Speaker 1: Already and this is the Daily This is the Daily OS. Oh,
Speaker 1: now it makes sense. Good morning and welcome to the
Speaker 1: Daily OS. It's Friday, the eleventh of July. I'm Billy
Speaker 1: fitz Simon's.
Speaker 2: I'm Sam Becauseluski. And this is Cubby.
Speaker 1: Cobby, our very special office dog.
Speaker 2: He's a beautiful, kind nature golden Retriever.
Speaker 1: The first time he's been allowed in the Pod studio
Speaker 1: and it will be very clear why he's here in
Speaker 1: a moment because did you know that rules of pet
Speaker 1: ownership are changing in Australia, Well kind of. At the
Speaker 1: start of this month, the Act revealed a new draft
Speaker 1: Code of Practice that sets out mandatory rules of dog
Speaker 1: ownership in the territory. Among the new rules is a
Speaker 1: required minimum time of three hours spent with a dog
Speaker 1: every day. Now that is just for the Act, but
Speaker 1: it comes a month after new laws at the federal
Speaker 1: level came into effect that changed how pets are seen
Speaker 1: in the family law system. It means pets won't just
Speaker 1: be seen as property and there will be new special
Speaker 1: considerations to who took the best care of the pet.
Speaker 1: Today we're looking at how the rules of pet ownership
Speaker 1: are changing.
Speaker 2: Billy, this is such an interesting topic I wanted to
Speaker 2: cover in the room. He's just taken a little walk
Speaker 2: from my lap, but that's okay, it's his right to
Speaker 2: do so. And this really is a story about the
Speaker 2: changing rights of dogs across Australia. It's such a cool
Speaker 2: thing to talk about. I'd never really thought about pet
Speaker 2: ownership as something that's overly regulated. Yes we did. I
Speaker 2: remember we did a podcast about the rights of renters
Speaker 2: to have pets in rental properties, but that was again
Speaker 2: from the aspect of the human rather than the pet.
Speaker 2: I'm really keen to get into this first. How popular
Speaker 2: is pet ownership in Australia.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, first, Sam, a quick bit of trivia for you.
Speaker 1: What percentage of households in Australia do you think has
Speaker 1: a pet, so any kind of pet.
Speaker 2: I'm going to go with like sixty five percent.
Speaker 1: That's pretty bang on. It's about seventy percent.
Speaker 2: I just think about that. So if you've got ten
Speaker 2: average Aussie households in a room, seven out of ten
Speaker 2: have a pet in the home.
Speaker 1: Yes, And of those that do have a pet, fifty
Speaker 1: percent have a dog. So I'm sure it's no surprise
Speaker 1: that dogs are the most popular pet in Australia. Quick question,
Speaker 1: are we allowed to talk about our own dogs here?
Speaker 2: Yeah? A big shout out to Honey and Maggie, our
Speaker 2: family dogs. Honey's mine, Maggie is your family dog? Both
Speaker 2: beautiful dogs in their later years of life, yes, but
Speaker 2: still very special. Why don't we start with the news
Speaker 2: out of the Act, which is the most recent development
Speaker 2: in this space.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, at the start of this month, the Act
Speaker 1: government released its draft of a Code of Practice for
Speaker 1: dog welfare right now, that was advised on by the
Speaker 1: Act Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.
Speaker 2: And when you're saying a code of practice, what exactly
Speaker 2: does that mean and also what legal weight does that have?
Speaker 1: Yeah? So codes of practice provide safety and standards information
Speaker 1: to specific different tasks that people have. Now, this code
Speaker 1: specifically outlines mandatory standards that individuals responsible for dogs must meet.
Speaker 1: It does say that kind of the rules of animal
Speaker 1: welfare are quite universally recognizable, but this is just quite
Speaker 1: specific to dogs. Also aside, note the Act is actually
Speaker 1: somewhat of a leader in this space because in twenty
Speaker 1: nineteen it actually became the only jurisdiction in Australia that
Speaker 1: recognizes animals as sentient beings that have intrinsic value and
Speaker 1: deserve to be treated with compassion.
Speaker 2: That's so interesting from a legal standpoint. And so at
Speaker 2: this stage there's this code of practice that they are proposing,
Speaker 2: and now they're actually seeking public feedback on it. What
Speaker 2: exactly is in the.
Speaker 1: Dry Okay, So I'll go through the changes. The first
Speaker 1: is that it provides an updated animal framework that as
Speaker 1: well as recognizing that dogs are sentient beings, it also
Speaker 1: recognizes that animals have intrinsic value and deserve to be
Speaker 1: treated with compassion and have a quality of life that
Speaker 1: reflects their intrinsic value. And it also recognizes that people
Speaker 1: have a duty to care for the physical and mental
Speaker 1: welfare of animals.
Speaker 2: So there is kind of existing animal cruelty rules, and
Speaker 2: we hear of cases, terrible cases all the time of
Speaker 2: dogs being locked in cars or mistreatment. There was a massive,
Speaker 2: you know, news event with investigations into the greyhound racing industry,
Speaker 2: for example, a couple of years ago. But I think
Speaker 2: what's different about this draft is that mental component perhaps
Speaker 2: and really trying to ensure the mental health and emotional
Speaker 2: health of the dog is so interesting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think it's about recognizing that animals are
Speaker 1: these beings on their own that don't just exist in
Speaker 1: relation to humans, Like it's not kind of I know
Speaker 1: that for a lot of people, dogs can kind of
Speaker 1: help you, but this is about recognizing how you can
Speaker 1: help dogs.
Speaker 2: It is interesting that they've specified dogs and that it
Speaker 2: doesn't expand to other animals. Yeah, okay, so how are
Speaker 2: they actually going about quantifying or somewhat validating the idea
Speaker 2: that you're emotionally and physically caring for your dog.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So this is the one that caught my attention.
Speaker 1: So the act government in this Code of Practice is
Speaker 1: saying that they want to expand guidelines for dog owners
Speaker 1: and cares that would require all dogs to have a
Speaker 1: minimum of three hours of human contact daily.
Speaker 2: That is really interesting, so interesting. I think it must
Speaker 2: be trying to kind of eradicate people who leave their
Speaker 2: dogs alone for yes, hours and hours and days of
Speaker 2: the time. Right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Now you might be asking why, what's their reasoning
Speaker 1: behind this? Yeah, and the draft code kind of explains that.
Speaker 1: Now I'm going to read out it's a bit of
Speaker 1: a lengthy quote, but I think it's really interesting. So
Speaker 1: it says undesirable behaviors in dogs, such as excessive barking,
Speaker 1: can result from leaving them unattended for extended periods, leading
Speaker 1: to boredom and anxiety, and that kind of speaks to
Speaker 1: that mental health well beeting that we're talking about. It
Speaker 1: continues as well as indicating distress. These behaviors can lead
Speaker 1: to animal nuisance and neighborhood complaints. So bad pr for dogs, Yes,
Speaker 1: that's a good way of putting it. And so because
Speaker 1: of this, it is saying that it should be mandatory
Speaker 1: for dogs to spend at least three hours a day
Speaker 1: with human contact.
Speaker 2: So what I'm reading into that is this isn't about
Speaker 2: just being with the dog when you're asleep and the
Speaker 2: dog is a snunt. This is about more meaningful time
Speaker 2: spent with your pet.
Speaker 1: Yes, And interestingly, it also recommends, so it doesn't make
Speaker 1: this mandatory, but it recommends that dogs live inside. So
Speaker 1: it says dogs are social pack animals and a life
Speaker 1: to be happiest living in the house with their human
Speaker 1: family and other dogs. Dogs are also more useful as
Speaker 1: intruder deterrents if they live inside the house.
Speaker 2: I feel like that's somewhat stating the obvious. You know,
Speaker 2: dogs are happier when they're around people, and they might
Speaker 2: scare off someone who's not meant to be there. That's
Speaker 2: something that's very well established. I guess by applying it
Speaker 2: into this framework, what they're trying to do is give
Speaker 2: owners some guidelines of best practice, which is a different
Speaker 2: way to approach pet ownership as we've seen in Australia.
Speaker 1: Wait, you know who does get their three hours in?
Speaker 1: Definitely who Cubby?
Speaker 2: Cubby. So Kubby is not a TDA dog. Kubby is
Speaker 2: a dog of the other business that we share with.
Speaker 2: And man does that office light up when Cubby works in.
Speaker 1: I mean Cubby's in most days.
Speaker 2: He's in most days. He's a very good boy. Yes,
Speaker 2: has particular love for the news. It would say, I've
Speaker 2: wanted to actually get a dog for TDA for a
Speaker 2: long time and call it newspaper. But you know, it
Speaker 2: hasn't happened yet because of Interestingly, some of the things
Speaker 2: that you're raising, which is me and my wife, we
Speaker 2: both work very long days out of the house, and
Speaker 2: signless some dog was with me at work, it would
Speaker 2: be spending probably not the three hours a day of
Speaker 2: mandatory human contact.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's an important thing to think about.
Speaker 2: And did the code expand not just in the quality time,
Speaker 2: love language, but other parts of a dog's life.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it really went through kind of all parts of
Speaker 1: a dog's life. If I say retractable leads, do you
Speaker 1: know what I'm talking about tape measurers? Oh my god,
Speaker 1: I've never thought of them like that, but yes, kind
Speaker 1: of like that, which I have always thought they were
Speaker 1: quite common and I never knew that there was anything
Speaker 1: wrong with them. But the Act's draft Code of Practice
Speaker 1: says that a person in charge of a dog should
Speaker 1: not use retractable leashes because they could result in injury.
Speaker 1: And they expanded on that. So they said, a retractable
Speaker 1: leash limits control pose. This is risk and could be
Speaker 1: dangerous to both the dog and the walker. And they
Speaker 1: said that retractable leashes are only suitable for well trained dogs.
Speaker 1: So they're not completely banning retractable leashes, but they're just
Speaker 1: saying that they should only be used in specific circumstances.
Speaker 2: One part of it which really interested me was the
Speaker 2: part of the code that restricted surgical debarking.
Speaker 1: Yeah, have you heard of that before?
Speaker 2: I haven't, actually I heard of that. I know I
Speaker 2: can picture a muzzle in my head and dogs that
Speaker 2: are restricted by some sort of physical barrier to barking.
Speaker 2: But I hadn't heard of surgical debarking.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so it's saying that surgical debarking procedures must
Speaker 1: not be considered as a bark reduction strategy if the
Speaker 1: dog is under twelve months of age. And it also
Speaker 1: says that it should only ever be considered if the
Speaker 1: dog is considered a public nuisance. Now you might be
Speaker 1: wondering how do you prove if your dog is a
Speaker 1: public nuisance? And it had a very specific kind of
Speaker 1: guideline or criteria. Is said that you have to have
Speaker 1: at least two written complaints from your neighbor to say
Speaker 1: that your dog is kind of officially a public nuisance,
Speaker 1: and only then could it be considered that your dog
Speaker 1: might need surgical debarking.
Speaker 2: So this is a really long report. Those are some
Speaker 2: of the categories that are covered there. There's a fifty
Speaker 2: page code, like there's kind of every aspects of the
Speaker 2: dog's life is covered. Will put a link to it
Speaker 2: in the show notes. But you've also said, and I
Speaker 2: think this is the bit that I'm struggling with. This
Speaker 2: story is what's binding, what's part of the law, what
Speaker 2: can be enforced? Draft code always makes alarm bells go
Speaker 2: off for me, can this actually be enforced? And you
Speaker 2: know what actual strength does it give the act government
Speaker 2: in improving the lives of dogs in the territory.
Speaker 1: I think the thing to think about is for all
Speaker 1: things like this, you know, there are so many different
Speaker 1: examples where they meant has guidelines for I guess how
Speaker 1: we should live our life, things like alcohol consumption, cigarette consumption,
Speaker 1: And you're right, it is really hard to enforce. And
Speaker 1: this isn't the kind of thing where police are now
Speaker 1: going to be doing random checks on people's houses. Rectable, yes,
Speaker 1: to start seeing whether or not you are spending your
Speaker 1: compulsory three hours a day with your dog. But it's
Speaker 1: meant to be more of a guideline, and I would
Speaker 1: say only in extreme circumstances if they believe that there
Speaker 1: is animal cruelty going.
Speaker 2: On or which is a lot like that's yes, indisputably yes.
Speaker 1: So if there's like systemic neglect there that you know,
Speaker 1: I imagine someone would have to report you for, then that's
Speaker 1: when this would be enforced. But again I think there
Speaker 1: are lots of different examples where they kind of give
Speaker 1: you a guideline.
Speaker 2: The media has guidelines on how we report stories exactly example. Yes,
Speaker 2: but then there are actual laws, as we've just mentioned,
Speaker 2: and one area that's changed a lot is pet ownership
Speaker 2: and how it's viewed in the family law context.
Speaker 1: Yes, so this came in in June, and so it
Speaker 1: was a new law that came into effect that meant
Speaker 1: that pets are no longer considered as property during family
Speaker 1: court settlements in Australia. So this is talking about something
Speaker 1: like a divorce and if a couple is deciding who
Speaker 1: gets what in that separation. Traditionally dogs have been considered
Speaker 1: property kind of like this financial thing that needs to
Speaker 1: be I guess divided during that separation. Now, these new
Speaker 1: rules mean that the family court system will be required
Speaker 1: to expand how it views pets and it will be
Speaker 1: mandatory for the family court to actually take into account
Speaker 1: the extent to which each party, so each person in
Speaker 1: that relationship cared for the animal right as well as
Speaker 1: any history of cruelty to the pet by a party
Speaker 1: in terms of you know, kind of the extent to
Speaker 1: which each person cared for the pet. It basically means
Speaker 1: that the family court will be taking into account things
Speaker 1: like who fed the pet or who walked the pet. Wow,
Speaker 1: interesting things like that that now are literally part of
Speaker 1: the law.
Speaker 2: And that's a really interesting example of how a process
Speaker 2: that was probably started with some sort of code, with
Speaker 2: some sort of guideline framework of here's how you should
Speaker 2: be thinking about who owns a pet after a divorce
Speaker 2: actually could sometimes become law and become a really codified
Speaker 2: part of the system. Billy does so interesting to see
Speaker 2: the changing roles of pets in Australia. You're going to
Speaker 2: have to go home and tell Maggie absolutely everything because
Speaker 2: she's going to be thrilled with these newfound strengths of
Speaker 2: hers in Australia.
Speaker 1: I'm glad that you're allowing us to talk about Maggie
Speaker 1: Moore because for all those listening, Sam has stopped me
Speaker 1: from talking about Maggie.
Speaker 2: I just know.
Speaker 1: Apparently it's too self indulgent.
Speaker 2: Well, I just know that everyone listening right now, all
Speaker 2: they want to do is talk about their pet to us,
Speaker 2: and that's their right.
Speaker 1: Do you think it's like like you're always interested in
Speaker 1: your dreams, but no one else is interested in your dreams.
Speaker 2: I think so. I think so. And that's why I
Speaker 2: think Kubby left because Ah, you started talking about Maggie
Speaker 2: and Kubby had enough.
Speaker 1: Well just know Sam that I'll always be here to
Speaker 1: talk about honey.
Speaker 2: That's very sweet. That's very sweet, just like honey. And
Speaker 2: that's all we've got time for of a very strange
Speaker 2: episode of the Daily os for you. But I hope
Speaker 2: that brought a bit of joy to your Friday. We're
Speaker 2: going to be back in the afternoon with some headlines.
Speaker 2: Until then, have a fantastic start to the day. Say
Speaker 2: har to your dog for me and we'll chat later.
Speaker 1: My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Speaker 1: bunge Lung Kalkotin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz
Speaker 1: acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on the lands of
Speaker 1: the Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and
Speaker 1: Torres Straight Island and nations. We pay our respects to
Speaker 1: the first peoples of these countries, both past and present.