Cat Management Amendment Bill 2019
In this submission:
- Cat Management Amendment Bill 2019 - is referred to as the Amendment Bill or amendments.
- Cat Management Act 2019 - is referred to as the CMA.
Omission from the proposed amendments – roaming cats
The proposed amendments to do not include effective and comprehensive measures to address roaming cats, i.e. owned cats off their owner’s property and not under effective control. Under the proposed amendments an owned cat that roams and is taken to a cat management facility cannot be released back to its owner until the owner agrees to pay for it to be desexed and/or microchipped. Alternatively, if the owner refuses to pay the fee, the cat can be euthanized or desexed and/or microchipped and adopted. There are provisions proposed in relation to the costs of housing an owned cat at a cat management facility.
These penalties are helpful but are not adequate as they only apply if the cat is taken to a cat management facility, some provisions only apply to cats that are not desexed and/or microchipped and provides no additional penalty for serious offenses.
Many parts of Tasmania do not have cat management facilities and in these areas roaming cats will be required to be returned to their owners or destroyed, with no penalty applying. Cats may also be released. While it is good to require owners to desex and/or microchip before recovering their cat, there should be a penalty that applies to all roaming cats whether or not they are desexed and/or microchipped.
Under the proposed amendments there is no capacity to issue harsher penalties for cat owners who are repeat or multiple offenders or whose cats cause very serious damage e.g. to bird colonies, as is currently proposed by the state government in relation to dogs.
The state government has said it does not want to force all councils to manage roaming cats and that those councils who want to can create their own by-laws. But by-laws are very slow and costly to develop and the state government should create uniform laws covering the whole state. Critically, legislation can be written to give councils discretion as to whether they enforce the laws relating to roaming cats.
The TCT proposes the following amendments to the Cat Management Act to address roaming cats:
- make it an offence for the owner of a cat to let it roam off their property or be in a public place while not under effective control (e.g. being on a lead or in an appropriate cat crate);
- provide a fine for owners of a cat found roaming or not under effective control that is similar to that applied to dogs and that harsher penalties apply for multiple, repeat or serious offences e.g. 20 to 30 penalty units;
- allow a council to appoint an appropriately trained officer to enforce these provisions but councils are not compelled to do so.
8A Collection and analysis of a sample from a cat
The TCT supports this amendment on the understanding that it provides for collection of evidence that might be required to prosecute owners of cats suspected of killing and/or injuring wild animals or in relation other offences under the CMA. However, it is a concern that this provision was not raised in the draft or final Cat Management Plan as a possible legislative amendment and there is no explanation of the provisions in the documents released with the Cat Management Amendment Bill 2019, i.e.:
- ‘Summary of proposed amendments to the Cat Management Amendment Bill 2019’;
- ‘Draft Cat Management Amendment Bill 2019 Frequently Asked Questions’.
The TCT recommends that a full explanation of the provisions is provided to all parliamentarians at the time the Amendment Bill is tabled.
Section 12 amended: Compulsory microchipping
The proposed amendments are strongly supported however the TCT prefers the requirement for compulsory microchipping a cat to apply at three months to align with our recommendation regarding the age at which a cat is to be desexed.
The penalty for contravening this provision is sufficiently high at up to 20 penalty units or $3360 and this is strongly supported. In addition to this it is noted that section 24 is to be finally commenced that requires a person reclaiming an owned cat from a cat management facility to pay the cost or desexing and/or microchipping their cat.
Section 14 amended: Compulsory desexing
The proposed amendments are strongly supported however we would prefer the requirement for desexing a cat to apply at three months rather than four months to reduce the likelihood of cats reproducing before reaching the age where desexing is required.
The proposed amendments to require all desexed cats to be identified with an ear tattoo, is strongly supported. This will, for example, enable a person working at a cat management facility or a person who has trapped a cat to determine that a cat is desexed without a veterinary inspection, saving considerable time and expense. We note that no justification is provided in the explanatory documents for why an ear tattoo is required. The TCT recommends that a full explanation of the provision is provided to all parliamentarians at the time the bill is tabled.
The penalty for contravening this provision is sufficiently high at up to 20 penalty units or $3360. In addition to this it is noted that section 24 is to be commenced, after a ten year delay, that requires a person reclaiming an owned cat from a cat management facility to pay the cost for desexing and/or microchipping their cat.
Transmission period for the provisions relating to desexing .and microchipping
The TCT does not support a transmission period for the provisions relating to desexing and microchipping of cats. Most people in the community already desex and microchip their cats. For those who do not there has been a long lead-up time to the introduction of these amendments. We note the Draft Cat Management Plan for Tasmania was released for comment in April 2016 and it included a recommendation for compulsory desexing. It is time to make desexing a requirement and provide a strong penalty immediately on passage of the bill.
However, if the government insists on a transition period then we recommend that the commencement date be included in the act rather than, as currently proposed, leave it as a promise made by the minister. The Cat Management Act 2009 did not commence for three years following its passage through parliament and we must not allow any further delays for such fundamental and strongly supported provisions.
16. Limit on the number of cats that can be kept.
The proposal to require a permit to keep multiple cats is strongly supported however we would prefer that the limit applies to keep more than two cats at a property without a permit. This aligns with the Dog Management Act that requires a license to keep more than two dogs, other than working dogs, at a property.
The penalty for contravening this provision is sufficiently high at up to 20 penalty units or $3360 and is supported
The exceptions provided for in section 16(3) are supported except for 16(3)(f). The purpose of this subsection is unclear and it may be abused by people who do not want to seek a permit and pay the fee. It also does not afford the neighbors the right to make complaints as may occur where a permit is requested.
Section 16(3)(f)(ii) does not clarify how the owner and occupier are to provide evidence that they have agreed upon the period that the cat may stay on the premises nor how this is to be documented to ensure evidence in case of complaints being made and prosecutions being undertaken.
16A Keeping more than four cats
We support the process for requesting a permit for keeping more than four cats and in particular the provision for persons to object. However, it seems that the distance of 200 metres has been chosen somewhat arbitrarily as the trigger point for public objections. If there is a clear justification for this it should be provided to all parliamentarians at the time the bill is tabled.
Whatever distance is chosen the applicant will have difficulty determining that the prescribed premises is or is not closer than 200 metres to residences or land not owned by the applicant. These facts would also need to be verified by the secretary or general manager and may be disputed by people wishing to make responses.
This process is made difficult by the definition of specified premises which includes the land as well as buildings, fences etc. We assume that this means that any person who owns land, or resides within 200 metres of the land (property) on which the owner of the cats resides, has a right to object. If this is the case then this could result in a very large number of people having such a right. It also involves the applicant providing quite complex information in the public notice to accurately reflect who can make an objection.
These problems become more serious when dealing with a very large property. A property of several thousand hectares may wish to obtain a permit to house more than four cats but people many kilometers or tens of kilometres from where the cats will primarily live may be able to make an objection.
A key factor that the amendments do not address is the size of the applicants property and the likelihood of the cats roaming onto the adjacent properties or otherwise causing a nuisance.
The TCT recommends that the amendments should be redrafted to require an applicant to publish their property boundary and where the cats will housed, and if, not whether or not any actions are to be taken to limit the movement and potential for causing a nuisance to nearby residences.
There are no clear criteria for permit applicants to address, for the secretary or a general manager to assess applications against, and for objectors to respond to. In addition to the above recommendation the TCT suggest that clear criteria are included in the amendments. Criteria may include:
- applicant is to provide information on how the cats are to be managed to reduce the potential for impacts on adjacent properties (including wildlife) and residences;
- how the cats are to be provided for to ensure their needs and welfare are addressed;
- whether the cats are all desexed and what actions are to be taken to stop unwanted kittens being born and becoming stray or feral;
- whether the applicant has been convicted of an animal welfare offence before.
The secretary or a general manager may grant a permit if satisfied that the applicant is a ‘fit and proper person’ Section 16A (8)(a)(i) but it is not clear what that means.
Section 16B Cancellation of multiple cat permit
While there is a need for a provision to cancel permits to keep multiple cats we are concerned that there has not been consideration of what happens to the excess cats (above four) after the permit is cancelled. The TCT recommends that the provision be amended to require that the excess cats are relocated to appropriate facilities or other premises.
Section 16 Care agreements
We support the revocation of section 16 that deals with cat care agreements.
Section 17 Protection of property from cats
The changes to section 17 have the general purpose of expanding and clarifying the type of landowners who can take action to control cats and these are strongly supported.
The definition of Primary Production Land, which is taken from the Land Tax Act 2000, and the definition of Production Premises included in Section 17(1) of the Amendment Bill are suitably comprehensive and well defined to enable virtually anyone undertaking primary production for profit to trap or humanely destroy a cat as per section 17(7).
Section 17(2) specifically empowers all people who own or lease premises or a person acting on behalf of such a person, to trap, seize or detain a cat found on their property. This means that virtually all Tasmanian persons will have the right to trap or seize cats on their property and this is a very good clarification of people’s rights.
Section 17(3) requires a cat trap to be checked ‘at least once every 24 hours’ but this is probably too long a period of time. Animals caught in traps including native animals and owned cats could suffer extraordinarily from exposure to heat or cold and a lack of water. We understand that the normal guidelines are that traps should be set in the early evening and checked at first light, which would be around 12 hours. The TCT recommends that this provision is amended to include a time period for checking a laid trap that is less than 24 hours and closer to 12 hours.
Section 17(4) requires the release of all animals that are not cats but this could require the release of dangerous introduced species e.g. a fox. This would clearly contradict other legislation that prohibits the release of such dangerous introduced animals. The TCT recommends that the amendment be reworded to require all animals to be released where they are known to be native and not a dangerous introduced species.
Similarly 17(5) should provide another option other than returning a cat to the owner or taking it to a cat management facility. It may take longer than 24 hours to locate an owner and many remote areas will have limited facilities for housing cats. In these circumstances the TCT recommends that the provisions are amended so that it is allowed to either release the cat in a suitable location or to house the cat for longer than 24 hours in a safe and humane way e.g. at a person’s home.
Similarly 17(7) clarifies that cats may be humanely destroyed on land whether or not the person is residing there i.e. it allows managers and occupiers to undertaken this activity. This is strongly supported. However we are concerned that 17(7)(c) is vague and could lead to people who are not even known by the property manager to destroy cats in ways that cannot easily be supervised or controlled. The TCT recommends that the provision be amended to specify that it relates to professional contractors.
Sections 18 Cats in prohibited areas and Section 20 Declaration of cat management areas
The current act does not include penalties where owners of a cat allow their cat to enter a cat prohibited area (CPA) or who do not follow measures associated with a cat management area (CMA). The proposed amendments fail to address these critical omissions.
Section 18 allows a council or other manager to take a range of actions in relation to a cat found in a CPA such as humanely destroying, trapping, ceasing etc. However, Councils do not have adequate resources to effectively trap or seize all cats found in CPAs and CMAs. It would be highly beneficial to include penalties in the proposed amendments that could be applied by councils where they do trap an owned cat and do not wish to destroy it. More importantly, the existence of penalties would also be a powerful deterrent that councils could use to warn cat owners to stop allowing their cats to roam into a CPA or CMA.
The penalty should be very high given that CPAs and CMAs are designated because they contain native species vulnerable to attack by cats. The TCT recommends that a penalty should be up to $3360 as this is the fine currently proposed by the state government for dogs entering sensitive habitat for native wildlife.
Section 23 Notification where owner is identified
The proposed amendments to section 23 are supported as they aim to stream line operations of a cat management facility and assist with recovering costs. The change to 23(d) is particularly important in that the owner is to be responsible for covering the costs of holding their cat.
Section 24 reclaiming cats
The amendment to section 24(2)(a) clarifies that, when a cat management facility receives a cat that is not desexed and/or microchipped, that it must desex and/or microchip it before releasing it to the owner and that an appropriate penalty applies. These are both strongly supported.
It is the intention of the state government (as stated in ‘Draft Cat Management Amendment Bill 2019 Frequently Asked Questions’) to finally commence section 24. The TCT recommends that this commitment should be included in the act through inclusion of a commencement date.
Section 25 Unidentified, unclaimed and surrendered cats
We support the changes that relate to removing reference to working days and replacing it with days. These are sensible changes to enable cats to be dealt with more quickly.
Section 28 Humane destruction of cats
This section proposes a massive increase in the penalty for failing to destroy a cat in a humane way and/or failing to appropriately dispose of the animal’s remains. This is strongly supported as a potential deterrent to people committing such acts.
Section 29 Restriction on breeding of cats
We are concerned regarding the new sub-section 29(3) that provides for people to apply for a breeding permit after their cat has been involved in breeding. This will encourage people to not seek permits and only do so after their cat has bred. The TCT recommends that this provision is removed unless it can be suitably amended to ensure that persons using this exception can demonstrate they intend to be legitimate cat breeders.
Section 37 Abandoned cats
This amendment provides a definition of ‘abandon’ in relation to a cat that clarifies where the penalties apply and this is supported.
Section 38A Requirement notice
The provision for requirement notices is supported as it will help to ensures than any provision of the act is complied with.
Section 45 Regulations
This amendment to Section 45 is supported as they identify important matters to be considered when drafting regulations
Yours sincerely,
Peter McGlone
Director