July 10, 2025 • 14 mins
Did you know that rules of pet ownership are changing in Australia? Well, kind of.
At the start of this month, the ACT revealed a new draft code of practice that sets out mandatory rules of dog ownership in the territory. Among the new rules is a required minimum time of three hours spent with a dog every day. Now that is just for the ACT. Read the ACT's full draft Code of Practice here.
But it comes a month after new laws at the federal level came into effect that changed how pets are seen in the family law system. It means pets won’t just be seen as property, and there will be new special considerations to who took the best care of the pet.
Today, we’re looking at how the rules of pet ownership are changing.
Hosts: Sam Koslowski and Billi FitzSimons
Producer: Orla Maher
Want to support The Daily Aus? That's so kind! The best way to do that is to click ‘follow’ on Spotify or Apple and to leave us a five-star review. We would be so grateful.
The Daily Aus is a media company focused on delivering accessible and digestible news to young people. We are completely independent.
Want more from TDA?
Subscribe to The Daily Aus newsletter
Subscribe to The Daily Aus’ YouTube Channel
Have feedback for us?
We’re always looking for new ways to improve what we do. If you’ve got feedback, we’re all ears. Tell us here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Already and this is the Daily This is the Daily OS. Oh,
now it makes sense. Good morning and welcome to the
Daily OS. It's Friday, the eleventh of July. I'm Billy
fitz Simon's.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
I'm Sam Becauseluski. And this is Cubby.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Cobby, our very special office dog.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
He's a beautiful, kind nature golden Retriever.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
The first time he's been allowed in the Pod studio
and it will be very clear why he's here in
a moment because did you know that rules of pet
ownership are changing in Australia, Well kind of. At the
start of this month, the Act revealed a new draft
Code of Practice that sets out mandatory rules of dog
ownership in the territory. Among the new rules is a
(00:49):
required minimum time of three hours spent with a dog
every day. Now that is just for the Act, but
it comes a month after new laws at the federal
level came into effect that changed how pets are seen
in the family law system. It means pets won't just
be seen as property and there will be new special
considerations to who took the best care of the pet.
(01:12):
Today we're looking at how the rules of pet ownership
are changing.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Billy, this is such an interesting topic I wanted to
cover in the room. He's just taken a little walk
from my lap, but that's okay, it's his right to
do so. And this really is a story about the
changing rights of dogs across Australia. It's such a cool
thing to talk about. I'd never really thought about pet
ownership as something that's overly regulated. Yes we did. I
remember we did a podcast about the rights of renters
(01:42):
to have pets in rental properties, but that was again
from the aspect of the human rather than the pet.
I'm really keen to get into this first. How popular
is pet ownership in Australia.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Okay, well, first, Sam, a quick bit of trivia for you.
What percentage of households in Australia do you think has
a pet, so any kind of pet.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
I'm going to go with like sixty five percent.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
That's pretty bang on. It's about seventy percent.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
I just think about that. So if you've got ten
average Aussie households in a room, seven out of ten
have a pet in the home.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Yes, And of those that do have a pet, fifty
percent have a dog. So I'm sure it's no surprise
that dogs are the most popular pet in Australia. Quick question,
are we allowed to talk about our own dogs here?
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Yeah? A big shout out to Honey and Maggie, our
family dogs. Honey's mine, Maggie is your family dog? Both
beautiful dogs in their later years of life, yes, but
still very special. Why don't we start with the news
out of the Act, which is the most recent development
in this space.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
Yeah. So, at the start of this month, the Act
government released its draft of a Code of Practice for
dog welfare right now, that was advised on by the
Act Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
And when you're saying a code of practice, what exactly
does that mean and also what legal weight does that have?
Speaker 1 (03:06):
Yeah? So codes of practice provide safety and standards information
to specific different tasks that people have. Now, this code
specifically outlines mandatory standards that individuals responsible for dogs must meet.
It does say that kind of the rules of animal
welfare are quite universally recognizable, but this is just quite
(03:28):
specific to dogs. Also aside, note the Act is actually
somewhat of a leader in this space because in twenty
nineteen it actually became the only jurisdiction in Australia that
recognizes animals as sentient beings that have intrinsic value and
deserve to be treated with compassion.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
That's so interesting from a legal standpoint. And so at
this stage there's this code of practice that they are proposing,
and now they're actually seeking public feedback on it. What
exactly is in the.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Dry Okay, So I'll go through the changes. The first
is that it provides an updated animal framework that as
well as recognizing that dogs are sentient beings, it also
recognizes that animals have intrinsic value and deserve to be
treated with compassion and have a quality of life that
reflects their intrinsic value. And it also recognizes that people
(04:24):
have a duty to care for the physical and mental
welfare of animals.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
So there is kind of existing animal cruelty rules, and
we hear of cases, terrible cases all the time of
dogs being locked in cars or mistreatment. There was a massive,
you know, news event with investigations into the greyhound racing industry,
for example, a couple of years ago. But I think
what's different about this draft is that mental component perhaps
(04:53):
and really trying to ensure the mental health and emotional
health of the dog is so interesting.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Yeah, And I think it's about recognizing that animals are
these beings on their own that don't just exist in
relation to humans, Like it's not kind of I know
that for a lot of people, dogs can kind of
help you, but this is about recognizing how you can
help dogs.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
It is interesting that they've specified dogs and that it
doesn't expand to other animals. Yeah, okay, so how are
they actually going about quantifying or somewhat validating the idea
that you're emotionally and physically caring for your dog.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Yeah, So this is the one that caught my attention.
So the act government in this Code of Practice is
saying that they want to expand guidelines for dog owners
and cares that would require all dogs to have a
minimum of three hours of human contact daily.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
That is really interesting, so interesting. I think it must
be trying to kind of eradicate people who leave their
dogs alone for yes, hours and hours and days of
the time. Right.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Yeah, Now you might be asking why, what's their reasoning
behind this? Yeah, and the draft code kind of explains that.
Now I'm going to read out it's a bit of
a lengthy quote, but I think it's really interesting. So
it says undesirable behaviors in dogs, such as excessive barking,
can result from leaving them unattended for extended periods, leading
to boredom and anxiety, and that kind of speaks to
(06:18):
that mental health well beeting that we're talking about. It
continues as well as indicating distress. These behaviors can lead
to animal nuisance and neighborhood complaints. So bad pr for dogs, Yes,
that's a good way of putting it. And so because
of this, it is saying that it should be mandatory
for dogs to spend at least three hours a day
with human contact.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
So what I'm reading into that is this isn't about
just being with the dog when you're asleep and the
dog is a snunt. This is about more meaningful time
spent with your pet.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
Yes, And interestingly, it also recommends, so it doesn't make
this mandatory, but it recommends that dogs live inside. So
it says dogs are social pack animals and a life
to be happiest living in the house with their human
family and other dogs. Dogs are also more useful as
intruder deterrents if they live inside the house.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
I feel like that's somewhat stating the obvious. You know,
dogs are happier when they're around people, and they might
scare off someone who's not meant to be there. That's
something that's very well established. I guess by applying it
into this framework, what they're trying to do is give
owners some guidelines of best practice, which is a different
way to approach pet ownership as we've seen in Australia.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Wait, you know who does get their three hours in?
Definitely who Cubby?
Speaker 2 (07:35):
Cubby. So Kubby is not a TDA dog. Kubby is
a dog of the other business that we share with.
And man does that office light up when Cubby works in.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
I mean Cubby's in most days.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
He's in most days. He's a very good boy. Yes,
has particular love for the news. It would say, I've
wanted to actually get a dog for TDA for a
long time and call it newspaper. But you know, it
hasn't happened yet because of Interestingly, some of the things
that you're raising, which is me and my wife, we
(08:07):
both work very long days out of the house, and
signless some dog was with me at work, it would
be spending probably not the three hours a day of
mandatory human contact.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Yeah, it's an important thing to think about.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
And did the code expand not just in the quality time,
love language, but other parts of a dog's life.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Yeah, it really went through kind of all parts of
a dog's life. If I say retractable leads, do you
know what I'm talking about tape measurers? Oh my god,
I've never thought of them like that, but yes, kind
of like that, which I have always thought they were
quite common and I never knew that there was anything
wrong with them. But the Act's draft Code of Practice
(08:47):
says that a person in charge of a dog should
not use retractable leashes because they could result in injury.
And they expanded on that. So they said, a retractable
leash limits control pose. This is risk and could be
dangerous to both the dog and the walker. And they
said that retractable leashes are only suitable for well trained dogs.
(09:09):
So they're not completely banning retractable leashes, but they're just
saying that they should only be used in specific circumstances.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
One part of it which really interested me was the
part of the code that restricted surgical debarking.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Yeah, have you heard of that before?
Speaker 2 (09:26):
I haven't, actually I heard of that. I know I
can picture a muzzle in my head and dogs that
are restricted by some sort of physical barrier to barking.
But I hadn't heard of surgical debarking.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
Yeah, and so it's saying that surgical debarking procedures must
not be considered as a bark reduction strategy if the
dog is under twelve months of age. And it also
says that it should only ever be considered if the
dog is considered a public nuisance. Now you might be
wondering how do you prove if your dog is a
public nuisance? And it had a very specific kind of
(10:01):
guideline or criteria. Is said that you have to have
at least two written complaints from your neighbor to say
that your dog is kind of officially a public nuisance,
and only then could it be considered that your dog
might need surgical debarking.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
So this is a really long report. Those are some
of the categories that are covered there. There's a fifty
page code, like there's kind of every aspects of the
dog's life is covered. Will put a link to it
in the show notes. But you've also said, and I
think this is the bit that I'm struggling with. This
story is what's binding, what's part of the law, what
(10:38):
can be enforced? Draft code always makes alarm bells go
off for me, can this actually be enforced? And you
know what actual strength does it give the act government
in improving the lives of dogs in the territory.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
I think the thing to think about is for all
things like this, you know, there are so many different
examples where they meant has guidelines for I guess how
we should live our life, things like alcohol consumption, cigarette consumption,
And you're right, it is really hard to enforce. And
this isn't the kind of thing where police are now
going to be doing random checks on people's houses. Rectable, yes,
(11:16):
to start seeing whether or not you are spending your
compulsory three hours a day with your dog. But it's
meant to be more of a guideline, and I would
say only in extreme circumstances if they believe that there
is animal cruelty going.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
On or which is a lot like that's yes, indisputably yes.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
So if there's like systemic neglect there that you know,
I imagine someone would have to report you for, then that's
when this would be enforced. But again I think there
are lots of different examples where they kind of give
you a guideline.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
The media has guidelines on how we report stories exactly example. Yes,
but then there are actual laws, as we've just mentioned,
and one area that's changed a lot is pet ownership
and how it's viewed in the family law context.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
Yes, so this came in in June, and so it
was a new law that came into effect that meant
that pets are no longer considered as property during family
court settlements in Australia. So this is talking about something
like a divorce and if a couple is deciding who
gets what in that separation. Traditionally dogs have been considered
(12:25):
property kind of like this financial thing that needs to
be I guess divided during that separation. Now, these new
rules mean that the family court system will be required
to expand how it views pets and it will be
mandatory for the family court to actually take into account
the extent to which each party, so each person in
(12:46):
that relationship cared for the animal right as well as
any history of cruelty to the pet by a party
in terms of you know, kind of the extent to
which each person cared for the pet. It basically means
that the family court will be taking into account things
like who fed the pet or who walked the pet. Wow,
(13:08):
interesting things like that that now are literally part of
the law.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
And that's a really interesting example of how a process
that was probably started with some sort of code, with
some sort of guideline framework of here's how you should
be thinking about who owns a pet after a divorce
actually could sometimes become law and become a really codified
part of the system. Billy does so interesting to see
the changing roles of pets in Australia. You're going to
(13:36):
have to go home and tell Maggie absolutely everything because
she's going to be thrilled with these newfound strengths of
hers in Australia.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
I'm glad that you're allowing us to talk about Maggie
Moore because for all those listening, Sam has stopped me
from talking about Maggie.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
I just know.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Apparently it's too self indulgent.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Well, I just know that everyone listening right now, all
they want to do is talk about their pet to us,
and that's their right.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
Do you think it's like like you're always interested in
your dreams, but no one else is interested in your dreams.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
I think so. I think so. And that's why I
think Kubby left because Ah, you started talking about Maggie
and Kubby had enough.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Well just know Sam that I'll always be here to
talk about honey.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
That's very sweet. That's very sweet, just like honey. And
that's all we've got time for of a very strange
episode of the Daily os for you. But I hope
that brought a bit of joy to your Friday. We're
going to be back in the afternoon with some headlines.
Until then, have a fantastic start to the day. Say
har to your dog for me and we'll chat later.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
bunge Lung Kalkotin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz
acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on the lands of
the Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and
Torres Straight Island and nations. We pay our respects to
the first peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Already and this is the Daily This is the Daily OS. Oh,
now it makes sense. Good morning and welcome to the
Daily OS. It's Friday, the eleventh of July. I'm Billy
fitz Simon's.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
I'm Sam Becauseluski. And this is Cubby.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Cobby, our very special office dog.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
He's a beautiful, kind nature golden Retriever.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
The first time he's been allowed in the Pod studio
and it will be very clear why he's here in
a moment because did you know that rules of pet
ownership are changing in Australia, Well kind of. At the
start of this month, the Act revealed a new draft
Code of Practice that sets out mandatory rules of dog
ownership in the territory. Among the new rules is a
(00:49):
required minimum time of three hours spent with a dog
every day. Now that is just for the Act, but
it comes a month after new laws at the federal
level came into effect that changed how pets are seen
in the family law system. It means pets won't just
be seen as property and there will be new special
considerations to who took the best care of the pet.
(01:12):
Today we're looking at how the rules of pet ownership
are changing.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Billy, this is such an interesting topic I wanted to
cover in the room. He's just taken a little walk
from my lap, but that's okay, it's his right to
do so. And this really is a story about the
changing rights of dogs across Australia. It's such a cool
thing to talk about. I'd never really thought about pet
ownership as something that's overly regulated. Yes we did. I
remember we did a podcast about the rights of renters
(01:42):
to have pets in rental properties, but that was again
from the aspect of the human rather than the pet.
I'm really keen to get into this first. How popular
is pet ownership in Australia.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Okay, well, first, Sam, a quick bit of trivia for you.
What percentage of households in Australia do you think has
a pet, so any kind of pet.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
I'm going to go with like sixty five percent.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
That's pretty bang on. It's about seventy percent.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
I just think about that. So if you've got ten
average Aussie households in a room, seven out of ten
have a pet in the home.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Yes, And of those that do have a pet, fifty
percent have a dog. So I'm sure it's no surprise
that dogs are the most popular pet in Australia. Quick question,
are we allowed to talk about our own dogs here?
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Yeah? A big shout out to Honey and Maggie, our
family dogs. Honey's mine, Maggie is your family dog? Both
beautiful dogs in their later years of life, yes, but
still very special. Why don't we start with the news
out of the Act, which is the most recent development
in this space.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
Yeah. So, at the start of this month, the Act
government released its draft of a Code of Practice for
dog welfare right now, that was advised on by the
Act Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
And when you're saying a code of practice, what exactly
does that mean and also what legal weight does that have?
Speaker 1 (03:06):
Yeah? So codes of practice provide safety and standards information
to specific different tasks that people have. Now, this code
specifically outlines mandatory standards that individuals responsible for dogs must meet.
It does say that kind of the rules of animal
welfare are quite universally recognizable, but this is just quite
(03:28):
specific to dogs. Also aside, note the Act is actually
somewhat of a leader in this space because in twenty
nineteen it actually became the only jurisdiction in Australia that
recognizes animals as sentient beings that have intrinsic value and
deserve to be treated with compassion.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
That's so interesting from a legal standpoint. And so at
this stage there's this code of practice that they are proposing,
and now they're actually seeking public feedback on it. What
exactly is in the.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Dry Okay, So I'll go through the changes. The first
is that it provides an updated animal framework that as
well as recognizing that dogs are sentient beings, it also
recognizes that animals have intrinsic value and deserve to be
treated with compassion and have a quality of life that
reflects their intrinsic value. And it also recognizes that people
(04:24):
have a duty to care for the physical and mental
welfare of animals.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
So there is kind of existing animal cruelty rules, and
we hear of cases, terrible cases all the time of
dogs being locked in cars or mistreatment. There was a massive,
you know, news event with investigations into the greyhound racing industry,
for example, a couple of years ago. But I think
what's different about this draft is that mental component perhaps
(04:53):
and really trying to ensure the mental health and emotional
health of the dog is so interesting.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Yeah, And I think it's about recognizing that animals are
these beings on their own that don't just exist in
relation to humans, Like it's not kind of I know
that for a lot of people, dogs can kind of
help you, but this is about recognizing how you can
help dogs.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
It is interesting that they've specified dogs and that it
doesn't expand to other animals. Yeah, okay, so how are
they actually going about quantifying or somewhat validating the idea
that you're emotionally and physically caring for your dog.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Yeah, So this is the one that caught my attention.
So the act government in this Code of Practice is
saying that they want to expand guidelines for dog owners
and cares that would require all dogs to have a
minimum of three hours of human contact daily.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
That is really interesting, so interesting. I think it must
be trying to kind of eradicate people who leave their
dogs alone for yes, hours and hours and days of
the time. Right.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Yeah, Now you might be asking why, what's their reasoning
behind this? Yeah, and the draft code kind of explains that.
Now I'm going to read out it's a bit of
a lengthy quote, but I think it's really interesting. So
it says undesirable behaviors in dogs, such as excessive barking,
can result from leaving them unattended for extended periods, leading
to boredom and anxiety, and that kind of speaks to
(06:18):
that mental health well beeting that we're talking about. It
continues as well as indicating distress. These behaviors can lead
to animal nuisance and neighborhood complaints. So bad pr for dogs, Yes,
that's a good way of putting it. And so because
of this, it is saying that it should be mandatory
for dogs to spend at least three hours a day
with human contact.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
So what I'm reading into that is this isn't about
just being with the dog when you're asleep and the
dog is a snunt. This is about more meaningful time
spent with your pet.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
Yes, And interestingly, it also recommends, so it doesn't make
this mandatory, but it recommends that dogs live inside. So
it says dogs are social pack animals and a life
to be happiest living in the house with their human
family and other dogs. Dogs are also more useful as
intruder deterrents if they live inside the house.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
I feel like that's somewhat stating the obvious. You know,
dogs are happier when they're around people, and they might
scare off someone who's not meant to be there. That's
something that's very well established. I guess by applying it
into this framework, what they're trying to do is give
owners some guidelines of best practice, which is a different
way to approach pet ownership as we've seen in Australia.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Wait, you know who does get their three hours in?
Definitely who Cubby?
Speaker 2 (07:35):
Cubby. So Kubby is not a TDA dog. Kubby is
a dog of the other business that we share with.
And man does that office light up when Cubby works in.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
I mean Cubby's in most days.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
He's in most days. He's a very good boy. Yes,
has particular love for the news. It would say, I've
wanted to actually get a dog for TDA for a
long time and call it newspaper. But you know, it
hasn't happened yet because of Interestingly, some of the things
that you're raising, which is me and my wife, we
(08:07):
both work very long days out of the house, and
signless some dog was with me at work, it would
be spending probably not the three hours a day of
mandatory human contact.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Yeah, it's an important thing to think about.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
And did the code expand not just in the quality time,
love language, but other parts of a dog's life.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Yeah, it really went through kind of all parts of
a dog's life. If I say retractable leads, do you
know what I'm talking about tape measurers? Oh my god,
I've never thought of them like that, but yes, kind
of like that, which I have always thought they were
quite common and I never knew that there was anything
wrong with them. But the Act's draft Code of Practice
(08:47):
says that a person in charge of a dog should
not use retractable leashes because they could result in injury.
And they expanded on that. So they said, a retractable
leash limits control pose. This is risk and could be
dangerous to both the dog and the walker. And they
said that retractable leashes are only suitable for well trained dogs.
(09:09):
So they're not completely banning retractable leashes, but they're just
saying that they should only be used in specific circumstances.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
One part of it which really interested me was the
part of the code that restricted surgical debarking.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Yeah, have you heard of that before?
Speaker 2 (09:26):
I haven't, actually I heard of that. I know I
can picture a muzzle in my head and dogs that
are restricted by some sort of physical barrier to barking.
But I hadn't heard of surgical debarking.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
Yeah, and so it's saying that surgical debarking procedures must
not be considered as a bark reduction strategy if the
dog is under twelve months of age. And it also
says that it should only ever be considered if the
dog is considered a public nuisance. Now you might be
wondering how do you prove if your dog is a
public nuisance? And it had a very specific kind of
(10:01):
guideline or criteria. Is said that you have to have
at least two written complaints from your neighbor to say
that your dog is kind of officially a public nuisance,
and only then could it be considered that your dog
might need surgical debarking.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
So this is a really long report. Those are some
of the categories that are covered there. There's a fifty
page code, like there's kind of every aspects of the
dog's life is covered. Will put a link to it
in the show notes. But you've also said, and I
think this is the bit that I'm struggling with. This
story is what's binding, what's part of the law, what
(10:38):
can be enforced? Draft code always makes alarm bells go
off for me, can this actually be enforced? And you
know what actual strength does it give the act government
in improving the lives of dogs in the territory.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
I think the thing to think about is for all
things like this, you know, there are so many different
examples where they meant has guidelines for I guess how
we should live our life, things like alcohol consumption, cigarette consumption,
And you're right, it is really hard to enforce. And
this isn't the kind of thing where police are now
going to be doing random checks on people's houses. Rectable, yes,
(11:16):
to start seeing whether or not you are spending your
compulsory three hours a day with your dog. But it's
meant to be more of a guideline, and I would
say only in extreme circumstances if they believe that there
is animal cruelty going.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
On or which is a lot like that's yes, indisputably yes.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
So if there's like systemic neglect there that you know,
I imagine someone would have to report you for, then that's
when this would be enforced. But again I think there
are lots of different examples where they kind of give
you a guideline.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
The media has guidelines on how we report stories exactly example. Yes,
but then there are actual laws, as we've just mentioned,
and one area that's changed a lot is pet ownership
and how it's viewed in the family law context.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
Yes, so this came in in June, and so it
was a new law that came into effect that meant
that pets are no longer considered as property during family
court settlements in Australia. So this is talking about something
like a divorce and if a couple is deciding who
gets what in that separation. Traditionally dogs have been considered
(12:25):
property kind of like this financial thing that needs to
be I guess divided during that separation. Now, these new
rules mean that the family court system will be required
to expand how it views pets and it will be
mandatory for the family court to actually take into account
the extent to which each party, so each person in
(12:46):
that relationship cared for the animal right as well as
any history of cruelty to the pet by a party
in terms of you know, kind of the extent to
which each person cared for the pet. It basically means
that the family court will be taking into account things
like who fed the pet or who walked the pet. Wow,
(13:08):
interesting things like that that now are literally part of
the law.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
And that's a really interesting example of how a process
that was probably started with some sort of code, with
some sort of guideline framework of here's how you should
be thinking about who owns a pet after a divorce
actually could sometimes become law and become a really codified
part of the system. Billy does so interesting to see
the changing roles of pets in Australia. You're going to
(13:36):
have to go home and tell Maggie absolutely everything because
she's going to be thrilled with these newfound strengths of
hers in Australia.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
I'm glad that you're allowing us to talk about Maggie
Moore because for all those listening, Sam has stopped me
from talking about Maggie.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
I just know.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Apparently it's too self indulgent.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Well, I just know that everyone listening right now, all
they want to do is talk about their pet to us,
and that's their right.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
Do you think it's like like you're always interested in
your dreams, but no one else is interested in your dreams.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
I think so. I think so. And that's why I
think Kubby left because Ah, you started talking about Maggie
and Kubby had enough.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Well just know Sam that I'll always be here to
talk about honey.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
That's very sweet. That's very sweet, just like honey. And
that's all we've got time for of a very strange
episode of the Daily os for you. But I hope
that brought a bit of joy to your Friday. We're
going to be back in the afternoon with some headlines.
Until then, have a fantastic start to the day. Say
har to your dog for me and we'll chat later.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
bunge Lung Kalkotin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz
acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on the lands of
the Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and
Torres Straight Island and nations. We pay our respects to
the first peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.