WEBVTT - The changing laws of pet ownership

0:00:00.520 --> 0:00:05.640
<v Speaker 1>Already and this is the Daily This is the Daily OS. Oh,

0:00:05.800 --> 0:00:15.960
<v Speaker 1>now it makes sense. Good morning and welcome to the

0:00:16.079 --> 0:00:18.880
<v Speaker 1>Daily OS. It's Friday, the eleventh of July. I'm Billy

0:00:18.920 --> 0:00:19.920
<v Speaker 1>fitz Simon's.

0:00:19.560 --> 0:00:22.360
<v Speaker 2>I'm Sam Becauseluski. And this is Cubby.

0:00:22.200 --> 0:00:24.560
<v Speaker 1>Cobby, our very special office dog.

0:00:24.720 --> 0:00:27.760
<v Speaker 2>He's a beautiful, kind nature golden Retriever.

0:00:28.000 --> 0:00:31.200
<v Speaker 1>The first time he's been allowed in the Pod studio

0:00:31.320 --> 0:00:33.239
<v Speaker 1>and it will be very clear why he's here in

0:00:33.440 --> 0:00:36.400
<v Speaker 1>a moment because did you know that rules of pet

0:00:36.400 --> 0:00:40.199
<v Speaker 1>ownership are changing in Australia, Well kind of. At the

0:00:40.200 --> 0:00:43.200
<v Speaker 1>start of this month, the Act revealed a new draft

0:00:43.240 --> 0:00:46.200
<v Speaker 1>Code of Practice that sets out mandatory rules of dog

0:00:46.280 --> 0:00:49.440
<v Speaker 1>ownership in the territory. Among the new rules is a

0:00:49.479 --> 0:00:53.120
<v Speaker 1>required minimum time of three hours spent with a dog

0:00:53.320 --> 0:00:56.640
<v Speaker 1>every day. Now that is just for the Act, but

0:00:57.040 --> 0:00:59.640
<v Speaker 1>it comes a month after new laws at the federal

0:00:59.720 --> 0:01:02.880
<v Speaker 1>level came into effect that changed how pets are seen

0:01:02.960 --> 0:01:05.840
<v Speaker 1>in the family law system. It means pets won't just

0:01:05.880 --> 0:01:08.880
<v Speaker 1>be seen as property and there will be new special

0:01:08.920 --> 0:01:12.319
<v Speaker 1>considerations to who took the best care of the pet.

0:01:12.680 --> 0:01:15.400
<v Speaker 1>Today we're looking at how the rules of pet ownership

0:01:15.480 --> 0:01:17.160
<v Speaker 1>are changing.

0:01:20.000 --> 0:01:22.080
<v Speaker 2>Billy, this is such an interesting topic I wanted to

0:01:22.080 --> 0:01:24.560
<v Speaker 2>cover in the room. He's just taken a little walk

0:01:24.680 --> 0:01:26.679
<v Speaker 2>from my lap, but that's okay, it's his right to

0:01:26.720 --> 0:01:28.880
<v Speaker 2>do so. And this really is a story about the

0:01:28.959 --> 0:01:32.440
<v Speaker 2>changing rights of dogs across Australia. It's such a cool

0:01:32.480 --> 0:01:35.520
<v Speaker 2>thing to talk about. I'd never really thought about pet

0:01:35.560 --> 0:01:39.160
<v Speaker 2>ownership as something that's overly regulated. Yes we did. I

0:01:39.160 --> 0:01:41.800
<v Speaker 2>remember we did a podcast about the rights of renters

0:01:42.040 --> 0:01:44.679
<v Speaker 2>to have pets in rental properties, but that was again

0:01:44.720 --> 0:01:48.880
<v Speaker 2>from the aspect of the human rather than the pet.

0:01:49.400 --> 0:01:52.640
<v Speaker 2>I'm really keen to get into this first. How popular

0:01:52.960 --> 0:01:54.600
<v Speaker 2>is pet ownership in Australia.

0:01:54.680 --> 0:01:57.600
<v Speaker 1>Okay, well, first, Sam, a quick bit of trivia for you.

0:01:58.200 --> 0:02:02.000
<v Speaker 1>What percentage of households in Australia do you think has

0:02:02.080 --> 0:02:03.560
<v Speaker 1>a pet, so any kind of pet.

0:02:04.400 --> 0:02:07.560
<v Speaker 2>I'm going to go with like sixty five percent.

0:02:07.880 --> 0:02:10.840
<v Speaker 1>That's pretty bang on. It's about seventy percent.

0:02:11.000 --> 0:02:13.160
<v Speaker 2>I just think about that. So if you've got ten

0:02:13.360 --> 0:02:17.520
<v Speaker 2>average Aussie households in a room, seven out of ten

0:02:17.960 --> 0:02:18.760
<v Speaker 2>have a pet in the home.

0:02:18.880 --> 0:02:22.080
<v Speaker 1>Yes, And of those that do have a pet, fifty

0:02:22.120 --> 0:02:24.639
<v Speaker 1>percent have a dog. So I'm sure it's no surprise

0:02:24.800 --> 0:02:29.239
<v Speaker 1>that dogs are the most popular pet in Australia. Quick question,

0:02:29.560 --> 0:02:31.480
<v Speaker 1>are we allowed to talk about our own dogs here?

0:02:31.600 --> 0:02:34.480
<v Speaker 2>Yeah? A big shout out to Honey and Maggie, our

0:02:34.760 --> 0:02:39.120
<v Speaker 2>family dogs. Honey's mine, Maggie is your family dog? Both

0:02:39.240 --> 0:02:42.080
<v Speaker 2>beautiful dogs in their later years of life, yes, but

0:02:42.160 --> 0:02:45.040
<v Speaker 2>still very special. Why don't we start with the news

0:02:45.080 --> 0:02:48.280
<v Speaker 2>out of the Act, which is the most recent development

0:02:48.320 --> 0:02:48.920
<v Speaker 2>in this space.

0:02:49.160 --> 0:02:51.440
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. So, at the start of this month, the Act

0:02:51.680 --> 0:02:55.320
<v Speaker 1>government released its draft of a Code of Practice for

0:02:55.480 --> 0:02:58.560
<v Speaker 1>dog welfare right now, that was advised on by the

0:02:58.639 --> 0:03:01.520
<v Speaker 1>Act Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.

0:03:01.560 --> 0:03:04.000
<v Speaker 2>And when you're saying a code of practice, what exactly

0:03:04.000 --> 0:03:06.400
<v Speaker 2>does that mean and also what legal weight does that have?

0:03:06.720 --> 0:03:10.560
<v Speaker 1>Yeah? So codes of practice provide safety and standards information

0:03:10.760 --> 0:03:15.280
<v Speaker 1>to specific different tasks that people have. Now, this code

0:03:15.320 --> 0:03:21.079
<v Speaker 1>specifically outlines mandatory standards that individuals responsible for dogs must meet.

0:03:21.520 --> 0:03:24.080
<v Speaker 1>It does say that kind of the rules of animal

0:03:24.120 --> 0:03:28.160
<v Speaker 1>welfare are quite universally recognizable, but this is just quite

0:03:28.240 --> 0:03:32.880
<v Speaker 1>specific to dogs. Also aside, note the Act is actually

0:03:32.880 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 1>somewhat of a leader in this space because in twenty

0:03:35.720 --> 0:03:39.520
<v Speaker 1>nineteen it actually became the only jurisdiction in Australia that

0:03:39.640 --> 0:03:44.920
<v Speaker 1>recognizes animals as sentient beings that have intrinsic value and

0:03:45.080 --> 0:03:47.320
<v Speaker 1>deserve to be treated with compassion.

0:03:47.480 --> 0:03:50.760
<v Speaker 2>That's so interesting from a legal standpoint. And so at

0:03:50.800 --> 0:03:54.240
<v Speaker 2>this stage there's this code of practice that they are proposing,

0:03:54.760 --> 0:03:58.840
<v Speaker 2>and now they're actually seeking public feedback on it. What

0:03:59.000 --> 0:03:59.760
<v Speaker 2>exactly is in the.

0:03:59.800 --> 0:04:03.360
<v Speaker 1>Dry Okay, So I'll go through the changes. The first

0:04:03.440 --> 0:04:07.160
<v Speaker 1>is that it provides an updated animal framework that as

0:04:07.200 --> 0:04:11.480
<v Speaker 1>well as recognizing that dogs are sentient beings, it also

0:04:11.560 --> 0:04:15.880
<v Speaker 1>recognizes that animals have intrinsic value and deserve to be

0:04:15.960 --> 0:04:19.120
<v Speaker 1>treated with compassion and have a quality of life that

0:04:19.160 --> 0:04:24.159
<v Speaker 1>reflects their intrinsic value. And it also recognizes that people

0:04:24.200 --> 0:04:27.280
<v Speaker 1>have a duty to care for the physical and mental

0:04:27.320 --> 0:04:28.800
<v Speaker 1>welfare of animals.

0:04:29.120 --> 0:04:33.560
<v Speaker 2>So there is kind of existing animal cruelty rules, and

0:04:34.200 --> 0:04:37.320
<v Speaker 2>we hear of cases, terrible cases all the time of

0:04:37.720 --> 0:04:41.799
<v Speaker 2>dogs being locked in cars or mistreatment. There was a massive,

0:04:42.320 --> 0:04:46.279
<v Speaker 2>you know, news event with investigations into the greyhound racing industry,

0:04:46.279 --> 0:04:48.960
<v Speaker 2>for example, a couple of years ago. But I think

0:04:48.960 --> 0:04:52.720
<v Speaker 2>what's different about this draft is that mental component perhaps

0:04:53.120 --> 0:04:57.520
<v Speaker 2>and really trying to ensure the mental health and emotional

0:04:57.520 --> 0:04:59.679
<v Speaker 2>health of the dog is so interesting.

0:04:59.760 --> 0:05:04.039
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, And I think it's about recognizing that animals are

0:05:04.640 --> 0:05:07.760
<v Speaker 1>these beings on their own that don't just exist in

0:05:07.800 --> 0:05:10.600
<v Speaker 1>relation to humans, Like it's not kind of I know

0:05:10.640 --> 0:05:12.520
<v Speaker 1>that for a lot of people, dogs can kind of

0:05:12.720 --> 0:05:15.240
<v Speaker 1>help you, but this is about recognizing how you can

0:05:15.320 --> 0:05:16.240
<v Speaker 1>help dogs.

0:05:16.279 --> 0:05:19.440
<v Speaker 2>It is interesting that they've specified dogs and that it

0:05:19.520 --> 0:05:22.480
<v Speaker 2>doesn't expand to other animals. Yeah, okay, so how are

0:05:22.480 --> 0:05:26.919
<v Speaker 2>they actually going about quantifying or somewhat validating the idea

0:05:26.960 --> 0:05:29.240
<v Speaker 2>that you're emotionally and physically caring for your dog.

0:05:29.520 --> 0:05:32.200
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, So this is the one that caught my attention.

0:05:32.760 --> 0:05:35.560
<v Speaker 1>So the act government in this Code of Practice is

0:05:35.600 --> 0:05:39.240
<v Speaker 1>saying that they want to expand guidelines for dog owners

0:05:39.240 --> 0:05:42.280
<v Speaker 1>and cares that would require all dogs to have a

0:05:42.360 --> 0:05:46.240
<v Speaker 1>minimum of three hours of human contact daily.

0:05:46.400 --> 0:05:49.280
<v Speaker 2>That is really interesting, so interesting. I think it must

0:05:49.279 --> 0:05:52.360
<v Speaker 2>be trying to kind of eradicate people who leave their

0:05:52.400 --> 0:05:55.520
<v Speaker 2>dogs alone for yes, hours and hours and days of

0:05:55.560 --> 0:05:56.080
<v Speaker 2>the time. Right.

0:05:56.200 --> 0:05:59.400
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, Now you might be asking why, what's their reasoning

0:05:59.440 --> 0:06:02.640
<v Speaker 1>behind this? Yeah, and the draft code kind of explains that.

0:06:02.720 --> 0:06:03.960
<v Speaker 1>Now I'm going to read out it's a bit of

0:06:03.960 --> 0:06:06.320
<v Speaker 1>a lengthy quote, but I think it's really interesting. So

0:06:06.360 --> 0:06:10.560
<v Speaker 1>it says undesirable behaviors in dogs, such as excessive barking,

0:06:10.960 --> 0:06:15.440
<v Speaker 1>can result from leaving them unattended for extended periods, leading

0:06:15.480 --> 0:06:18.000
<v Speaker 1>to boredom and anxiety, and that kind of speaks to

0:06:18.040 --> 0:06:20.880
<v Speaker 1>that mental health well beeting that we're talking about. It

0:06:20.920 --> 0:06:24.880
<v Speaker 1>continues as well as indicating distress. These behaviors can lead

0:06:24.920 --> 0:06:29.200
<v Speaker 1>to animal nuisance and neighborhood complaints. So bad pr for dogs, Yes,

0:06:29.320 --> 0:06:31.600
<v Speaker 1>that's a good way of putting it. And so because

0:06:31.640 --> 0:06:34.680
<v Speaker 1>of this, it is saying that it should be mandatory

0:06:34.720 --> 0:06:37.520
<v Speaker 1>for dogs to spend at least three hours a day

0:06:37.839 --> 0:06:39.280
<v Speaker 1>with human contact.

0:06:39.440 --> 0:06:42.240
<v Speaker 2>So what I'm reading into that is this isn't about

0:06:42.279 --> 0:06:44.320
<v Speaker 2>just being with the dog when you're asleep and the

0:06:44.320 --> 0:06:47.000
<v Speaker 2>dog is a snunt. This is about more meaningful time

0:06:47.120 --> 0:06:48.360
<v Speaker 2>spent with your pet.

0:06:48.520 --> 0:06:52.120
<v Speaker 1>Yes, And interestingly, it also recommends, so it doesn't make

0:06:52.160 --> 0:06:56.560
<v Speaker 1>this mandatory, but it recommends that dogs live inside. So

0:06:56.600 --> 0:07:00.000
<v Speaker 1>it says dogs are social pack animals and a life

0:07:00.320 --> 0:07:03.160
<v Speaker 1>to be happiest living in the house with their human

0:07:03.240 --> 0:07:06.920
<v Speaker 1>family and other dogs. Dogs are also more useful as

0:07:07.040 --> 0:07:10.040
<v Speaker 1>intruder deterrents if they live inside the house.

0:07:10.760 --> 0:07:13.280
<v Speaker 2>I feel like that's somewhat stating the obvious. You know,

0:07:13.400 --> 0:07:16.680
<v Speaker 2>dogs are happier when they're around people, and they might

0:07:16.800 --> 0:07:18.880
<v Speaker 2>scare off someone who's not meant to be there. That's

0:07:19.080 --> 0:07:21.880
<v Speaker 2>something that's very well established. I guess by applying it

0:07:21.880 --> 0:07:23.960
<v Speaker 2>into this framework, what they're trying to do is give

0:07:24.200 --> 0:07:27.320
<v Speaker 2>owners some guidelines of best practice, which is a different

0:07:27.360 --> 0:07:30.720
<v Speaker 2>way to approach pet ownership as we've seen in Australia.

0:07:30.800 --> 0:07:33.640
<v Speaker 1>Wait, you know who does get their three hours in?

0:07:33.800 --> 0:07:35.400
<v Speaker 1>Definitely who Cubby?

0:07:35.640 --> 0:07:39.640
<v Speaker 2>Cubby. So Kubby is not a TDA dog. Kubby is

0:07:39.680 --> 0:07:41.680
<v Speaker 2>a dog of the other business that we share with.

0:07:42.520 --> 0:07:45.880
<v Speaker 2>And man does that office light up when Cubby works in.

0:07:46.000 --> 0:07:48.120
<v Speaker 1>I mean Cubby's in most days.

0:07:47.760 --> 0:07:50.840
<v Speaker 2>He's in most days. He's a very good boy. Yes,

0:07:51.320 --> 0:07:54.280
<v Speaker 2>has particular love for the news. It would say, I've

0:07:54.320 --> 0:07:56.680
<v Speaker 2>wanted to actually get a dog for TDA for a

0:07:56.680 --> 0:08:00.920
<v Speaker 2>long time and call it newspaper. But you know, it

0:08:00.960 --> 0:08:03.520
<v Speaker 2>hasn't happened yet because of Interestingly, some of the things

0:08:03.560 --> 0:08:07.760
<v Speaker 2>that you're raising, which is me and my wife, we

0:08:07.880 --> 0:08:10.440
<v Speaker 2>both work very long days out of the house, and

0:08:10.600 --> 0:08:14.000
<v Speaker 2>signless some dog was with me at work, it would

0:08:14.000 --> 0:08:17.120
<v Speaker 2>be spending probably not the three hours a day of

0:08:17.320 --> 0:08:18.480
<v Speaker 2>mandatory human contact.

0:08:18.640 --> 0:08:20.760
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it's an important thing to think about.

0:08:21.080 --> 0:08:24.600
<v Speaker 2>And did the code expand not just in the quality time,

0:08:24.760 --> 0:08:27.080
<v Speaker 2>love language, but other parts of a dog's life.

0:08:27.160 --> 0:08:29.920
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it really went through kind of all parts of

0:08:30.040 --> 0:08:33.360
<v Speaker 1>a dog's life. If I say retractable leads, do you

0:08:33.440 --> 0:08:36.959
<v Speaker 1>know what I'm talking about tape measurers? Oh my god,

0:08:36.960 --> 0:08:38.920
<v Speaker 1>I've never thought of them like that, but yes, kind

0:08:39.000 --> 0:08:41.520
<v Speaker 1>of like that, which I have always thought they were

0:08:41.600 --> 0:08:43.840
<v Speaker 1>quite common and I never knew that there was anything

0:08:43.920 --> 0:08:47.560
<v Speaker 1>wrong with them. But the Act's draft Code of Practice

0:08:47.640 --> 0:08:50.160
<v Speaker 1>says that a person in charge of a dog should

0:08:50.160 --> 0:08:55.000
<v Speaker 1>not use retractable leashes because they could result in injury.

0:08:55.360 --> 0:08:57.760
<v Speaker 1>And they expanded on that. So they said, a retractable

0:08:57.880 --> 0:09:01.440
<v Speaker 1>leash limits control pose. This is risk and could be

0:09:01.520 --> 0:09:04.480
<v Speaker 1>dangerous to both the dog and the walker. And they

0:09:04.520 --> 0:09:09.000
<v Speaker 1>said that retractable leashes are only suitable for well trained dogs.

0:09:09.040 --> 0:09:12.160
<v Speaker 1>So they're not completely banning retractable leashes, but they're just

0:09:12.160 --> 0:09:15.760
<v Speaker 1>saying that they should only be used in specific circumstances.

0:09:16.120 --> 0:09:20.560
<v Speaker 2>One part of it which really interested me was the

0:09:20.640 --> 0:09:25.199
<v Speaker 2>part of the code that restricted surgical debarking.

0:09:25.400 --> 0:09:26.640
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, have you heard of that before?

0:09:26.720 --> 0:09:28.960
<v Speaker 2>I haven't, actually I heard of that. I know I

0:09:29.000 --> 0:09:32.000
<v Speaker 2>can picture a muzzle in my head and dogs that

0:09:32.080 --> 0:09:36.120
<v Speaker 2>are restricted by some sort of physical barrier to barking.

0:09:36.120 --> 0:09:38.199
<v Speaker 2>But I hadn't heard of surgical debarking.

0:09:38.400 --> 0:09:42.440
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and so it's saying that surgical debarking procedures must

0:09:42.600 --> 0:09:46.320
<v Speaker 1>not be considered as a bark reduction strategy if the

0:09:46.360 --> 0:09:49.439
<v Speaker 1>dog is under twelve months of age. And it also

0:09:49.480 --> 0:09:51.840
<v Speaker 1>says that it should only ever be considered if the

0:09:51.880 --> 0:09:55.320
<v Speaker 1>dog is considered a public nuisance. Now you might be

0:09:55.360 --> 0:09:57.760
<v Speaker 1>wondering how do you prove if your dog is a

0:09:57.760 --> 0:10:01.560
<v Speaker 1>public nuisance? And it had a very specific kind of

0:10:01.559 --> 0:10:04.600
<v Speaker 1>guideline or criteria. Is said that you have to have

0:10:04.720 --> 0:10:08.960
<v Speaker 1>at least two written complaints from your neighbor to say

0:10:09.000 --> 0:10:12.280
<v Speaker 1>that your dog is kind of officially a public nuisance,

0:10:12.559 --> 0:10:15.400
<v Speaker 1>and only then could it be considered that your dog

0:10:15.520 --> 0:10:17.560
<v Speaker 1>might need surgical debarking.

0:10:17.960 --> 0:10:20.920
<v Speaker 2>So this is a really long report. Those are some

0:10:20.960 --> 0:10:23.520
<v Speaker 2>of the categories that are covered there. There's a fifty

0:10:23.559 --> 0:10:27.000
<v Speaker 2>page code, like there's kind of every aspects of the

0:10:27.040 --> 0:10:29.840
<v Speaker 2>dog's life is covered. Will put a link to it

0:10:29.880 --> 0:10:32.959
<v Speaker 2>in the show notes. But you've also said, and I

0:10:33.040 --> 0:10:34.920
<v Speaker 2>think this is the bit that I'm struggling with. This

0:10:35.000 --> 0:10:38.839
<v Speaker 2>story is what's binding, what's part of the law, what

0:10:38.920 --> 0:10:42.640
<v Speaker 2>can be enforced? Draft code always makes alarm bells go

0:10:42.760 --> 0:10:45.800
<v Speaker 2>off for me, can this actually be enforced? And you

0:10:45.840 --> 0:10:49.600
<v Speaker 2>know what actual strength does it give the act government

0:10:49.640 --> 0:10:52.920
<v Speaker 2>in improving the lives of dogs in the territory.

0:10:53.120 --> 0:10:55.880
<v Speaker 1>I think the thing to think about is for all

0:10:55.960 --> 0:10:58.600
<v Speaker 1>things like this, you know, there are so many different

0:10:58.600 --> 0:11:02.240
<v Speaker 1>examples where they meant has guidelines for I guess how

0:11:02.280 --> 0:11:06.240
<v Speaker 1>we should live our life, things like alcohol consumption, cigarette consumption,

0:11:06.800 --> 0:11:09.560
<v Speaker 1>And you're right, it is really hard to enforce. And

0:11:09.760 --> 0:11:11.559
<v Speaker 1>this isn't the kind of thing where police are now

0:11:11.600 --> 0:11:16.200
<v Speaker 1>going to be doing random checks on people's houses. Rectable, yes,

0:11:16.360 --> 0:11:19.439
<v Speaker 1>to start seeing whether or not you are spending your

0:11:19.559 --> 0:11:22.600
<v Speaker 1>compulsory three hours a day with your dog. But it's

0:11:22.679 --> 0:11:25.600
<v Speaker 1>meant to be more of a guideline, and I would

0:11:25.600 --> 0:11:29.440
<v Speaker 1>say only in extreme circumstances if they believe that there

0:11:29.520 --> 0:11:31.760
<v Speaker 1>is animal cruelty going.

0:11:31.520 --> 0:11:35.520
<v Speaker 2>On or which is a lot like that's yes, indisputably yes.

0:11:35.880 --> 0:11:39.480
<v Speaker 1>So if there's like systemic neglect there that you know,

0:11:39.559 --> 0:11:43.200
<v Speaker 1>I imagine someone would have to report you for, then that's

0:11:43.240 --> 0:11:46.720
<v Speaker 1>when this would be enforced. But again I think there

0:11:46.760 --> 0:11:49.200
<v Speaker 1>are lots of different examples where they kind of give

0:11:49.240 --> 0:11:50.439
<v Speaker 1>you a guideline.

0:11:51.000 --> 0:11:54.880
<v Speaker 2>The media has guidelines on how we report stories exactly example. Yes,

0:11:55.280 --> 0:11:57.680
<v Speaker 2>but then there are actual laws, as we've just mentioned,

0:11:57.720 --> 0:12:00.800
<v Speaker 2>and one area that's changed a lot is pet ownership

0:12:01.040 --> 0:12:03.400
<v Speaker 2>and how it's viewed in the family law context.

0:12:03.520 --> 0:12:06.880
<v Speaker 1>Yes, so this came in in June, and so it

0:12:06.920 --> 0:12:09.160
<v Speaker 1>was a new law that came into effect that meant

0:12:09.200 --> 0:12:12.960
<v Speaker 1>that pets are no longer considered as property during family

0:12:13.000 --> 0:12:16.760
<v Speaker 1>court settlements in Australia. So this is talking about something

0:12:16.880 --> 0:12:20.240
<v Speaker 1>like a divorce and if a couple is deciding who

0:12:20.280 --> 0:12:24.880
<v Speaker 1>gets what in that separation. Traditionally dogs have been considered

0:12:25.040 --> 0:12:27.760
<v Speaker 1>property kind of like this financial thing that needs to

0:12:27.800 --> 0:12:32.800
<v Speaker 1>be I guess divided during that separation. Now, these new

0:12:32.880 --> 0:12:36.119
<v Speaker 1>rules mean that the family court system will be required

0:12:36.200 --> 0:12:39.680
<v Speaker 1>to expand how it views pets and it will be

0:12:39.960 --> 0:12:42.920
<v Speaker 1>mandatory for the family court to actually take into account

0:12:43.240 --> 0:12:46.240
<v Speaker 1>the extent to which each party, so each person in

0:12:46.280 --> 0:12:50.240
<v Speaker 1>that relationship cared for the animal right as well as

0:12:50.280 --> 0:12:53.559
<v Speaker 1>any history of cruelty to the pet by a party

0:12:54.160 --> 0:12:56.640
<v Speaker 1>in terms of you know, kind of the extent to

0:12:56.679 --> 0:13:00.000
<v Speaker 1>which each person cared for the pet. It basically means

0:13:00.280 --> 0:13:03.440
<v Speaker 1>that the family court will be taking into account things

0:13:03.480 --> 0:13:08.080
<v Speaker 1>like who fed the pet or who walked the pet. Wow,

0:13:08.080 --> 0:13:11.800
<v Speaker 1>interesting things like that that now are literally part of

0:13:12.080 --> 0:13:12.560
<v Speaker 1>the law.

0:13:12.960 --> 0:13:17.080
<v Speaker 2>And that's a really interesting example of how a process

0:13:17.120 --> 0:13:19.520
<v Speaker 2>that was probably started with some sort of code, with

0:13:19.600 --> 0:13:22.880
<v Speaker 2>some sort of guideline framework of here's how you should

0:13:22.920 --> 0:13:25.920
<v Speaker 2>be thinking about who owns a pet after a divorce

0:13:26.120 --> 0:13:29.680
<v Speaker 2>actually could sometimes become law and become a really codified

0:13:29.720 --> 0:13:32.240
<v Speaker 2>part of the system. Billy does so interesting to see

0:13:32.280 --> 0:13:36.439
<v Speaker 2>the changing roles of pets in Australia. You're going to

0:13:36.480 --> 0:13:39.560
<v Speaker 2>have to go home and tell Maggie absolutely everything because

0:13:39.640 --> 0:13:43.520
<v Speaker 2>she's going to be thrilled with these newfound strengths of

0:13:43.559 --> 0:13:44.720
<v Speaker 2>hers in Australia.

0:13:44.840 --> 0:13:47.280
<v Speaker 1>I'm glad that you're allowing us to talk about Maggie

0:13:47.320 --> 0:13:49.720
<v Speaker 1>Moore because for all those listening, Sam has stopped me

0:13:49.760 --> 0:13:51.200
<v Speaker 1>from talking about Maggie.

0:13:51.280 --> 0:13:51.920
<v Speaker 2>I just know.

0:13:51.920 --> 0:13:53.400
<v Speaker 1>Apparently it's too self indulgent.

0:13:53.679 --> 0:13:56.280
<v Speaker 2>Well, I just know that everyone listening right now, all

0:13:56.280 --> 0:13:58.240
<v Speaker 2>they want to do is talk about their pet to us,

0:13:58.280 --> 0:13:59.080
<v Speaker 2>and that's their right.

0:13:59.160 --> 0:14:01.880
<v Speaker 1>Do you think it's like like you're always interested in

0:14:01.920 --> 0:14:04.280
<v Speaker 1>your dreams, but no one else is interested in your dreams.

0:14:04.320 --> 0:14:06.199
<v Speaker 2>I think so. I think so. And that's why I

0:14:06.280 --> 0:14:09.600
<v Speaker 2>think Kubby left because Ah, you started talking about Maggie

0:14:10.040 --> 0:14:11.120
<v Speaker 2>and Kubby had enough.

0:14:11.440 --> 0:14:13.680
<v Speaker 1>Well just know Sam that I'll always be here to

0:14:13.720 --> 0:14:14.600
<v Speaker 1>talk about honey.

0:14:14.760 --> 0:14:18.040
<v Speaker 2>That's very sweet. That's very sweet, just like honey. And

0:14:18.080 --> 0:14:19.880
<v Speaker 2>that's all we've got time for of a very strange

0:14:19.880 --> 0:14:22.560
<v Speaker 2>episode of the Daily os for you. But I hope

0:14:22.560 --> 0:14:24.640
<v Speaker 2>that brought a bit of joy to your Friday. We're

0:14:24.680 --> 0:14:26.720
<v Speaker 2>going to be back in the afternoon with some headlines.

0:14:26.800 --> 0:14:29.680
<v Speaker 2>Until then, have a fantastic start to the day. Say

0:14:29.720 --> 0:14:31.720
<v Speaker 2>har to your dog for me and we'll chat later.

0:14:36.120 --> 0:14:38.400
<v Speaker 1>My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda

0:14:38.640 --> 0:14:42.760
<v Speaker 1>bunge Lung Kalkotin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz

0:14:42.840 --> 0:14:45.600
<v Speaker 1>acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on the lands of

0:14:45.640 --> 0:14:48.960
<v Speaker 1>the Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and

0:14:49.000 --> 0:14:52.040
<v Speaker 1>Torres Straight Island and nations. We pay our respects to

0:14:52.120 --> 0:14:55.000
<v Speaker 1>the first peoples of these countries, both past and present.