronically using the online breeder registration
system on the department's website or in writing.
New section 43O provides that the chief executive must update the breeder register to include
the changed designated details as soon as practicable. The chief executive must give the
Page 21
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
registered breeder a written notice that includes the changed designated within 14 days after
receiving the notice.
New section 43P provides the grounds for suspension or cancellation of a person's
registration as a registered breeder. These are that the person becomes an ineligible person
under new section 43D(b); the person was registered because of materially false or
misleading representation or declaration; the person was charged with an animal welfare
offence; or the person was charged with a Commonwealth or interstate offence that would be
an animal welfare offence in Queensland.
New section 43Q provides that where the chief executive reasonably believes a ground exists
to suspend or cancel a person's registration as a registered breeder the chief executive must
give the person a show cause notice. The notice must state the matters listed in section
43Q(2), including that the chief executive is proposing suspension or cancellation and the
grounds for the suspension or cancellation. The notice must give the person a period of at
least 21 days to show cause as to why the proposed action should not be taken.
New section 43R provides that a person may make written representations to the chief
executive within the show cause period about why the proposed suspension or cancellation
action should not be taken. The chief executive must consider all representations.
New section 43S provides that if, after considering the accepted representations, the chief
executive no longer believes a ground exists for the proposed suspension or cancellation, then
they must not take any further action in relation to the show cause notice and give the person
as soon as practicable, a notice stating that the proposed action will not be taken.
New section 43T provides if, after considering the accepted representations in response to a
notice proposing suspension or if there have not been any representations, the chief executive
still believes that a ground exists and the proposed suspension is warranted, then the chief
executive may suspend the registration for a stated period (but no longer than the stated
period proposed in the notice). If the notice proposed cancellation, and the chief executive
still believes that a ground exists and the action is warranted, then the chief executive may
cancel the registration or suspend it for a stated period. The chief executive must, as soon as
practicable, give the person an information notice for the decision. The decision takes effect
the day the person has been given the information notice or the day stated in the information
notice for the purpose, whichever is later.
New section 43U provides for immediate suspension of a person's registration as a registered
breeder, if the chief executive believes that a ground exists to suspend the registration and it
is necessary to suspend the registration immediately because there is an immediate and
serious risk to the welfare of dogs or of harm to the effectiveness of the registration scheme.
The chief executive must give the person an information notice to suspend the registration as
well as a show cause notice. The suspension operates immediately the notices are given and
(subject to a stay granted by QCAT) continues to operate until the chief executive cancels
the remaining period of suspension or the show cause notice is finally dealt with or 28 days
have passed since the notices were given to the person (whichever is the earliest).
New section 43V provides for the meaning of the term relevant information used in chapter
2A, part 3. (This is the information an approved entity will provide about persons who are or
were accredited under its accreditation scheme for dog breeders.)
Page 22
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
New section 43W provides that a regulation may prescribe an entity as an approved entity.
The Minister may recommend the making of a regulation to prescribe an entity as an
approved entity only if the Minister is satisfied the entity conducts an accreditation scheme
for dog breeders; the entity gives a unique identifying number to each person it accredits
under the scheme; and the entity's accreditation scheme requires each accredited breeder to
give them notice within 7 days of any changes to their designated details.
Section 43W also requires the Minister to be satisfied that the entity would be able and
willing to give the chief executive, within seven days after a person becomes an accredited
breeder of the approved entity, or seven days after the day a person stops being an accredited
breeder of the approved entity, the relevant information for each person. The Minister must
also be satisfied that the entity would be able and willing to give notice of a change in
designated details within 7 days after the breeder gives the entity notice of the change. In
other words, the approved entity must give information about breeders currently accredited
under the entity's scheme within seven days after the entity becomes an approved entity and
from there on give information about any changes to their accredited breeders or changes in
designated details of their accredited breeders within seven days of the changes. Relevant
information is defined in section 43V in relation to an accredited breeder of an approved
entity and for a person who has stopped being an accredited breeder of an approved entity.
Section 43W also requires the Minister to be satisfied that the approved entity would be able
and willing to give any other information requested by the chief executive about an
accredited breeder or a person who stops being an accredited breeder for the purposes of
helping the chief executive monitor or enforce compliance with the Act.
New section 43X provides a definition for a dog's relevant supply number. (A relevant
supply number is required when supplying or advertising for the supply of a dog.) A relevant
supply number for a dog bred by a registered breeder is their breeder ID number. However, if
a dog is bred while a registered breeder's registration is suspended, then the dog is taken not
to have relevant supply number.
New section 43Y(1) provides that a person must not, without a reasonable excuse, supply a
cat or dog to anyone else if it is not implanted with a PPID. This replicates the current section
13(1) of the AMCD Act which is being omitted by clause 10.
New section 43Y(2) clarifies that it is not a reasonable excuse for a person to supply a cat or
dog to another person that is not implanted with a PPID because it is less than eight weeks
old. This is to clarify that a person cannot supply a cat or dog in these circumstances despite
section 24 which imposes restrictions on implanting a PPID in a cat or dog that is less than
eight weeks old.
New section 43Y(3) reflect the existing (relocated from section 13(2)) defence provisions for
the offence relating to the supply of a cat without being implanted. A defence is available if
the cat is at least eight weeks of age and is not implanted with a PPID if there is a veterinary
surgeon's certificate for the cat.
New section 43Y(4)(a) reflects the existing (relocated from section 13(2)) defence provisions
for the offence relating to the supply of a dog without being implanted. A defence is available
if the dog is at least eight weeks of age and is not implanted with a PPID if there is a
Page 23
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
veterinary surgeon's certificate for the dog. However, it also provides that an additional new
requirement to the defence that the defendant when supplying the dog, gave the person to
whom the dog was supplied, a copy of the veterinary surgeon's certificate for the dog.
Veterinary surgeon's certificate is defined in new section 43Y(5) to mean a certificate signed
by a veterinary surgeon stating that implanting the cat or dog with a PPID is likely to be a
serious risk to its health.
New section 43Y(4)(b) is an equivalent provision to the existing section 13(2)(b). It provides
that section 43Y does not apply to the supply of a dog without a PPID if the use of the dog is
as a government entity dog, a working dog or another class of dog prescribed by regulation.
New section 43Z provides that a person must not, without reasonable excuse, supply a dog to
another person unless the person knows there is a relevant supply number for the dog. (The
relevant supply number is either the breeder ID number, accreditation number, unique
number that identifies the breeder as a recognised interstate breeder or an exemption number
for the dog.) If the dog is required to be implanted with a PPID, the supplier must also know
the information kept for the dog under section 36 includes the relevant supply number.
(Under existing section 38 of the AMCD Act, the PPID information for a dog can be
disclosed to the owner of the dog by a licence holder providing a PPID registry service for
the dog.) The requirement for the supplier to know that there is a relevant supply number for
the dog and the inclusion of it in the PPID information is to enable the breeder of the supplied
dog to be identified. A maximum penalty of 50 penalty units is provided for noncompliance.
New section 43ZA prescribes the circumstances in which a person does commit an offence
against section 43Z (Supplier must know dog has relevant supply number). They are: if the
dog is bred by a primary producer from a working dog and supplied to another primary
producer to use as a working dog; the dog is supplied by a member of a prescribed class of
persons; or the dog is supplied to a shelter or pound; Shelter is defined to include a veterinary
surgery to the extent it provides shelter for a cat or dog that is homeless, lost or stray. The
reason for the first two exclusions is that a breeder is not required to be registered in these
circumstances. The reason for the third exclusion is to ensure dogs can be lawfully taken to a
shelter or pound without a registration requirement.
Section 43AZ(2) provides that an additional exclusion in relation to knowing the PPID
information kept for the dog under existing section 36 is where the dog is not required, under
section 43Y, to be implanted with a PPID. In this circumstance, the supplier would only be
required to know the relevant supply number.
New section 43ZB provides that a person must not, without a reasonable excuse, advertise the
supply of a dog unless the person knows there is a relevant supply number for the dog. If the
dog is required to be implanted with a PPID for supply under section 43Y(1), the person must
also know that the PPID information kept for the dog under current section 36 includes the
relevant supply number. A maximum penalty of 50 penalty units is provided. (Under existing
section 38 of the AMCD Act, the PPID information for a dog can be disclosed to the owner
of the dog by a licence holder providing a PPID registry service for the dog.)
New section 43ZC provides that an advertisement for the supply of a dog must include the
relevant supply number for the dog unless the person has a reasonable excuse. A maximum
penalty of 50 penalty units is provided.
Page 24
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
New section 43ZD prescribes the circumstances in which a person does commit an offence
against section 43ZB (Advertiser must know dog has relevant supply number) or 43ZC
(Advertisement must include relevant supply number). They are: if the dog is bred by a
primary producer from a working dog and supplied to another primary producer to use as a
working dog; or the dog is supplied by a member of a prescribed class of persons. The reason
for these two exclusions is that a breeder is not required to be registered in these
circumstances.
Section 43ZD provides that an additional exclusions in relation to the requirement in section
43ZB(b) for the advertiser to know the PPID information kept for the dog under existing
section 36. They are where the dog is at least 8 weeks old and there is a veterinary surgeon's
certificate for the dog or where the advertisement is for supply of another dog that is not
required to be implanted with a PPID under new section 43Y (a government entity dog,
working dog, or for a purpose prescribed by regulation).
New section 43ZE provides that a person who merely prints or publishes an advertisement for
another person as part of their printing or publishing business does not commit an offence
against new sections 43ZB or 43ZC.
New section 43ZF provides that a person who supplies a dog to another person must also by
notice give the other person the name of the supplier of the dog and the relevant supply
number for the dog.
Section 43ZF(2) prescribes the circumstances in which a person does not commit an offence
against section 43ZF. They are: if the dog is bred by a primary producer from a working dog
and is supplied to another primary producer to use as a working dog; or the dog is supplied by
a member of a prescribed class of persons; or the dog is supplied to a shelter or a pound. The
supplier of a dog means either the supplier or the person who conducts the business activity if
the dog is supplied as part of a business activity that includes the supply of dogs. A maximum
penalty of 50 penalty units is provided.
New section 43ZG provides that a person is an eligible person to apply for an exemption
number for a dog if the dog was bred by a primary producer from a working dog and was
supplied to the person when the person was a primary producer to use as a working dog and
the person proposes to supply the dog to another person who is not a primary producer or
other than to use as a working dog. It is irrelevant whether the person who supplied the dog
bred the dog or another person, or that the person proposing to supply the dog is still a
primary producer. The reason such a person is an eligible person is that without an exemption
number they may be in breach of offence provisions in new sections 43Z-43ZF if they
attempt to supply the dog or advertise the dog for sale.
New section 43ZH provides that a person is also an eligible person for a dog if the dog was
bred and supplied to the person by a member of a prescribed class of persons and the person
proposes to supply the dog to another person. The reason such a person is an eligible person
is that without an exemption number they may be in breach of offence provisions in new
sections 43Z-43ZF if they attempt to supply a dog or advertise a dog for sale.
New section 43ZI provides that a person is also an eligible person to apply for an exemption
number for a dog if the person is the owner of, or the responsible person for, the dog; did not
breed the dog and does not conduct a business activity that includes the supply of dogs. The
Page 25
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
reason such a person is an eligible person is that without an exemption number they may be
in breach of offence provisions in new sections 43Z-43ZF if they attempt to supply a dog or
advertise a dog for sale.
New section 43ZJ provides that a person who is an eligible person in relation to a dog, (under
sections 43ZG, 43ZH, or 43ZI) may apply to the chief executive for an exemption number for
the dog either electronically using the online breeder registration system or in the approved
form. The application must include enough information to enable the chief executive to
decide the application and must be accompanied by the prescribed fee.
New section 43ZK provides that the chief executive must either approve or refuse the
application for exemption. The chief executive must refuse to approve the application if
satisfied that the applicant is not an eligible person in relation to the dog. The chief executive
must give the applicant an information notice if the chief executive refuses to approve the
application.
New section 43ZL provides that the chief executive is taken to have refused to grant the
application and the applicant is entitled to an information notice if the chief executive has not
decided an application for an exemption with 28 days after receiving it. This is to enable the
applicant to apply for an internal review of the decision and have the matter resolved.
New section 43ZM provides that if the chief executive approves an application for exemption
the chief executive must give the applicant as soon as practicable a written notice stating the
exemption number issued for the dog.
Clause 12 inserts a note to section 44(1)(a) to indicate that even though the operator of a
pound or shelter is not required to register the dog under section 44 they may need to apply to
be registered as a registered breeder under section 43E.
Clause 13 inserts new sections 140A and 140B to provide that an authorised officer may give
a person an information requirement and that it is an offence not to comply with the
requirement without a reasonable excuse.
Section 140A provides that if an authorised officer reasonably believes that an offence under
the Act has been committed and a person may be able to give information about the offence
the authorised officer may give the person a notice requiring the person to give the authorised
officer information about the offence by a stated reasonable time. If the information required
is an electronic document, the person must give a clear image or written version of the
electronic document.
Section 140B provides that a person must comply with a requirement made under new
section 140A unless the person has a reasonable excuse. A maximum penalty of 50 penalty
units is provided. It is a reasonable excuse not to give information if giving the information
might tend to incriminate the person or expose the person to a penalty.
Clause 14 inserts a new heading (Division 1 (Registers to be kept)) before section 172 in
chapter 7, part 1. This is to assist a reader to quickly identify the correct provisions.
Clause 15 amends the heading of section 172 from Chief executive must keep registers to
Chief executive must keep regulated dog register. This is because the provisions relating to
Page 26
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
different registers (regulated dog register, licence holder register and breeder register) will be
separated to assist a reader to quickly identify the correct provisions.
Clause 15 also omits section 172(3)-(5) because it will be relocated by clause 18.
Clause 16 inserts new sections 172A-172E after section 172. These sections provide for the
chief executive's obligations to keep the different registers. Sections 172A-172C join section
172 in Division 1 (Registers to be kept). Sections 172D-172E will form Division 2
(Publication of particular information contained in registers). The clause also inserts a
heading for new Division 3 (Inspection of registers) which comprises existing section 173
and sections inserted by clause 18.
New section 172A provides that the chief executive must keep a register of licence holders
which contains the information required to be stated on the licence holder's licence under
current section 154.
New section 172B provides that the chief executive must keep a register of persons who
breed dogs and for the details required to be kept in the breeder register. The information is to
be kept in the breeder register for at least five years after a person is no longer a registered
breeder or an accredited breeder of an approved entity or after an eligible person has been
issued an exemption number.
New section 172C provides that the chief executive may keep a register mentioned in
sections 172, 172A, or 172B in a way the chief executive considers appropriate including in
electronic form.
New section 172D provides that the chief executive may publish details contained in the
publically available part of the licence holder register (the register of PPID registry licence
holders) at the times and in the way the chief executive decides. This is an equivalent section
to the current section 173(8) of the AMCD Act which is omitted by clause 17.
Clause 16 also inserts new section 172E to provide that the chief executive must publish the
publically available part of the breeder register on the department's website. The section
provides a definition of publicly available part for a person who is a registered breeder or an
accredited breeder of an approved entity. It includes the person's name, breeder ID number,
local government area, and the period of registration or accreditation.
Clause 17 amends the heading of section 173 from Who may inspect registers to Who may
inspect regulated dog register. This is to reflect that the provisions in that section, as
amended, will only apply to the regulated dog register and not the licence holder or breeder
register. This will assist a reader to clearly identify the relevant provisions for each register.
Clause 17 also omits sections 173(4)-(8). Instead, section 173(4) is reflected in new section
173A inserted by clause 18, section 173(5)-(7) is reflected in new section 173D inserted by
clause 18, while 173(8) is reflected in new section 172A inserted by clause 16.
Clause 18 inserts new sections 173A-173D, after section 173. The inserted sections prescribe
the persons who may inspect the information in registers kept by the chief executive under
the amended AMCD Act.
Page 27
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
New section 173A replicates current section 173(4). It provides that a person may, free of
charge, inspect the publically available part of the licence holder register at the department's
head office during normal business hours.
New section 173B authorises persons to inspect the information kept in the breeder register
including persons appointed to perform functions under ACP Act; persons appointed by the
local government to perform functions under the AMCD Act or the ACP Act; a police officer
who is monitoring or enforcing compliance under the AMCD Act or the ACP Act or
performing functions in relation an animal or an animal welfare offence; or authorised
officers under the Racing Integrity Act 2016 performing functions in relation to an animal or
animal welfare offence. Section 173B also provides that the publically available part of the
breeder register may be inspected, free of charge, by a person at the department's head office
during normal business hours.
New section 173C provides that if the chief executive is satisfied that someone's personal
safety could be at risk if particular information was included on the breeder register, then the
information must not be set out in the publically available part of the register or a copy of
information from the register.
New section 173D provides that a person who inspects the regulated dog register under
section 173(2), or a licence holder register under the new section 173A, or the breeder
register under section 173B(2) may ask for a copy of the information. The person must pay a
fee decided by the chief executive for the copy. The fee decided by the chief executive must
not be more that the reasonable cost of producing the copy. These provisions are equivalent
to current section 173(5)-(7) of the AMCD Act.
Clause 19 replaces section 181(1). The omitted section 181(1) provides that an interested
person for an original decision made by the chief executive under chapter 2, part 1, division
3, subdivision 3; chapter 2A, part 2; chapter 2B, part 5; or chapter 6, may apply to the chief
executive for an internal review of the decision. The replacement section 181(1) is equivalent
to the omitted section 181(1) but extends the right to apply for a review to an interested
person in a decision made under chapter 2A, part 2 division 4 and chapter 2B, part 5. The
PPID review application is renamed a 'designated review application' because it is not
restricted to reviews relating to PPIDs.
Clause 20 replaces the reference to PPID in section 182 with designated. This reflects that
the replacement section 181(1) uses the term designated review application.
Clause 21 replaces the reference to PPID in section 184 with designated. This reflects that
the replacement section 181(1) uses the term designated review application.
Clause 22 replaces the reference to PPID with designated in the heading of section 185 and
in sections 185(1), (4) and (5). This reflects that the replacement section 181(1) uses the term
designated review application.
Clause 23 replaces the reference to PPID in section 187 with designated. This reflects that
the replacement section 181(1) uses the term designated review application.
Clause 24 replaces the reference to captive bird in section 197A with designated bird to align
with the terminology used in provisions of the Biosecurity Act as amended by clause 36.
Page 28
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Clause 25 inserts new section 199A after section 199. New section 199A provides that a
certificate purporting to be signed by the chief executive stating certain matters is evidence of
the matters. These include that on a stated day, or during a stated period a person as not a
registered breeder, or their registration was suspended for a stated period or cancelled.
Clause 26 inserts new sections 207B and 207C after section 207A
New section 207B states the circumstances in which the chief executive may share
information obtained under chapter 2A or 2B with inspectors and authorised officers
appointed under the ACP Act, police officers, authorised officers under the Racing Integrity
Act 2015 and the chief executive officer of a local government.
New section 207C allows the information obtained by persons under sections 173B(1) or
207B to be used when performing any function under the AMCD Act, the ACP Act or the
Racing Integrity Act 2015 or by a police officer in relation to an animal or an animal welfare
offence.
Clause 27 provides that the chief executive may approve additional forms under chapters 2A
(Registration of dog breeders and related matters) and 2B (Supply of cats and dogs)
Clause 27 also omits reference to chapter 2, part 1, division 3, subdivision 3 because it does
not include a reference to an approved form.
Clause 28 inserts a new chapter 10, part 5 that provides a transitional provision, new section
229, for the amendments to the AMCD Act contained in this Bill. New section 229 provides
that the new chapter 2A, part 2 and chapter 2B, part 3 apply only in relation to a dog born on
or after the commencement.
Clause 29 amends schedule 2 (Dictionary) to omit definitions no longer required as a result
of the amendments in this Bill and inserts new definitions to support the new provisions.
Part 4 Amendment of Biosecurity Act 2014
Clause 30 states that this part amends the Biosecurity Act.
Clause 31 inserts new sections 45A and 45B which essentially define terms that correspond
to animal feed that poses disease transmission risks when fed to pigs and poultry and
ruminants respectively. These terms are critical to implementation of nationally agreed feed
bans.
New section 45A defines what is prohibited feed for pigs and poultry. This term replaces
restricted animal material for pigs and poultry (a definition proposed to be omitted from the
dictionary in Schedule 5) which could cause confusion with 'restricted animal material'
labelling requirements agreed nationally for animal feed. New subsection 45A(2) provides a
list of exceptions to prohibited feed for pigs and poultry, the majority of which will be
prescribed by regulation.
New section 45B defines what is restricted animal material. This term replaces restricted
animal material for ruminants (a definition proposed to be omitted from the dictionary in
Page 29
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Schedule 5) for consistency with the nationally agreed term used in labelling for animal feed.
New subsection 45B(2) provides exceptions to restricted animal material which will be
prescribed by regulation.
Clause 32 amends section 46 (as amended by provisions of the Agriculture and Other
Legislation Amendment Act 2015 (AOLA Act) which are not reflected in the current reprint
of the Biosecurity Act) to reflect changed terminology whereby restricted animal material for
ruminants is referred to as simply restricted animal material for consistency with the
nationally agreed labelling requirements for animal feed which are proposed to be imposed
by regulation. The clause also omits subsection 46(5)(a) which is redundant due to the
broader provision in new section 45B to exclude materials from the definition of restricted
animal material by prescription in regulation.
Clause 33 amends section 46A (as inserted by provisions of the AOLA Act which are not
reflected in the current reprint of the Biosecurity Act) to reflect changed terminology
whereby restricted animal material for pigs and poultry is referred to as prohibited feed for
pigs and poultry for consistency with the nationally agreed definition. The clause also omits
subsection 46A(5)(a) which is redundant due to the broader provision in new section 45A to
exclude materials from the definition of restricted animal material by prescription in
regulation.
Clause 34 omits section 46B (as inserted by provisions of the AOLA Act which are not
reflected in the current reprint of the Biosecurity Act) as exceptions to what is prohibited feed
for pigs and poultry or restricted animal material will be made by prescribing exceptions to
the definitions to these terms in regulation under new sections 45A and 45B respectively.
Clause 35 amends section 46C (as inserted by provisions of the AOLA Act which are not
reflected in the current reprint of the Biosecurity Act) to reflect the changed terminology
(from restricted animal material for ruminants to restricted animal material and from
restricted animal material for pigs and poultry to prohibited feed for pigs and poultry) and
renumbers section references throughout.
Clause 36 amends section 73 to provide that the term of appointment to an invasive animal
board is four years. This is for consistency with the cycle for local government elections
given members of an invasive animal board are often drawn from local government.
Clause 37 amends section 115 to reflect the changed terminology (from restricted animal
material for ruminants to restricted animal material).
Clause 38 amends section 132 to clarify a circumstance when an inspector may refuse an
application for the issue of a biosecurity instrument permit. The clause provides that when
biosecurity zone regulatory provisions provide for the movement of biosecurity matter or a
carrier with an acceptable biosecurity certificate, an inspector may refuse an application for a
biosecurity instrument permit if the inspector is satisfied the person can reasonably obtain an
acceptable biosecurity certificate for the movement. The clause ensures that an inspector is
not obliged to give a biosecurity instrument permit (at no cost) where there is a more
appropriate mechanism available (at their cost) to facilitate the movement.
Page 30
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Clause 39 amends section 134 to substitute the term designated bird for captive bird in the
definition of what is a designated animal. This reflects that clause 36 changes the
terminology and limits the scope of birds that trigger a registration requirement.
Clause 40 inserts a new section 135A which defines designated bird as a subset of captive
birds. Designated birds are defined as designated animals under section 134 of the
Biosecurity Act. Persons who keep more than the threshold number of designated animals are
registrable biosecurity entities. By virtue of the new definition new section 135A, captive
birds which are neither kept for human consumption nor to produce eggs for human
consumption nor have been released for free flight do not come within the definition of
designated birds and thus persons who keep more than the threshold number of them are not
subject to those registration provisions. These birds pose a comparatively lower risk of avian
disease transmission hence their exclusion from the definition and hence scope of the
registration trigger.
Clause 41 amends section 137 to substitute the term designated birds for captive birds in
relation to the threshold number that, if kept, will trigger a requirement for a person to be
registered as a biosecurity entity.
Clause 42 amends section 148 to omit reference to biosecurity risk status details as this term
can be confused with terminology used in connection with the National Livestock
Identification System (NLIS). Also the majority of biosecurity entities will not have a
biosecurity risk status. Information on the risk posed by a registered biosecurity entity can be
maintained administratively if appropriate so it is unnecessary to record such details on the
biosecurity register.
Clause 43 amends section 149 to omit the requirement for the chief executive to decide the
biosecurity risk status details for the entity and to provide an information notice for that
decision.
Clause 44 amends section 150 to omit the requirement of the chief executive to decide the
biosecurity risk status details for an entity being registered without having applied to register
and renumbers the remaining provisions in the section. The amended section continues to
provide that the chief executive must give the person a notice that the chief executive
proposes to register them before taking the action. Additionally, it provides that the notice
must include the proposed registration details so that the person has an opportunity to make
written submissions about them. The amended section continues to provide that the chief
executive must give an information notice for the decision to register the person and the
registration details recorded.
Clause 45 replaces the heading of chapter 7, part 2, division 3 to reflect the division will
encompass restricted animals and restricted biosecurity matter as well as restricted places.
Clause 46 replaces sections 160 and 161 with new provisions.
Section 160 currently requires a biosecurity risk notice to be given that may cause the place
to pose a risk. The replacement section 160 requires a notice to be given if the place or a
designated animal at the place or designated biosecurity matter at the place poses or may pose
a risk. The provision imposes an obligation upon the relevant person to give the biosecurity
risk notice to the chief executive as soon as practicable unless the relevant person is aware the
Page 31
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
chief executive has been advised or become aware of the biosecurity risk. The new section
also provides who a relevant person is for a designated place.
Section 161 currently concerns the chief executive's power to declare a restricted place and
how it is restricted and restrictions on the use or future use of designated animals at the place.
It does not adequately address the risk that animals may pose after restrictions on the use of
the place can be lifted (because, for example, the contamination has been cleaned up).
Further, it does not allow restrictions to be placed on designated biosecurity matter or on
carriers that may spread the risk.
The replacement section 161, in addition to providing the chief executive with the power to
declare a restricted place and how it is restricted, enables the chief executive to declare
restrictions on dealings with designated animals or designated biosecurity matter at the place,
either whilst the place is restricted or after the declaration of the place has ended. For
example, cattle that ingested a contaminant at a place may continue to be unfit for human
consumption after the contamination at the place has been addressed and thus restrictions on
dealings with the cattle may need to continue after the declaration of the restricted place has
ended. New section 161 also provides the chief executive with the power to declare
restrictions applying to dealings with carriers of biosecurity matter at the restricted place
while the declaration is in force or after the declaration of the place has ended. New section
161 also states the persons to whom the chief executive must give an information notice if
declarations are made about restricted places, designated animals, designated biosecurity
matter or carriers of biosecurity matter under this section.
Clause 47 amends section 162 (Compliance with restricted place restrictions). The
amendment to subsection 162(1) makes clear the section to which the offence for
contravention of a restricted place restriction relates. The amendment to subsection 162(3)
provides an offence for dealing with a designated animal in a way which contravenes a
restriction under a restricted place declaration that is recorded on the biosecurity register.
This reflects that new section 161 allows restrictions to be placed on dealings with a
designated animal at a restricted place rather than the use or future use of the designated
animals at the place as under the current 161.
Clause 47 also introduces new offence provisions for dealing with designated biosecurity
matter (new section 162(5)) and a carrier of biosecurity matter (new section 162(7)) in a way
that contravenes a restriction under a restricted place declaration that is recorded on the
biosecurity register. A maximum penalty of 800 penalty units is provided in each case.
For each offence under the new section 162, it will be a defence for the person to establish
that they did not know and ought not reasonably to have known of the existence of the
restriction or had a reasonable excuse for performing the activity that contravened the
restriction.
Clause 48 inserts new subdivisions 3 and 4 under chapter 7, part 2, division 3 which provide
for the declaration of restricted animals and restricted biosecurity matter respectively.
Chapter 7, part 2, division 3 currently provides only for the declaration of restrictions in
relation to a place. It does not allow restrictions to be placed on animals that pose a risk if
there is no risk associated with a place. Similarly, it does not allow restrictions to be placed
on designated biosecurity matter if there is no risk associated with a place. Clause 48
broadens the scope of the division to ensure that restrictions can apply to designated animals
Page 32
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
and designated biosecurity matter independent of restrictions on a place. For example,
restrictions may need to be placed on cattle that had left a property that was contaminated
before it was declared. Restrictions may also need to be imposed where cattle poses a risk
that is not associated with any place, such as where cattle has been fed restricted animal
material and may be unfit for human consumption.
New subdivision 3 comprises new sections 162A and 162B.
New section 162A empowers the chief executive, once satisfied a designated animal could
pose a biosecurity risk, to make an entry in the biosecurity register and declare the animal to
be restricted and the restrictions on dealing with the animal. Subsection 162A(4) requires the
chief executive to give an information notice for the declaration to stated persons with an
interest in the animal.
New section 162B makes it an offence, without reasonable excuse, for a person to deal with
an animal in a way that contravenes a restriction recorded in the biosecurity register for the
restricted animal. It will be a defence for the person to establish that they did not know and
ought not reasonably to have known of the existence of the restriction or had a reasonable
excuse for performing the activity that contravened the restriction.
New subdivision 4 comprises new sections 162C and 162D.
New section 162C empowers the chief executive, once satisfied designated biosecurity matter
could pose a biosecurity risk, to make an entry in the biosecurity register and declare the
biosecurity matter to be restricted biosecurity matter and the restrictions on dealing with the
biosecurity matter. Subsection 162C(4) requires the chief executive to give an information
notice for the declaration to stated persons with an interest in the designated biosecurity
matter.
New section 162D makes it an offence, without reasonable excuse, for a person to deal with
restricted biosecurity matter in a way that contravenes a restriction recorded in the biosecurity
register for the restricted biosecurity matter. It will be a defence for the person to establish
that they did not know and ought not reasonably to have known of the existence of the
restriction or had a reasonable excuse for performing the activity that contravened the
restriction.
Finally, clause 48 inserts a new heading to separate the remaining sections of chapter 7, part
2, division 3 (that is sections 163 - 167) into a new subdivision 5.
Clause 49 replaces the current section 163 which relates only to restricted places with a new
provisions to reflect that the chief executive may end a declaration on a restricted place (new
section 163), restricted animal or restricted biosecurity matter (new section 163A) if satisfied
that they no longer pose a biosecurity risk, by removing entries for each from the biosecurity
register. The removal can occur on the chief executive's own initiative or after consideration
of an application for removal under this section.
Clause 50 amends the heading of s164 to reflect that the subject of the provision is the ending
of a declaration of a restricted place. The clause provides that a person may make an
application to the chief executive to end a restricted place declaration. The clause also omits
section 164(3) which currently provides the application requirements for removal of a
Page 33
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
restricted place entry from the biosecurity register. Subsection 164(3) is not required as new
section 164C (inserted by clause 51) states application requirements for the ending of
declarations for restricted places, restricted animals and restricted biosecurity matter.
Clause 51 inserts new sections 164A, 164B and 164C. New sections 164A and 164B allow
stated persons to make an application to the chief executive to end a declaration of restricted
animals and restricted biosecurity matter respectively. New section 164C provides that
applications for ending a declaration of a restricted place, restricted animal and restricted
biosecurity matter must be in the prescribed form, accompanied by the prescribed fee and
provide sufficient detail to describe why the restricted place, restricted animal or restricted
biosecurity matter no longer pose a biosecurity risk.
Clause 52 amends section 167 which currently is confined to decisions on applications that
relate to restricted places. It replaces section 167(2) to provide, in effect, that where the chief
executive has requested further information to decide the application for ending the
declaration of a restricted place, restricted animal or restricted biosecurity matter, the chief
executive is taken to have refused the application if a decision is not made within 30 days of
receiving the additional information.
Clause 53 replaces the current section 168 concerning the chief executive's obligation to
maintain a biosecurity register that includes a register of biosecurity entities and a register of
restricted places. It extends the obligation to also include a register of restricted animals and
restricted biosecurity matter.
Clause 54 amends section 169 about information which is required to be kept on the
biosecurity register to include information on restricted places, restricted animals and
restricted biosecurity matter. For each restricted place, the biosecurity register must include
the address, local government area, the name (if any) of the place (for example the property
name), the property identification code (PIC) (if any) and any restrictions on the use of the
place and dealings with carriers at the place or dealings with designated animals or
designated biosecurity matter at the place including after the declaration of the place has
ended. For each restricted animal, the register must include information to identify the animal
and any restrictions on dealings with the animal. For restricted biosecurity matter, the register
must contain information that identifies the biosecurity matter and restrictions on dealings
with the biosecurity matter.
Clause 54 also omits the reference to biosecurity risk status details (see also the omission of
biosecurity risk status details in section 148 by clause 42 and 149 by clause 43). The term
biosecurity risk status details can be confused with terminology used in connection with the
NLIS. Also the majority of biosecurity entities will not have a biosecurity risk status.
Information on the risk posed by a registered biosecurity entity can be maintained
administratively if appropriate so it is unnecessary to record such details on the biosecurity
register.
Clause 55 omits the reference in section 170 to biosecurity risk status details as these will not
be recorded in the register under section 169 (as amended by clause 54).
Clause 56 amends section 171 to omit reference to biosecurity risk status details as these will
not be recorded on the biosecurity register under section 169 (as amended by clause 54).
Hence there will be no requirement to correct or update such information under legislation.
Page 34
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Clause 57 replaces section 172 which currently requires the chief executive to publish all the
information in the biosecurity register on the department's website. There is no public policy
justification for the publication or release of information about all the matters recorded in the
register in every circumstance. Instead, the amendment provides that certain information
about registered biosecurity entities must be published while information may be published
about restricted places, restricted animals and restricted biosecurity matter. Giving discretion
to publish information about restricted places, animals and designated biosecurity matter is to
allow for circumstances where there is a public interest in disclosure of the information
including where the restrictions would be ineffectual without disclosure of the information.
For example, if a place was restricted for the keeping of bees then this could be ineffectual
unless the restrictions were made public. Generally, however, information about restrictions
due to contamination with organochlorides, lead, antimicrobials, animals having been fed
restricted animal material or animal having been imported would not be published and
relevant persons would be provided more targeted notification.
For a biosecurity entity required to be registered because they keep the threshold number of
designated animals or threshold amount of designated biosecurity matter, the chief executive
must publish only the address, local government area and any name and PIC of each
designated place for which the entity is registered. The chief executive will have discretion to
publish other information recorded in the register. This includes any other information held in
the biosecurity register for a registered biosecurity entity. It includes information about a
biosecurity entity required to be registered only because they are a beekeeper. Further, clause
55 provides that the chief executive may publish all or part of the information held on the
register for a restricted place, restricted animal or restricted biosecurity matter.
Clause 58 amends section 173 to enable the chief executive to provide a copy of information
held on the biosecurity register for a registered biosecurity entity, restricted place, restricted
animal or restricted biosecurity matter, upon application by a person and payment of the
prescribed fee. However, a person may only be given information relating to a restricted
place if, they are an occupier, owner or registered biosecurity entity for the place, under
written consent of the place's owner, the information has been published on the department's
website under section 172(2) or the giving of the information is required or permitted under
the Act or another Act. A person may only be given information relating to a restricted
animal if, they keep or own the animal, they own the place where the animal is kept, under
written consent of the animal's owner, the information has been published on the
department's website under section 172(2) or the giving of the information is required or
permitted under the Act or another Act. A person may only be given information relating to
restricted biosecurity matter if, they keep or own the matter, they own the place where the
matter is kept, under written consent of the matter's owner, the information has been
published on the department's website under section 172(2) or the giving of the information
is required or permitted under the Act or another Act.
Clause 59 inserts a new section 173A concerning the use by the NLIS administrator, of
information given under subsection 173(6) as renumbered by the Bill. The section enables the
chief executive to authorise the NLIS administrator, either generally or specifically and
subject to conditions, to disclose all or part of the information to a person or class of persons
(such as abattoir operators). The section also allows the NLIS administrator to publish the
information provided by the chief executive, on a website maintained by the NLIS
administrator, provided access to the information is limited to authorised recipients or those
Page 35
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
persons to whom the disclosure is permitted under legislation. This is to ensure release of
information by the NLIS administrator that relates to restricted places or restricted animals
does not breach section 493 of the Biosecurity Act. The information authorised to be given by
the NLIS administrator could also be information derived by combining information recorded
about restricted animals with other information held by the NLIS administrator. For
example, the chief executive would give the NLIS administrator information about
restrictions on dealings with a restricted animal that is contaminated with lead. The chief
executive could approve the release of the information or information derived from it by the
NLIS administrator to abattoirs and feedlots consistent with the NLIS conditions of use. This
would allow the NLIS administrator to collate the information about the restricted animal
with information about the movement of the animal and flag an 'early warning' on the PIC
where an animal restricted due to lead is currently held. The chief executive would not be
responsible for the 'early warning system' about the PIC - this is an initiative of the
Australian Meat Industry Council that administer the NLIS system - but providing the
information to the NLIS administrator and authorising its limited release would contribute to
ensuring appropriate sampling at slaughter and exclusion of meat that is unfit for human
consumption. Similarly, the chief executive would give the NLIS administrator information
about restrictions on places contaminated with organochlorides. The chief executive could
approve the release of the information or information derived from it by the NLIS
administrators to abattoirs and feedlots consistent with the NLIS conditions of use. This
would allow the NLIS administrator to collate the information about the PIC with
information about the movement of an animal from that PIC and flag the animal as
contaminated with organochlorides for 183 days as well as the PIC of any place where such
an animal is being held during those 183 days. However, the chief executive would not be
responsible for maintaining the 'early warning system' about the PIC.
Clause 60 amends the first dot point example to subsection 236(1)(g) to reflect the change in
terminology from restricted animal material for ruminants to restricted animal material,
which is effected by clause 31.
Clause 61 amends the first example under subsection 373(2) to quote a more appropriate
species for the example and better illustrate the operation of the provision.
Clause 62 amends section 376 to require an authorised officer who gives a biosecurity order
to give an information notice for the order (which triggers provisions of the Biosecurity Act
that allow for review of the decision). New subsection 376(3) provides that if the order is
given in writing, it must be accompanied by or include an information notice. New subsection
376(4)(a) provides that an authorised officer must, if giving an oral order, advise the recipient
that as soon as practicable an information notice will be given for the decision to give the
order. The authorised officer must also advise the recipient they have a right to apply for
internal review of the decision to give the order and if the recipient applies for an internal
review, the recipient may apply immediately (to QCAT) for a stay of the decision to give the
order. New subsection 376(4)(b) provides that as soon as practicable after giving the order
orally, the authorised officer must confirm the order by giving the recipient a notice stating
the order's terms, date given and be accompanied by or include an information notice.
Clause 63 amends section 379 to provide that the chief executive may publish on the
department's website, all or part of the information held on the register of biosecurity orders.
Currently the chief executive must publish all of the information.
Page 36
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Clause 64 amends section 431 to provide that the chief executive may publish the register of
accredited certifiers on the department's website. Currently the chief executive must publish
the register.
Clause 65 replaces section 468 which currently provides for when compliance audits must be
conducted and when additional compliance audits must be conducted with a section dealing
specifically with additional compliance audits. This reflects that initially compliance audits
will be required only where a condition of accreditation requires it. The replacement section
will apply where a compliance audit is conducted either under an accreditation condition
imposed under section 430 of the Biosecurity Act or as a result of a compliance audit
required by the chief executive to address one or more non-compliances with the
accreditation. The section provides that additional compliance audits may be required in
relation to identification of one or more non-compliances and must be conducted within a
stated reasonable period. The section also provides that it is an offence for an accredited
certifier not to comply with the requirement for additional audits without a reasonable excuse
and provides a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units.
Clause 66 replaces section 494 concerning personal information kept on the biosecurity
register. The effect is that where (in addition to the address) the inclusion of particular
information (for example a person's contact details, the name of a place or other details in a
register) would place at risk the personal safety of the person or another person, these details
must not be set out in a part of the register that is publicly available or included in a copy of
information from the register.
Clause 67 omits section 522 of the Biosecurity Act which inserted a new provision (section
19A) in the Chemical Usage (Agricultural and Veterinary) Control Act 1988 which concerns
the power of the chief executive to make decisions on the chemical residue status under the in
relation to a registered biosecurity entity and provide information notices where decisions are
made. This new provision is no longer required as the majority of registered biosecurity
entities will not have a chemical residue status. Details of the chemical residue risk of a
registered biosecurity entity can be maintained administratively without the need to do so
under legislation.
Clause 68 amends schedule 1, part 4 to replace the term restricted biosecurity matter with
restricted matter for consistency with chapter 2 of the Biosecurity Act. Clause 68 also omits
several entries from the list of prohibited matter affecting plants in schedule 1, part 7 as these
species have now been detected in Queensland and as a consequence are included in schedule
2 as restricted matter, category 1. The clause also inserts a new entry in the list of prohibited
matter affecting plants for giant pine scale.
Clause 69 omits the entry for small hive beetle from schedule 2, part 1 which lists restricted
matter other than invasive biosecurity matter. The clause also amends schedule 2, part 1,
(Restricted matter affecting plants) and schedule 2, part 2 (Invasive plants) to insert a number
of new entries together with their respective category numbers.
Clause 70 amends schedule 5 (Dictionary) to insert definitions of new terms used throughout
the provisions and omit definitions which are no longer required.
Page 37
Animal Management (Protecting Puppies) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Part 5 Other amendments of Animal Management (Cats and Dogs)
Act 2008
Clause 71 provides for minor amendments by Schedule 1 for consistency with current
drafting standards.
Schedule 1 Other amendments of Animal Management (Cats and
Dogs) Act 2008
Schedule 1 provides for minor amendments to the AMCD Act to bring that Act into
consistency with current drafting standards. These include the removal of notes that simply
cross reference and editor's notes that refer to a department's address.
©The State of Queensland 2016
Page 38