AGRICULTURE RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE · (LP Act). Finally, there is provision for adoption of codes of practice specific to the industry under the Bill (see clauses 21

1

AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

INQUIRY INTO THE EXHIBITED ANIMALS BILL 2014

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

PREPARED BY AREC SECRETARIAT 13 NOVEMBER 2014

This Summary is designed to be read in conjunction with the submissions.

Comments in clause order

2

Sub No. Submitter 1 Raymond Hoser 2 Janlin Circuses Pty Ltd (Trading as Lennon Bros Circus and Stardust Circus) 3 Zoo and Aquarium Association Queensland Branch 4 RSPCA Queensland 5 Raymond Deller 6 Hands On Wildlife 7 Darling Downs Zoo 8 Steve Robinson 9 Queensland Native Fauna Advisory Group Inc. (QNFAG)

10 Donna Blaxter 11 Damian Syred & Circus Royale (Circus Royale) 12 Zoo and Aquarium Association 13 Animal Liberation Queensland 14 Animals Australia 15 Andrew Payne 16 Barry Nixon 17 Wildlife Kingdom

3

Cl. Section/[Issue] Sub No. and Submitter

Key Points Departmental response

4 How purposes are primarily achieved

4 – RSPCA Qld Section 4 lays out the purposes of the Act and recognises the obligation of persons exhibiting animals to care about animal welfare. Apart from this section, the Bill does not deal with the health and welfare of exhibited animals. RSPCA Qld would like to be assured that these will be dealt with in regulations, codes of practice or standards and guidelines.

A risk to the welfare of any animal is defined as a ‘relevant risk’ in clause 17 of the Bill. The Bill deals extensively with relevant risks. For example, the Bill obliges all exhibitors to take all reasonable and practical measures to prevent or minimise relevant risks (clause 18), provides for regulations, codes of practice and guidelines to be made about ways of discharging that obligation (see clause 20 – 28) and provides that the chief executive must be satisfied that relevant risks will be prevented or minimised before approving a management plan and granting a licence or permit under the Bill (clause 55).

7 Relationships with particular Acts

13- Animal Liberation Qld; 14 – Animals Aust

It is unclear how animal welfare would be better protected under the new legislation. No compelling argument or clear benefits to include animal welfare issues in this Bill when the Animal Care and Protection Act (ACPA) already includes relevant sections and penalties, and some reasons why such a move may be retrograde.

Due to the operation of s 6A of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (ACPA), a person generally does not commit an offence under the ACPA if what they are doing or not doing is authorised under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NCA). This would generally protect those lawfully exhibiting native animals from prosecution. By authorising exhibition of native animals under an Act other than the NCA, the Bill will ensure the ACPA applies to all animal exhibits. Nothing in the Bill is intended to undermine the application to exhibitors of obligations under the ACPA (see clause 7). It is intended that an exhibitor guilty of an offence under the Bill may be prosecuted instead for an offence committed under the ACPA if the offence and penalty under that legislation is more appropriate in the circumstances, for example having regard to the gravity of what occurred. Further, the Bill will ensure that the chief executive must be satisfied that risks to animal welfare will be minimised before a licence or permit to exhibit and deal with the animal can be granted (clause 55). Currently, there are some specific licensing considerations relevant to animal welfare under the NCA but there are none under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 (LP Act). Finally, there is provision for adoption of codes of practice specific to the industry under the Bill (see clauses 21 and 23). This will ensure that community expectations for animal welfare in the industry are reflected in more specific requirements than are available under the ACPA. The only current specific requirements under the ACPA are the mandatory Queensland code of practice for the welfare of animals in circuses 2003 and a voluntary code - the Queensland code of practice for the welfare of animals in film production.


14 – Animals Aust

Having what amounts to a separate welfare Act for exhibited animals runs the risk that penalties in this sector will not keep pace with those in the ACPA and its regulations.

The maximum penalties for offences under the Bill are set in terms of penalty units. The Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 provides a mechanism for the indexation of the monetary value of penalty units. If no percentage increase to the unit value has been determined by the Treasurer and gazetted by 31 March in a given year, the percentage change is 3.5%. Further, nothing in the Bill is intended to undermine the application to exhibitors of obligations under the ACPA (see clause 7). It is intended that an exhibitor guilty of an offence under the Bill may be prosecuted instead for an offence committed under the ACPA if the offence and penalty under that legislation is more appropriate in the circumstances, for example having regard to the gravity of what occurred.


11 - Circus Royale

All circuses have prepared Environmental Impact Statements for local government regulators in most areas of Australia and all of these have shown zero environmental impact.

The Bill will not affect the application of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and relevant local planning laws. Potential environmental impacts that are unrelated to biosecurity would not be a ‘relevant risk’ and

4



there are no requirements under the Bill to prevent or minimise them. 7 NCA Rehabilitation Permit 3 –Zoo &

Aquarium Assoc Qld

Under the current legislation the holder of a Wildlife Exhibitor Licence is able to automatically be granted a Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit without any additional application being made. Given the work that zoos do supporting the government in terms of wildlife rescue and rehabilitation this provision needs to continue so that the holder of an Exhibition Licence, who operates at a fixed location, under the Exhibited Animals Bill 2014 automatically receives a Rehabilitation Permit under the NCA. This will remove the need for a licensee to have to deal with another government department; one of the key points of the move to the single piece of legislation.

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) has advised they will consider whether the current exemption from the requirement for exhibitors to apply for a Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit should be replicated via a regulation amendment prior to the commencement of the Bill. However, the current regulations provide other exemptions that apply more broadly to support the role of zoos and aquariums in their role of caring for sick, injured and orphaned animals. • Section 39 of the Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006 allows

veterinary surgeons to take and keep sick, injured or orphaned protected animals without a rehabilitation permit. This means that exhibitors that have veterinary surgeons (e.g. many larger zoos and aquariums) are exempt from requiring a rehabilitation permit while the animal is in the care of that individual.

• For smaller organisations without a veterinary surgeon, section 59 allows a zoo or aquarium (and other community members) to be in possession of a sick, injured or orphaned protected animal for 72 hours before seeking an authorised carer.

12 Meaning of animal

3 –Zoo & Aquarium Assoc Qld; 12- Zoo and Aquarium Association; 6 – Hands on Wildlife; 7 – Darling Downs Zoo

The definition of an animal in section 12 is too broad in that it captures invertebrates (insects etc.). The Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 offers a more appropriate and realistic definition of animal for this legislation. This will ensure consistency across legislation and will eliminate the need to add amendments and exclusions via regulation.

Adopting, in this Bill, the definition of ‘animal’ in the ACPA would mean an exhibition licence could not authorise exhibition of native butterflies, scorpions and spiders that are prescribed as protected animals under the NCA. It would also mean that an exhibition licence could not authorise exhibition of invertebrates, such as certain exotic bees or crabs, listed as prohibited and restricted matter under the Biosecurity Act 2014.

12 Meaning of animal

3 –Zoo & Aquarium Assoc Qld; 12- Zoo and Aquarium Association;

This means that under the Bill crickets, mealworms, stick insects, brine shrimp etc. will need to listed on the exhibition licence and have authorised enclosures. Since such invertebrates pose no relevant risk (as defined in section 17) they should be excluded.

Native invertebrates are native wildlife but they may be kept and used without an NCA authorisation unless they are specifically listed as protected animals. Crickets, mealworms, stick insects and brine shrimp are not listed as protected animals. Consequently an authority is not required to exhibit these animals - see clause 35(1)(a).

12 Meaning of animal – subsection (2)

3 –Zoo & Aquarium Assoc Qld

Regulation will need to provide exclusions to some of the Act’s clauses when dealing with pre-natal, pre-hatched, larval, pupae and embryos. For example an egg, or an embryo, does not require an authorised enclosure. Without the caveat provided in the ACPA 2001 animal definition whereby a pre-natal or pre-hatched creature is only an animal once it reaches the second half of the gestation/incubation period then the destruction of eggs (under the Exhibited Animals Bill 2014) at any

Clause 12 defines animal to mean any live member of the animal kingdom. But this meaning is extended in relation to dealing with an exhibited animal. In these circumstances cl 12(2) provides that animal includes the animal at each stage in its life cycle and the whole or part of the genetic or reproductive material of the animal. This is to ensure an exhibited animal authority allows an exhibitor to deal with genetic or reproductive material and pre-natal and pre-hatched animals, larvae, pupae and embryos. Dealing with relevant genetic or reproductive material would otherwise be unlawful under the Biosecurity Act 2014 and NCA. For example, an exhibition licence could, due the extended definition of animal, allow the transfer of koala semen between exhibitors who are participating in a captive breeding program.

5



developmental stage will be problematic under the animal definition in the Exhibited Animals Bill 2014.

There are certain licence conditions that it would be ridiculous to enforce if applied to animals in certain life stages or to genetic or reproductive material. For example, it would be ridiculous to require semen, which only survives under certain conditions, to be kept in the regular enclosure approved for housing a post-natal animal of the species. Allowance is made for this in the offence provision for contravention of a condition of an authority (cl 78) – the offence is not committed if there is a reasonable excuse for the contravention. If necessary the management plan could clarify measures for minimising the risks associated with genetic or reproductive material or the animal at a particular stage of its life cycle. The department’s proposed compliance approach would be to enforce welfare requirements under the Bill for animals that fall outside the definition of an animal under the ACPA, only in circumstances of apparent cruelty. The destruction of eggs should not be problematic under the Bill. Maceration is a generally accepted method of disposal of pre-hatched creatures.

13 Meaning of exhibit an animal 8 – Steve Robinson; 11 – Circus Royale; 17 – Wildlife Kingdom; 5 - Deller

The Queensland Exhibited Animals Bill 2014 should be amended to exclude itinerant circus exhibitors. Alternatively, an industry specific piece of legislation could be developed in genuine consultation with the traditional Australian circus industry. The proposed legislation is not industry relevant or specific. It is unworkable and frequently discriminative from a traditional Australian circus perspective. The Bill will result in an Act that will effectively ban traditional Australian circuses with exotic animals in this State. Traditional Australian circuses with exotic animals do not pose a risk to animal welfare, human health, safety or wellbeing and have a positive impact on social amenity and the economy, particularly in regional areas of the State. There is no evidence that they have ever had an adverse effect on the environment. Traditional Australian circus with exotic animals achieves the purposes of the proposed Act, without the discriminatory provisions of this Bill.

The Bill will not ban traditional Australian circuses with exotic animals in Queensland. The number of traditional circuses in Queensland has dwindled in recent decades. There are only two remaining circuses with exotic species based in Queensland. The only large circuses that still tour Queensland with exotic animals are all based interstate. The existing two Queensland-based circuses will not need to establish a fixed exhibit for animals that they are holding when the Bill commences (see clause 258). However, any new or replacement animal that is prohibited matter under the Biosecurity Act 2014 would be an authorised animal (category 2) and would need to be based in a fixed exhibit. If these circuses do not wish to develop a fixed exhibit for replacement animals when their macaques pass, they could tour with animals that are not authorised animals (category 2) such as camels, llamas, goats and dogs. Under the Bill, a circus that is permitted in another state can apply to tour within Queensland under an ‘interstate exhibitors permit’. The circus may tour with all the animals permitted in the other state, including with an animal that is an authorised animal (category 2), so long as the circus continues to be closely regulated interstate and the chief executive is satisfied with how they will manage the risks posed by their activities in Queensland. It is not accurate to suggest that itinerant exhibits with exotic animals pose no relevant risks. Indeed, mobile collections pose heightened animal welfare, biosecurity and safety risks, and there are growing community expectations for demonstrable risk mitigation. For example, there are well documented community concerns about the welfare of exotic wildlife in circuses. These often relate to the adequacy of the travelling accommodation for the animals and the training of animals to display abnormal behaviours. The management of these risks need to be balanced against the benefits mobile exhibition brings to Queensland. However, there is some basis for traditional circuses to argue that they should be treated a little differently from some other mobile exhibitors under the Bill. Traditional circuses generally have public performances and they tend to keep animals that are noticeable and in public view. The high level of community oversight of their activities promotes compliance with risk management requirements. There are also factors, such as the habituation of the animals to travelling and the close bond that forms over many years between an animal and its trainer, that go some way

6



towards mitigating the animal welfare risks posed by circus tours. However, it is largely intangibles such as tradition and culture that differentiate a circus from a mobile wildlife collection. It would be very difficult to legislate for these differences.

13 Meaning of exhibit an animal - subsection (3)


Clauses 68 and 69 describe minimum exhibition periods for authorised animals. Given that section 13 describes exhibition as including by an electronic medium does this open the way for a licence holder to circumvent the intent of clauses 68 and 69 by exhibiting an animal by use of a webcam set up in the animal’s enclosure? This may need to be tightened.

Exhibition by webcam may meet the requirements of clause 68 and 69. Whether exhibition by webcam provides sufficient public benefits to justify keeping wild animals was not explored in consultation about development of the proposed legislation. It could be argued that the minimal investment in exhibition by webcam exhibition means that there is little incentive to ensure that the broadcast is actually viewed. Consequently, exhibition by webcam could be a pathway to maintaining a license for a largely private collection. Electronic exhibition by traditional film and television productions was mentioned in consultation on the proposed legislation. It would generally meet the requirements of clause 68 and 69. The relatively large investment in traditional film and television production ensures that efforts are made to ensure the production is widely viewed. Exhibitors are currently able to keep exotic animals solely for traditional film and television productions under the LP Act. The NCA does not expressly address this form of exhibition. The holder of a wildlife exhibitor licence or wildlife demonstrator licence would not be precluded from exhibiting their native animals in this way, but it would not meet minimum exhibition requirements for a wildlife demonstrator licence unless the filming occurred at a place other than the licensed premise for the licence. The distinction between traditional productions and internet broadcasts is likely to become more blurred given the fast pace of current media evolution. One option that would largely maintain the status quo is to amend the Bill to exclude all electronic exhibitions of the animal in its regular enclosure from meeting the requirements of clauses 68 – 69. To ensure this did not adversely impact traditional film and television productions that were filmed in the regular enclosure, the chief executive could impose a temporary licence condition requiring exhibition for the production that effectively overrode (see clause 73) the minimum exhibition requirements during filming of an electronic exhibition.

16 Meaning of responsible person for an exhibited animal – subsection (3)

3 –Zoo & Aquarium Assoc Qld; 7 – Darling Downs Zoo; 8 – Steve Robinson

It is unfair to hold a person “responsible” as soon as they take “a step to enforce [a] mortgage or other security”. Change wording to “ ... if the person successfully enforces a mortgage or security ...”

Several other Acts provide that a person has responsibilities in relation to an animal if they take steps to enforce a security. An animal welfare direction under section 143 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 can be given to a person who has taken a step to enforce a mortgage or other security interest. Such a person also becomes a person in charge of the animal under section 12 of the ACPA and hence owes the animal a duty of care. They also become a person in charge of an animal under the Chemical Usage (Agricultural and Veterinary) Control Act 1988 and hence become responsible for ensuring the observance of a withholding period after certain products have been used to treat the animal. However, a different approach is taken under the Biosecurity Act 2014. Some obligations are triggered when a person deals with a thing which may include an animal. This includes where they keep or possess the thing. But a person who holds a mortgage or other security interest does not deal with the thing only because the person takes a step to enforce the mortgage of other security. It should be noted that the practical effect of making a person who takes a step to enforce a mortgage or other security is limited by what measures it would be reasonable and practical for

7



them to take. In other words, they would only be obliged to prevent or minimise risks to the extent they had influence over how those risks were managed.

17 Meaning of relevant risk

3 –Zoo & Aquarium Assoc Qld; 7 – Darling Downs Zoo

Unless the definition of ‘animal’ is changed as per discussion above on Section 12 an issue will arise in relation to the welfare of any invertebrates used for feeding other animals. It is accepted that, with a few exceptions, there are no welfare risks associated with invertebrates (see Animal Care and Protection Act 2001).

Clause 12 defines animal to mean any live member of the animal kingdom. But this meaning is extended in relation to dealing with an ‘exhibited animal’. If a licence was not required to keep the invertebrates and they were simply used for feeding exhibited animals, then the Bill would generally not apply - see clause 10(1)(c)(iii). In this circumstance they would not be ‘exhibited animals’. For invertebrates that are ‘exhibited animals’ (e.g. some rare butterflies or other invertebrates that were exhibited for a commercial purpose), the department’s proposed compliance approach would be to enforce welfare requirements under the Bill for animals that fall outside the definition of an animal under the ACPA, only in circumstances of apparent cruelty.

21 Effect of code of practice for discharge of general exhibition and dealing obligation – subsection (3)

6 – Hands on Wildlife

For (3b), ‘does not follow a way that is as effective as, or more effective than, the code of practice’, how will it be determined that one way is more or less effective? Who will determine this?

In the first instance, inspectors would have to exercise judgement about the effectiveness of measures taken. Where they believed risk management was inadequate, inspectors would generally take an educational approach to requiring measures that were at least as good as a code of practice. Except for gross breaches, enforcement action would generally be deferred until an exhibitor had been given reasonable opportunity to improve the measures they were taking. There are a range of factors considered before the department proceeds with a prosecution and these include whether there is a reasonable prospect of success. Thus, prosecution action would generally not be taken unless the way was clearly less effective than a relevant code of practice. Ultimately, the courts would determine, in response to prosecution action, whether a person had complied with their obligation including by following a way that is as effective as, or more effective than, a relevant code of practice.

23 Making codes of practice - subsection (1)

3 –Zoo & Aquarium Assoc Qld; 6 – Hands on Wildlife

Who is the Governor in Council and do they make all codes of practice?

The term ‘Governor in Council’ means the Governor acting with the advice of the Executive Council. Executive Councillors are generally members of Cabinet. All subordinate legislation, including a regulation making a code of practice, must be tabled in the Legislative Assembly after they have been made. The Legislative Assembly reviews the subordinate legislation when it is tabled, and has the power to pass a resolution disallowing the subordinate legislation.

23 Making codes of practice - subsection (1)


How often can codes of practice be made/changed? There is no limit on making or amending codes of practice by regulation. However, given the considerable consultation appropriate to development of, or changes to, a code of practice, it is unlikely it would occur frequently.

23 Making codes of practice 1 - Hoser Venomous snake displays with snakes that have not been surgically devenomized to be outlawed on the basis of inherent public safety risks as well as the consideration of inherent welfare aspects in terms of the tormenting of snakes with metal sticks.

All dealings with wildlife involve some risk. Without prohibiting exhibit of all animals it would not be possible to reduce risks to animal welfare and public safety to zero. Instead, the Bill balances the public interests that are served by the industry with the risks associated with its activities. In particular, the Bill will ensure that the chief executive must be satisfied that risks to animal welfare and public safety will be minimised before a licence or permit to exhibit and deal with a venomous snake can be granted (clause 55). Some venomous snakes can be kept for private recreation under a recreational wildlife licence granted under the NCA.

8



23 Making codes of practice 15 - Payne Will the Bill provide for requirements, of innovative

wildlife businesses with special needs, for example, for training birds for the Film and Television industry? Points to consider: Allow the keeping of raptors in practical ways that fit in line with international standards of keeping trained raptors. Allow the keeping of raptors in a way that can be proven to be safe for the bird and can be proven to be historically sound practice. Allow the use of techniques and flexible management practices, e.g... allow for a changing environment for keeping a bird in and within the licensed premises. This may change depending on the time of year. Moulting a bird, breeding a bird, training a bird. This may not and will not always be in lined with ideas and methods undertaken by traditional wildlife parks who have not traditionally used trained animals. Allow for mandatory one off cage and travel boxes for each bird to be exempt for raptors that are free flown and used for film work and any approved pest control work.

An exhibition licence would be granted in response to a management plan developed by the applicant. Developing a management plan would allow exhibitors to use their expert knowledge to problem-solve how to address risks in their circumstances. This means the Bill is more flexible to the considerable diversity in the industry than the current legislation. If an exhibitor engaged in particular activities, for example, training and exhibiting birds for film and television purposes, a management plan should focus on the significant relevant risks associated with dealing with and exhibiting species for that particular purpose. It may be that the risk management measures proposed in these circumstances are quite different from those used in more traditional exhibition.

24 Consultation about codes of practice

3 –Zoo & Aquarium Assoc Qld; 6- Hands on Wildlife; 7 – Darling Downs Zoo; 8 – Steve Robinson; 10 – Blaxter; 11 – Circus Royale

Codes of practice will have a significant impact on the costs associated with meeting the general obligation. The consultation in relation to the making of a code of practice should be restricted to the involvement of the regulator and industry. The inclusion of ‘community groups’ provides for any group or person with nothing at stake to impose conditions on the operations of bona fide businesses operating as per the law. This opens the way, for example, for animals rights groups to impose unworkable and costly conditions on the operation of legitimate businesses. The definition of relevant entities should be changed.

‘Relevant entities’ means the entities the chief executive considers have an interest in matters relating to exhibiting and dealing with exhibited animals. Community groups, including animal rights groups, may represent public interests in exhibiting and dealing with exhibited animals so it is important that decisions are informed by any comments they may wish to make. If concerns were raised by a community group, the Minister would consider the appropriate balance between any public interests expressed by those groups and the interests of exhibitors. At this stage the only codes of practice proposed to be adopted under the Bill are the national standards currently under development. The Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) suggested that two codes of practice currently under the ACPA could also be reviewed and adopted as codes of practice under the Bill. However, the department’s current view is that these two codes are unsuitable for adoption in their current form and a clear case has not been made to justify their review for adoption. Consultation requirements under this Bill do not obviate other consultation requirements. For example, the regulatory impact assessment system that applies to all legislative instruments may still require public consultation on a RIS.

24 7 – Darling Downs Zoo; 8 – Steve Robinson

Add explicit obligation for chief executive to consult with industry.

Clause 24 would, at the least, require the chief executive to consult with the industry via industry associations.

9



In practice, the department would likely consult with all exhibitors before briefing the Minister on making a code of practice if it would have a significant impact on their operations. In many circumstances, the regulatory impact assessment system will require formal public consultation on a RIS. The requirement for consultation with relevant entities in clause 24 is somewhat redundant in the context of this regulatory impact assessment system. However, industry members consulted on a working draft of the Bill supported its inclusion to mirror the relevant provision of the Biosecurity Act 2014 and requested a similar requirement to be inserted in clause 26 in relation to making of guidelines to mirror the relevant provision of the Biosecurity Act 2014.

24 11 – Circus Royale

Whilst Circus Royale and the Australian Circus Industry support consultation with relevant entities consideration must be given to industry representatives, actual animal owners and exhibitors ahead of those that have an abolitionist agenda. Consultative Committees on Exhibited Animals in other Australian states regulate representation to ensure animal exhibitors, not animal rights have the majority input. A Circus Federation representative place should be included on any committee formed in relation to exhibited animals in Queensland.

The Exhibited Animals Liaison Working Group was formed earlier in 2014 to provide advice on policies and feedback on how the new legislation would be administered. It includes representatives from the zoo and wildlife demonstrator sectors and the RSPCA. While there is no representative from the circus sector, an invitation could be extended if the department was consulting with the group on an issue of particular relevance to that sector. Clause 24 requires consultation with relevant entities which would include entities in addition to those on the liaison group. It would include the Circus Federation. Community groups, including animal rights groups, may represent public interests in exhibiting and dealing with exhibited animals so it is important that decisions are also informed by any comments they may wish to make. If concerns were raised by a community group, the Minister would consider the appropriate balance between any public interests expressed by those groups and the interests of exhibitors.

24 9 - QNFAG The national Code of Practice does not address mobile exhibitors and to have mobile exhibitors being forced to adhere to a Code not designed for them could lead to problems. We request assurance that no code of practice will be introduced without our concerns being addressed/input.

It is proposed that the national standards, currently under development, would be reflected in codes of practice made under the Bill but a decision on this will not be made by the government until the national standards are finalised. The development of the national standards has been geared towards fixed exhibition. However, many of the standards are also appropriate for any exhibition or dealing with an exhibited animal. For example, ensuring crocodilians are provided with ponds and basking areas would be a reasonable expectation on any exhibitor. The Bill generally applies requirements consistently across sectors. It is proposed that those national standards that it would be reasonable for any exhibitor to comply with would apply to all exhibitors in Queensland. The department intends to consult with industry during the development of regulations, and hopes to hold a workshop with industry nominees on a working draft of the regulations, just as it held a workshop on the Bill. The department proposes to consult the industry liaison group about the appropriate application of the national standards to other sectors.

24 Consultation about codes of practice - subsection (2)

3 –Zoo & Aquarium Assoc Qld; 6- Hands of Wildlife

From where would adopted provisions come and why would there be no obligation for government to consult with industry? This is counterintuitive to good government/industry relationships. It would be fair to let the industry have input on ALL codes of practise

As mentioned above, a system of regulatory impact assessment requires consultation for instruments whose impacts will be significant. There are some exclusions and exemptions from consultation on impact assessment, for example, where there has already been an extensive impact assessment process (comparable to the requirements of the RIS system) that takes into account the impacts on Queensland and regulatory best practice principles. Similarly consultation is

10



including ones that could be adopted. not required for instruments that will not have a significant impact. Not requiring consultation on an adopted code of practice exempts the department, (but with less refinement that the exemptions and exclusions under the regulatory impact assessment system), from consultation requirements in clause 24(1) where they might be inappropriate. For example, it ensures that the department will not have to undertake separate consultation if national standards are adopted by reference in Queensland if there has already been appropriate consultation during their development. (But consultation would be required in the more likely circumstance that these standards are written into the regulation). Another example is where an industry group develops a policy and procedures for how they will deal with a particular animal in a particular circumstance. The department may not have been involved in the process but the government is satisfied that complying with the policy and procedures would prevent or minimise the relevant risks. The code could be adopted as a code of practice under the Bill that is a way of meeting the general exhibition and dealing obligation. Adopting the policy and procedures as a code of practice without mandating that it is followed would provide reassurance to those who chose to follow the policy and procedures. Given that it would not oblige anyone else in the industry to follow to code of practice and the department does not have power to change the policy and procedures in response to any feedback, consultation may not be appropriate before it is adopted. There could be circumstances where consultation on an adopted code of practice would be appropriate. The regulatory impact assessment system would generally mandate consultation in these circumstances despite clause 24(2). One option is to remove the consultation requirements in clauses 24 and 26 and simply rely on the regulatory impact assessment system to ensure appropriate consultation is undertaken.

24 Consultation about codes of practice - subsection (2)

9 - QNFAG Should be deleted as it does not ensure full community or industry consultation on adopted provisions of a code of practice.

As above, this clause provides for circumstances where further consultation is an unnecessary impediment. Deleting it could result in unnecessary delay and cost in adopting codes of practice which entities had already been involved in developing. Removing the consultation requirements in clauses 24 and 26 and relying on the regulatory impact assessment system to ensure appropriate consultation is undertaken would be a feasible option.

26 Chief executive may make guidelines

14 – Animals Aust

Concerned by the suggestion to use guidelines to detail ‘ways in which animals may be exhibited or kept in enclosures, such as ensuring an enclosure allows an animal to display its normal behaviours’. Our strong view is that such critical needs of the animals must be mandatory requirements under the regulations.

The general exhibition and dealing obligation requires exhibitors to prevent or minimise risks to animal welfare. In effect this would require, among other things, that an exhibitor met the animal’s needs to display normal patterns of behaviour. A code of practice might be more explicit about this requirement in relation to a particular animal. For example, it might require that crocodilians are provided with ponds and basking areas. A guideline could be used to provide details on the requirement but would not be binding. For example, it could details some designs and construction materials that were suitable. The guideline would not prevent exhibitors proposing, in their management plan, the use of other designs and construction materials that could meet the animal’s needs.

26 Chief executive may make guidelines – subsection (3)

3 –Zoo & Aquarium Assoc Qld;

The consultation in relation to the making of a guideline should be restricted to the involvement of the regulator and industry. The inclusion of ‘community groups’

Community groups, including animal rights groups, may represent public interests in exhibiting and dealing with exhibited animals so it is appropriate that decisions are informed by any comments they may wish to make.

11



7 – Darling Downs Zoo; 8 – Steve Robinson

provides for any group or person with nothing at stake to impose conditions on the operations of bona fide businesses operating as per the law. This opens the way, for example, for animals rights groups to impose unworkable and costly conditions on the operation of legitimate businesses.. The description/definition of entities should be changed.

If concerns were raised by a community group, the department would consider the appropriate balance between any public interests expressed by those groups and the interests of exhibitors. Further, guidelines are not binding on exhibitors so they need have not concerns that they could be used to impose conditions on them.

29-31 Exhibited animal authority 8 – Steve Robinson; 11 – Circus Royale

The requirements for traditional Australian circus in these clauses completely undermine the government’s stated intention of reducing red tape for small businesses. There are too many categories required for traditional Australian circuses resulting in a flawed, unworkable section of the Bill. In it’s present form, this Bill could require a circus to secure an “exhibition licence”, a “temporary authority”, a “special exhibition approval”, a “primary authority” and an“ interstate exhibitors permit”. These requirements also discriminate against the circus industry when compared with other exhibited animal industries in this State. It is inconsistent with Chapter 1 Part 2 s3 and s4. There are better, fairer and more effective ways of regulating the traditional Australian circus industry in Queensland.

Currently there are more than six authority schemes relevant to exhibition and some exhibitors may require multiple authorities. Consistent with the government’s red tape reduction commitments, the Bill will simplify licensing of exhibitors in Queensland. Under the Bill, an exhibitor will need at most one authority. However, some exhibitors will need a special exhibition approval on their authority if they want to take an authorised animal (category 2) away from its fixed exhibit (e.g. on a circus tour). The Bill would not apply to a circus that tours only with animals listed in Schedule 1 (see clause 10). The Bill would apply to certain other animals sometimes used in circuses, such as camels, but these could be kept and exhibited without a licence. A Queensland-based circus keeping animals such as monkeys would need an exhibition licence. To further reduce red tape, exhibition licences will be granted for up to three years (compared to two years for current permits including those granted to circuses under the LP Act). If the animal was an authorised animal (category 2), a special exhibition approval would be needed on the licence before the animal could be taken on tour. Only two Queensland-based circuses currently have the relevant species, and their current animals would not be authorised animals (category 2) due to clause 258. As a result, no Queensland-based circus would require a special exhibition approval when the Bill commenced. An interstate-permitted circus would not need to hold a licence in Queensland. It could apply to tour within Queensland under an ‘interstate exhibitors permit’. The circus may tour with all the animals permitted in the other state, including with animals which would be authorised animals (category 2), so long as they continue to be closely regulated interstate and the chief executive is satisfied with how they will manage the risks posed by their activities in Queensland. The term ‘primary authority’ is used in the Bill to refer to the authority the interstate applicant holds in their home State. A temporary authority would be issued rarely, and only granted if an exhibitor no longer had any other valid authority to deal with the species they held. It is intended to provide for dealing with an animal directed at lawfully resolving how it will be kept in the longer term – for example to enable the sale of animals if an authority is cancelled suddenly.

29-31 Exhibited animal authority 9 - QNFAG As the Exhibited Animals Bill reads now, and as stated by the Exhibited Animals team, only fixed exhibitors will be able to display category 2 species (i.e. prohibited matter). Section 18 Obligation of responsible person for exhibited animal requires a responsible person to ensure that all

Fixed exhibits are in regular public view which promotes compliance. In contrast there is very limited community oversight of a demonstrator’s activities - demonstrators keep their animals out of public view and display them to select audiences. The higher barriers to establishing a fixed exhibit (such as infrastructure development and planning approval) have the effect of stabilising the fixed exhibition sector of the industry and encouraging self-regulation to maintain public support and hence ensure a return on investment.

12



obligations are [met]. To reject non fixed exhibitors from the same commercial opportunities as fixed and interstate exhibitors predisposes that the licence holder is unable to meet the same requirements without due process. If an exhibitor is able to meet the criteria set and manage the relevant risks as noted in the Bill and the accompanying regulations then they should be afforded the same opportunities.

It would be costly and difficult to ensure demonstrators were meeting community expectations for risk management - either costs or risks for the community, industry and the government would rise if these animals were not required to be based in a fixed exhibit. Requiring animals that are authorised animals (category 2) to be based in a fixed exhibit is a more efficient way of minimising the risks. It will, in effect, continue to ensure that exhibitors with these species will have a significant investment to protect and are in regular public view, keeping risks and costs low.

29-31 Exhibited animal authority 6 – Hands on Wildlife

By offering special exhibition approval to take category 2 animals out of controlled areas the government is acknowledging that the relevant risks associated with exhibiting a category 2 animal outside of its fixed exhibit or the controlled area can effectively be managed. There is no reason why mobile exhibitors should be excluded from the opportunity to meet these obligations and have access to authorised animals (category 2). Mobile exhibitors already display authorised animals (category 2) in other states such as New South Wales. As we specialise in mobile exhibitions we are very well prepared to manage wildlife in a secure and safe way. Outside of exhibition the animals would be kept securely in authorised exhibits. There is no reason why mobile exhibitors could not meet any regulation or requirements.

There are some demonstrators who have the expertise to effectively mitigate the risks of keeping authorised animals (category 2). But it would be costly and difficult to ensure demonstrators were meeting community expectations for risk management - either costs or risks for the community, industry and the government would rise if these animals were not required to be based in a fixed exhibit. Some demonstrators have suggested that an alternative to requiring fixed exhibition would be risk mitigation measures including limiting exhibition to sterilised and microchipped males. However, these measures would be difficult to enforce and only regular inspection could ensure non-compliant animals had not been added to collections kept entirely out of public view. Consequently, increased government monitoring and enforcement of risk mitigation measures would be essential to managing risks if demonstrators could keep high pest-potential animals. Significant increases in licence fees over and above those proposed in the Consultation RIS would be needed to recover the costs of more investment by the government in monitoring and enforcement to ensure risks were managed. Requiring authorised animals (category 2) to be based in a fixed exhibit is a more efficient way of minimising the risks. Only a very small number of mobile displays are currently permitted to exhibit controlled exotic animals in New South Wales (NSW). In addition, NSW no longer allows exotic reptiles and amphibians (other than cane toads) to be kept for display at mobile establishments. As such, the competitive disadvantage, if any, experienced by some Queensland demonstrators is likely to be quite limited.

30 Categories of exhibited animal authorities

9 - QNFAG While interstate exhibitors will be able to display category 2 species, under section 30(b), Queensland companies will be prevented from the same commercial opportunities. Request that Chapter 3 be changed to afford all operators the same business opportunities.

The Bill will allow a greater range of species to be exhibited in Queensland. It will also allow mobile exhibit of an authorised animal (category 2) under a special exhibition approval. However, animals that are authorised animals (category 2) will need to be based in a fixed exhibit and approval for mobile exhibition of such animals would only be for up to six months at a time. An interstate-permitted exhibitor could tour within Queensland under an ‘interstate exhibitors permit’ with an animal which is an authorised animal (category 2), so long as they continue to be closely regulated interstate and the chief executive is satisfied with how they will manage the risks posed by their activities in Queensland. However, only a very small number of mobile displays are currently permitted to exhibit controlled exotic animals (approximately the equivalent of authorised

13



animals (category 2)) in NSW. In addition, NSW no longer allows exotic reptiles and amphibians (other than cane toads) to be kept for display at mobile establishments.

31 Meaning of special exhibition approval


The Bill is silent on the exhibition of authorised animals other than authorised animals (category 2) at a place outside of any controlled area. Is it therefore inferred that this is permitted without a special exhibition approval? Or should there be a clause specifically stating that this is permitted without a special exhibition approval?

Exhibition of an authorised animal that is not an authorised animal (category 2) outside its controlled area could be authorised by an exhibition licence in response to a management plan submitted by the exhibitor; no special exhibition approval would be required. A positive statement of this is not required – the limitation on authorising exhibition outside the controlled area by an exhibition licence is specific to an authorised animal (category 2).

34 Meaning of management plan


Management Plans have the potential to have substantial resource implications in order to comply and it has not been made clear what level of detail may be required for each species. Some organisations hold well over a hundred species and the burden of writing over a hundred Management Plans will be overwhelming. Further it is not clear what government intends to actually do with these Management Plans once they receive them. The Exhibited Animals industry has operated successfully with a good safety and welfare record for many years without the need for such Management Plans for native species. Propose that Management Plans be made applicable to authorised animals (category 2) only. Such an approach will save significant resources for both government and industry in line with the government’s commitment to reduce red tape.

The approved management plan will form part of the exhibition licence. A management plan will be the basis for a decision by the chief executive about whether the relevant risks will be prevented or minimised. Essentially, it is the means by which an exhibitor proposes most of the conditions under which they will exhibit. Developing a management plan represents an opportunity for exhibitors to use their expert knowledge to problem-solve how to address risks in their circumstances. This compares with the current legislation that limits by species and activity what exhibition can occur. Although difficult to quantify, the flexibility afforded by this approach to licensing is expected to more than outweigh the cost to exhibitors of documenting their proposed activities in a risk management plan. The Bill would not prevent exhibitors grouping species when writing a management plan. Clause 34(2) allows a management plan to deal with a group of animals. However, this will generally only be practical where the significant risks associated with those animals and the ways those risks will be prevented and minimised will be similar. An exhibitor will only have to state the significant relevant risks associated with each species and how these will be managed. This means that the management plan for some species, where there are few significant risks, may be quite brief. For an authorised animal (category 1) the exhibitor will be able to propose in the management plan the type of enclosure in which they will be kept rather than seeking approval for a particular enclosure. Requiring a management plan only for animals that are authorised animals (category 2) would not ensure exhibitors mitigated the significant risks that could be associated with other animals. For example saltwater crocodiles and venomous snakes are not authorised animals (category 2) but it is not unreasonable for exhibitors to detail their plans for managing safety risks associated with these animals. Similarly, koalas are not authorised animals (category 2) but they have complex welfare needs, including for nutrition, that an exhibitor should show they can meet before they are granted an exhibition licence.

37 Exhibiting and keeping an animal under licence (3)

13- Animal Liberation Qld; 14 – Animals Aust

Opposes any moves to increase the number of species or the number of animals being used in exhibited animal industries.

Exhibition has many public benefits. The Bill is based on the premise that facilitating the growth of the industry in Queensland will yield these benefits and justifies allowing wild animals to be kept for this purpose provided the risks can be prevented or minimised.

40 Moving an animal under 8 – Steve There is no provision in these clauses for moving an There is nothing in the Bill that prevents a truck-mounted enclosure being the ‘regular enclosure’ for

14



licence Robinson animal in an enclosure – ie an animal living trailer. an animal if the risks can be minimised (e.g. if the truck mounted enclosure is large enough to meet the animal’s welfare needs). The definition of ‘regular site’ in schedule 2 reflects the possibility of having a regular enclosure that is not fixed in position. However, having a truck large enough to meet the animal’s welfare needs would not be practical for some species. For example, it would be difficult to imagine a circus truck large enough to be authorised as the regular enclosure for an elephant.

48 Requirements for application – subsection (2)


Can there be an addition to the clauses under which the fee can be waived to accommodate bona fide exhibition of prohibited wildlife at an event such as National Threatened Species Day?

Because there are broad public benefits associated with all exhibition, deciding when a fee should be waived to facilitate exhibition that is in the public interest would be problematic. It is not clear why a fee would be payable in relation to prohibited wildlife for National Threatened Species Day. The focus of the day is on native threatened species. Only pest-potential exotic species are listed as prohibited wildlife under the NCA. Similarly, there are no native animals listed as prohibited matter under the Biosecurity Act 2014. There is no restriction on an exhibition licence authorising routine mobile exhibition of native species. However, a licence amendment may be required if the exhibitor wanted to take native species to an event such as National Threatened Species Day and had not previously applied for authorisation to take the species off-site. There is discretion for the chief executive to amend a licence at no cost under clause 132 with the agreement of the licence holder. However, the department suggests that there would be no reason for doing so if the amendment would provide commercial benefits to the licence holder. EHP would take no role in determining eligibility. As an exhibitor subject to fees under the Bill, EHP would not be an impartial arbiter.

50 Suitability of applicant to hold authority

14 – Animals Aust

This clause needs to ensure that the chief executive takes into consideration relevant facts and makes certain inquiries before deciding the suitability of an applicant to hold authority, instead of the current ‘may’ make enquiries and ‘may’ have regard to facts. This is especially the case in (4), which sets out matters to be considered including prior convictions, suspensions, and refusals.

It may be difficult to establish whether some of the considerations apply to an applicant. For example, checking that there had not been a finding of guilt for a relevant offence would be particularly difficult if a conviction was not recorded – see clause 50, meaning ‘conviction’. It would not be practical to check this every time a licence application was received. Also clause 50(4)(d) is open ended and would be unworkable if ‘must’ was used. Using ‘may’ allows such matters to be taken into consideration if the chief executive becomes aware of them.

50 Suitability of applicant to hold authority

1 - Hoser For reptile displays in particular, as well as venomous snake displays specifically, licensing to display and educate dependent upon independently verifiable expertise in the form of past publications of at least ten scientific papers on the relevant subject in peer reviewed scientific journals, published over a time span of at least 10 years (being journals in which the author has no editorial control, and papers in which the relevant author is sole or senior author).

The department’s view is that publication of papers in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is not an appropriate test for competence in managing the risks associated with exhibition and dealing with exhibited animals. Publication is an indicator of scientific knowledge but may not always indicate practical experience in dealing with the animal. Conversely, some unpublished persons may have extensive expertise in managing risks associated with exhibited animals.

52 Request to consent to official assessment

14 – Animals Aust

This clause gives the chief executive the power to decide if an ‘official assessment’ (see clause 96) is required prior

An ‘official assessment’, charged to the exhibitor, would generally be required to provide the chief executive with sufficient evidence to decide an application for the grant, renewal or the significant

15



(application) to granting an exhibition licence. All inaugural licence applications require an ‘official assessment’.

amendment of a licence. However, other evidence, such as photographs, may be sufficient to decide an application for very low risk activities. For example, it would not be necessary for the chief executive to visit a magician before granting a licence to keep a rabbit.

55 General criteria for decision – subsection (1)(b)(ii)


Too prescriptive. Management Plan needs to be able to deal with groups of animals.

Clause 34(2) allows a management plan to deal with a group of animals. However, this will generally only be practical where the significant risks associated with those animals and the ways those risks will be prevented and minimised will be similar.

56 Particular criterion for exhibiting or dealing with animal in residential premises


If a staff member is required to care for an animal 24/7 for hand raising or sickness this infers that only the licence holder may do so – not any staff of that facility. If this is the case this is problematic.

This clause is directed at persons who want to routinely deal with animals in a premise used as a residence (e.g. demonstrators who keep the regular enclosure for some animals in their home). Its intent is to balance convenience for the exhibitor with the public interest in facilitating entry to the place by an inspector to enable the enforcement of the Bill. For larger exhibition entities, dealings with authorised animals in a premise used as a residence should not be routine given the Bill does not authorise rehabilitation. However, there is sufficient flexibility under the Bill to allow an animal to be moved to a premise used as a residence in exceptional circumstances where it was necessary to minimise relevant risks. • If the residence was the premises of a veterinary surgeon, then the animal could be kept

there for treatment or care under clause 40(b). • If the animal remained in an authorised enclosure, the offence of breaching the relevant

licensing condition would not apply if there was a reasonable excuse and it would be a defence to prosecution for breaching the relevant licence condition if there was a signed veterinary certificate stating it was necessary to prevent or minimise a relevant risk.

• Also, clause 40(c)(ii) allows an animal to be moved to a place outside an authorised enclosure (which would not preclude a residence) if the movement is necessary to prevent or minimise a relevant risk. This would allow animals to be moved into a premise used as a residence even where it was not authorised under the licence. Reflecting that the circumstances should be exceptional, clause 76 requires notice to be given to the chief executive within 48 hours if movement under 40(c)(ii) is necessary - this requirement could be satisfied by an email so is not onerous.

57 Particular criteria for dealing with animal at 2 or more premises


This clause seems to preclude care across two sites by a range of employees working at a zoo. This should be modified to enable the care across 2 or more premises by various employees; not a single individual person.

The intent of the clause is to prevent large entities from obtaining authorisation for operationally separate exhibits under a single licence. At the same time, it aims to enable an exhibitor to take advantage of opportunities to expand their operations to a nearby place under a single licence. For example, premises directly across the road could be listed but not premises that are an hour’s drive from each other and which are managed separately. Subclause (a) was intended to prevent two premises being listed on a single licence if the staff members dealing with the animals at one premise were not the same staff members who were dealing with the animals at the other. It was not intended to prevent, for example, one employee looking after koalas across two related premises while another employee looks after monkeys across the two premises.

16



The department will suggest an amendment to the clause at an appropriate time to reflect the policy intent.

59 Failure to decide application

3 –Zoo & Aquarium Assoc Qld; 7 – Darling Downs Zoo; 8 – Steve Robinson

The Association is concerned by this general concept. It relieves the department of any obligation. Repeal this provision or reword such that an application is granted if there is no response from the department within 40 days.

Provision for failure to decide an application is a common feature of Queensland legislation. It ensures applications do not remain undecided indefinitely, without any right of appeal for the applicant. The object is to give an applicant the option of taking action to have the decision reviewed, where they have not been given a timely decision, i.e. to give them a decision that they can apply to have reviewed. This would not relieve the department of an obligation to decide the application - the effect of applying for an internal review would be to escalate responsibility for making the decision. Rewording the provision to effect the automatic granting of an application may see an authority granted where the chief executive was not satisfied that relevant risks could be prevented or minimised. This would undermine a purpose of the Bill – to ensure relevant risks are prevented or minimised.

65 Term of exhibited animal authority – Interstate exhibitors permit 3(a)

8 – Steve Robinson; 11 – Circus Royale; 16 - Nixon

The limiting on interstate exhibitors permits to six months only is unnecessary and unprecedented in animal regulation anywhere in Australia. The Australian circus proprietors have a clear right to trade and I know of no valid reason for this draconian and discriminatory restriction. Other non-circus exhibitors are being granted 3 year licences under this legislation Recommend delete this section.

Nothing in the Bill would prohibit consecutive permits being issued to a visiting circus that was appropriately regulated interstate and was appropriately managing the risks posed by their activities in Queensland. The department is not aware of any interstate circus that remains in Queensland for more than 12 months. It is important for regular review of any authorisation that would allow authorised animals (category 2), such as lions and monkeys, to be exhibited away from a fixed exhibit. Given the heightened animal welfare, biosecurity and safety risks associated with managing itinerant collections of these animals, review of the authorisation every six months is a proportionate risk treatment. A maximum permit term of six months is consistent with the proposed maximum period for which a special exhibition approval could be granted to a Queensland-licensed exhibitor allowing them to exhibit such animals away from their fixed exhibit.

66 Exhibited animal authority – subsection (1)(f)


This clause is not clear as to whether an exhibition notice must be displayed in a single location (e.g. in the entrance to the zoo) or at each place (i.e. enclosure) where an animal is exhibited. Make this clause clearer in defining that a single location for the display of an exhibition notice is all that is necessary.

Clause (1)(f) could be satisfied in a number of ways. If all those attending exhibitions at a place (e.g. a zoo) passed through a single entrance or reception area, then display of a notice in this area would meet the requirement for all exhibitions at the place. If there were entrance points at either end of the place, then a notice could be placed at each entrance point. However, if there were several exhibits at a community event with no defined entry points, then display of a notice on each enclosure might be required. The department suggests that the meaning of the provision is clear and clarification is not required.

66 Exhibited animal authority – subsection (1)(f)


How will this work for mobile exhibitors is it enough for us to carry our authority with us? Should this be clarified further?

A mobile exhibitor would need to display the notice where it could be seen by those viewing their exhibit. Fixing the notice to a travelling enclosure for the exhibit may be a practical option for some demonstrators. The intent is to raise awareness that a licence is required to exhibit and deal with wildlife and provide information to those attending about the licence held by the exhibitor.

66 Exhibited animal authority – subsection (1)(g)

4 – RSPCA - Qld Such an animal should only be exhibited if it has been assessed by a veterinarian and assessed as suitable (well enough) to be exhibited. Should apply to any animal that is sick or injured whether

The department supports assessment by a veterinarian before exhibit where there are signs of serious illness or injury but suggests this is already appropriately mandated by the general exhibition and dealing obligation to prevent or minimise risks to animal welfare (in addition to the duty of care under the ACPA).

17



thought of as ‘serious’ or not. The intent of clause 66(1)(g) is to reassure those viewing the animal and observing the signs that has serious illness or injury that the exhibitor is aware of the problem. This will avert many unnecessary reports from members of the public about the welfare of exhibited animals. The notice may also have the incidental benefit of informing the public about visible signs of illness and injury in wildlife.

66 Exhibited animal authority – subsection (1)(h)

4 – RSPCA - Qld Should apply to animals showing potential for aggressive behaviour and the provision should not have to depend on injury of a human to be applied.

The intent of this subclause is to prevent exhibitors from using serious aggressive behaviour as a promotional tool. In particular it is to ensure that promotions do not cause distress to those affected by the death of, or serious injury to, a person. It would most often be relevant to exhibition of a saltwater crocodile that had killed a person in the wild. The broadening of the provision to capture the potential for aggressive behaviour would be difficult to enforce and has not been justified.

68-69 Minimum exhibition periods under exhibition licences

4 – RSPCA - Qld It is unclear in the Bill and in the explanation notes why a) category 1 animals don’t have a minimum number of hours or occasions for which they must be displayed, and b) why category 2 animals and authorised animals that are not category 1 or 2 have different display requirements.

The minimum exhibition requirements apply to species that cannot be kept (by non-exhibitors) under a recreational wildlife licence (i.e. as pets). The intent is to ensure that private collections of these species (i.e. pets) are not kept under an exhibition licence. Thousands of Queenslanders keep authorised animals (category 1) as pets under a recreational wildlife licence under the NCA. As a result, the Consultation RIS proposed that they would be exempt from minimum exhibition requirements. Given that the fees for obtaining a recreational wildlife are currently approximately $71 - $284 for up to five years (depending on the species authorised), there is no incentive for people who want to keep these species as pets to apply for an exhibition licence. Triennial renewal fees proposed in the Consultation RIS for an exhibition licence would be much higher than a recreational wildlife permit. Exhibitors would still need to prepare a management plan for these animals. Authorised animals (category 2) are animals which are prohibited matter under the Biosecurity Act 2014. The more stringent minimum exhibition requirement of 900 hours in a fixed exhibit reflects the need for exhibitors to justify allowing keeping of these high pest potential species that cannot be kept for private recreation.



Clarification on which animals this refers to (category 1 and 2).

Clause 68 (the 900 hour minimum exhibition in a fixed exhibit requirement) applies to authorised animals (category 2). These are animals which are prohibited matter under the Biosecurity Act 2014, other than animals which are international wildlife under the NCA and some circus animals (see clause 258). Clause 69 (the 12 separate occasions minimum exhibition requirement) applies to authorised animals which are not authorised animals (category 1) or (category 2). This is all animals which cannot be kept as pets under a recreational wildlife licence, and are not prohibited matter except some circus animals (see clause 258). There would be no minimum exhibition requirement for authorised animals (category 1) – those which can be kept as pets under a recreational wildlife licence. These are animals that are a controlled animal, commercial animal, recreational animal and restricted animal as detailed in parts 2 - 5 of Schedule 5 of the Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006 and animals that are listed as international animals in Schedule 7 of the Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006.

18





Also how will this be recorded, reported and monitored, proven? Can this requirement be temporarily lifted for veterinary or other reasons?

Clause 79 of the Bill provides that record requirements may be prescribed by regulation. Record keeping requirements to support enforcement of the minimum exhibition requirements will be considered when the regulations are developed. Clause 78(2) expressly provides a defence to prosecution for contravening a minimum exhibition requirement if a veterinary certificate states that that it was necessary to prevent or minimise a risk (e.g. to the animal’s welfare). Clause 78(2) provides that the offence is not committed if there is a reasonable excuse. Also clause 73 provides, in effect, that the chief executive can impose a temporary condition on a licence that overrides an inconsistent mandatory condition. The example given is a temporary condition that provides that for a limited stated period a minimum exhibition requirement does not apply.

68 - 69 Minimum exhibition periods under exhibition licences

7 – Darling Downs Zoo

Provisions too inflexible. The industry requires the ability to hold animals off-exhibit for [at times] extended periods. Reasons for doing so include setting up compatible groups, breeding species [or even specimens] that will breed better if kept off exhibit, holding animals off exhibit during construction of new facilities, conditioning for transport or for vet procedures, quarantine, nursing young, retiring aged or infirm animals.

The minimum exhibition requirements in clauses 68 and 69 apply at the species level, rather than to individual animals. Consequently, not all animals of a species would need to be exhibited for the required periods (unless only one animal of the species was held). Clause 78(2) provides a defence to prosecution for contravening a minimum exhibition requirement if a veterinary certificate states that that it was necessary to prevent or minimise a risk (e.g. to the animal’s welfare). Clause 78(1) provides that the offence is not committed if there is a reasonable excuse. Also clause 73 provides, in effect, that the chief executive can impose a temporary condition on a licence that overrides an inconsistent mandatory condition. The example given is a temporary condition that provides that for a limited stated period a minimum exhibition requirement does not apply.

68-69 Minimum exhibition periods under exhibition licences – subsection 68(4) and 69(3)

9 - QNFAG Commercial possibilities are again being restricted, due to a perception. There is a market for private functions, which in their nature are low relevant risk.

The minimum exhibition requirements are directed at ensuring that the public benefits that justify keeping wild animals for exhibit are realised. The exclusion of a private event from counting towards the minimum exhibition requirements is to ensure that: • private collections that are shown only to select friends and relatives are not kept under the

guise of keeping for exhibit that is justified by its public benefits • minimum exhibition requirements are enforceable – verification of private events at the

animals regular enclosure would be problematic The Bill does not prevent exhibition at private events, it only excludes them from counting towards the minimum exhibition requirements.

68 Minimum exhibition period for authorised animal (category 2)


Can the Chief Executive grant an exemption to the requirement to exhibit an animal? Would this be possible under Section 71 whereby the Chief Executive is able to impose temporary conditions? There are legitimate circumstances for not exhibiting an animal such as involvement in breeding programs, holding animals until an exhibit enclosure is constructed etc.

Yes, clause 73 provides, in effect, that the chief executive can impose a temporary condition on a licence under clause 71 that overrides an inconsistent mandatory condition. The example given is a temporary condition that provides that for a limited stated period a minimum exhibition requirement does not apply. However, it is envisaged that this power would be used infrequently. Applying the minimum exhibition requirement at species level will provide for the many circumstances where several animals of a species are held and there are legitimate reasons for not exhibiting them all. Clause 78(2) provides a defence to prosecution for contravening a minimum exhibition requirement if a

19



veterinary certificate states that it was necessary to prevent or minimise a risk (e.g. to the animal’s welfare). Clause 78(1) provides that the offence is not committed if there is a reasonable excuse. Further, it would not be appropriate to use the power to override the minimum exhibition requirement without a good reason consistent with the purpose of the Bill. The example in clause 73 is that the temporary condition would be imposed to allow an exhibit enclosure to be constructed for an animal that was acquired at short notice from another exhibitor who was having difficulty in properly managing the animal. It is not, however, envisaged that there would be many other circumstances where it would be appropriate to exercise the power to accommodate an exhibitor who acquired an animal without having an exhibition enclosure built.

68 Minimum exhibition period for authorised animal (category 2) – subsection (1)

4 – RSPCA - Qld It is a concern to the RSPCA that the Bill states that only one of a species must meet the minimum exhibiting requirements. This leaves the potential for several other animals of the species not to be displayed at all or for much less time.

There are many circumstances in which exhibition may be inappropriate (e.g. newborn, sick, injured or breeding animals). Applying the minimum requirement to each animal would place an unreasonable expectation on exhibitors to seek veterinary certificates or the imposition of conditions to excuse them from the requirements for an animal in such circumstances. In feedback on the Consultation RIS, 100% of respondents expressed a preference for minimum exhibition requirements to apply to species, rather than individual animals; this included the RSPCA Queensland. While the department acknowledges that there is some potential for abuse of a requirement applied at species level, it does represent a tighter minimum exhibition requirement than under current legislation where, if there is a minimum exhibition requirement for a licensing scheme at all, it generally only applies at licence level (i.e.an animal kept under the licence must be exhibited).


6 – Hands on Wildlife; 9 - QNFAG

This particular exhibition requirement is what is causing mobile exhibitors to be unfairly excluded from authorised animals (category 2). The exhibition time, namely 900 hours is excessive and an arbitrary number arrived at due to not enough consideration given to future commercial possibilities.

Clause 68 applies to authorised animals (category 2). These are animals which are prohibited matter under the Biosecurity Act 2014, other than animals which are international wildlife under the NCA and certain circus animals (see clause 258). These species would also need to be displayed in a fixed exhibit. The public benefit that must be realised by exhibition to justify the risks of keeping these pest potential species is higher than for other animals. Currently, the species are restricted to zoos open at least five days a week in most weeks of a year. (A zoo that was open seven hours a day, five days a week, 52 weeks of the year would be open for 1,820 hours.) Wildlife demonstrators cannot exhibit these species at all. Under the Bill, these species would only need to have a fixed exhibit and be publicly exhibited about half that time. The minimum exhibition requirement would not preclude mobile display if a special exhibition approval was obtained. Fixed exhibits are in regular public view which promotes compliance. In contrast there is very limited community oversight of mobile demonstrator’s activities - demonstrators keep their animals out of public view and display them to select audiences. The higher barriers to establishing a fixed exhibit (such as infrastructure development and planning approval) have the effect of stabilising the fixed exhibition sector of the industry and encouraging self-regulation to maintain public support and hence ensure a return on investment. Maintaining a requirement for some fixed exhibition to the general public will, in effect, continue to ensure that exhibitors with these species will have a significant investment to protect and are in

20



regular public view. 68 Minimum exhibition period

for authorised animal (category 2)

9 - QNFAG We believe it should be reduced to 400 hours to allow greater commercial flexibility.

The number of hours of exhibition required to justify the keeping of authorised animals (category 2), which are high pest potential animals, is a matter of judgement. Consultation with industry suggested that a requirement for exhibition at least five days a week in most weeks of a year would be excessive for a minimum exhibition requirement applying to each species. Some responses during consultation supported a minimum requirement of 900 hours, agreeing it reflected an appropriate threshold to justify the keeping of these animals. Other responses advocated lesser thresholds, although a number of these reflected a misunderstanding that this requirement would apply to native species.


9 - QNFAG Details should be addressed in regulation so that future requirements for change would be a relatively simple process.

Given the importance of the minimum exhibition requirements, they were included in primary legislation which is considered by the Legislative Assembly. Any changes could have a significant impact on exhibitors so it appropriate that they also be considered by the Legislative Assembly.


8 – Steve Robinson; 11 – Circus Royale

This section does not consider average performance times for exhibited circus animals and will potentially have negative consequences for all exhibited circus animals. For example, a circus animal may perform a 10 minute act 6 times a week for a total of 40 weeks of the year. Straight away it will be in breach of this provision because exhibition times of under 3 hours duration are not counted. During 2014 Circus Royale has performed approximately 240 performances of 2 hour duration. Each of the 2 hour performances contained several exhibited animal shows that lasted 7 to 10 minutes each. On average 28 minutes of the 2 hour performance involved exhibited animals.

Clause 68 will not affect visiting interstate circuses who will tour under an interstate exhibitors permit. Clause 258 effectively exempts the particular animals held by Queensland circuses on commencement of the Bill from the definition of authorised animals (category 2). As a result, they would only need to be exhibited on 12 separate occasions, consistent with clause 69. Thus clause 68 potentially affects only Queensland-based circuses if they choose to replace their animals or acquire new animals that are prohibited matter under the Biosecurity Act 2014. There is some basis for traditional circuses to argue that they should be treated a little differently than wildlife demonstrators under the Bill. There would be less difficulty enforcing risk mitigation in the traditional circus sector that is almost always in public view than in the demonstrator sector. However, it is largely intangibles such as tradition and culture that differentiate a circus from a mobile wildlife collection. It would be very difficult to legislate for these differences. Additionally, the requirement for an authorised animal (category 2) to be based in a fixed exhibit will address some community concerns about animal welfare in circuses. Excluding exhibition of less than three hours from counting against the minimum exhibition requirement in clause 68 is intended to make the requirement easier to enforce. However, in the case of a circus that has well-advertised public performances it would be relatively easy to enforce exhibition of a much shorter duration. Clause 73 provides, in effect, that the chief executive can impose a temporary condition on a licence that overrides an inconsistent mandatory condition. The department suggests that in some circumstances it may be consistent with the purposes of the Bill for the chief executive to impose a temporary condition on an exhibition licence for a circus overriding the minimum period of exhibition that could be counted. For example, this could occur when a special exhibition approval was granted. Consequently, it is the department’s view that clause 37, rather than clause 68, will have a practical impact on traditional circus operations.

21



69 Minimum number of occasions for exhibiting particular authorised animals


Can the Chief Executive grant an exemption to the requirement to exhibit an animal? Would this be possible under Section 71 whereby the Chief Executive is able to impose temporary conditions? There are legitimate circumstances for not exhibiting an animal such as involvement in breeding programs, holding animals until an exhibit enclosure is constructed etc.

Yes, clause 73 provides, in effect, that the chief executive can impose a temporary condition on a licence under clause 71 that overrides an inconsistent mandatory condition. The example given is a temporary condition that provides that for a limited stated period a minimum exhibition requirement does not apply. However, it is envisaged that this power would be used infrequently. Applying the minimum exhibition requirement at species level will provide for the many circumstances where several animals of a species are held and there are legitimate reasons for not exhibiting them all. Clause 78(2) provides a defence to prosecution for contravening a minimum exhibition requirement if a veterinary certificate states that that it was necessary to prevent or minimise a risk (e.g. to the animal’s welfare). Clause 78(1) provides that the offence is not committed if there is a reasonable excuse. Further, it would not be appropriate to use the power to override the minimum exhibition requirement without a good reason consistent with the purpose of the Bill. The example in clause 73 is that the temporary condition would be imposed to allow an exhibit enclosure to be constructed for an animal that was acquired at short notice from another exhibitor who was having difficulty in properly managing the animal. It is not, however, envisaged that there would be many other circumstances where it would be appropriate to exercise the power to accommodate an exhibitor who acquired an animal without having an exhibition enclosure built.

69 Minimum number of occasions for exhibiting particular authorised animals

15 - Payne Minimum days required to perform educational displays should be exempt if it could be proved that there was a legitimate and alternative way of educating people about wildlife through different lines of work.

Mr Payne’s circumstances are unusual, and a great example of the diversity of the exhibited animals industry in Queensland. The Bill provides the flexibility for the department to accommodate unusual circumstances where appropriate. Clause 73 allows a time limited condition on a licence to override the minimum exhibition requirements in clause 69. However, the chief executive would need to ensure that the intent of the minimum exhibition requirement was maintained. In Mr Payne’s case there is a history of intense exhibition in some periods that may be sufficient to justify keeping of the animals during periods when he may not be able to find a client for the type of exhibition for which his animals are trained.

70 Other mandatory conditions for exhibition licence

6 - Hands on Wildlife; 9 - QNFAG

We believe that should an exhibitor be able to manage the relevant risks [whether] they are a fixed or mobile exhibitor then as the Exhibited Animals department notes in their RIS, then all exhibitors should be entitled to the same terms and conditions. By their very nature special exhibition permits ensure that mobile establishments are fulfilling their obligations to exhibit category 2 animals. Simply by the fact that to move a category 2 animal to an offsite venue would require a special exhibition permit. By applying for the permit the department would be continuously aware of the offsite exhibits and thus fully aware of the exhibit. This ensures that operators are not holding category 2 animals for other [than] exhibition purposes. Official assessment also ensure that those mobile

A special exhibition approval would trigger specific consideration of the risks and risk management measures for offsite exhibit of an authorised animal (category 2). Further, a six month maximum duration for the approval will ensure regular review of the approval to exhibit away from a fixed exhibit. However, a special exhibition approval would not deal with the risks associated with keeping these animals in their regular enclosure. Requiring an authorised animal (category 2) to be based in a fixed exhibit is an efficient way of minimising these risks. It would be more costly and difficult to ensure exhibitors without a fixed exhibit were meeting community expectations for risk management - either costs or risks for the community, industry and the government would rise if these animals were not required to be based in a fixed exhibit.

22



operators that wish to apply for category 2 animals are fulfilling their obligations and minimising relevant risks as per the Exhibited Animals Bill.


6 - Hands on Wildlife

These risks [mobile establishments] could just as effectively be mitigated through regulation rather than legislation (experience requirement, single sex species, increased inspections at the cost of the operator, etc.). There are mobile exhibitors in other states (NSW) that currently exhibit exotic animals through mobile displays. Currently exhibitors in Queensland who have exotic animals can take them off site for displays. There is no reason why mobile exhibitors should be limited in what species that they can have access to as long as they can prove that they can effectively manage all associated risks.

Some demonstrators may have the expertise to effectively mitigate the risks of keeping authorised animals (category 2). But it would be costly and difficult to ensure demonstrators were meeting community expectations for risk management - either costs or risks for the community, industry and the government would rise if these animals were not required to be based in a fixed exhibit. Fixed exhibits are in regular public view which promotes compliance. In contrast there is very limited community oversight of a demonstrator’s activities - demonstrators keep their animals out of public view and display them to select audiences. The higher barriers to establishing a fixed exhibit (such as infrastructure development and planning approval) have the effect of stabilising the fixed exhibition sector of the industry and encouraging self-regulation to maintain public support and hence ensure a return on investment. Maintaining a requirement for some fixed exhibition to the general public will, in effect, continue to ensure that exhibitors with these species will have a significant investment to protect and are in regular public view. Risk mitigation measures including allowing only a single sex of a species to be kept would be difficult to enforce and only regular inspection could ensure non-compliant animals had not been added to collections kept entirely out of public view. Consequently, increased government monitoring and enforcement of risk mitigation measures would be essential to managing risks if demonstrators could keep high pest-potential animals. Significant increases in licence fees over and above those proposed in the Consultation RIS that was released in 2013 would be needed to recover the costs of more investment by the government in monitoring and enforcement to ensure risks were managed. Requiring animals that are authorised animals (category 2) to be based in a fixed exhibit is a more efficient way of minimising the risks. Only a very small number of mobile displays are currently permitted to exhibit controlled exotic animals (approximately the equivalent of authorised animals (category 2)) in NSW. In addition, NSW no longer allows exotic reptiles and amphibians (other than cane toads) to be kept for display at mobile establishments.


15 - Payne Allow for the nomination of a second licensed location to be used to moult birds out, to breed birds, to quarantine sick birds and to have available and ready for quick and practical importation of interstate birds on loan for training and use in the film industry.

Clause 57 is intended to allow dealings with animals at two or more premises in addition to exhibition and other movement that might be authorised premises away from the regular enclosure(s).

70 Other mandatory conditions for exhibition licence – subsection (a)

4 – RSPCA - Qld We do not understand why category 1 animals are exempt from this provision.

Excluding an authorised animal (category 1) from 70(a) is consistent with similar exclusions in clauses 61(d) and 62. When consulted on the working draft of the Bill, industry nominees suggested it was excessive to apply all the approval requirements under the Bill for species that are held by thousands of Queenslanders as pets under a recreational wildlife licence. Consequently, the approval

23



requirements under the Bill are reduced for those species – the chief executive will still have to approve the management plan for significant risks but will only approve the type of enclosure to be used rather than approve a particular enclosure for use.

70 Other mandatory conditions for exhibition licence – subsection (d)

9 - QNFAG The requirement of access within one hour is excessive; this should be at least 24 hours.

Notice of at least one hour is sufficient to enable a licence holder, who has previously given a standing consent to entry, the time to make any more immediate preparation that might be required to protect their privacy. Substantially more notice might frustrate the purpose of entry by allowing the licence holder time to modify the circumstances of the animal or the enclosure so it does not reflect how the animal is normally kept or dealt with. Being able to exhibit or deal with an authorised animal in a residence in relevant circumstances is essentially conditional on acceptance of the limited notice.

70 Other mandatory conditions for exhibition licence – subsection (d) and (e)

14 – Animals Aust

It is important that when a licence is being sought to keep an animal in a residential dwelling (d) that inspectors can enter the premises at anytime, and not as is currently proposed ‘at a reasonable time and on written or oral notice of at least 1 hour’. Likewise, (e) currently sets out that an ‘animal must be kept under the licence for at least 1 month, unless the chief executive gives written approval for the earlier disposal of the animal’. The EN states ‘This requirement is to ensure that animals are kept primarily for exhibition, not wildlife trade’. As such, Animals Australia urges that the minimum period be extended to 6 months, and that the chief executive only grants an exemption under unforeseen, extenuating circumstances.

Giving a minimum of one hour notice will allow the occupier to make any last minute preparations to protect their privacy. The protecting of civil liberties this notice period provides needs to be balanced against the potential for licence holders to rectify gross breaches of the Bill in this time. The department suggests that requiring animals to be kept under the licence for at least one month is sufficient to ensure animals are kept primarily for exhibition, without causing significant inconvenience for bona fide exhibitors. Increasing this to a minimum of six months may unnecessarily prevent legitimate transactions. For example, some short-lived animals mature quickly after birth but would not be able to be sold to another exhibitor until they were six months old. Also it might be desirable for animals to be loaned by a zoo for breeding purposes for less than six months. Allowing the chief executive to give written approval for the earlier disposal of an animal is desirable where it will reduce relevant risks. For example, if the chief executive is concerned that due to a change in circumstances a licence holder is temporarily struggling to manage a large number of specimens, it may be desirable to authorise them to dispose of some specimens regardless of when they were acquired. Given the extraordinary complexity and diversity of the industry, not all circumstances are reasonably foreseeable. Allowing the chief executive to give written approval for the earlier disposal of an animal will also enable flexibility to be shown where this will not frustrate the intent of the provision.

71 Conditions of authority decided by the chief executive – subsection (3)(a)

3 –Zoo & Aquarium Assoc Qld; 7 – Darling Downs Zoo; 8 – Steve Robinson; 11- Circus Royale

Regulating maximum numbers may have validity however the chief executive should not be empowered to prescribe a minimum number of authorised animals that may be exhibited and dealt with under an authority. Remove ‘or minimum’ from clause.

There are clear animal welfare interests in prescribing minimum numbers of specimens of some species that may be exhibited and dealt with under an authority. For example, it would not be appropriate for an exhibitor to keep only one meerkat because meerkats have complex social needs. Such a licence condition would be worded so that there was no absolute requirement to keen the minimum number of specimens of that species. Instead it would require, in effect, that if any animals of that species are kept under the licence then at least the specified number of animals must be kept (to ensure their social needs are met). For relevant species, the licence holder will be able to propose in the management plan how the social needs of any specimens will be met. This will obviate the need for the chief executive to impose a condition.

24



71 Conditions of authority decided by the chief executive – subsection (3)(a)


How will numbers be determined? What basis will be used to determine a minimum number of animals? How will decisions on reproduction be determined? Is this for all categories of animals or just category 2?

The licence holder will be able to propose in the management plan how relevant risks will be met. This will generally obviate the need for the chief executive to impose conditions under (3)(a). The maximum number of authorised animals that may be exhibited and dealt with under an authority will be considered on a case by case basis. An important consideration will be the size of the regular enclosure for the animal but there may be other considerations such as the expertise and capacity of the applicant. A minimum number of animals would generally only be stipulated for species that had complex social needs that could not be addressed unless several specimens of the species were kept. If the licence or permit relates to an animal that is not native wildlife, then the management plan must include arrangements for managing the reproduction of the animal – see clauses 34(1)(e) and 66(1)(i). Although clause 71(3)(b) would allow a condition about reproduction to be imposed in relation to any authorised animal, decisions about reproduction of native wildlife would generally be left to the judgement of the exhibitor. The exhibitor would, however, need to ensure they held no more than the maximum number specified in the approved management plan or specified by licence condition. (Also records would need to be kept to ensure all animals were accounted for.)

Part 8, Div 1

Notification obligations 3 –Zoo & Aquarium Assoc Qld; 6 – Hands on Wildlife

In this Division an authorised animal means an authorised animal (special risk) therefore picking up authorised animals (category 2), venomous snakes and two species of crocodile. It is not clear if it is intended for this reporting to be for ALL authorised animals or only special risk. The obvious purpose of this is for reporting (as a serious incident) death or injury to a person, escape or unauthorised release, damage to enclosures and unauthorised entry to an enclosure. The inadvertent result of this is that these authorised animals (special risk) are subject to reporting (as a serious incident) due to death of the animal. There seems no logical reason why a venomous snake or a crocodile would require more stringent reporting requirements in relation to the animal’s death than the vast majority of authorised animals covered by the Bill. This would appear to be an unintended consequence and should be modified as a result.

The only notification that is specific to authorised animals (special risk) is the requirement to provide notice of the escape, or unauthorised release or removal, of the animal from an authorised enclosure, whether into a controlled area or elsewhere. This reflects that any escape or unauthorised release or removal of these animals could pose a significant biosecurity risk (for those animals that fall in this category because of their high pest potential) or safety risk (for venomous snakes and crocodiles) even if the animal remains contained in a controlled area and is successfully recaptured. All other notification obligations under clause 75, including the obligations to notify the death of an animal in certain circumstances, apply in relation to any authorised animals. The notification is required because the incidents could be indicators that there are risks that are not being appropriately prevented or minimised under the licence. They will enable the chief executive to consider whether this represents a deficiency in the management plan that should be addressed or what, if any, other action needs to be taken to ensure risks are appropriately managed. The notification requirement is not onerous – it could be satisfied by an email or in some cases (see clause 75) by a telephone call.

74 Defn: serious incident - subsection (a)

3 –Zoo & Aquarium Assoc Qld ; 7 – Darling Downs Zoo; 8 – Steve Robinson

Confuses injury and illness and seeks to apply the same requirement to each. Thus, minor injuries will need to be reported along the same timelines as illnesses. By separating injury and illness the settings can be better set to achieve the outcome that the clause aims to achieve.

The definition of a ‘serious injury or illness’ in the Bill is consistent with section 36 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHS Act). It is desirable for the notification requirements under the WHS Act and the Bill to be consistent to avoid confusion and so that the requirement for notification can be streamlined where possible. Unlike the WHS Act, the Bill does not include a definition of ‘medical treatment’ to support the definition of ‘serious injury or illness’. Consequently, medical treatment would be interpreted at its common meaning. This could lead to any treatment with medicines being considered medical

25



treatment. In contrast, ‘medical treatment’ in the WHS Act means treatment by a doctor. The department will suggest an amendment is made to the Bill at an appropriate opportunity to include a definition of ‘medical treatment’ consistent with that in the WHS Act. This should ensure the clause does not capture non-serious injuries.

74 Defn: serious incident - subsection (a)


The threshold is set too low for reporting serious incidents relating to serious injury. The settings as they stand in the Bill mean that any minor skin penetrating injury (e.g. bite or scratch) that may result in an infection (thus the medical treatment) must be reported as a serious incident. The threshold needs to be such that we are not constantly reporting minor scratches and bites that may only require pre-cautionary anti- biotic treatment these are a normal and regular occurrence within this industry and are not "serious”.

The definition of a ‘serious injury or illness’ in the Bill is consistent with section 36 of the WHS Act. However, unlike the WHS Act, the Bill does not include a definition of ‘medical treatment’ to support the definition of ‘serious injury or illness’. Consequently, medical treatment would be interpreted at its common meaning. This could lead to any treatment with medicines being considered medical treatment. In contrast, ‘medical treatment’ in the WHS Act means treatment by a doctor. The department will suggest an amendment is made to the Bill at an appropriate opportunity to include a definition of ‘medical treatment’ consistent with that in the WHS Act. This should ensure the clause does not capture non-serious injuries.

74 Defn: serious incident


Suggest that part (c) of the serious injury definition be changed to read medical treatment within one hour of contact with the animal that caused the injury or illness or from which the injury or illness originated; and that another definition be inserted for serious illness reading medical treatment within 48 hours of contact with the animal that caused the illness or from which the illness originated.

The definition of a serious injury or illness is consistent with section 36 of the WHS Act. It is desirable for the notification requirements under the WHS Act and the Bill to be consistent to avoid confusion and so that the requirement for notification can be streamlined where possible.

74 Defn: serious incident – subsection (c)


The current wording could have unintended ramifications for free-ranging species as well as for free flying birds in displays. As free flight birds (birds in a free flight presentation to the public) at times range beyond the controlled area (i.e. the area within the perimeter barrier) and can take some coercing to return to the trainer this would precipitate the immediate need for notification as a serious incident. There should be some provision to allow an amount of time for the recapture/return of such birds before the requirement to notify kicks in. This would save resources for both government and industry.

If the approved management plan for an animal provided that it would be allowed to spend time outside a controlled area then allowing it to do so would not trigger (c) in the definition of ‘serious incident’ in clause 74 because it would not represent ‘escape, unauthorised release or removal’ from a controlled area.

74 Defn: serious incident – subsection (d)


This clause would pick up euthanasia of an animal and therefore require that this be reported as a serious incident. This would appear to be unintended and the clause should be amended to exclude euthanasia of an animal.

The department will suggest an amendment is made to the Bill at an appropriate opportunity to ensure that (d) does not capture euthanasia. However, the department suggests it is appropriate for euthanasia to be captured by (e) as this could be relevant to the capacity of the exhibitor to manage the risks associated with exhibiting and dealing with a species that has not previously been kept under the licence.

26



76 Obligation to notify significant change – subsection (1)

3 –Zoo & Aquarium Assoc Qld; 6 – Hands on Wildlife; 7 – Darling Downs Zoo

In this section licence holders should have a blanket approval to remove an animal from authorised enclosure WITHOUT the reporting requirements. These situations arise quite regularly – for example moving a Brolga out of an enclosure whilst tree lopping is being done, removing a Koala from a pen whilst new forks are being installed, removing a Brown Snake from an enclosure to allow safe cleaning. These are all just routine, regular animal management and husbandry decisions that should not be required in Management Plans or should not require reporting. If it was written to deal with animals such as big cats or the like then it should be more focused on the area where there may be issues. This is an area to reduce red-tape and costs to industry and government.

Given that the approved management plan forms part of the licence, any routine movements consistent with the approved management plan would be occurring under clause 40(c)(i) which would not trigger a notification requirement under clause 76. The licence applicant would propose in the management plan the measures that would be taken when the animal is required to be moved outside its enclosure for a short period to allow enclosure maintenance, cleaning or animal husbandry. The amount of detail that would need to be included would depend on the relevant risks. For example, a management plan for some species, such as peafowl, might propose that the animal is routinely allowed outside its regular enclosure and explain briefly how the risks posed by this will be managed. For other species it might be sufficient to specify the minimum expertise of those who will handle the animal and/or how it will be handled and/or restrained. For animals such as big cats, it is envisaged that the management plan would include detail about alternative enclosures that the animal would be kept in, expertise requirements, procedures for safe transfer and other measures to address the significant risks associated with moving such animals outside their regular enclosure. Movements under clause 40(c)(ii), which do trigger a notification requirement under clause 76(1)(a), would be movements not foreseen in the management plan but that have become necessary to prevent or minimise a relevant risk. It is not expected that they will occur frequently. The notification is required because it is important that the chief executive becomes aware that there were risks that could not be prevented or minimised under the management plan. This will enable the chief executive to consider whether this represents a deficiency in the management plan that should be addressed. The notification requirement is not onerous – it could be satisfied by an email.

78 Contravention of authority condition

14 – Animals Aust

The defence of having a written veterinary surgeon’s certificate to say the contravention was necessary must stipulate that the veterinarian has to be independent (that is, not employed or regularly contracted by the zoo or aquarium). At the least, the veterinary surgeon should have to disclose any conflicts they might have in this situation.

The professional conduct of registered veterinary surgeons, including the provision of certificates, is regulated under the Veterinary Surgeon’s Act 1936. The Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland could investigate and discipline, as appropriate where there was suspicion of professional misconduct. There can be very considerable benefits to animal welfare of having a veterinarian employed or regularly contracted to an exhibitor. While there is potential for the relationship with a veterinarian to be exploited by an exhibitor, the department does not believe the risk is sufficient to justify prohibiting a veterinarian employed or contracted by the exhibitor from writing certificates. Doing so could reduce the likelihood of arrangements between exhibitors and vets and hence reduce the animal welfare benefits flowing from them.

78/12 Contravention of authority condition


It is a concern that issues with the definition of animal in the Exhibited Animals Bill 2014 are to be dealt with by the subjective catch all of ‘reasonable excuse’. The Association feels that the ambiguity should be dealt with as per the above comments rather than having to operate ignoring offense provisions in the hope that it may be that a ‘reasonable excuse’ is sufficient to do so.

The definition of ‘authorised animal’ is extended to enable exhibitors to lawfully deal with animals at various stages in their lifecycles and with reproductive and genetic material. Providing that it is not an offence to breach a licence condition if there is a ‘reasonable excuse’ is the only practical way to deal with the complexity and diversity of exhibition and dealing with exhibited animals. It has the advantage of ensuring that conditions apply to the extent that it is reasonable to apply them to the animal in a particular form. For example, if a regulation was made requiring records were to be kept about each individual animal of a species, it would not be reasonable to apply this literally to genetic or reproductive material, but a record could be kept about batches of genetic or reproductive material. Also it may be reasonable for an exhibitor to record an egg but the exhibitor

27



would not need to record a pre-hatched animal as they may not be certain whether the egg contained a pre-hatched animal. Keeping appropriate records about genetic or reproductive material and eggs is important to ensure traceability which is essential to regulation of the trade in wildlife. Exempting animals at immature stages in their lifecycles and reproductive and genetic material from all licence conditions would not oblige exhibitors to apply requirements, such as record keeping, to animals in those forms to the extent that it was reasonable.

80 Application for renewal or restoration of exhibition licence


Section 80(1) sets a rule for renewal applications then Section 80(2) says that you can ignore the rule.

Clause 80(1) provides for a timeframe within which the holder of an exhibition licence may apply for its renewal (the renewal period). This is to ensure there is enough time to assess a renewal application before the term of the licence ends. Where a licence holder has applied for renewal under clause 80(1), clause 85 provides that their licence will continue, even if the application remains undecided beyond the expiration of the licence. Clause 80(2) enables a licence holder to apply for renewal or restoration after the renewal period ends and, up until three months after the licence expires. This provides licence holders, who did not apply for renewal within the renewal period, with the opportunity to apply to renew or restore their licence. Otherwise, they would need to apply for a new licence. However, where a licence holder has applied for renewal or restoration under clause 80(2), their licence does not continue after its expiry. The chief executive may grant a temporary authority to allow them to continue to lawfully retain their animals while their application is decided but it may not allow them to continue normal operations. This will provide an incentive for application during the renewal period.

83 Request for consent to official assessment (application)

14 – Animals Aust

An ‘accredited person’ is defined and dealt with under Chapter 4, Part 3, and basically who becomes one is decided by the chief executive. It appears that the applicant pays the ‘accredited person’ directly. In Animals Australia’s view this is unsuitable and leads to unmanageable conflicts of interest. While it is sensible for the applicant to pay, this fee should be paid to the chief executive, who is then responsible for the selection and payment of the ‘accredited person’.

An accredited person would inspect animals, enclosures and places to assess compliance with the Bill, and to prepare a report that the exhibitor could provide to assist the chief executive in deciding a licence renewal application. The scheme suggested in the submission would amount to the government contracting out assessments rather than allowing genuinely private assessments. Allowing a genuine private assessment will encourage the development of industry self-reliance, self-regulation and capability building. In this context, allowing the industry to choose who provides the service and allowing the market to set fees is considered preferable to simply contracting out the service. Management of the transaction interface between accredited persons and parties receiving their services would obstruct the development of a robust market for these services. An accredited person would however, be required to disclose any direct or indirect financial or other interest they have or attain that could conflict with their responsibilities in carrying out private assessments and the preparation of private assessment reports. Along with the criteria for deciding applications, the other obligations on accredited persons, and the penalties for noncompliance, this is considered a more appropriate mechanism to mitigate potential risks.

89 Deciding application for special exhibition approval

11 – Circus Royale; 8 – Steve Robinson;

Queensland is a vast state and circus has traditionally taken its entertainment to rural and remote areas as well the larger cities. No operational reason or other reason exists as to why it

If a circus was remaining in Queensland for longer than 12 months it is difficult to understand why it should not be regulated as a Queensland circus and required to have any animal that is an authorised animal (category 2) based in a fixed exhibit. In addition, given the heightened animal welfare, biosecurity and safety risks associated with managing itinerant collections of these animals,

28



10 - Blaxter would be necessary to impose a 6 month limitation on the exhibition of circus animals. Prohibition by regulation can be the only reason for such trade limiting, discriminatory and unworkable time frames. Annual or 3 or 5 year permits is the norm for circus approvals in all states and territories of Australia. This applies to animal licencing, temporary structure approvals, design certifications and all aspects of regulation. Other animal exhibitors are being offered 3 year permits under this legislation.

review of the authorisation every six months is a proportionate risk treatment. A maximum permit term of six months is consistent with the proposed maximum period for which a special exhibition approval could be granted to a Queensland-licensed exhibitor allowing them to exhibit such animals away from their fixed exhibit.


2 – Janlin Circuses; 9 - QNFAG

A 12 month permit would be more appropriate for interstate registered circuses, which would make for less paper work for both the department and the circuses involved.

Some interstate circuses have advised that they tour Queensland for up to 12 months every 2 – 3 years. Nothing in the Bill would prohibit consecutive permits being issued to a visiting circus that was appropriately regulated interstate and was appropriately managing the risks posed by their activities in Queensland. The proposed maximum term of an interstate exhibitors permit should not prevent circuses obtaining consecutive permits to complete a tour of Queensland lasting up to 12 months. Granting a permit for up to 12 months would reduce paperwork for a 12 month circus tour. However, a six month maximum duration will ensure more regular review of any authorisation that would allow authorised animals (category 2), such as lions and monkeys, to be exhibited away from a fixed exhibit. Given the heightened animal welfare, biosecurity and safety risks associated with managing itinerant collections of these animals, review of the authorisation every six months is a proportionate risk treatment. A maximum permit term of six months is consistent with the proposed maximum period for which a special exhibition approval could be granted to a Queensland-licensed exhibitor allowing them to exhibit such animals away from their fixed exhibit.


2 – Janlin Circuses

Victoria now issues a 12 month permit for our circuses when we need to go into their state, to cover the amount of time we spend in Victoria. South Australia issues a Permit to cover the months that we ask for to operate in SA.

Some interstate circuses have advised that they tour Queensland for up to 12 months every 2 – 3 years. Nothing in the Bill would prohibit consecutive permits being issued to a visiting circus that was appropriately regulated interstate and was appropriately managing the risks posed by their activities in Queensland. The proposed maximum term of an interstate exhibitors permit should not prevent circuses obtaining consecutive permits to complete a tour of Queensland lasting up to 12 months. Granting a permit for up to 12 months would reduce paperwork for a 12 month circus tour. However, a six month maximum duration will ensure more regular review of any authorisation that would allow authorised animals (category 2), such as lions and monkeys, to be exhibited away from a fixed exhibit. Given the heightened animal welfare, biosecurity and safety risks associated with managing itinerant collections of these animals, review of the authorisation every six months is a proportionate risk treatment. A maximum permit term of six months is consistent with the proposed maximum period for which a special exhibition approval could be granted to a Queensland-licensed exhibitor allowing them to

29



exhibit such animals away from their fixed exhibit. 89 Deciding application for

special exhibition approval 17 – Wildlife Kingdom

This proposal completely contradicts the government’s desire to reduce red tape and to simplify how the government authorises the exhibition of animals. This additional requirement would discourage interstate circuses spending greater amounts of time in Queensland. Due to the geographical size and growth of the state, the average tour of Queensland well exceeds 6 months. For this reason, the current licence term of two years works well and we feel should not be changed.

There is no requirement under the Bill for interstate circuses to hold an exhibition licence with a special exhibition approval for a tour of Queensland. The Bill recognises interstate authorities, and allows exhibitors authorised in other states to apply to tour within Queensland under an ‘interstate exhibitors permit’. The exhibitor may tour with all the animals permitted in the other state, including with animals which would be authorised animals (category 2), so long as they continue to be closely regulated interstate and the chief executive is satisfied with how they will manage the risks posed by their activities in Queensland. A maximum permit term of six months is consistent with the proposed maximum period for which a special exhibition approval could be granted to a Queensland-licensed exhibitor allowing them to exhibit such animals away from their fixed exhibit. Some interstate circuses have advised that they tour Queensland for up to 12 months. Nothing in the Bill would prohibit consecutive permits being issued to a visiting circus that was appropriately regulated interstate and was appropriately managing the risks posed by their activities in Queensland. The proposed maximum term of an interstate exhibitors permit should not prevent circuses obtaining consecutive permits to complete a tour of Queensland lasting up to 12 months. Granting a permit for up to 12 months would reduce paperwork for a 12 month circus tour. However, a six month maximum duration will ensure more regular review of any authorisation that would allow authorised animals (category 2) to be exhibited away from a fixed exhibit. Given the heightened animal welfare, biosecurity and safety risks associated with managing itinerant collections of these animals, review of the authorisation every six months is a proportionate risk treatment. If a circus was remaining in Queensland for up to two years it is difficult to understand why it should not be regulated as a Queensland circus and required to have any animal that is an authorised animal (category 2) based in a fixed exhibit under an exhibition licence.

93 Register of exhibited animal authorities – subsection (2)(f)


It is unclear whether this relates to the address/lot number of the licenced facility or whether it relates to finer detail i.e. the exact physical location indicated, by say, a GPS co-ordinate or a detailed map.

If the exact physical location of the enclosure were important to managing the risks or to the structural integrity of the enclosure, there should be sufficient detail about the regular site to identify its exact physical location. For example, lions are to be kept in a regular enclosure which consists of an area of land surrounded by a high perimeter fence. The detail about the regular site should be sufficient to identify the exact physical location of the fence so it cannot be moved to recreate the enclosure at another place on the premises. For a mobile enclosure where the exact location was not relevant to risk management and or the structural integrity of the enclosure, less detail could be provided. In many cases the address/lot number would be sufficient. The appropriate level of detail would be decided on a case by case basis.

93 Register of exhibited animal authorities – subsection (3) and (5)

8 – Steve Robinson; 11 – Circus Royale

Ensure that the current wording of 93 (5) is retained. Information that is of a commercial nature should be confidential.

Noted The information that is publicly available was limited in response to industry feedback at the workshop held to discuss the draft Bill. Industry participants advised that information about specific species and the site where they are kept would dramatically increase the risk of animals being targeted for theft or unlawful release.

30



93 Register of exhibited animal authorities – subsection (4)

14 – Animals Aust

Any prescribed fee to obtain a copy of all or part of the publically available register of authorities must only cover the cost of providing this information.

Clause 93(3) provides that the publically available part of the register must be published on the department’s website. In other words the information will be available free of charge to those willing to access it on the website. A fee will only be charged where a person applies to buy all or part of a copy. The Bill provides for fees to be paid, but the amount of each fee would be set by regulation. The government has not yet made a decision on fees. However, the Queensland Government principles for fees and charges would generally cap the fee for this kind of activity at cost recovery.

96 Assessment of compliance 14 – Animals Aust

Likewise, Animals Australia supports ‘...monitoring of exhibitors to promote further improvements in industry risk management’ but not at the expense of inspections under the ACPA that could be made a requirement of licensing.

Nothing in the Bill would prevent an inspector or authorised person appointed under the ACPA from exercising powers available under the ACPA in relation to an exhibited animal (see clause 7). However, the department’s proposed compliance approach is for inspectors appointed under the Bill to enforce the animal welfare requirements appropriate to the industry that are reflected in the Bill. These inspectors will also have knowledge of the welfare needs of exhibited animals as well as biosecurity and safety risks.

96 Assessment of compliance 14 – Animals Aust

We are concerned that the process for accreditation may lack appropriate independence, transparency and oversight. The Bill intends a user pays system for both ‘official assessments’ to obtain, renew or significantly amend a licence, and for ‘private assessments’ by ‘accredited private sector providers’ for licence renewals. We remain skeptical of such schemes given the small size of the industry and the conflicts of interest that many ‘accredited persons’ would have. As such, we are concerned by the Bill’s push ‘To encourage industry-self-regulation’, given its failure in so many other sectors.

Official assessments would be at cost to the exhibitor but would be carried out by inspectors. While there are some risks associated with allowing private assessments, the Bill contains safeguards for the integrity of the scheme, such as the requirement to notify conflicts of interest. Crucially, an inspector could conduct a site visit at any time (at cost to the department) to review compliance with the Bill. Any findings could be compared with the report made by an accredited person to ensure they were giving full and accurate reports. Although increased monitoring under the Bill should ensure improvements in risk management in the medium term, especially when animals are ‘off exhibit’, the department suggests that encouraging self-regulation is essential to further improvements in risk management in the industry in the long term.

97 Official assessment (follow up)

14 – Animals Aust

It is not clear why there should be any restrictions on the number of official assessment (follow-up) in relation to the giving of an exhibited animal direction and indeed the deciding factor should be the achievement of compliance with the direction.

Essentially, provision for an official assessment (follow-up) within 12 months of a direction being given represents a temporary increase in the frequency of assessments of compliance. If the compliance record of the exhibitor continued to be poor such that further directions were required to be given, a further official assessment (follow up) could be undertaken within 12 months. Given that these assessments would be at cost to the exhibitor this would create an economic incentive for compliance as well as provide for closer monitoring. An official assessment (follow up) is separate to an inspection to check compliance with the direction which could also be undertaken (but at cost to the department). If the exhibitor did not comply with the direction then the chief executive could take the required action and charge the cost to the exhibitor. Also non-compliance with a direction is an offence under clause 181 and prosecution action could be considered. Also non-compliance with a direction could be grounds for cancellation or suspension of a licence or permit – see clause 125(e).

103 Admissibility of report 14 – Animals This clause is hard to understand. It says (2) ‘The private Queensland legislation often provides protection to people who disclose wrongdoing. This

31



against licence holder Aust assessment report is not admissible in evidence against the holder of the exhibition licence in civil or criminal proceedings’ but (3) proceeds to say subsection (2) doesn’t apply where ‘...the false or misleading nature of the report is relevant evidence’. This is likely to be difficult in practice because the circumstances in which the false or misleading nature of anything in a report would be relevant in proceedings (other than those relating directly to that nature) is not defined. There would likely be disputes as to whether the general exclusion applied or had been displaced. The boundary between the rule and the exception is unclear and this may make both unworkable.

encourages candour in the disclosure. Granting the immunity in this case may allow the chief executive to take action to ensure risks identified in the report are minimised (e.g. undertake an inspection to check the risk has been addressed and issue a direction if it has not) that is more important than retaining the potential to prosecute for the original breach. Generally, the immunity granted in Queensland legislation to facilitate disclosure does not extend to dishonesty - a person could still be prosecuted or be held liable for the consequences if the information was false or misleading. There is sufficient case law to guide the interpretation of this provision should the need arise.

108 Suitability of person for accreditation

14 – Animals Aust

This clause needs to ensure that the chief executive takes into consideration relevant facts and makes certain inquiries before deciding the suitability of a person to be accredited, instead of the current ‘may have regard’ to facts. This is especially the case in (a-e), which set out matters to be considered including prior convictions, suspensions, and refusals.

It may be difficult to establish whether some of the considerations apply to an applicant. For example, clause 108(e) is open-ended and would be unworkable if ‘must’ was used. Using ‘may’ allows such matters to be taken into consideration if the chief executive becomes aware of them.

113 Accreditation conditions 14 – Animals Aust

It needs to be made clear that the onus is on the ‘accredited person’ to update this information with the chief executive during the period of accreditation if necessary.

Giving notice is a condition of the accreditation not a consideration for the accreditation decision. If the accredited person did not update the information, they may be committing an offence under clause 115.

113 Accreditation conditions – subsection (1)


Does this require that any fee paid to an accredited person for carrying out a private assessment must be disclosed to the chief executive?

Generally no. However, disclosure would be required if the fee was paid in a form (e.g. shares in the company) that gave the person a direct or indirect financial interest in the business or an animal. Also disclosure would be required if the fee was so generous in proportion to the service provided that its payment could be perceived to have some influence on the conduct of the assessment and/or preparation of the report.

122 Register 14 – Animals Aust

The published register of ‘accredited persons’ should also show the conflict of interest disclosures made by these persons.

Public disclosure of the financial or other interests of an accredited person that could conflict with the proper carrying out of a private assessment and preparation of a private assessment report would enable community oversight of compliance with the obligation to give the chief executive notice of these. However, the department suggests that mandating disclosure of this information is unwarranted in the context that an inspector can independently visit a premise to check compliance with the Bill and thus the accuracy of the reports prepared by an accredited person.

125 Grounds for cancellation or suspension of relevant authorisation

14 – Animals Aust

This clause needs to ensure that the chief executive must cancel or suspend a relevant authorization, instead of the current ‘may’ cancel or suspend, in the instances provided under dot points in this clause. This is especially the case as these include obtaining an

Clause 127 provides for the chief executive to initiate action if they believe grounds exists to cancel, suspend or amend a relevant authorisation. Consistent with the principles of natural justice, the chief executive must issue an exhibitor a show cause notice if the chief executive proposes to take action. A show cause notice provides the exhibitor with an opportunity to explain the circumstances constituting the grounds for the proposed action.

32



authorization by providing ‘materially incorrect or misleading information...’; the person ‘is not, or is no longer, a suitable person to hold the authorisation’, and ‘the holder of the authorisation has contravened a condition of the authorisation...’. As commented earlier, Animals Australia is not confidant that self regulation works in any industry, and this is particularly the case when deterrents are low.

Using ‘may’ allows the chief executive to consider the seriousness of the potential grounds and propose an appropriate and proportionate response given the circumstances. For example, in some circumstances an amendment that restricts the person conducting certain types of assessments might be a more proportionate response than suspension or cancellation of the entire accreditation.

185 Other seizure powers 14 – Animals Aust

This clause is more restrictive than is provided under the ACPA s142 -144.

Clause 185 was modelled on sections 142-144 of the ACPA. Clause 185(2)(d) of the Bill, which is specifically mentioned in the submission, allows an inspector to seize an exhibited animal or another animal, in certain circumstances where the interests of the welfare of the animal require its immediate seizure. This is consistent with section 144(1) of the ACPA.

254 Regulation-making power – subsection (2)(c)

17 – Wildlife Kingdom

Proposed licensing costs are to rise from $206 for 2 years to $2,615 per year (for a Qld based circus) or approx. $900 per year (for an interstate based circus). Whilst it is considered justified to modestly increase these fees, the proposed increase is outrageous and would pose a big financial burden on our small business. The proposal is discriminatory to our sector of the industry, as an equivalent Qld based fixed exhibitor will only pay $970 per year for the same number of animals displayed.

The Bill provides for fees to be paid, but the amount of each fee would be set by regulation. The government has not yet made a final decision on fees. The Consultation RIS proposed that application fees would vary depending on the number of paid full-time equivalent staff. The number of paid full-time equivalent staff is indicative of the size and complexity of an operation, and it takes longer to assess the application of a larger and/or more complex operation. The annualised licence costs for a Queensland circus in the Consultation RIS assumed that between 4 and 15 paid full-time equivalent staff were involved in exhibiting and dealing with animals under the licence. For a circus with fewer people involved, the fee would be less – the same as for a small Queensland-based fixed exhibitor. However, additional fees would be payable for a special exhibition approval by either the circus or the fixed exhibitor if they wanted to exhibit an authorised animal (category 2) off-site. Wildlife Kingdom is based in NSW, and would have no need to maintain a licence in Queensland. As a result, the business would at most need two ‘interstate exhibitors permits’ in any given year.

258 Particular animal exempted as an authorised animal (category 2)

4 – RSPCA Qld We wish to congratulate the Government on the inclusion of circus animals, animals used in demonstrations and in petting zoos in this legislation. While we understand the need for a grandfathering of certain animals currently licenced to be used in circuses, by demonstrators and in petting zoos, we wish to be assured that all new animals acquired for these exhibition purposes either through purchase, exchange or birth will not be grandfathered but come under the new legislation.

Petting zoos would be exempt from this legislation to the extent they use the common farm and domestic animals listed in Schedule 1. Clause 258 is limited in its application and the exclusion for obligations under the Bill it affords. It is restricted to those relevant entities holding a declared pest permit under the LP Act for circus entertainment purposes immediately before the commencement of the Bill. All animals acquired after the commencement of the Bill would not be excluded from the definition of authorised animal (category 2).

Sch 1 Exempted animals 3 –Zoo & Aquarium Assoc Qld

Suggest the addition of Peafowl and Guinea Fowl as two domesticated bird species essentially the same as chickens, ducks and turkeys (included in the list of exempted animals). This would alleviate issues associated with section 74 serious incident part (c) which classes escape from a controlled area to be notified to

If the management plan for an animal provided that it would be allowed to spend time outside a controlled area then allowing it to do so would not trigger (c) in the definition of ‘serious incident’ in clause 74 because it would not represent ‘escape, unauthorised release or removal’ from a controlled area.

33



the Chief Executive, as Peafowl and Guinea Fowl are maintained as fully-flighted free-ranging animals in zoos and often range outside of the controlled area but return to the controlled area.

Sch 1 Exempted animals 3 –Zoo & Aquarium Assoc Qld

Cane Toads should be added to the list of exempt animals to remove the need for the species to be regulated and remove the regulatory cost on government and industry.

Cane toads are neither prohibited matter nor restricted matter under the Biosecurity Act 2014. Consequently, they will be able to be exhibited without a licence under the Bill and hence an exhibitor will not need to mention them in a management plan. However, the general exhibition and dealing obligation will apply to cane toads. The department is not aware of a compelling reason to exempt cane toads from the Bill and allow them to be kept at a different standard to other exhibited amphibians. They are not domesticated species.

Sch 1 Exempted animals 13- Animal Liberation Qld

ALQ has strong concerns with industry specific animal welfare regulations, and recommends removal of species specific exemptions.

The exemption of the exhibition of certain animals listed in schedule 1 from the application of the Bill reflects that the context in which those animals are exhibited is already appropriately regulated and/or it would not be appropriate to apply standards under the Bill to that context. The department suggests this is consistent with the approach taken more generally to regulating animal welfare in Queensland which allows that the standard of care provided may vary depending on how the animals are used. The ACPA, which is the principal piece of legislation regulating animal welfare in Queensland, is specifically directed at balancing a range of interests. One of the objectives of the ACPA is to provide ‘standards for the care and use of animals that achieve a reasonable balance between the welfare of animals and the interests of persons whose livelihood is dependent on animals’. Thus animal welfare standards in Queensland vary depending on how the animals are being used. This contrasts with the animal rights position that animals should not be used or regarded as property and the interests of non-human animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of humans.

Dictionary

authorised animal (category 1)


This definition does not include Schedule 4 part 1 Exempt animals (Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006). Should this be included in this definition or are ‘exempt animals’ under the NCA excluded entirely as are animals listed in Schedule 1 Exempted Animals (Exhibited Animals Bill 2014)?

The definition of authorised animal (category 1) mirrors the animals that are able to be kept as pets under a recreational wildlife licence under the NCA. Exempt animals are not authorised animals because they can be kept without an authority under the NCA. An exhibitor will not need a licence to exhibit these species and hence will not need to mention them in a management plan. However, these animals are not excluded entirely from the application of the Bill as are the species listed in Schedule 1. The general exhibition and dealing obligation will apply to animals that are ‘exempt animals’ under the NCA but not to the species listed in Schedule 1.

Various Penalties 13- Animal Liberation Qld; 14 – Animals Aust

Duty of care towards animals is already covered in the ACPA, which also provides higher penalties than the Bill, and includes imprisonment. The current penalties in the Bill are grossly inadequate to serve as an adequate deterrent. Recommends much stronger penalties, including under sections 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 102 (given the reliance on private assessments in this Bill), 114, 115, 116, 134, 138, 147, 172, 176, 181, 189, 191, 203,

Nothing in the Bill is intended to undermine the application to exhibitors of obligations under the ACPA (see clause 7). It is intended that an exhibitor guilty of an offence under the Bill may be prosecuted instead for an offence committed under the ACPA if the offence and penalty under that legislation is more appropriate in the circumstances, for example having regard to the gravity of what occurred. The maximum penalty for an accredited person giving a false or misleading report in this Bill (clause 102) is comparable to that for a similar offence in the Biosecurity Act 2014.

34



204, 205, 206, 208, 212, 213, 247, 248, 249 and 254. Various Penalties 16 - Nixon The Australian state based Exhibited Animal licensing

system addresses every welfare concern. The penalties for non-compliance in Australia are real and would cause financial hardship.

There is no specific requirement for the chief executive to be satisfied that an animal’s welfare requirements will be met before granting a declared pest permit under the LP Act. However, the ACPA, including the Queensland code of practice for the welfare of animals in circuses 2003 - a mandatory code of practice, applies to circus exhibition under a permit. Inspectors would generally take an educational approach to improving risk management under the Bill in in the first instance. Except for gross breaches of obligations, enforcement action would generally be deferred until an exhibitor had been given reasonable opportunity to improve the measures they were taking to manage risks. If a person was successfully prosecuted, the courts would determine an appropriate penalty within the limits set by the maximum penalty.

Other matters

Consultation 13- Animal Liberation Qld

ALQ is concerned that the purpose of the Bill is primarily focussed on business, with far too little emphasis on animal welfare. This view is also reinforced by the Minister’s comments that the Bill was developed closely with industry such as Australia Zoo and Dreamworld. It is my understanding that there was little or no consultation (outside of the separate RIS earlier in the year) with animal protection groups such as Animals Australia, RSPCA, or Animal Liberation (Qld). We would welcome much greater consultation with animal protection groups when the government is considering changes to legislation concerning animals.

The Bill has two primary purposes outlined in clause 3 – to provide for exhibiting and dealing with exhibited animals, and to ensure the relevant risks associated with exhibiting and dealing with exhibited animals are prevented or minimised. Clause 17 identifies ‘a risk to the welfare of any animal’ as a relevant risk. All exhibitors will have an obligation to minimise relevant risks (including risks to the welfare of any animal). Animal welfare groups have been involved at various points in the development of the Bill. A discussion paper, Exhibited animals, that canvassed replacing the current legislation with a single industry-specific Act, was released for public consultation in 2008. Submissions were received from a diverse range of stakeholders – three out of 30 respondents indicated they had an interest in animal welfare. In March 2011 the then Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation discussed the key principles proposed to underpin the legislation with the RSPCA, Animals Australia and an academic from the University of Queensland with interests in animal welfare and ethics, who were supportive of the key principles. A Consultation RIS for new legislation was released for public comment in November 2013, with consultation closing in February 2014. Three of the 25 respondents indicated they had an interest in animal welfare. The RSPCA is represented on the Exhibited Animals Liaison Working Group, which was formed to provide advice on policies and feedback on how the new legislation would be administered.

Documents

AGRICULTURE RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE · (LP Act). Finally, there is provision for adoption of codes of practice specific to the industry under the Bill (see clauses 21